No, instead campaining will just never happen in lesser populated states. Why would a candidate spend the same amount of time, money, and effort going to Wyoming or Montana, when they can get 10 times as many people by going to just New York.
Actually, no. Ad buys generally cost an amount in proportion to the number of viewers of the ads. Candidates will place ads in low population areas, because advertising is cheap there. Economics actually would dictate an almost exact proportional distrobution of campaigning.
FTA: Another factory in Suzhou, Shanghai, makes iPod shuffles. The workers are housed outside the plant, and earn £54 per month - but they must pay for their accommodation and food, "which takes up half their salaries", the report observes.
Quick conversion... £54 = $99.49 US per month. So, the $50 per month is after room and board. Not great, but given cost of living and average salaries in China, I doubt these people are itching to leave anytime soon.
...And that's why everyone needs to stop with the worrying about "throwing away their vote" and vote either Libertarian or Green (since they're both for smaller, less obtrusive government).
The Libertarians: pretty much yes. Greens... well I'll let the party platform speak for itself:
"The accumulation of individual wealth in the U.S. has reached grossly unbalanced proportions. It is clear that we cannot rely on the rich to regulate their profit-making excesses for the good of society through "trickle-down economics." We must take aggressive steps to restore a fair distribution of income. We support tax incentives for businesses that apply fair employee wage distribution standards, and income tax policies that restrict the accumulation of excessive individual wealth."
They can, however, republish them. The original leaker has made the information public. The reporter is simply repeating information that has been (illegally) released into the public. Once the secret is out, its fair game
The laptop in question contained data on the US military, including senior officers (Joint Chiefs of Staff et. al.). A random thief wouldn't bother cracking it. Iran would.
The home unit costs $10,000. Even accounting for economies of scale/wholesaleing, it would probably cost at least $4,000/home. Batteries are expensive and not efficient. This is why electric cars don't work.
It specifically violates my right against "unreasonable search and seizure." If I am required to provide an ID upon arbitrary request of a government official, absent any suspicion, then peoples' "right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures" has indeed been violated.
These rights can be looked up in your handy-dandy fourth amendment.
I think that story is a hoax, or at best taken out of context.
While I can't speak to the truth of that particular story, I did find this on his website
Many people believe that Earth and all its resources exist solely for human benefit and consumption, this is anthropocentrism. We should allow the millions of other denizens of this Earth some space to live -- they evolved here just as we did and have a right to this planet, too.
I do not bear any ill will toward humanity. However, I am convinced that the world WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.
Regardless of what he calls it, that sounds pretty evil to me.
An axiom is a directly perceptible truth that cannot be undermined. I believe there are 3 axioms inherent in perception (perception being the common pre-conceptual experience of every person). Existence exists. (otherwise you wouldn't be there to perceive nothing) Things exist with identities. (otherwise everything would be EXACTLY the same) You are conscious of it. (otherwise you would not perceive it)
"There are no facts" cannot be an axiom because it is a. a negative (try perceiving a negative some time) and b. certainly not inherent in perception and c. wrong. There are facts.
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses (x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected (x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks (x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it (x) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it (x) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists (x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it (x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email (x) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses (x) Asshats (x) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email (x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches (x) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft (x) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering (x) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck (x) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually (x) Sending email should be free (x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses (x) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome (x) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. (x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid government for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
If you are having problems rendering pages, you can use the IEtab extension to Firefox. It renders the page by imbedding IE into Firefox. See it here http://ietab.mozdev.org/
As far as "So why don't they program firefox to render pages the same way IE does it?" there are 2 reasons.
#1) IE sucks at rendering things. (Try the ACID2 test if you don't believe me) #2) IE is proprietary, they can't get the source code (legally).
Note: The Second Amendment also grants the right to citizens to refuse keeping soldiers in their homes.
That would be the third amendment. The second one says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I imagine it scarcely differs from welding on Earth; no air is required*
Welding torches require oxygen in order to burn. In a ~0g environment you face a few unique problems.
Liquids (like really hot liquid metal) fly away, and can hit astronauts/equipment, and not cool on the spot of the weld (you seemed to realize this one on your own.)
Any sort of torch, assuming it provides its own oxygen, would either contaminate the air in the spacecraft, or if use outside, have the potential to apply thrust and move the craft off course.
If used inside the craft, the ~0g environment could allow large amounts of air to be incorporated into the metal...weakening it. (This principle is sometimes useful though...there are certain materials that can only be produced in a low gravity environment.)
Technically, every citizen has a duty to uphold the law and to report any wrongdoings to the relevant authorities.
Not in the United States. Under US law (with some local exceptions), there is no requirement that an individual report a crime or help in any way to uphold the law. Except when you have a specific obligation to do something (like a police officer, or school offical), inaction is not a crime.
The reason one can be an atheist and not an agnostic, while still being different from a theist is the burden of proof argument. It goes something like this:
Existence exists (if it didn't you wouldn't even have a mind to read/., let alone have/. itself exist), and everything exists as something. Because everything exists as something (at a minimum with a spatial/temporal relationship to the rest of reality) it can produce affirmative evidence of itself. Things which do not exist cannot produce evidence of themselves, because if they could, they would exist. Therefore, if there is no evidence regarding an argument, the null-hypothesis of non-existence must be held. In the case of God, absent direct affirmative proof, I assume God.
The burden of proof falls upon whoever makes an affirmative statement, because negative statements cannot be proven (there would be no evidence if the negative statement were correct.) This argument is also useful in explaining why we should not think we are in a matrix/under control of aliens/etc.
Sex in itself is not immoral, but perhaps a group of teenage sons and daughters (who likely do not understand the responsibilities that come with sex) having an orgy is.
The terms "son" and "daughter" apply to everyone last time I checked my biology textbook. While I understand that parents (rightly) have a strong emotional bond with their children, using those terms in this context simply serves to have emotional response override reason in a debate of ideas.
If its anything like the one in the Ga House, they go up to a giant light board with the Rep's name, where it turns on either a Red or Green light next to the name, and tallys all the lights
It is a fairly similar system, with a blue backlit board above the speaker's chair, and members using ID cards to vote. After the 15 minutes of a normal vote expire however, members have to use the old system of handing in a green (yea), red (nay), or orange (present) card.
I have checked/. from public terminals (such as my school) where IE is the only option. I am proud to say that I am running a machine on which IE has never been used, but sometimes, when I need to not pay attention in school, IE is the only option.
Indeed, and thats why they were a somewhat foolish target for attempts to undermine the preception of linux. Sure, IBM is high profile, and that helps at the beginning, but its not nearly as helpful to the anti-linux crowd when IBM wins.
But on average it is totally true. Total amount won = total amount bet - rake. The average winnings will always be about 1-2% smaller than the average bet...so on average, poker players lose too.
I fully support efforts of lawmakers to shield kids from garbage, because it's a good failsafe mechanism. As a parent, I will not let my kids do things that I don't approve
When lawmakers shield children from what you consider "garbage" they take on the role of moral parent for those children. And since those children exist in the same society and media which adults do, then those lawmakers become everyone's parent. I for one do not want Dennis Hastert, George Bush, Harry Ried or anyone else telling me what to listen to. Force is the only means of government action...it's what they do, and when you use guns to dictate speech, thats called fascism.
Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech. It means what it says.
Yes, but assuming all players being equally likely to win, the rake assures that the amount they put in will be less than the amount they take out on average. The law of large numbers does the rest.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, no. Ad buys generally cost an amount in proportion to the number of viewers of the ads. Candidates will place ads in low population areas, because advertising is cheap there. Economics actually would dictate an almost exact proportional distrobution of campaigning.
Quick conversion... £54 = $99.49 US per month. So, the $50 per month is after room and board. Not great, but given cost of living and average salaries in China, I doubt these people are itching to leave anytime soon.
The Libertarians: pretty much yes. Greens... well I'll let the party platform speak for itself:
"The accumulation of individual wealth in the U.S. has reached grossly unbalanced proportions. It is clear that we cannot rely on the rich to regulate their profit-making excesses for the good of society through "trickle-down economics." We must take aggressive steps to restore a fair distribution of income. We support tax incentives for businesses that apply fair employee wage distribution standards, and income tax policies that restrict the accumulation of excessive individual wealth."
Do you call that smaller government?
They can, however, republish them. The original leaker has made the information public. The reporter is simply repeating information that has been (illegally) released into the public. Once the secret is out, its fair game
Combat damage means the shielding already failed. You got hit. After getting hit, staying alive is all that really matters.
The laptop in question contained data on the US military, including senior officers (Joint Chiefs of Staff et. al.). A random thief wouldn't bother cracking it. Iran would.
RTF summary.
The home unit costs $10,000. Even accounting for economies of scale/wholesaleing, it would probably cost at least $4,000/home. Batteries are expensive and not efficient. This is why electric cars don't work.
These rights can be looked up in your handy-dandy fourth amendment.
While I can't speak to the truth of that particular story, I did find this on his website
Regardless of what he calls it, that sounds pretty evil to me.
An axiom is a directly perceptible truth that cannot be undermined. I believe there are 3 axioms inherent in perception (perception being the common pre-conceptual experience of every person). Existence exists. (otherwise you wouldn't be there to perceive nothing) Things exist with identities. (otherwise everything would be EXACTLY the same) You are conscious of it. (otherwise you would not perceive it)
"There are no facts" cannot be an axiom because it is a. a negative (try perceiving a negative some time) and b. certainly not inherent in perception and c. wrong. There are facts.
Your government advocates a
(x) technical (x) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(x) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(x) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
(x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(x) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(x) Asshats
(x) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(x) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(x) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
(x) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
(x) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(x) Sending email should be free
(x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(x) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
(x) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid government for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
If you are having problems rendering pages, you can use the IEtab extension to Firefox. It renders the page by imbedding IE into Firefox. See it here http://ietab.mozdev.org/
As far as "So why don't they program firefox to render pages the same way IE does it?" there are 2 reasons.
#1) IE sucks at rendering things. (Try the ACID2 test if you don't believe me)
#2) IE is proprietary, they can't get the source code (legally).
That would be the third amendment. The second one says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Welding torches require oxygen in order to burn. In a ~0g environment you face a few unique problems.
Liquids (like really hot liquid metal) fly away, and can hit astronauts/equipment, and not cool on the spot of the weld (you seemed to realize this one on your own.)
Any sort of torch, assuming it provides its own oxygen, would either contaminate the air in the spacecraft, or if use outside, have the potential to apply thrust and move the craft off course.
If used inside the craft, the ~0g environment could allow large amounts of air to be incorporated into the metal...weakening it. (This principle is sometimes useful though...there are certain materials that can only be produced in a low gravity environment.)
Not in the United States. Under US law (with some local exceptions), there is no requirement that an individual report a crime or help in any way to uphold the law. Except when you have a specific obligation to do something (like a police officer, or school offical), inaction is not a crime.
Existence exists (if it didn't you wouldn't even have a mind to read /., let alone have /. itself exist), and everything exists as something. Because everything exists as something (at a minimum with a spatial/temporal relationship to the rest of reality) it can produce affirmative evidence of itself. Things which do not exist cannot produce evidence of themselves, because if they could, they would exist. Therefore, if there is no evidence regarding an argument, the null-hypothesis of non-existence must be held. In the case of God, absent direct affirmative proof, I assume God.
The burden of proof falls upon whoever makes an affirmative statement, because negative statements cannot be proven (there would be no evidence if the negative statement were correct.) This argument is also useful in explaining why we should not think we are in a matrix/under control of aliens/etc.
User: The palindrome of IE is EI!
*Hearing this karate yell, Chuck Norris entered and roundhouse kicked Ballmer in the head.*
The terms "son" and "daughter" apply to everyone last time I checked my biology textbook. While I understand that parents (rightly) have a strong emotional bond with their children, using those terms in this context simply serves to have emotional response override reason in a debate of ideas.
It is a fairly similar system, with a blue backlit board above the speaker's chair, and members using ID cards to vote. After the 15 minutes of a normal vote expire however, members have to use the old system of handing in a green (yea), red (nay), or orange (present) card.
I have checked /. from public terminals (such as my school) where IE is the only option. I am proud to say that I am running a machine on which IE has never been used, but sometimes, when I need to not pay attention in school, IE is the only option.
Indeed, and thats why they were a somewhat foolish target for attempts to undermine the preception of linux. Sure, IBM is high profile, and that helps at the beginning, but its not nearly as helpful to the anti-linux crowd when IBM wins.
But on average it is totally true. Total amount won = total amount bet - rake. The average winnings will always be about 1-2% smaller than the average bet...so on average, poker players lose too.
When lawmakers shield children from what you consider "garbage" they take on the role of moral parent for those children. And since those children exist in the same society and media which adults do, then those lawmakers become everyone's parent. I for one do not want Dennis Hastert, George Bush, Harry Ried or anyone else telling me what to listen to. Force is the only means of government action...it's what they do, and when you use guns to dictate speech, thats called fascism.
Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech. It means what it says.
Yes, but assuming all players being equally likely to win, the rake assures that the amount they put in will be less than the amount they take out on average. The law of large numbers does the rest.
It's interesting to note that when Frost penned that line, it was sarcastic.