Why would he have to be able to tolerate working less than his employees? Rather than endure the guilt, he could elect to put in the same amount of time. I've been lucky enough to have good bosses thus far and they all put as much or more overtime than me. I don't see how being promoted into management would reduce the time he puts in, seems to me like it would imply more(not necessarily in-office time).
They want you to share performance risk. The idea is that if you work harder during work hours, you do less unpaid overtime. If you slack during work hours, you make up for it with unpaid overtime.
In my case, seasonal work means lots and lots of unpaid overtime towards year-end, and apparently nearly nothing to do in the middle of the year.
Not saying that it's a good system, just offering the rationalization given for it. It often means that someone giving their 100% gets screwed by having to put in 120% for no extra pay so the company doesn't have to hire help to give just 60% work to two people on two salaries.
And America tends to favor businesses over people due to fears of socialism leading to communism. The reasons for this are too numerous to list, and go back quite awhile into our history. The discussion of this goes far beyond the reach of the topic at hand.
I don't disagree with the parent or GP that it's possible to get good jobs without a degree.
However, I believe that the degree isn't useless./All else being equal/ the masters degree trumps the undergrad degree. They want assurances that the candidate can handle the job requirements and the masters degree is a flag signaling that this candidate is different from the undergrads in that he went through 2-4 years of additional study. Whether that distinguishment is valuable enough to commit 2-4 years of additional study(time and money) is left to each person to decide.
It's one factor among many, and is not as important as a recommendation or experience, but it does work in your favor. Especially when you're fresh to the job market and have nothing besides academic certifications and your say-so to prove your worth.
All the other cultures started with farming too, if not hunting and gathering. I don't think the farming roots of the USA can fully explain this cultural trend of avoid academic recognition.
I don't have any better theories though. I think sports in western culture may be related, but I can't even identify where it's a cause or effect(or both).
By precisely targeting the goal of acquiring general information around the subject.
For example, if I want to learn more about a toyota camry, I can look it up. If I want to learn about cars, I look up cars. I don't want to let inefficiency dictate what I ought to know, but rather decide for myself what to learn and what the next subject to explore would be.
A general overview of a subject can be useful in finding out what subject to explore next in that branch of knowledge, but the increased speed in information processing allows us to decide if we want to get that general overview. If they choose to forego useful information in deciding where to expand their knowledge, that is a flaw in the researcher's approach to learning, not an issue with the efficiency of the system.
Similarly, complex detail on a subject, and corraboration should be sought, and it's still up to the intelligence/good research habits of the individual to take these things into account, rather than an inefficient system throwing all of it at them whether or not that specific bit of knowledge will actually assist them.
The guy who collects encyclopedic knowledge of a subject is still better at that subject than the one who chose not to learn that subject, but I personally believe efficient information-gathering to be a good thing since it frees the subject's time and allows the researcher to choose where they want to excel. They may not accrue encyclopedic knowledge of that subject by the time they've researched the information they seek, but they've gained time to finish another task, get to that date with the fiance on time, show up for the son's piano recital, add a few miles to their daily jog, or even to accrue encyclopedic knowledge of the subject of their own volition(or even another subject they're more interested in!)
Explaining repos isn't particularly hard, I'm a Linux noob, but that has nothing to do with understanding repos. "Repos is short for repository" and it's exactly what's it's called.
So a software repository's meaning should follow immediately from the combination of the two normal english words.
"It's a list of things you want your computer to do. Check what you want, then click install and it'll do it for you."
That said, explaining what repos are isn't the problem. Explaining how to install things when they're not in a repo or how to find the right repos and prioritizing them properly is the hard part.
I don't think they don't understand it because it's different, they didn't understand the Windows-method either. The simplicity comes through obscurity, letting windows take care of everything, whether windows is doing it efficiently or even correctly is hidden and they just get the end result.
They just want the end result, they don't or need to understand how it's done. If there was a way to obscure all the steps of installation, trouble-shooting, paring down unnecessary or legacy files, ensuring compatibility into a "Press any key to continue"-stye install wizard, then they wouldn't care.
A single one-size-fits-all is what a user wants. They want to use the computer to achieve a result, the fewer the complications the better. More choice and freedom isn't always better either, they don't want to make choices because that takes consideration of the options and a decision-making process. For consumers, it's better to go straight to getting what they want, getting the use out of the computer, and then moving on to something else.
I for one want to run qtmake to install or compile a program, and though it reports that QTdevtools was successfully installed, qtmake doesn't work anyway and I'm SOL or ideas on how to take it from not working to working. It's probably my fault for not knowing better, but that doesn't matter. When it boils down to it, all I had to do was drag and drop a file into the/plugins/ folder for that extension in windows. Getting it done in Linux had me bogged down in an unsuccessful problem-solving mission. I think Linux would see wider adoption if it targeted "noobs" instead of power users.
So the cost of a working solution may involve money, but it's far better than a free solution that does work in the end(again, regardless of where the fault lies).
This is especially the case when there is a strong piracy base that doesn't pay, but continues to use the software and ends up supporting the market power of this pay-only software. The Network Effect that this has is important and difficult to overcome when opposing formats clash. Even though IE is not standards compliant, it can declare itself to be the standard and be correct simply through majority.
So while free software is great, pirated software is close enough in cost to compete, and is "better" in the sense that it's easy and familiar. I think that an idealogical shift towards making OSS easy and familiar would greatly expand it's adoption, but I also find it highly unlikely for such a shift to occur. There are some efforts to simplify things, but I still find myself driven back to the commandline, because not everyone is on-board with that effort.
I would love to switch over to Linux entirely, but my level of competence is just not there and so it must be restricted to my secondary laptop. Again, I'll bet my ignorance is to blame, but understanding that does nothing to aid my transition to full-time Linux use and there are many who share my situation.
14 year olds are young, but not so young to not realize that swapping train tracks around will affect what happens to trains when they reach that section of track. They might not follow that train of thought(pun intended) through to what the actual aftermath may look like, but it's no stretch of intelligence to conclude that a massive train moving at significant speeds will have a significant consequences when directed somewhere unexpectedly.
Not that I'm recommending dire consequences for the boy, I'm just saying that there is probably some malicious intent here, though he probably didn't calculate the magnitude of his mischief either. I'm envisioning something like: "I'm gonna screw around with this and it'll be funny watching them try to fix i--*FOOM*...oh...wow...shit I better go".
(And jeez, whoever designed that system that way is going to have a whole mess of flying poop coming their way).
...
5. Go to any 'black light' environment/party and freak out the normals....
In addition, the same color will show in your ejaculate, urine, and feces if exhibited under 'black light' conditions What kind of crazy-ass parties have you been going to?!
Just have to chime in that I've seen this trend as well.
Just quitting a job is not a practical response for those who count themselves lucky to have gotten any job period. "Well that's your fault." isn't helpful either. Remember that many businesses are setup in tree structures, there are going to be people on top to answer to and given the shape of a tree structure you can count on half or more of the population to fall on the receiving end of authority. In reality, it's far more than half.
The safest jobs are those that can only be filled by specialized niche-knowledge equipped employees, they're tough to replace. Other jobs are much easier to fill and people hold onto these jobs by working hard and doing a good job, but they're always replaceable since anyone can fill the seat. They might not be as good, but if the boss is annoyed enough, he'll accept an inferior but more palatable employee.
They are able to fire you for anything, race, religion, politics, gender, attitude, whatever they feel like. The official reason you're fired will be something safe and legal. If you're able to keep a paper trail of your performance every step of the way and keep it with you outside of work then you might be able to refute the reason they fired you, but you'll still have a hell of a time proving that the real reason was an illegal reason. It's not easy to proven what someone is/thinking/.
I'm fortunate enough to have good bosses so that I don't have to worry about this stuff. But it is an incredible stretch to say that nobody has to cope under these pressures.
Indeed, my friend came back from visiting his family's home in India a few months ago with pictures of people riding bumpers, roofs, and hoods.
I think a more practical exterior would involve handlebars to grab and belts to help prevent them from slipping accidentally(quick release necessary of course). Sure it's still quite dangerous even at the low speeds, but the space and cost issues won't be going away, the people are already resorting to this. Might as well make them a little bit safer until the infrastructure of the country develops to the point where people won't be driven to these measures.
So the man who has/not/ done the work to inherit a fortune, had a conversation with a striking-beautiful young woman, banged her that same night, and she then voluntarily leaves without him even having to ask?
I think the moral of this story is that lying is/AWESOME/.
I know, that's why it's relevant that unless the exchanges are actually taking place using gold without dollar representation, we would be dependent on belief in how much gold is behind the dollar.
With that level of ambiguity, it's still the same value representation, it all goes back to how much goods and services are behind the currency. The way we know how much money is in circulation is by observing the resulting behavior of the market. If that market continues to operate on dollars, it'll still be working around dollars even if there's some unknown amount of gold behind it(you can ask for a number, and be told one, but how is it verified and who verifies it?)
The restriction on the ability to expand the money supply is the main goal, and inability to produce more of the backing currency isn't a practical way to regulate this. We'd still be operating with dollars, translated into some arbitrary fixed number representing the quantity of gold, then translating that into the goods and services. Currency value shouldn't be tied to mining production, but to the value it represents. The fundamental economy is not tied to gold, and mandating that it do so is pointless. You can't tell people to value the gold above all else, it'll still come down to the actual good and services that the people really want. So whether the currency is gold or paper, it's still being translated to what is really being exchanged.
It's just another currency valued on the market the same way other currencies are valued on the market. You can pay with paper, skin, rock, metal, fur, whatever, so long as there is an agreement on the value of that currency and how that value translates into goods and services that can be bought elsewhere with that currency.
Gold-backed dollars doesn't solve anything, it's just inserting an arbitrary step between the translation of the paper into goods and services. It'd just be paper into gold, into goods and services. You still wouldn't know how much gold is really behind that dollar until you translate all your dollars into gold.
The real goal is restricting the government from arbitarily expanding the money supply which inflates the dollar, lowering it's value, which lowers the value of the savings of citizens. To keep a currency's value the same, it'd have to change relative to the change in the production of available goods and services that can be purchased with it, so that it still signifies the same relative amount of purchasing power.
That's an understandable goal that comes with it's own advantages and disadvantages, but the gold itself is meaningless just like paper, skin, rocks, metal, etc. have been in the past as units of exchange.
Videogames are a pretty insignificant issue in the larger scheme of things, but she supported Jack Thompson and his "Think of the Chilren" FUD campaign. For anyone who's played a videogame this could mean one of two possibilities.
1) She never investigated the issue enough to realize that videogames really aren't a threat to the fabric of American society (especially not when scaled against far more salient issues). It is not a good sign when a candidate fails to investigate before throwing support to one side or the other. You don't need to look hard to see that Jack Thompson is crazy.
2) She is well aware that they're not a threat, but supported his "Think of the Children" FUD because it makes her look good to the easily-frightened who aren't aware that videogames aren't a threat. Pandering and fearmongering are also behaviors I don't want in a candidate.
Either possibility provides poor indications for Clinton's behavior as a decision maker.
I'll believe it when they actually offer it, there are plenty of ways for them to tie down that speed into an undesirable product. Excessive pricing, throttling, bundling, lock-in, hidden caps...
How fast is the upload, and for that matter, how many download sources are there that can actually hit that speed for numerous users? Even in a torrent it's tough to find enough seeders to equal those speeds. If it can be done, how many suscribers can hit that speed before they crowd each other out?
I think the biggest boost to my practical download speed would be an increase to other people's upload speeds. That sort of breakthrough would be far more exciting.
And to muddy the waters further...the Xbox360 is able to read data from the DVD than the PS3 is able to read data from the Blu-ray disk. (There are some workarounds for this though, like installing onto the harddrive or repeating data on the disc to reduce seek time.)
This means lower load times and/or higher-quality texture streaming. As mentioned before, this is great for action-packed romps that are short to begin with, but not as critical for long and relaxed games like j-rpgs.
The benefit is clear, but it's far from certain whether or not a bump in disc capacity would justify the added price tag to the unit.
We haven't lost more than 40,000 people to terrorists shooting missiles at airplanes. I don't think it's extreme to suggest that money spent in traffic safety will reduce fatalities more than money spent in missile-defense lasers.
So the point about traffic lights is supporting the GP post. This isn't an economically sound way to save lives. The amount of money spent should scale appropriately with the resulting increase in security.
The word he used was "economically responsible". Economics is about dealing with scarcity, money is not inexhaustible, and if saving lives is the goal there are better ways to save them than mounting lasers on commercial airliners. The benefit is there, it's just outweighed by other potential uses.
With specific regard to airline safety, more money spent on airline maintenance and inspection could be used. More security in areas lying under approach and departure vectors, that sort of thing. The expensive and complex solution isn't always the most efficient or effective.
I was enjoying the theory your wiki-link offered up. About half-way through I realized I was engaged in the male geek equivalent of a "How to Trap a Man" article in a women's magazine. Except ours comes complete with graphed functions with optimal utility points.
That does sound like a good idea, getting approval first, then the ring later. Plus you can be sure she'll like the ring.
I'd still suggest taking that ring you bought together and then setting up a romantic suprise proposal with it. It may be redundant in that you already got a "yes" but it wouldn't be a meaningless gesture to her. It'll be a nice story for her to tell when people inevitably ask her how you proposed.
But then, as logical and efficient as this all sounds to guys, not all girls will like this idea...
Even logic is still conceptually based inside this reality, and wouldn't help prove or disprove it being virtual or not.
You can smell 'blue' and see 'salty' when you're tripping through reality. Riding a purple transexual gnome through a jellyfish hurricane seems perfectly normal when you're in a dream. Even simple integer math doesn't even have to work in those crazy perceived realities. 1+1=2 seems irrefutable only because you never see it fail and can't conceive of a situation where it fails.
Sending (X,Y) input through an operation that results in 3 isn't that hard when you can define X, Y, and the operation. They may have simply defined 1+1 to equal 2 for the purposes of this simulation and see what sort of universe is procedurally generated from these rules against another.
That would be an example of a policeman failing to do his duty while on duty. Which isn't what's being argued here. Surveiling an on-duty cop is fine(It would help prove the innocent are innocent and that the guilty are guilty. If the tapes conveniently disappear, even their absence is somewhat damning in itself).
If the on-duty cop lets the off-duty cop slip off on a crime then bust the on-duty cops until they do their job and bust the off-duty one.
There's still no need to record them when they're not on duty, it's unreasonably intrusive.
It's not all that difficult to see why western citizens feel entitled to their elected officials to serve the west.
There's no such thing as an innate right. Rights are just another way of establishing "Things that we are going to have whether you like it or not because otherwise we'll have it by force."
American rights are setup through law, the whole system of government, protest, etc. Sovereign governments via military... It's all quite tribal. Being tribal or not is pretty moot when you get right down to it. It's "Us" or "Them". Nobody really gives a shit about what they don't know or understand, I won't worry about an african baby that died yesterday(I can pretty much guarentee there was one), I won't worry about an insect I stepped on. I will worry when something happens to me and those I actually do care about. I'll take care of them/first/ and worry about the rest later on. I'm not going to ignore those close at hand in favor of those far away.
Disapprove all you like, but it's your opinion against mine.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand #5.
Why would he have to be able to tolerate working less than his employees? Rather than endure the guilt, he could elect to put in the same amount of time. I've been lucky enough to have good bosses thus far and they all put as much or more overtime than me. I don't see how being promoted into management would reduce the time he puts in, seems to me like it would imply more(not necessarily in-office time).
Yes it does happen often.
They want you to share performance risk. The idea is that if you work harder during work hours, you do less unpaid overtime. If you slack during work hours, you make up for it with unpaid overtime.
In my case, seasonal work means lots and lots of unpaid overtime towards year-end, and apparently nearly nothing to do in the middle of the year.
Not saying that it's a good system, just offering the rationalization given for it. It often means that someone giving their 100% gets screwed by having to put in 120% for no extra pay so the company doesn't have to hire help to give just 60% work to two people on two salaries.
And America tends to favor businesses over people due to fears of socialism leading to communism. The reasons for this are too numerous to list, and go back quite awhile into our history. The discussion of this goes far beyond the reach of the topic at hand.
I don't disagree with the parent or GP that it's possible to get good jobs without a degree.
/All else being equal/ the masters degree trumps the undergrad degree. They want assurances that the candidate can handle the job requirements and the masters degree is a flag signaling that this candidate is different from the undergrads in that he went through 2-4 years of additional study. Whether that distinguishment is valuable enough to commit 2-4 years of additional study(time and money) is left to each person to decide.
However, I believe that the degree isn't useless.
It's one factor among many, and is not as important as a recommendation or experience, but it does work in your favor. Especially when you're fresh to the job market and have nothing besides academic certifications and your say-so to prove your worth.
All the other cultures started with farming too, if not hunting and gathering. I don't think the farming roots of the USA can fully explain this cultural trend of avoid academic recognition.
I don't have any better theories though. I think sports in western culture may be related, but I can't even identify where it's a cause or effect(or both).
By precisely targeting the goal of acquiring general information around the subject.
For example, if I want to learn more about a toyota camry, I can look it up. If I want to learn about cars, I look up cars. I don't want to let inefficiency dictate what I ought to know, but rather decide for myself what to learn and what the next subject to explore would be.
A general overview of a subject can be useful in finding out what subject to explore next in that branch of knowledge, but the increased speed in information processing allows us to decide if we want to get that general overview. If they choose to forego useful information in deciding where to expand their knowledge, that is a flaw in the researcher's approach to learning, not an issue with the efficiency of the system.
Similarly, complex detail on a subject, and corraboration should be sought, and it's still up to the intelligence/good research habits of the individual to take these things into account, rather than an inefficient system throwing all of it at them whether or not that specific bit of knowledge will actually assist them.
The guy who collects encyclopedic knowledge of a subject is still better at that subject than the one who chose not to learn that subject, but I personally believe efficient information-gathering to be a good thing since it frees the subject's time and allows the researcher to choose where they want to excel. They may not accrue encyclopedic knowledge of that subject by the time they've researched the information they seek, but they've gained time to finish another task, get to that date with the fiance on time, show up for the son's piano recital, add a few miles to their daily jog, or even to accrue encyclopedic knowledge of the subject of their own volition(or even another subject they're more interested in!)
Explaining repos isn't particularly hard, I'm a Linux noob, but that has nothing to do with understanding repos. "Repos is short for repository" and it's exactly what's it's called.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/repository
So a software repository's meaning should follow immediately from the combination of the two normal english words.
"It's a list of things you want your computer to do. Check what you want, then click install and it'll do it for you."
That said, explaining what repos are isn't the problem. Explaining how to install things when they're not in a repo or how to find the right repos and prioritizing them properly is the hard part.
Speaking as a windows user just trying out Linux:
/plugins/ folder for that extension in windows. Getting it done in Linux had me bogged down in an unsuccessful problem-solving mission. I think Linux would see wider adoption if it targeted "noobs" instead of power users.
I don't think they don't understand it because it's different, they didn't understand the Windows-method either. The simplicity comes through obscurity, letting windows take care of everything, whether windows is doing it efficiently or even correctly is hidden and they just get the end result.
They just want the end result, they don't or need to understand how it's done. If there was a way to obscure all the steps of installation, trouble-shooting, paring down unnecessary or legacy files, ensuring compatibility into a "Press any key to continue"-stye install wizard, then they wouldn't care.
A single one-size-fits-all is what a user wants. They want to use the computer to achieve a result, the fewer the complications the better. More choice and freedom isn't always better either, they don't want to make choices because that takes consideration of the options and a decision-making process. For consumers, it's better to go straight to getting what they want, getting the use out of the computer, and then moving on to something else.
I for one want to run qtmake to install or compile a program, and though it reports that QTdevtools was successfully installed, qtmake doesn't work anyway and I'm SOL or ideas on how to take it from not working to working. It's probably my fault for not knowing better, but that doesn't matter. When it boils down to it, all I had to do was drag and drop a file into the
So the cost of a working solution may involve money, but it's far better than a free solution that does work in the end(again, regardless of where the fault lies).
This is especially the case when there is a strong piracy base that doesn't pay, but continues to use the software and ends up supporting the market power of this pay-only software. The Network Effect that this has is important and difficult to overcome when opposing formats clash. Even though IE is not standards compliant, it can declare itself to be the standard and be correct simply through majority.
So while free software is great, pirated software is close enough in cost to compete, and is "better" in the sense that it's easy and familiar. I think that an idealogical shift towards making OSS easy and familiar would greatly expand it's adoption, but I also find it highly unlikely for such a shift to occur. There are some efforts to simplify things, but I still find myself driven back to the commandline, because not everyone is on-board with that effort.
I would love to switch over to Linux entirely, but my level of competence is just not there and so it must be restricted to my secondary laptop. Again, I'll bet my ignorance is to blame, but understanding that does nothing to aid my transition to full-time Linux use and there are many who share my situation.
14 year olds are young, but not so young to not realize that swapping train tracks around will affect what happens to trains when they reach that section of track. They might not follow that train of thought(pun intended) through to what the actual aftermath may look like, but it's no stretch of intelligence to conclude that a massive train moving at significant speeds will have a significant consequences when directed somewhere unexpectedly.
Not that I'm recommending dire consequences for the boy, I'm just saying that there is probably some malicious intent here, though he probably didn't calculate the magnitude of his mischief either. I'm envisioning something like: "I'm gonna screw around with this and it'll be funny watching them try to fix i--*FOOM*...oh...wow...shit I better go".
(And jeez, whoever designed that system that way is going to have a whole mess of flying poop coming their way).
... 5. Go to any 'black light' environment/party and freak out the normals.Blame sounds like a bad thing until you realize it comes with a multi-million dollar severance package.
Just have to chime in that I've seen this trend as well.
/thinking/.
Just quitting a job is not a practical response for those who count themselves lucky to have gotten any job period. "Well that's your fault." isn't helpful either. Remember that many businesses are setup in tree structures, there are going to be people on top to answer to and given the shape of a tree structure you can count on half or more of the population to fall on the receiving end of authority. In reality, it's far more than half.
The safest jobs are those that can only be filled by specialized niche-knowledge equipped employees, they're tough to replace. Other jobs are much easier to fill and people hold onto these jobs by working hard and doing a good job, but they're always replaceable since anyone can fill the seat. They might not be as good, but if the boss is annoyed enough, he'll accept an inferior but more palatable employee.
They are able to fire you for anything, race, religion, politics, gender, attitude, whatever they feel like. The official reason you're fired will be something safe and legal. If you're able to keep a paper trail of your performance every step of the way and keep it with you outside of work then you might be able to refute the reason they fired you, but you'll still have a hell of a time proving that the real reason was an illegal reason. It's not easy to proven what someone is
I'm fortunate enough to have good bosses so that I don't have to worry about this stuff. But it is an incredible stretch to say that nobody has to cope under these pressures.
Indeed, my friend came back from visiting his family's home in India a few months ago with pictures of people riding bumpers, roofs, and hoods.
I think a more practical exterior would involve handlebars to grab and belts to help prevent them from slipping accidentally(quick release necessary of course). Sure it's still quite dangerous even at the low speeds, but the space and cost issues won't be going away, the people are already resorting to this. Might as well make them a little bit safer until the infrastructure of the country develops to the point where people won't be driven to these measures.
So the man who has /not/ done the work to inherit a fortune, had a conversation with a striking-beautiful young woman, banged her that same night, and she then voluntarily leaves without him even having to ask?
/AWESOME/.
I think the moral of this story is that lying is
I know, that's why it's relevant that unless the exchanges are actually taking place using gold without dollar representation, we would be dependent on belief in how much gold is behind the dollar.
With that level of ambiguity, it's still the same value representation, it all goes back to how much goods and services are behind the currency. The way we know how much money is in circulation is by observing the resulting behavior of the market. If that market continues to operate on dollars, it'll still be working around dollars even if there's some unknown amount of gold behind it(you can ask for a number, and be told one, but how is it verified and who verifies it?)
The restriction on the ability to expand the money supply is the main goal, and inability to produce more of the backing currency isn't a practical way to regulate this. We'd still be operating with dollars, translated into some arbitrary fixed number representing the quantity of gold, then translating that into the goods and services. Currency value shouldn't be tied to mining production, but to the value it represents. The fundamental economy is not tied to gold, and mandating that it do so is pointless. You can't tell people to value the gold above all else, it'll still come down to the actual good and services that the people really want. So whether the currency is gold or paper, it's still being translated to what is really being exchanged.
...and what backs up gold?...
It's just another currency valued on the market the same way other currencies are valued on the market. You can pay with paper, skin, rock, metal, fur, whatever, so long as there is an agreement on the value of that currency and how that value translates into goods and services that can be bought elsewhere with that currency.
Gold-backed dollars doesn't solve anything, it's just inserting an arbitrary step between the translation of the paper into goods and services. It'd just be paper into gold, into goods and services. You still wouldn't know how much gold is really behind that dollar until you translate all your dollars into gold.
The real goal is restricting the government from arbitarily expanding the money supply which inflates the dollar, lowering it's value, which lowers the value of the savings of citizens. To keep a currency's value the same, it'd have to change relative to the change in the production of available goods and services that can be purchased with it, so that it still signifies the same relative amount of purchasing power.
That's an understandable goal that comes with it's own advantages and disadvantages, but the gold itself is meaningless just like paper, skin, rocks, metal, etc. have been in the past as units of exchange.
I don't trust her either.
Videogames are a pretty insignificant issue in the larger scheme of things, but she supported Jack Thompson and his "Think of the Chilren" FUD campaign. For anyone who's played a videogame this could mean one of two possibilities.
1) She never investigated the issue enough to realize that videogames really aren't a threat to the fabric of American society (especially not when scaled against far more salient issues). It is not a good sign when a candidate fails to investigate before throwing support to one side or the other. You don't need to look hard to see that Jack Thompson is crazy.
2) She is well aware that they're not a threat, but supported his "Think of the Children" FUD because it makes her look good to the easily-frightened who aren't aware that videogames aren't a threat. Pandering and fearmongering are also behaviors I don't want in a candidate.
Either possibility provides poor indications for Clinton's behavior as a decision maker.
I'll believe it when they actually offer it, there are plenty of ways for them to tie down that speed into an undesirable product. Excessive pricing, throttling, bundling, lock-in, hidden caps...
How fast is the upload, and for that matter, how many download sources are there that can actually hit that speed for numerous users? Even in a torrent it's tough to find enough seeders to equal those speeds. If it can be done, how many suscribers can hit that speed before they crowd each other out?
I think the biggest boost to my practical download speed would be an increase to other people's upload speeds. That sort of breakthrough would be far more exciting.
And to muddy the waters further...the Xbox360 is able to read data from the DVD than the PS3 is able to read data from the Blu-ray disk. (There are some workarounds for this though, like installing onto the harddrive or repeating data on the disc to reduce seek time.)
This means lower load times and/or higher-quality texture streaming. As mentioned before, this is great for action-packed romps that are short to begin with, but not as critical for long and relaxed games like j-rpgs.
The benefit is clear, but it's far from certain whether or not a bump in disc capacity would justify the added price tag to the unit.
It's a good comparison, and that people spend more moeny on traffic and security lights is also valid.
But traffic accidents kill more people than terrorist missiles: http://money.cnn.com/2007/07/23/autos/traffic_deaths_down/index.htm
We haven't lost more than 40,000 people to terrorists shooting missiles at airplanes. I don't think it's extreme to suggest that money spent in traffic safety will reduce fatalities more than money spent in missile-defense lasers.
So the point about traffic lights is supporting the GP post. This isn't an economically sound way to save lives. The amount of money spent should scale appropriately with the resulting increase in security.
The word he used was "economically responsible". Economics is about dealing with scarcity, money is not inexhaustible, and if saving lives is the goal there are better ways to save them than mounting lasers on commercial airliners. The benefit is there, it's just outweighed by other potential uses.
With specific regard to airline safety, more money spent on airline maintenance and inspection could be used. More security in areas lying under approach and departure vectors, that sort of thing. The expensive and complex solution isn't always the most efficient or effective.
I was enjoying the theory your wiki-link offered up. About half-way through I realized I was engaged in the male geek equivalent of a "How to Trap a Man" article in a women's magazine. Except ours comes complete with graphed functions with optimal utility points.
That does sound like a good idea, getting approval first, then the ring later. Plus you can be sure she'll like the ring.
I'd still suggest taking that ring you bought together and then setting up a romantic suprise proposal with it. It may be redundant in that you already got a "yes" but it wouldn't be a meaningless gesture to her. It'll be a nice story for her to tell when people inevitably ask her how you proposed.
But then, as logical and efficient as this all sounds to guys, not all girls will like this idea...
Even logic is still conceptually based inside this reality, and wouldn't help prove or disprove it being virtual or not.
You can smell 'blue' and see 'salty' when you're tripping through reality. Riding a purple transexual gnome through a jellyfish hurricane seems perfectly normal when you're in a dream. Even simple integer math doesn't even have to work in those crazy perceived realities. 1+1=2 seems irrefutable only because you never see it fail and can't conceive of a situation where it fails.
Sending (X,Y) input through an operation that results in 3 isn't that hard when you can define X, Y, and the operation. They may have simply defined 1+1 to equal 2 for the purposes of this simulation and see what sort of universe is procedurally generated from these rules against another.
That would be an example of a policeman failing to do his duty while on duty. Which isn't what's being argued here. Surveiling an on-duty cop is fine(It would help prove the innocent are innocent and that the guilty are guilty. If the tapes conveniently disappear, even their absence is somewhat damning in itself).
If the on-duty cop lets the off-duty cop slip off on a crime then bust the on-duty cops until they do their job and bust the off-duty one.
There's still no need to record them when they're not on duty, it's unreasonably intrusive.
It's not all that difficult to see why western citizens feel entitled to their elected officials to serve the west.
/first/ and worry about the rest later on. I'm not going to ignore those close at hand in favor of those far away.
There's no such thing as an innate right. Rights are just another way of establishing "Things that we are going to have whether you like it or not because otherwise we'll have it by force."
American rights are setup through law, the whole system of government, protest, etc. Sovereign governments via military... It's all quite tribal. Being tribal or not is pretty moot when you get right down to it. It's "Us" or "Them". Nobody really gives a shit about what they don't know or understand, I won't worry about an african baby that died yesterday(I can pretty much guarentee there was one), I won't worry about an insect I stepped on. I will worry when something happens to me and those I actually do care about. I'll take care of them
Disapprove all you like, but it's your opinion against mine.
I want to go in there and show them my "O" face.
"Oh! Oh! Oh! OH!!!"