I haven't tried, so really I don't know, but I suspect that at least 75% of the total border length (that is not on an ocean or country border) could be drawn using latitude and longitude lines, with the rest using straight angled lines.
I don't see any great reason to attempt to make land area or population equal. Our political system accounts for inequality in these areas (although it could do better, and I'm certain we could get rid of the electoral college before we could redraw the states).
But the population center argument makes a lot of sense for reasons you specified. However, this philosophy may require adjustments in the future as population centers change over time.
In any case... it seems the only way this will happen is if the US collapses, and from what most post-apocalyptic TV shows indicates, the way to do that is to permanently kill our ability to create and use electricity.
Well, ok, and I'd gladly do anything to get Auburn out of the state.:)
Actually the Florida panhandle, in my opinion, makes so much more sense as part of Alabama. The residents, their political leaning, and the general culture are closer to southern Alabama than to the rest of Florida.
But I don't really understand why the boundaries are curved. Natural features still make more sense in my opinion, but ignoring that, why not focus more on lines of longitude and latitude? Perhaps some straight diagonals.
But I agree that the northeast does make more sense (border shapes excluded) than the current arrangement.
I'd like to see this map, but with 8 or 16 states (hey let's make it a power of 2 while we're at it) and straight borders.
The problem really isn't about keeping laws local (although many laws work much better that way). It is about influence. My elected representatives should ideally only represent the people of my district or state, but many times they represent lobbyists and their own interests.
The ideal in my mind is for the central government to make many of the laws just as it does today, while the states as a whole would have a power to overturn any such laws.
In theory the Constitution provides this in the form of a convention of the states, to pass constitutional amendments. But this has never happened. It is logistically very difficult to get so many states together. And every time it has happened, Congress caved just enough to keep the states from doing something truly unfavorable (unfavorable to Congress, that is).
To that regard, fewer states within the federal system may help. Perhaps 5 or 10 as you mentioned, but still part of a larger federal government. Keeping the federal system helps us maintain a very powerful national defense, and provides interstate agreements that I am not very quick to give up.
This sounds awfully like something I've heard of before...
It seems like we have around 50 of them...
I don't know, let's call them crates... as if we were part of a united crates of America, or something
Now it seems some folks don't like these crates being involved in anything. They believe the federal government is better than the crates at passing laws, executing those laws, and then judging people against those laws. No matter that the central government's power is thousands of miles away from many of these crates.
Nevertheless, some wish the crates would just go away. Nobody has time for issues like crates' rights.... meh, that's a tradition that has long since been eradicated.
hahahaha! Gates is anything but. His "charity" is a tax dodgy scam.
It's not about doing "good", it's about increasing his personal wealth.
If he's spending $X on charity, then he gets a deduction of some amount less than $X in taxes. He doesn't end up richer (at least money-wise); he just redirects government funding to suit his charity interests.
Trains and cars are so different in practically every way that trying to compare them, and how their automated operations would work, is useless.
Just the fact that automated cars have to be designed to deal with many various forms of traffic, and do not run on tracks, means the train automation was designed without many of the considerations and safeguards that are a minimum in automated cars.
Office 365 is a subscription plan with yearly costs. But I feel it is a better plan since any future release is included, and generally costs less in the long run vs. purchasing each version as it cones out.
I just wanted to explain the reason budgeting in advance is preferred, at risk of stating the obvious. Companies tend to have a lot of moving parts, and if part P needs to be ready by date D, it may be due to dependencies. Those dependencies are in many forms including additional development that needs part P, time for QA, deadlines promised to the customer, and so on.
So if suddenly part P is going to take 5 days more to fix a bug that was unforeseen in a third party component, that could have a major effect on getting everything to market. What if QA has a tight schedule and, 5 days later, already has something else scheduled for testing? It might be a month or two before they get around to getting your component tested. Same applies to other forms of dependency.
There is nothing stopping a company from fixing bugs itself
If the company doesn't hire programmers, or if their programmers are not competent at the particular language/APIs/tools at hand, then this path would require hiring new developers and potentially purchasing development software. So in this case, cost may be stopping the company.
or outsourcing to a company to do so.
Assuming this even exists. Only a few of the open source projects I've used have any type of paid support, which brings the company back to paying for their own developers.
Granted, the company probably saved a lot of money by using open source in the first place. But in the end, many companies will choose to foot a larger bill if they can budget for it in advance. "We will need $100,000 for Office licenses" often sounds better than "We didn't budget for it, but it turns out we need $30,000 for various unforeseen development expenses."
Quod erat demonstrandum means "which had to be demonstrated". You failed to state what you were demonstrating, and then failed to actually demonstrate anything (other than your use of the composition/division fallacy).
One analog button means you generally are limited to binary states mapped to time in the form of pulse width. Controlling pulse width tends to be difficult, so we wind up with a language where individual pulses have limited expressiveness and, thus, multiple pulses are required in order to express a concept. Morse Code is an example, where multiple pulses are used to express the concept of alphabet symbols.
But also we can take advantage of context switching. If we switch from a context of typing to a context of motion, then the language can reuse pulse patterns to drive the movement (e.g. there can be quick patterns to express direction, go, and stop).
Selling a million game consoles will produce less benefit to fewer users than taking the equivalent hardware and putting it into a server farm.
A console in the average game console owner's home sits unpowered for the vast majority of the day. That hardware in a server farm will be used 100% of the day, meaning more hardware will be available for more people.
A server farm can be far more energy efficient than a million consoles.
Obviously there are tradeoffs, but to dismiss the concept outright is not helpful.
I accept your claim that you have no experience with Linux
Actually I have quite a bit of experience with Linux. Here's a tiny bit of proof... just search for ID 6746.
But unlike you, I seem to have experience with other operating systems as well.
along with your acknowledment that you are too stupid to figure out that more people will buy a $300.00 laptop than will buy a $1000.00 laptop, regardless of OS.
How do you define "superior"? This argument is about the general masses, not just you. The question is, which system will the user would take home? I say it will be the Windows computer almost all of the time, and history completely has my side.
You do realize that OEMs have created pre-configured Linux desktop computers, right? And how well did that go?
If Apple can't dethrone Windows on the desktop, or even come close despite having an arguably better experience in every way (and much better than Linux)... you certainly are not going to do it either.
Slashdot Mirror
The first BUILD conference was in 2011.
I want to be able to code this to make a game:
int main(int argc, const char* argv[])
{
CreateGameThatIsSortOfLikeAngryBirdsAndMakeMeMillionsOfDollarsOvernight();
}
Anything else is too hard.
I haven't tried, so really I don't know, but I suspect that at least 75% of the total border length (that is not on an ocean or country border) could be drawn using latitude and longitude lines, with the rest using straight angled lines.
I don't see any great reason to attempt to make land area or population equal. Our political system accounts for inequality in these areas (although it could do better, and I'm certain we could get rid of the electoral college before we could redraw the states).
But the population center argument makes a lot of sense for reasons you specified. However, this philosophy may require adjustments in the future as population centers change over time.
In any case... it seems the only way this will happen is if the US collapses, and from what most post-apocalyptic TV shows indicates, the way to do that is to permanently kill our ability to create and use electricity.
Well, ok, and I'd gladly do anything to get Auburn out of the state. :)
Actually the Florida panhandle, in my opinion, makes so much more sense as part of Alabama. The residents, their political leaning, and the general culture are closer to southern Alabama than to the rest of Florida.
But I don't really understand why the boundaries are curved. Natural features still make more sense in my opinion, but ignoring that, why not focus more on lines of longitude and latitude? Perhaps some straight diagonals.
But I agree that the northeast does make more sense (border shapes excluded) than the current arrangement.
I'd like to see this map, but with 8 or 16 states (hey let's make it a power of 2 while we're at it) and straight borders.
I've seen that map and I hate it. If for no other reason than my state would now be called "Talladego".
The problem really isn't about keeping laws local (although many laws work much better that way). It is about influence. My elected representatives should ideally only represent the people of my district or state, but many times they represent lobbyists and their own interests.
The ideal in my mind is for the central government to make many of the laws just as it does today, while the states as a whole would have a power to overturn any such laws.
In theory the Constitution provides this in the form of a convention of the states, to pass constitutional amendments. But this has never happened. It is logistically very difficult to get so many states together. And every time it has happened, Congress caved just enough to keep the states from doing something truly unfavorable (unfavorable to Congress, that is).
To that regard, fewer states within the federal system may help. Perhaps 5 or 10 as you mentioned, but still part of a larger federal government. Keeping the federal system helps us maintain a very powerful national defense, and provides interstate agreements that I am not very quick to give up.
This sounds awfully like something I've heard of before...
It seems like we have around 50 of them...
I don't know, let's call them crates... as if we were part of a united crates of America, or something
Now it seems some folks don't like these crates being involved in anything. They believe the federal government is better than the crates at passing laws, executing those laws, and then judging people against those laws. No matter that the central government's power is thousands of miles away from many of these crates.
Nevertheless, some wish the crates would just go away. Nobody has time for issues like crates' rights.... meh, that's a tradition that has long since been eradicated.
hahahaha! Gates is anything but. His "charity" is a tax dodgy scam.
It's not about doing "good", it's about increasing his personal wealth.
If he's spending $X on charity, then he gets a deduction of some amount less than $X in taxes. He doesn't end up richer (at least money-wise); he just redirects government funding to suit his charity interests.
its a problem with ANY group or individual that want to decide what's "best for you."
what's best for you never seems to be very good for them.
If it's not best for you, then aren't you the stupid one for listening to them?
Trains and cars are so different in practically every way that trying to compare them, and how their automated operations would work, is useless.
Just the fact that automated cars have to be designed to deal with many various forms of traffic, and do not run on tracks, means the train automation was designed without many of the considerations and safeguards that are a minimum in automated cars.
Windows 7 is very much like Vista... where do you stand on it?
Better yet, disable HTTP. This is a MITM injection attack and SSL was invented to help prevent this.
People can complain as much as they want
Yep, that about sums up the Internet.
I cannot legally build my house right over your house, even if it never touches the ground that you bought.
I don't see the point here. Even if we assume I don't own air rights above my house, that doesn't mean that you do.
Office 365 is a subscription plan with yearly costs. But I feel it is a better plan since any future release is included, and generally costs less in the long run vs. purchasing each version as it cones out.
(I wish there were an edit button.)
I just wanted to explain the reason budgeting in advance is preferred, at risk of stating the obvious. Companies tend to have a lot of moving parts, and if part P needs to be ready by date D, it may be due to dependencies. Those dependencies are in many forms including additional development that needs part P, time for QA, deadlines promised to the customer, and so on.
So if suddenly part P is going to take 5 days more to fix a bug that was unforeseen in a third party component, that could have a major effect on getting everything to market. What if QA has a tight schedule and, 5 days later, already has something else scheduled for testing? It might be a month or two before they get around to getting your component tested. Same applies to other forms of dependency.
There is nothing stopping a company from fixing bugs itself
If the company doesn't hire programmers, or if their programmers are not competent at the particular language/APIs/tools at hand, then this path would require hiring new developers and potentially purchasing development software. So in this case, cost may be stopping the company.
or outsourcing to a company to do so.
Assuming this even exists. Only a few of the open source projects I've used have any type of paid support, which brings the company back to paying for their own developers.
Granted, the company probably saved a lot of money by using open source in the first place. But in the end, many companies will choose to foot a larger bill if they can budget for it in advance. "We will need $100,000 for Office licenses" often sounds better than "We didn't budget for it, but it turns out we need $30,000 for various unforeseen development expenses."
QED.
Quod erat demonstrandum means "which had to be demonstrated". You failed to state what you were demonstrating, and then failed to actually demonstrate anything (other than your use of the composition/division fallacy).
There's also the question of whose dime this caffeine nap is on: the employee, or the employer.
Each has an opinion and it's probably not the same opinion.
TWC: "Surely only Comcast can save us! Please allow the merger!"
Government: "Well golly gee, what a great idea!"
One analog button means you generally are limited to binary states mapped to time in the form of pulse width. Controlling pulse width tends to be difficult, so we wind up with a language where individual pulses have limited expressiveness and, thus, multiple pulses are required in order to express a concept. Morse Code is an example, where multiple pulses are used to express the concept of alphabet symbols.
But also we can take advantage of context switching. If we switch from a context of typing to a context of motion, then the language can reuse pulse patterns to drive the movement (e.g. there can be quick patterns to express direction, go, and stop).
Selling a million game consoles will produce less benefit to fewer users than taking the equivalent hardware and putting it into a server farm.
A console in the average game console owner's home sits unpowered for the vast majority of the day. That hardware in a server farm will be used 100% of the day, meaning more hardware will be available for more people.
A server farm can be far more energy efficient than a million consoles.
Obviously there are tradeoffs, but to dismiss the concept outright is not helpful.
Yes, please continue to illustrate your powerful use of ad hominem. When you can't beat them, call them names!
I accept your claim that you have no experience with Linux
Actually I have quite a bit of experience with Linux. Here's a tiny bit of proof... just search for ID 6746.
But unlike you, I seem to have experience with other operating systems as well.
along with your acknowledment that you are too stupid to figure out that more people will buy a $300.00 laptop than will buy a $1000.00 laptop, regardless of OS.
You mean, like these?
How do you define "superior"? This argument is about the general masses, not just you. The question is, which system will the user would take home? I say it will be the Windows computer almost all of the time, and history completely has my side.
You do realize that OEMs have created pre-configured Linux desktop computers, right? And how well did that go?
If Apple can't dethrone Windows on the desktop, or even come close despite having an arguably better experience in every way (and much better than Linux)... you certainly are not going to do it either.