If Disney goes out of business, you'll have more important things to worry about, like the collapse of civilization as we know it.
Disney isn't going anywhere, not when they have the backing of the US government (among others) to ensure that you, citizen, can only watch/read/listen to items if you pay the Disney tax (for things that should have been in the public domain decades ago).
The DVDs you have purchased will wear out long before Disney is dead and gone.
Why try "fix" something that isn't broken? What they need to fix is their prices. Maybe if it was cheaper and worth buying, people wouldn't copy so much?
Why do that, when they can just make sure that people are punished for copying? Make it not worth the risk to copy.
No, the purpose of insurance, medical or otherwise, is for like-risk individuals[1] to form a pool and trade assessed risk for equivalent, but predictable[2], premiums. Subsidies have nothing to do with it.
1. The 'like-risk individual' qualification -- I believe this to be an incorrect assumption on your part. There is no such thing as 'like-risk' -- the question is to what extent we can factor known risk factors into premiums.
2. Yet when you proposed adjusted premiums for ascertained variable risk, that contradicts your definition of the purpose of insurance.
3. Effectively, those who incur reimbursable expense are subsidized by those who don't. That's the nature of the system, and how it operates when operating as intended. Those who do not make claims subsidize (through their premiums) those who do make claims. Not sure how you could claim it operates any differently than this.
We have very different philosophical stances, and we'll never agree on those foundations. But I think if you want to split hairs on terminology, you need to be very careful.
and maybe they can make SENS work so we'll all be "effectively immortal"
If you want to get SENS working right, you have to blow on the cartridge, but that's ridiculous. Who'd want to make SNES work when they could get the N-64 working and play Goldeneye instead?
Modern cars, sadly, have little of the feedback of old. I'm convinced this makes them less safe, because you can't feel what the road's doing under you like you used to.
That's why I intentionally damage my shock absorbers in every vehicle I buy, so I can get maximum feedback of the road surface.
So far, so good, though the members of my carpool have been less than enthusiastic about wearing their coffee on their shirts when I drive.
That's only "bad" if you turn out to be predisposed, in which case your higher risk will no longer be subsidized and you'll have to pay fair premiums in proportion to your risk.
Thereby making the cost of insurance prohibitive to those with genetic predisposition to serious, expensive-to-treat maladies. This works out exactly the same as denying those people insurance coverage, unless they are very wealthy. This defeats the general purpose of medical insurance (which IS for the healthy to subsidize the sick).
From a libertarian standpoint (yours, I'm assuming, from prior discussions), why not just get rid of health insurance altogether? That's the only way to ensure that everyone pays their "fair" costs into the system. That seems to be what you're getting at, so why mince words?
The "net neutrality" rules as reported will jeopardize the very goals supported by the Obama administration that every American have access to high-speed Internet services no matter where they live or their economic circumstance. That goal can't be met with rules that halt private investment in broadband infrastructure. And the jobs associated with that investment will be lost at a time when the country can least afford it.
Who needs to blatantly hinge jobs upon action/inaction to the letter when FUD inside the letter works so well?
Whatever, though. This is just like unions telling their members to do the same thing for the benefit of their employers (and thus themselves)... just without the go-between of the union. It happens all the time.
Gays who have campaigned elsewhere, and run petitions for ballot items, have put up with their names being publicly available.
If you're a raging homophobe in private, fine. If you want to sign a petition calling for a ballot on restricting the rights of people you don't like -- have the balls to accept the potential consequences.
I'm just going to agree with you, and add one more significant item that I think some people are missing...
Signing a petition is a public, formal, declaration of support for something. That's what a petition is. That's the entire purpose of a petition. Period.
This is not about sunshine laws or oppression of anyone (gays or homophobes or religious fundamentalists). This whole issue arises from stupid people not understanding what it was they were signing... they signed a public statement of support.
At a million square feet, the mammoth $2 billion structure will be one-third larger than the US Capitol and will use the same amount of energy as every house in Salt Lake City combined.
Stupid non-standard unit. According to the official Salt Lake City Energy Blueprint, SLC has an annual electricity usage of 3.3 billion kWh, of which 17% is residential. This works out to 64 MW, or about 6 POOTs (Power Output of Togo), which is the accepted standard non-standard unit for power in this order of magnitude.
Lacking adequate space and power at its city-sized Fort Meade, Maryland, headquarters, the NSA is also completing work on another data archive, this one in San Antonio, Texas, which will be nearly the size of the Alamodome.
Assuming that they are referring to area, and not volume -- the Alamodome is about 40,000 square meters... the standard non-standard unit for area of this magnitude is American football fields (NOT random stadia) including endzones, which is 5351 square meters -- thus this data archive will be approximately 7+ football fields.
Now, if only the NSA released their specs in terms of Libraries of Congress....
Yes, it would be interesting to know how much data they will be storing in this facility.
But, sheesh, I understand not wanting to use standard units as they may just confuse the scientifically illiterate... but if the NSA or some other source is going to use non-standard units, they should at least use standard non-standard units like POOTs or football fields.
Then Visible 'scores' each post, labeling it as positive or negative, mixed or neutral. It examines how influential a conversation or an author is. ('Trying to determine who really matters,' as Cahill puts it.)
Seems like a redundant effort. Why not just check the author's karma on slashdot?
Surely my high slashdot karma means I'm one of the most influential people on the internet... right? Right?
What people seem to miss is that a Role Playing Game is not a Wargame. It may have simulation elements, but it's - at its roots - a narrative game.
FWIW, I've played D&D as both a narrative and as a pure strategy tabletop game.
Both ways of playing have their merits.
I've seen D&D GM'd as a creative problem-solving game. I've seen it GM'd as a "storytelling" game. I've seen it GM'd as a Monty Haul game. I've seen it DM'd as a wargame.
Automated systems - especially combat automators - will therefore either have to be sidestepped or manually updated on the fly - especially to edit out irreversible results like a deadly wound for someone in the party, or killing a valuable NPC and so on.
And yet, in my opinion, those are the things that make rpgs interesting. What does the party do when someone is killed off? How does the GM adjust on the fly to keep the plot moving? How can the eliminated player still participate (adding a new party member, assisting the GM, etc). A GM who fudges die rolls in order to keep the party intact makes for a poor game, IMO... then you have players taking risks they wouldn't otherwise take. Why shouldn't an enemy NPC get lucky sometimes? Why shouldn't a friendly (or key-to-the-plot) NPC get unlucky?
My point is, there are a ton of ways to play rpgs, and your particular favorite doesn't necessarily match everyone else's. And sure, you've talked to other people about it... but remember that there is a selection bias in your sample:).
For reference - that's 5%, essentially 5% profit. In most places in the business world, that would be considered screamingly successful. Doubly so since he's making an ongoing profit for work he did only once and isn't responsible for the ongoing work of marketing and stocking.
1. 5% is not a screaming success. My employer has had quarters where the net margin was *only* 18% and these led to managerial changes due to the failure to meet expectations.
2. You can't say he's making 5% profit. He's making some unknown amount of income (based upon to-date and future sales), in exchange for the time spent, his knowledge, and his writing ability.
Well, I can only suggest searching Thomas for it. Good luck, it's not easy to search by date. If you don't know which Congress passed it, you'll need to check several Congresses...
Because Google doesn't do retailing. It's not part of the business.
There is good reason for this. Google does what it does by being usable by everyone -- in this case, as a kind of wholesaler. If they get into retailing, now they are competing against others directly in the retail market -- which means those competitors won't use Google as their wholesaler.
It's better for Google if they are the wholesaler for as many retailers as possible, instead of being wholesaler & retailer only for themselves.
Not to overpersonify, but Google wants to be everywhere and behind everything. If they start elbowing out their customers in those customers' own spaces, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.
Umm... the FCC net neutrality rules are for ISPs in the US SPARKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good freaking grief we are talking about regulations FOR US COMPANIES, OPERATING IN THE US, SUPPLY SERVICES TO CUSTOMERS IN THE US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How about that for a reason!!!!!
Are you sure about blaming your local government? In my state, cable companies don't get monopoly agreements. However, outside of a few high density areas, no other cable company is going to come build a parallel infrastructure where there's already a large, entrenched player.
We do get an effective monopoly, but it's not the local government's fault. Well, aside from deciding not to build out its own municipal broadband utility (which some area cities have done).
Where I live, local government granted a local monopoly... because otherwise no cable company would have built out into the area at their expense. IIRC, at the time, if you wanted cable in NJ, you (or your municipality) paid for the buildout.
So yes, there's a government-granted local monopoly... but monopoly cable was seen as better than no cable in '84.
In the past, many scientists had thought that DNA was compressed into a different architecture called an "equilibrium globule," a configuration that is problematic because it can become densely knotted and does not easily open up.
Key to deciphering the genome's structure was the development of the new Hi-C technique, which permits genome-wide analysis of the proximity of individual genes.
When questioned about the research, Kool-Aid Man could only sob dejectedly as his rival took the glory.
No matter how many primes we find, there are the same amount left over. Such is infinity.
We cannot say there are the same amount left over... we can only say that there are an infinite number of primes left to be found. Not all infinities are equal.
Yeah, I know that Toyota makes cars of all sorts. But brand recognition (and association) affects where they go first. And studies have shown that people forget the negative brand association sooner than the brand recognition goes away.
But you're a moron if you think the death of a man is of any less significance than the death of a woman or a child.
Actually, no. The death of a man IS less significant than the death of a woman or (female) child.
From a long-term standpoint, the destruction of an enemy lies in destroying their ability to reproduce as fast as your tribe/civilization. This is less true now, due to technology, than it was for the past ten or twenty thousand years. But killing women and children is the only way to really commit genocide. Besides the fact that one man can impregnate hundreds of women, there is also the fact that surviving women on the loser's side will still get to pass on their genes.
And given that women are the primary store of cultural identity (in most cultures), a campaign of cultural genocide also requires killing of the women.
In short, there is the war over land and resources, and then there is the war of total annihilation. Killing women and children turns the war into something different, something more evil in my opinion.
That's poppycock. USA went to war with Japan over influence in the Asian mainland.
Pearl Harbor was the justification, but the US had been waging economic war for some time, prompted primarily by the Japanese actions toward, and invasion of, China.
Key aspect: Japan was dependent upon the US nearly 100% for its oil. Without oil, they could not hope to continue waging war on the mainland... so when the US enmbargoed the Japanese in 1941, it lead directly to Pearl Harbor.
The US knew it was headed to war with Japan unless Japan pulled out of Manchuria (which despite diplomatic negotiations, was known by both sides to be a no-go). Pearl Harbor was just more severe than had been anticipated for an opening sally.
It's even been speculated that Pearl Harbor was dangled in front of the Japanese to bait them into opening the hostilities. I'm not so sure about that theory, but worse things have happened to get a popular support for war.
Slashdot Mirror
Hahahahahahaha! Hah!
If Disney goes out of business, you'll have more important things to worry about, like the collapse of civilization as we know it.
Disney isn't going anywhere, not when they have the backing of the US government (among others) to ensure that you, citizen, can only watch/read/listen to items if you pay the Disney tax (for things that should have been in the public domain decades ago).
The DVDs you have purchased will wear out long before Disney is dead and gone.
Why do that, when they can just make sure that people are punished for copying? Make it not worth the risk to copy.
1. The 'like-risk individual' qualification -- I believe this to be an incorrect assumption on your part. There is no such thing as 'like-risk' -- the question is to what extent we can factor known risk factors into premiums.
2. Yet when you proposed adjusted premiums for ascertained variable risk, that contradicts your definition of the purpose of insurance.
3. Effectively, those who incur reimbursable expense are subsidized by those who don't. That's the nature of the system, and how it operates when operating as intended. Those who do not make claims subsidize (through their premiums) those who do make claims. Not sure how you could claim it operates any differently than this.
We have very different philosophical stances, and we'll never agree on those foundations. But I think if you want to split hairs on terminology, you need to be very careful.
If you want to get SENS working right, you have to blow on the cartridge, but that's ridiculous. Who'd want to make SNES work when they could get the N-64 working and play Goldeneye instead?
That's why I intentionally damage my shock absorbers in every vehicle I buy, so I can get maximum feedback of the road surface.
So far, so good, though the members of my carpool have been less than enthusiastic about wearing their coffee on their shirts when I drive.
Thereby making the cost of insurance prohibitive to those with genetic predisposition to serious, expensive-to-treat maladies. This works out exactly the same as denying those people insurance coverage, unless they are very wealthy.
This defeats the general purpose of medical insurance (which IS for the healthy to subsidize the sick).
From a libertarian standpoint (yours, I'm assuming, from prior discussions), why not just get rid of health insurance altogether? That's the only way to ensure that everyone pays their "fair" costs into the system. That seems to be what you're getting at, so why mince words?
I posted in this thread, so I can't mod you up.
Hopefully other mods will.
Maybe not the smartest move on her part.
She should keep a record of any and all conversations on the topic, in case it comes back to bite her.
Out of curiosity, who initiated the conversation with her boss about whether or not she took action?
Who needs to blatantly hinge jobs upon action/inaction to the letter when FUD inside the letter works so well?
Whatever, though. This is just like unions telling their members to do the same thing for the benefit of their employers (and thus themselves)... just without the go-between of the union. It happens all the time.
I'm just going to agree with you, and add one more significant item that I think some people are missing...
Signing a petition is a public, formal, declaration of support for something. That's what a petition is. That's the entire purpose of a petition. Period.
This is not about sunshine laws or oppression of anyone (gays or homophobes or religious fundamentalists). This whole issue arises from stupid people not understanding what it was they were signing... they signed a public statement of support.
Stupid non-standard unit. According to the official Salt Lake City Energy Blueprint, SLC has an annual electricity usage of 3.3 billion kWh, of which 17% is residential. This works out to 64 MW, or about 6 POOTs (Power Output of Togo), which is the accepted standard non-standard unit for power in this order of magnitude.
Assuming that they are referring to area, and not volume -- the Alamodome is about 40,000 square meters... the standard non-standard unit for area of this magnitude is American football fields (NOT random stadia) including endzones, which is 5351 square meters -- thus this data archive will be approximately 7+ football fields.
Yes, it would be interesting to know how much data they will be storing in this facility.
But, sheesh, I understand not wanting to use standard units as they may just confuse the scientifically illiterate... but if the NSA or some other source is going to use non-standard units, they should at least use standard non-standard units like POOTs or football fields.
Seems like a redundant effort. Why not just check the author's karma on slashdot?
Surely my high slashdot karma means I'm one of the most influential people on the internet... right? Right?
FWIW, I've played D&D as both a narrative and as a pure strategy tabletop game.
Both ways of playing have their merits.
I've seen D&D GM'd as a creative problem-solving game. I've seen it GM'd as a "storytelling" game. I've seen it GM'd as a Monty Haul game. I've seen it DM'd as a wargame.
And yet, in my opinion, those are the things that make rpgs interesting. What does the party do when someone is killed off? How does the GM adjust on the fly to keep the plot moving? How can the eliminated player still participate (adding a new party member, assisting the GM, etc). A GM who fudges die rolls in order to keep the party intact makes for a poor game, IMO... then you have players taking risks they wouldn't otherwise take. Why shouldn't an enemy NPC get lucky sometimes? Why shouldn't a friendly (or key-to-the-plot) NPC get unlucky?
:).
My point is, there are a ton of ways to play rpgs, and your particular favorite doesn't necessarily match everyone else's. And sure, you've talked to other people about it... but remember that there is a selection bias in your sample
1. 5% is not a screaming success. My employer has had quarters where the net margin was *only* 18% and these led to managerial changes due to the failure to meet expectations.
2. You can't say he's making 5% profit. He's making some unknown amount of income (based upon to-date and future sales), in exchange for the time spent, his knowledge, and his writing ability.
Well, I can only suggest searching Thomas for it. Good luck, it's not easy to search by date. If you don't know which Congress passed it, you'll need to check several Congresses...
Because Google doesn't do retailing. It's not part of the business.
There is good reason for this. Google does what it does by being usable by everyone -- in this case, as a kind of wholesaler. If they get into retailing, now they are competing against others directly in the retail market -- which means those competitors won't use Google as their wholesaler.
It's better for Google if they are the wholesaler for as many retailers as possible, instead of being wholesaler & retailer only for themselves.
Not to overpersonify, but Google wants to be everywhere and behind everything. If they start elbowing out their customers in those customers' own spaces, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.
The only thing I could find was HR 1226, which was passed by the Senate on 8/7/97... this may or not have been during the August recess...
HR 1226 made it illegal for IRS employees to "browse" tax returns.
Can you speak up? I'm having trouble hearing you.
Don't assume that no crappy food == no sticky seats. There are plenty of other things that can make seats sticky.
...
What? I'm thinking of kids with runny noses. If you thought something else, you're sick.
Where I live, local government granted a local monopoly... because otherwise no cable company would have built out into the area at their expense. IIRC, at the time, if you wanted cable in NJ, you (or your municipality) paid for the buildout.
So yes, there's a government-granted local monopoly... but monopoly cable was seen as better than no cable in '84.
When questioned about the research, Kool-Aid Man could only sob dejectedly as his rival took the glory.
We cannot say there are the same amount left over... we can only say that there are an infinite number of primes left to be found. Not all infinities are equal.
/+5 Hat of Greed equipped.
Oooh, I'm drooling! Let's see:
$APP detects two people within viewing distance of your monitor. [click here] to upgrade to the appropriate license.
/+5 Hat of Greed unequipped.
/+5 Hat of Stealth equipped.
Oooh, I'm drooling for different reasons. Let's see:
$APP detects additional person approaching monitor. Autominimize firefox://ridiculous.pornsite.com; automaximize firefox://romanticweekendgetawayswiththewife.toshowherhowmuchyouloveher.com.
Whew, that was a close one.
Yeah, I know that Toyota makes cars of all sorts. But brand recognition (and association) affects where they go first. And studies have shown that people forget the negative brand association sooner than the brand recognition goes away.
Actually, no. The death of a man IS less significant than the death of a woman or (female) child.
From a long-term standpoint, the destruction of an enemy lies in destroying their ability to reproduce as fast as your tribe/civilization. This is less true now, due to technology, than it was for the past ten or twenty thousand years. But killing women and children is the only way to really commit genocide. Besides the fact that one man can impregnate hundreds of women, there is also the fact that surviving women on the loser's side will still get to pass on their genes.
And given that women are the primary store of cultural identity (in most cultures), a campaign of cultural genocide also requires killing of the women.
In short, there is the war over land and resources, and then there is the war of total annihilation. Killing women and children turns the war into something different, something more evil in my opinion.
That's poppycock. USA went to war with Japan over influence in the Asian mainland.
Pearl Harbor was the justification, but the US had been waging economic war for some time, prompted primarily by the Japanese actions toward, and invasion of, China.
Key aspect: Japan was dependent upon the US nearly 100% for its oil. Without oil, they could not hope to continue waging war on the mainland... so when the US enmbargoed the Japanese in 1941, it lead directly to Pearl Harbor.
The US knew it was headed to war with Japan unless Japan pulled out of Manchuria (which despite diplomatic negotiations, was known by both sides to be a no-go). Pearl Harbor was just more severe than had been anticipated for an opening sally.
It's even been speculated that Pearl Harbor was dangled in front of the Japanese to bait them into opening the hostilities. I'm not so sure about that theory, but worse things have happened to get a popular support for war.