We see illegal immigrants getting more services(including health care that they never plan to pay the bill for) than those who were born here and have been paying taxes and generally following the rules.
What?
Even including your healthcare example (and I know *plenty* of non-immigrants who welch on their hospital bills), immigrants do indeed pay for those services, via working for lower wages. It is the employers of the illegal immigrants who are getting the financial benefits of those ~free services at your expense, not the immigrants themselves. Also, can you provide some kind of citation for that? As far as I know, it's FUD, as the comprehensive studies I've seen show that illegal immigrants actually receive less benefits than poor citizens -- and are more likely to pay things like property taxes because of the fear of deportation.
We also see more of a focus on helping those in other countries than in helping the lower and middle class citizens improve their lives.
Again, what? Tuition assistance, student loans, Social Security, welfare, Medicare/medicaid? Just because a ton of the foreign programs are in the news doesn't mean that there isn't a larger fiscal focus on helping the poor here.
Oh, I agree with the gist of your post, it's just that you've picked extremely poor (and factually incorrect) examples to make your point.
You're missing the fact that the Iraqi oilfields are relatively untapped, unlike the US's oil fields, the Saudi's oil fields, etc. Iraq holds quite possibly the last remaining large cheap-to-extract oil fileds in the world.
Not if the government steps in and incurs some heavy fines or something...
You're new around here, aren't you???
No, he said the government would incur the fines, which means the government would have to pay them. What would be odd is if the government were to assess some heavy fines.:)
It does depend on which model PET, though. THe original had 4k memory, I think they offered an 8k version later that year (1977). Eventually (1980 or 81, IIRC) the PET had 32k memory, and could handle anything the VIC20 could (except for graphics, of course -- the problem with the PET was that the character library was in ROM, and so it was impossible to create custome graphics instead of PETSCII analogues)...
At any rate, the VIC-20 had only 3.5k memory available... you must have had one with expanded memory? I think they went up to 40k or thereabouts.
"The Intel Threading Tools automatically finds correctness and performance issues" (The tools finds?)
No, the "Intel Threading Tools" is a product, in the singular -- it finds. Maybe Intel threading tools would find, but notice the subtle difference?
"Along with sufficient task scheduler and generic parallel patterns" (Who has insufficient task scheduler?)
OK, sso it's a bit awkward to parse, but isn't it obvious by the grammar that "sufficient" modifies both "task scheduler patterns" and "generic parallel patterns"?
"automatic debugger of threaded programs which detects many of thread-correctness issues such as data-races, dead-locks, threads stalls" (Sarcasm fails me...)
Oh wait, nevermind. This sentence shows that the author truly can't write clearly. Silly me, thinking that the author intentionally used correct grammar, instead of stumbling upon it by accident. Sorry about that.
I'm used to informative, well-written and reasonably complete technical documentation from Intel -- WTF is this?
This? This is Slashdot. Maybe Intel decided to go with the flow and make it seem like they are a true Slashdot insider. It's quite a nice bit of trickery, really -- if they really want it to succeed, they'll issue the same press release tomorrow.
Try using a VIC 20 or TI 99/4a for a few hours, then tell me how important it is to have your competitor design a compiler that optimizes for your CPU.
Noob. Try punchcards. At the very least, the Commodore PET. The VIC-20 was an awesomely powerful piece of hardware compared to that.
Why wouldn't a market thrive for non-crippled seed?
Oh, the demand will be there to a certain extent, but given the ever-growing disparity in yields between GM'd & crippled seed, more and more producers are shifting to the proprietary crippled seed from Monsanto et al. This is especially true in areas dependent on aid for profitable farming -- like the small farms of the US, or the farms in marginal East Africa. Take away subsidies, and all the sudden the gain in yield and reduction in operating costs with GM'd seed becomes VERY important, as does economies of scale -- leading to larger farm corporations, and more decisions based on the simple bottom line.
The only problem I can see is if there were a chance of the terminator gene being introduced to the farmers' crops unwillingly - has this been studied?
Yes, it is possible, and has happened, as other posters have pointed out. The question is, who bears responsibility for the subsequent year's failed crop -- how can you prove it was you neighbor to the east who killed your crop? Also, in the long run, the availability of non-crippled seed will approach zero, as the crippled seed becomes an ever-larger part of the market.
Using last year's seeds/etc is how the small farmer can even bear to get a living against a corporate farm.
Not so any longer, due to crop engineering. Last year's seed cannot compete with the engineered mule seed that the large corporations use. Pesticide resistance, herbicide resistance, better drought tolerance, etc, all come bundled with the sterility gene package. The cost of seed is minor compared to the reduced operating costs and increased yield of the corporate megafarms.
The only things that can keep the small farmer in business are proximity to distribution center/market and community goodwill. That, and government subsidies to artificially reduce supply and inflate prices.
Gee, maybe the grandparent to your post? "New York" is indeed a codeword, and he's playing on the negative connotations of it in order to drum up Christian Fundamentalist outrage.
Then again, you can't say "cock", so that should be "cat-you-c@ckatrice-kobold"
And then we get "cat-you-cockactrice-you-cockatrice-kobold-ant-far mer-rat-imp-cockatrice-floatingeye.
Not censorship isn't about free speech -- it's about avoiding recursive pronounciation problems with censored nouns in the nethack/adom languages, as any geek should know.
Fallen empires made some decks seriously sick, but it was specifically targeted to enable the creation of certain kinds of decks -- like the merfolk denial deck. The Seasinger was a punishing card.
The reason is that you can't measure the status of the particle except in correlation with its entangled particle. So, although the state can change, it can't be measured without communicating via classical channels (non-FTL) with whoever is observing the other particle.
but if you try to manipulate your photon then it unties from the other, so you cant use it to send info faster than light.
Not so; the problem isn't that it untangles, it's that no useful data can be sent FTL. Sure, you can change the state of the particle, and the entangled particle will also change state. But you can't determine the meaning of the changed state unless you have a traditional (read: non-FTL) communication channel to compare results of your analysis.
Patrick Van Esch explains it much better than I can:
all things you can measure locally are determined by the LOCAL reduced density matrix, and this matrix doesn't change when one or another measurement is performed, or not, on the OTHER system. So locally, no result (average, probability....) changes.
What DOES change is the correlations between the two subsystems, but you can only find that out when you bring the local measurements together through some classical information channel (a telephone, for instance).
If the Bush Administration wants to make the case that they (The Bush Administration) have been more successful than the EU in reducing emissions, then the logical start point for comparison is about when they took over which would be 2001.
Except that's not the case they want to make -- they want to make the case that the US has been doing better than the EU, not just their administration.
As for GDP/CO2 ratios, your (somewhat) trusted friend wikipedia will show you that the US ranks 39th as of 2002 -- but note that the linked chart uses 2002 CO2 emissions with estimated 2005 GDP. Slightly better than the world average, but near the bottom of developed countries. As for CO2 per GDP, the USDOE publishes those figures -- here's an xls file for metric tons CO2 per $1000 of GDP 1980 - 2004 (year 2000 dollars, using purchase parity figures). I think you'll find the data useful -- it shows that the US is one of the least efficient in terms of CO2 output, particularly large nations.
2004: 138th out of 195 entities with data. 2000: 137th 1997: 139th 1990: 135th.
So, the US has made recent gains on worldwide ranking -- but really, why should the U.S. be proud of slightly improved mediocrity?
I just wanted to comment again on the validity of the current administration looking at figures from 2000 onward. Sure, they shouldn't take credit/blame for gains/losses in productivity vs. CO2 output for years prior to 2000. Then again, they shouldn't take much credit/blame for the ratio after 2000, either. Most of the policies and economic circumstances that resulted in figures for the several years after 2000 occurred before Bush took office. Not only that, but little of it is within direct control of the administration. If you want to look at the impact the Bush administration has had on CO2 outputs, you'll need to look at 2003-4 to 2010, at least.
To purchase != to open, which is where you were getting hung up before.
The legal distinction is that the consumer has no redress if they do not want to accept the license agreement for a shrinkwrap license, which is why shrinkwrap EULAs are typically invalid -- they require acceptance of the license in order to read them. Note that even with the original "shrinkwrap" license, one could return the software unopened; it was opening that triggered the license.
The Visual Studios UELA is a clickwrap license, not a shrinkwrap license. Once can choose not to install the product if one does not like the license, and if so, the license never goes into effect.
Not only is exclusivity the name of the game, it is in the interest of both parties to be able to 'massage' the data as they see fit.
Blu-ray: We sold more units!!1 HD-DVD: Our sales volume was higher!!1
While both are factually true, the other important issue is installed base; I would think if sales per playback unit of media are higher for one format than the other, it would make sense for content producers to shift to that unit (once data has been normalized for demographic, of course). This works in the long run, anyway, once the playback device market has matured -- assuming that content availability is factored into the purchase of playback devices.
What if I was giving away free tree-cutting saws, and I was using them as a demo for my pipe-cutting saw, and then someone else gave away free kits to turn my tree-cutting saws into pipe-cutting saws, and thereby reduced my revenue?
Again, you're talking of material goods. Perhaps the distinction is still lost on you? At any rate, you're still missing the fact I agreed not to use a modified saw if the modification required surpassing limitations on the saw.
BZZZZZZZZZT. WRONG! It's where you can't view the license before purchasing the product. I'm not sure how free-as-in-beer software is handled, but I can tell you that you don't need to agree to a license to download the product, which could be considered analogous to purchase.
No, you've still got it wrong, despite your immature buzzer sound (note that those don't make you right, they just make you look more the fool for being wrong).
The question is, when does the license go into effect? You'll note that typically it's the USE or INSTALLATION of a product that triggers the EULA, not the download. A shrinkwrap EULA is one where you cannot read the terms of the license until you've accepted the license, whether the license goes into effect at time of purchase or time of use.
Go to wikipedia if you're still confused, it's spelled out very clearly. The term arises from when paper licenses were included in shrink-wrapped boxes, and not viewable until the shrinkwrap was removed (and the license stated it became valid when the shrinkwrapped was removed). Note that the purchase of the software has nothing to do with when the license goes into effect; it's the conflict between when the license is viewable and when the license goes into effect that causes legal problems.
Go ahead. Research it, you'll find that you're incorrect. I'll give you a tasty hint, try looking up the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and their rulings on EULAs in 2005-6.
The Visual Studio license expressly doesn't go into effect until after you've agreed to the terms; furthermore, you can refuse the license without the license already being in effect -- thus it is not a shrinkwrap EULA.
Really, if you're going to discuss something, why not bother learning the definitions of the terms you're using?
Slashdot Mirror
Even including your healthcare example (and I know *plenty* of non-immigrants who welch on their hospital bills), immigrants do indeed pay for those services, via working for lower wages. It is the employers of the illegal immigrants who are getting the financial benefits of those ~free services at your expense, not the immigrants themselves. Also, can you provide some kind of citation for that? As far as I know, it's FUD, as the comprehensive studies I've seen show that illegal immigrants actually receive less benefits than poor citizens -- and are more likely to pay things like property taxes because of the fear of deportation.
Again, what? Tuition assistance, student loans, Social Security, welfare, Medicare/medicaid? Just because a ton of the foreign programs are in the news doesn't mean that there isn't a larger fiscal focus on helping the poor here.
Oh, I agree with the gist of your post, it's just that you've picked extremely poor (and factually incorrect) examples to make your point.
15 GOSUB 30
...
35 RETURN
40 REM FTFY
It does depend on which model PET, though. THe original had 4k memory, I think they offered an 8k version later that year (1977). Eventually (1980 or 81, IIRC) the PET had 32k memory, and could handle anything the VIC20 could (except for graphics, of course -- the problem with the PET was that the character library was in ROM, and so it was impossible to create custome graphics instead of PETSCII analogues)...
At any rate, the VIC-20 had only 3.5k memory available... you must have had one with expanded memory? I think they went up to 40k or thereabouts.
Ah, good times.
OK, sso it's a bit awkward to parse, but isn't it obvious by the grammar that "sufficient" modifies both "task scheduler patterns" and "generic parallel patterns"?
Oh wait, nevermind. This sentence shows that the author truly can't write clearly. Silly me, thinking that the author intentionally used correct grammar, instead of stumbling upon it by accident. Sorry about that.
This? This is Slashdot. Maybe Intel decided to go with the flow and make it seem like they are a true Slashdot insider. It's quite a nice bit of trickery, really -- if they really want it to succeed, they'll issue the same press release tomorrow.
The only things that can keep the small farmer in business are proximity to distribution center/market and community goodwill. That, and government subsidies to artificially reduce supply and inflate prices.
Gee, maybe the grandparent to your post? "New York" is indeed a codeword, and he's playing on the negative connotations of it in order to drum up Christian Fundamentalist outrage.
Well, it's hard to tell in black-and-white...
r mer-rat-imp-cockatrice-floatingeye.
But I'd say "cat-you-cockatrice-kobold".
Then again, you can't say "cock", so that should be "cat-you-c@ckatrice-kobold"
And then we get "cat-you-cockactrice-you-cockatrice-kobold-ant-fa
Not censorship isn't about free speech -- it's about avoiding recursive pronounciation problems with censored nouns in the nethack/adom languages, as any geek should know.
Yes the change is instantaneous. I was throughly confused about this until the last thread with quantum entanglement in TFA... so I'm no expert.
Fallen empires made some decks seriously sick, but it was specifically targeted to enable the creation of certain kinds of decks -- like the merfolk denial deck. The Seasinger was a punishing card.
The reason is that you can't measure the status of the particle except in correlation with its entangled particle. So, although the state can change, it can't be measured without communicating via classical channels (non-FTL) with whoever is observing the other particle.
Oh yeah?
What if a giant hive mind sends its fearsome formians to chew up his system in order to feed the silicon cravings of the queen ant?
Well, guess what, ants don't like RAID of any flavor, no more than they like Black Flag. But Henry Rollins has nothing to do with this.
Patrick Van Esch explains it much better than I can:
As for GDP/CO2 ratios, your (somewhat) trusted friend wikipedia will show you that the US ranks 39th as of 2002 -- but note that the linked chart uses 2002 CO2 emissions with estimated 2005 GDP. Slightly better than the world average, but near the bottom of developed countries. As for CO2 per GDP, the USDOE publishes those figures -- here's an xls file for metric tons CO2 per $1000 of GDP 1980 - 2004 (year 2000 dollars, using purchase parity figures). I think you'll find the data useful -- it shows that the US is one of the least efficient in terms of CO2 output, particularly large nations.
2004: 138th out of 195 entities with data.
2000: 137th
1997: 139th
1990: 135th.
So, the US has made recent gains on worldwide ranking -- but really, why should the U.S. be proud of slightly improved mediocrity?
I just wanted to comment again on the validity of the current administration looking at figures from 2000 onward. Sure, they shouldn't take credit/blame for gains/losses in productivity vs. CO2 output for years prior to 2000. Then again, they shouldn't take much credit/blame for the ratio after 2000, either. Most of the policies and economic circumstances that resulted in figures for the several years after 2000 occurred before Bush took office. Not only that, but little of it is within direct control of the administration. If you want to look at the impact the Bush administration has had on CO2 outputs, you'll need to look at 2003-4 to 2010, at least.
...or something like that I once heard at a punk show.
To purchase != to open, which is where you were getting hung up before.
The legal distinction is that the consumer has no redress if they do not want to accept the license agreement for a shrinkwrap license, which is why shrinkwrap EULAs are typically invalid -- they require acceptance of the license in order to read them. Note that even with the original "shrinkwrap" license, one could return the software unopened; it was opening that triggered the license.
The Visual Studios UELA is a clickwrap license, not a shrinkwrap license. Once can choose not to install the product if one does not like the license, and if so, the license never goes into effect.
Not only is exclusivity the name of the game, it is in the interest of both parties to be able to 'massage' the data as they see fit.
Blu-ray: We sold more units!!1
HD-DVD: Our sales volume was higher!!1
While both are factually true, the other important issue is installed base; I would think if sales per playback unit of media are higher for one format than the other, it would make sense for content producers to shift to that unit (once data has been normalized for demographic, of course). This works in the long run, anyway, once the playback device market has matured -- assuming that content availability is factored into the purchase of playback devices.
The question is, when does the license go into effect? You'll note that typically it's the USE or INSTALLATION of a product that triggers the EULA, not the download. A shrinkwrap EULA is one where you cannot read the terms of the license until you've accepted the license, whether the license goes into effect at time of purchase or time of use.
Go to wikipedia if you're still confused, it's spelled out very clearly. The term arises from when paper licenses were included in shrink-wrapped boxes, and not viewable until the shrinkwrap was removed (and the license stated it became valid when the shrinkwrapped was removed). Note that the purchase of the software has nothing to do with when the license goes into effect; it's the conflict between when the license is viewable and when the license goes into effect that causes legal problems.
Go ahead. Research it, you'll find that you're incorrect. I'll give you a tasty hint, try looking up the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and their rulings on EULAs in 2005-6.
The Visual Studio license expressly doesn't go into effect until after you've agreed to the terms; furthermore, you can refuse the license without the license already being in effect -- thus it is not a shrinkwrap EULA.
Really, if you're going to discuss something, why not bother learning the definitions of the terms you're using?