Some are scammers. Giving the one real bum money, has resulted in a huge increase in the number of bums on corners in the last 15 years.
So now I mostly give through official charities. Sometimes I will give them food. I've heard some are rude to some people that give them food but no bad luck so far.
A dilemma is a problem offering two solutions, neither of which is acceptable. The two options are often described as the horns of a dilemma, neither of which is comfortable.
meanwhile
A dichotomy is a division into two non-overlapping or mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive parts. They are often contrasting and spoken of as "opposites". The term comes from dichotomos (divided): dich- ([in] two) temnein (to cut).
---
A false dilemma would be one where an option exists that is not uncomfortable.
---
I think dilemma applies (tho mispelled- but hey, this is slashdot.) No- I didn't know the definitions- I had to look them up. I sort of knew what dilemma meant but drew a complete blank on dichotomy.
--- Did you draw a false dilemma? Depends on if you are anti-welfare or not. Some people welfare helps- but I agree that the rule of unintended consequences does apply to welfare. Welfare destroys the lives of a lot of people who would have made it without a ready crutch to destroy them. It's not welfare per se- it's welfare run by a big organization that can't tell the difference between a hard working mom that got laid off and needs a hand to get back up again and a drug using teenager with three babies from three different fathers that never intends to work. Or for that matter, a group of hippy commune types (california welfare during the 70's was a huge factor in the hippy movement being successful).
I've transformed several processes in this fashion and I'm no super brain. In many cases, the issue is not processors but saturating the I/O channel. There isn't much point in adding more parallel processing if your disks have 10 second queues for I/O.
Also, some problems do not break into pieces.
My understanding of the hard part currently is being able to write a straightforward loop and the compiler will know when to break it into "X" pieces.
The fundamental problem is probably lack of pay in parallel programming. If the pay is there, people who are talented will enter the field.
Clinton was clearly better. But he was a very conservative liberal.
Every "conservative" since and including Reagan has been insane with regard to spending compared to liberals. However, the liberals were passing those bills to be signed. They made a deal for guns AND butter.
The people who have coopted the term conservative want huge government.
Personally, I'd prefer an absolute maximum of 25% taxes from all layers of government with the right to refuse to pay the government entity of your choice when the total rate exceeded 25%.
The problem right now is that there is no limit- left unchecked "conservatives" and "liberals" in power will both spend every dime we have and more.
I have no problem with aspartame as long as we are informed of the risks.
We are adults and given the facts, should have the right to make the decision ourselves.
Fact is that for 90% of the population these artificial sweeteners really seem to be benign. Peanuts and shellfish are natural foods that have similar issues (great for most of us- bad for a few of us).
I use xylitol and stevia mostly myself. However, I consume some barq's diet rootbeer and coke zero without any apparent problems (no headaches, good performance in sports, in bed, and at work in the latter half of my 40's, still have six-pack, sleep well, no headaches). For me- as a person with a strong tendency to diabetes, artificially sweetened drinks and hot chocolate allowed me to completely cut bread sugar and potatoes from my diet without reducing my quality of life as much.
For me pastas, potatoes, sugar, and bread are much worse than artificial sweeteners with known side effects of constant pain from nerve damage, impotence, blindness, and multiple amputations. However for most of the population, they are fine (except they make most people fat).
too many emails to process in too many email addresses (god- I have 5 or 6?) too many posts on too many message boards to read and process (active on 7 to 10 forums) too many television shows to keep up with (with resulting societal fragmentation-- no "water cooler" shows to bond with)
As a non-republican guy who watchs CNN, and FOX, I find FOX to be fair to liberals while being recognizably conservative and CNN to have a strong liberal agenda.
I don't like Hannity's style since I think he can be unfair to guests he disagrees with but paired with Colmes he works okay.
As a person who doesn't vote republican, who is for legalizing drugs, for small government, who is non-religious, I just don't find FOX to be a bad news station.
I can see how a hard left person feels Fox is biased- but that's because of their own bias they are not recognizing.
if you tax email, folks will IM. if you tax IM, folks will do something else.
Are you going to tax each sentence I type into an online game? Each thing I type in an online meeting?
You could tax on total bytes transmitted but to try to tax based on the type of transmission is just asking for trouble and probably impossible given how malleable data is.
Beer counts as starch (i.e. ~sugar) However one person reported drinking beer lowered their sugar levels (http://www.diabetesfiles.com/forums/support/1066- diabetes-and-alcohol.html)
Several places say it can cause your blood sugar to drop (which can make you act crazy) and being drunk makes it hard to tell if you are having problems because you get stupid.
Obviously, if pot were legal, it would be better for diabetics most likely.
I agree with you. They need to charge people for what they use and they need to deliver what they say they will at a given price level.
My experience with cable is very good- I'm often bound by the server on the other end rather than by my connection. For some things like directx updates, clearly they have a cached copy because I get impossible transfer rates (like 1mb per second).
My experience with billing software is that it gets really expensive for them and me very quickly. For long distance calls (I worked in long distance billing software for a few years), the cost of calculating the bill was most of the reason they had to charge for it. And since then, most long distance phone call services have gone to a variety of "all you can eat plans" because it just didn't make sense to bill any more.
ISP's are right on the edge. They can be 'all you can eat' until something new like p2p movies on demand which suddenly changes the ground rules. I don't think they want to bill. I think they just want a reliable profit without their underlying costs skyrocketing and at the level of bandwidth they purchase, they are billed by the amount of data transfered because it is big enough to measure.
They do not deliver 7.2 terabytes per second to my computer. Why not???? They promised "unlimited" bandwidth.
The fact is, they thought the customers were going to behave a certain way and use the bandwidth a certain way based on historical usage patterns. These new "movies on demand" are using it in a new way.
ISP's would have no problem giving you very high bandwidth if you pay for it. Heck, they probably would sell it to you at cost since it would lower the cost for all their other customers and increase their profits.
This is the same as any "all you can eat" buffet. At some point, they are going to ask you to leave. You are going to be pissed that they stopped you after having 5 chicken breasts and 2 pounds of sides, but you know that you only paid $5.75 for it and there is no way you could even buy that much food uncooked at that price. You are scamming and you know it.
If enough people really do use these high bandwidth applications AND pay for the real bandwidth costs, then the ISPs will expand their pipes and bandwidth will become cheaper. When a majority of people exceed the costs by using these kinds of applications, then the ISPs are going to either go bankrupt or change your terms.
I don't know why that two lane toll road built to support pickup trucks won't handle 18 wheelers with double load trailers. You promised me that I could take my produce to market on it from my farm. Sure, I had 30 acres back then but now I have 3,000 but you didn't specify reasonable limits because you thought I was going to be reasonable.
Fact is- they make a profit or they go out of business. Either bandwidth gets cheaper or you will be paying more for service in the future as these bandwidth intensive applications come on line.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course. And that's why Obama used his great wealth to help poor people.
Oh wait, instead he used it to kill people.
And now that includes lots of poor people.
The fundamental problem is that some people grow up evil.
Or if your mp3 player or laptop are stolen.
My problem with the bum on the street.
Some are scammers.
Giving the one real bum money, has resulted in a huge increase in the number of bums on corners in the last 15 years.
So now I mostly give through official charities. Sometimes I will give them food. I've heard some are rude to some people that give them food but no bad luck so far.
So rather than agreeing with me, you chose to support terrorists.
A dilemma is a problem offering two solutions, neither of which is acceptable. The two options are often described as the horns of a dilemma, neither of which is comfortable.
meanwhile
A dichotomy is a division into two non-overlapping or mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive parts. They are often contrasting and spoken of as "opposites". The term comes from dichotomos (divided): dich- ([in] two) temnein (to cut).
---
A false dilemma would be one where an option exists that is not uncomfortable.
---
I think dilemma applies (tho mispelled- but hey, this is slashdot.) No- I didn't know the definitions- I had to look them up. I sort of knew what dilemma meant but drew a complete blank on dichotomy.
---
Did you draw a false dilemma? Depends on if you are anti-welfare or not. Some people welfare helps- but I agree that the rule of unintended consequences does apply to welfare. Welfare destroys the lives of a lot of people who would have made it without a ready crutch to destroy them. It's not welfare per se- it's welfare run by a big organization that can't tell the difference between a hard working mom that got laid off and needs a hand to get back up again and a drug using teenager with three babies from three different fathers that never intends to work. Or for that matter, a group of hippy commune types (california welfare during the 70's was a huge factor in the hippy movement being successful).
A trivial threat compared to posting the major web addresses on Slashdot.
I've transformed several processes in this fashion and I'm no super brain. In many cases, the issue is not processors but saturating the I/O channel. There isn't much point in adding more parallel processing if your disks have 10 second queues for I/O.
Also, some problems do not break into pieces.
My understanding of the hard part currently is being able to write a straightforward loop and the compiler will know when to break it into "X" pieces.
The fundamental problem is probably lack of pay in parallel programming. If the pay is there, people who are talented will enter the field.
Sadly true.
Clinton was clearly better. But he was a very conservative liberal.
Every "conservative" since and including Reagan has been insane with regard to spending compared to liberals. However, the liberals were passing those bills to be signed. They made a deal for guns AND butter.
Why that's not true at all.
As long as you protest in the designated protest area you are fine.
Sure, it may be 3 miles away next to a landfill but we have to give up some rights or else the terrorists win.
The people who have coopted the term conservative want huge government.
Personally, I'd prefer an absolute maximum of 25% taxes from all layers of government with the right to refuse to pay the government entity of your choice when the total rate exceeded 25%.
The problem right now is that there is no limit- left unchecked "conservatives" and "liberals" in power will both spend every dime we have and more.
Conservatism- small government vs Conservatism- clinging to yesterdays values.
The first always succeeds in the short term but people slowly grow government and lock in "noble"/upper class/rich privileges until it finally fails.
We need a cap on spending, and a cap on the number of years any law can run.
We have neither.
I'm just trying to get by as best I can til I kick off. I really think the next generation is screwed.
I have no problem with aspartame as long as we are informed of the risks.
We are adults and given the facts, should have the right to make the decision ourselves.
Fact is that for 90% of the population these artificial sweeteners really seem to be benign. Peanuts and shellfish are natural foods that have similar issues (great for most of us- bad for a few of us).
I use xylitol and stevia mostly myself. However, I consume some barq's diet rootbeer and coke zero without any apparent problems (no headaches, good performance in sports, in bed, and at work in the latter half of my 40's, still have six-pack, sleep well, no headaches). For me- as a person with a strong tendency to diabetes, artificially sweetened drinks and hot chocolate allowed me to completely cut bread sugar and potatoes from my diet without reducing my quality of life as much.
For me pastas, potatoes, sugar, and bread are much worse than artificial sweeteners with known side effects of constant pain from nerve damage, impotence, blindness, and multiple amputations. However for most of the population, they are fine (except they make most people fat).
Crazy modding from someone who didn't get or doesn't like the slashdot overlord joke meme.
it's information overload in general
too many emails to process in too many email addresses (god- I have 5 or 6?)
too many posts on too many message boards to read and process (active on 7 to 10 forums)
too many television shows to keep up with (with resulting societal fragmentation-- no "water cooler" shows to bond with)
Weakly libertarian (4 grids), even more weakly leftist (1 grid).
I agree.
As a non-republican guy who watchs CNN, and FOX, I find FOX to be fair to liberals while being recognizably conservative and CNN to have a strong liberal agenda.
I don't like Hannity's style since I think he can be unfair to guests he disagrees with but paired with Colmes he works okay.
As a person who doesn't vote republican, who is for legalizing drugs, for small government, who is non-religious, I just don't find FOX to be a bad news station.
I can see how a hard left person feels Fox is biased- but that's because of their own bias they are not recognizing.
if you tax email, folks will IM.
if you tax IM, folks will do something else.
Are you going to tax each sentence I type into an online game?
Each thing I type in an online meeting?
You could tax on total bytes transmitted but to try to tax based on the type of transmission is just asking for trouble and probably impossible given how malleable data is.
You are welcome.
Same situation here. I cut out bread, potatoes, and sugar. Have lost 30 pounds so far.
I found Stevia (in coffee) and Xylitol (for my low carb cerial, and sweetened cream) to be excellent substitutes.
It's not good if you are taking pills
4 370191.html
i ving/diabetes_alcohol/
- diabetes-and-alcohol.html)
It's not good if it is a sweet alcohol or has a sweet mix.
However...
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/HealthIssues/110
Drinkers get type 2 diabetes less.
Hard Drinks count as a fat exchange.
http://www.dlife.com/dLife/do/ShowContent/daily_l
Beer counts as starch (i.e. ~sugar) However one person reported drinking beer lowered their sugar levels (http://www.diabetesfiles.com/forums/support/1066
Several places say it can cause your blood sugar to drop (which can make you act crazy) and being drunk makes it hard to tell if you are having problems because you get stupid.
Obviously, if pot were legal, it would be better for diabetics most likely.
I agree with you. They need to charge people for what they use and they need to deliver what they say they will at a given price level.
My experience with cable is very good- I'm often bound by the server on the other end rather than by my connection. For some things like directx updates, clearly they have a cached copy because I get impossible transfer rates (like 1mb per second).
My experience with billing software is that it gets really expensive for them and me very quickly. For long distance calls (I worked in long distance billing software for a few years), the cost of calculating the bill was most of the reason they had to charge for it. And since then, most long distance phone call services have gone to a variety of "all you can eat plans" because it just didn't make sense to bill any more.
ISP's are right on the edge. They can be 'all you can eat' until something new like p2p movies on demand which suddenly changes the ground rules. I don't think they want to bill. I think they just want a reliable profit without their underlying costs skyrocketing and at the level of bandwidth they purchase, they are billed by the amount of data transfered because it is big enough to measure.
They have it in 16oz bottles in Texas at Walmarts.
Can't drink the stuff myself. Sugar is very bad for me.
The gas tax is down to 5% in my area because it is a fixed amount that hasn't changed in 20 years.
That was my first thought.
Heck, I've seen history rewritten in my lifetime. Some things that were "always true" when I was a child is not true now.
Consider the effect of hard DNA evidence on history and how many guilty verdicts of history have been rewritten alone.
They promised "unlimited" bandwidth.
That's impossible to deliver.
They do not deliver 7.2 terabytes per second to my computer. Why not???? They promised "unlimited" bandwidth.
The fact is, they thought the customers were going to behave a certain way and use the bandwidth a certain way based on historical usage patterns. These new "movies on demand" are using it in a new way.
ISP's would have no problem giving you very high bandwidth if you pay for it. Heck, they probably would sell it to you at cost since it would lower the cost for all their other customers and increase their profits.
This is the same as any "all you can eat" buffet. At some point, they are going to ask you to leave. You are going to be pissed that they stopped you after having 5 chicken breasts and 2 pounds of sides, but you know that you only paid $5.75 for it and there is no way you could even buy that much food uncooked at that price. You are scamming and you know it.
If enough people really do use these high bandwidth applications AND pay for the real bandwidth costs, then the ISPs will expand their pipes and bandwidth will become cheaper. When a majority of people exceed the costs by using these kinds of applications, then the ISPs are going to either go bankrupt or change your terms.
I don't know why that two lane toll road built to support pickup trucks won't handle 18 wheelers with double load trailers. You promised me that I could take my produce to market on it from my farm. Sure, I had 30 acres back then but now I have 3,000 but you didn't specify reasonable limits because you thought I was going to be reasonable.
Fact is- they make a profit or they go out of business. Either bandwidth gets cheaper or you will be paying more for service in the future as these bandwidth intensive applications come on line.