It may have been the fault of planners, engineers, builders or even an incomplete understanding of the materials involved.
I was just lumping all people involved in planning, design, and construction together as 'builders.' Whoever was supposed to plan for increased road/rail traffic didn't (probably, in some cases, so I assume, etc.).
To be fair in the case of the bridges, they probably failed to account for increased traffic over the last fifty years and underfunding of maintenance by corrupt local governments. First one's the bridge buidlers' fault, the second one is the public's fault for only electing spoiled children to run local governments, but in either case I doubt it was so much as out-and-out fraud.
I have trouble understanding how a black man can support the Party that opposed the abolition of slavery and created the Ku Klux Klan.
You might want to crack open a history book sometime. Lincoln was a Republican. The Republican party was founded as an abolitionist party. At the founding of the KKK the south was nigh universally Democratic (because the Republicans had abolished slavery).
Sure, the Republican party has radically changed in the last seventy years so that it's senseless to say it's the party of Lincoln or the party of Teddy Roosevelt, but that doesn't change the fact that you have no clue what you're talking about.
Of course, many people would say that this leads the cops to have "probable cause" because if the person doesn't have anything to hide, why wouldn't they let the cops look?
Thankfully those morons usually aren't judges. Refusing to consent to a search (along with pleading the fifth) is not, never has been, probable cause.
I found your comment not only that of a typical person who went to community college to become a Java programmer or an MCSE certified whatever but also someone who barely has the artistry of the English language itself.
Who poured sand in your cunt? (I know, I know. Don't feed the trolls)
Speaking of 'the artistry of the English language itself' (whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean), you should learn a little reading comprehension. The program described had nothing to do with the quadratic formula. It faked a wipe of the calculator's memory by mimicking the shell and faking the screen output. Not a trivial thing to do in TI-BASIC. Moreover, it was never compared to any of the bullshit you're bringing up. It was compared to rote memorization of the proof.
Your entire post reads like the stoned rantings of a pretentious fuckwit. 'Open that creative spark of imagination'? I know poets who are less firmly lodged up their own asses. Moreover, you don't bother to actually raise a counterpoint--say a skill learned in memorizing the theorem that isn't learned by writing that program, when my point was that there aren't any. Being a cliched cartoon of a pretentious intellectual doesn't count as a skill.
Uh, if you actually study physics you learn what you originally thought.
The vast majority of the mass of 'spent fuel' is not spent fuel, but unrelated, non-reacting (and low-level radioactive) isotopes like U238 and others. The actual nasty part IS tiny. In countries that reprocess their fuel, they just have that tiny part to deal with. In countries that don't they have hundreds of tons of 'spent fuel' lying around.
Because writing a fairly complicated program with the described functionality requires all of the skills, and more, involved in the proof of the quadratic formula (which is an especially trivial proof if you already know the formula). It's objectively more useful to learn, because it requires the same skills and other skills as well, not just differently useful (requiring different skills of unrelated application).
You might want to cite anything let alone California. In California the average correctional officer's salary is $66,720 [bls.gov]. This may be more than the national average but hardly the fat cat 6 figure salaries that keep being espoused.
That's salary. It does not count overtime. It does not count being paid for not taking vacation time. They get full medical care with zero premiums. They get 90% of their base pay their last year for the rest of their life gauranteed. When you add up the total amount of money that they are either paid by the state, or would have had to pay had the state not done so for them, it's over $100,000 per year, on average. More if you lump the gauranteed pensions which they contribute to at much lower rates than private sector workers for much higher payouts (public union payouts are gauranteed by law--if my 401k tanks, too bad for me. If their pension investment tanks, too bad for ME because I still have to pay it to them). That's where the six-figure number comes from.
Right, we all forgot about those powerful prison guard unions who were able to secure those fabulous $30-60k salaries [bls.gov]
That is national, not California. The figure in California is vastly higher (mostly due to overtime/selling unused vacation time rules). You might as well cite prison guard salaries in Indochina, it'd be as relevant.
Public sector workers make MORE, on average, in California than Private sector workers when benefits are included on both sides. Their jobs are far more secure, and they get to retire sooner.
Your parent explicitly explained how the math behind the Laffer curve can be applied to price vs. profits (rising rates decreasing the base from which they're drawn). You still think he was talking about taxation. Learn some reading comprehension.
This is simply a supply/demand curve where one side has managed to control the price point via monopolistic means enforced by government. (If they had to pay for their own enforcement apparatus they would quickly lower prices).
As it stands, there is no reason to believe they are selling anywhere near the "butter zone" (what ever the hell that is).
Wow. You should go play in a corner while the adults talk. I know reading comprehension is hard, and you only paid attention to the TA's tits in your Econ 101 class, but you're just embarrassing yourself. Go drink some more four loko while playing call of duty.
It's LA, so usually nothing. Worst case $20 (in places I never go to anyway), which in some cases is less than the gas it cost me to drive there (again, it's LA, a 150 mile round-trip for a day-long activity wouldn't be terribly remarkable).
Eh, I'd be inclined to call $1 low. Was the movie really worth less to me than a cup of coffee? Only if it was a really bad movie. Lunch at my favorite dive? Eh, maybe comparable. So I'd put a movie I actually enjoyed (that's the catch, most don't qualify) in the $5-$8 range. Anything over $10 and it doesn't pass the jerk-off test unless it's Casablanca or Seven Samurai.
Slashdot Mirror
It may have been the fault of planners, engineers, builders or even an incomplete understanding of the materials involved.
I was just lumping all people involved in planning, design, and construction together as 'builders.' Whoever was supposed to plan for increased road/rail traffic didn't (probably, in some cases, so I assume, etc.).
OH. Alright, now that I reread it, maybe I did misread his post and that's what he meant. In which case, I apologize.
To be fair in the case of the bridges, they probably failed to account for increased traffic over the last fifty years and underfunding of maintenance by corrupt local governments. First one's the bridge buidlers' fault, the second one is the public's fault for only electing spoiled children to run local governments, but in either case I doubt it was so much as out-and-out fraud.
I have trouble understanding how a black man can support the Party that opposed the abolition of slavery and created the Ku Klux Klan.
You might want to crack open a history book sometime. Lincoln was a Republican. The Republican party was founded as an abolitionist party. At the founding of the KKK the south was nigh universally Democratic (because the Republicans had abolished slavery).
Sure, the Republican party has radically changed in the last seventy years so that it's senseless to say it's the party of Lincoln or the party of Teddy Roosevelt, but that doesn't change the fact that you have no clue what you're talking about.
Maybe you've heard of these marvelous new doodads /. has implemented called quote tags.
Then again, maybe not.
I think he was talking about his return flight, a la:
I'm about the cleanest person possible coming off the plane from Thailand but they don't know that.
According to Mussolini, the inventor of modern fascism, it's actually synonymous to corporatism
Protip: That word does not mean what you think it means. You're basing your post on a shitty translation of what he actually said.
Of course, many people would say that this leads the cops to have "probable cause" because if the person doesn't have anything to hide, why wouldn't they let the cops look?
Thankfully those morons usually aren't judges. Refusing to consent to a search (along with pleading the fifth) is not, never has been, probable cause.
This should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, IMO.
Done, and done. Oh, I'm sorry, did you mean it should actually be illegal? Maybe you should try saying what you actually mean.
Without understanding how the formula works, a large chunk of the stuff coming after that lesson is nothing but rote memorization to the student
My GP said, and I was supporting this statement:
this [writing a program to fake clearing the calculator memory] was more useful to me than rote-learning the proof of the quadratic formula.
Do I have to explain why your post is not germane to mine? (Hint: It's the part about how it was being compared to rote memorization)
I found your comment not only that of a typical person who went to community college to become a Java programmer or an MCSE certified whatever but also someone who barely has the artistry of the English language itself.
Who poured sand in your cunt? (I know, I know. Don't feed the trolls)
Speaking of 'the artistry of the English language itself' (whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean), you should learn a little reading comprehension. The program described had nothing to do with the quadratic formula. It faked a wipe of the calculator's memory by mimicking the shell and faking the screen output. Not a trivial thing to do in TI-BASIC. Moreover, it was never compared to any of the bullshit you're bringing up. It was compared to rote memorization of the proof.
Your entire post reads like the stoned rantings of a pretentious fuckwit. 'Open that creative spark of imagination'? I know poets who are less firmly lodged up their own asses. Moreover, you don't bother to actually raise a counterpoint--say a skill learned in memorizing the theorem that isn't learned by writing that program, when my point was that there aren't any. Being a cliched cartoon of a pretentious intellectual doesn't count as a skill.
Uh, if you actually study physics you learn what you originally thought.
The vast majority of the mass of 'spent fuel' is not spent fuel, but unrelated, non-reacting (and low-level radioactive) isotopes like U238 and others. The actual nasty part IS tiny. In countries that reprocess their fuel, they just have that tiny part to deal with. In countries that don't they have hundreds of tons of 'spent fuel' lying around.
Because writing a fairly complicated program with the described functionality requires all of the skills, and more, involved in the proof of the quadratic formula (which is an especially trivial proof if you already know the formula). It's objectively more useful to learn, because it requires the same skills and other skills as well, not just differently useful (requiring different skills of unrelated application).
It's doing a keg stand while the crowd shouts "MBA! MBA! MBA!"
What was Soylent Green then?
Is that Jeff Goldblum's more attractive twin brother?
You get arrested.
You might want to cite anything let alone California. In California the average correctional officer's salary is $66,720 [bls.gov]. This may be more than the national average but hardly the fat cat 6 figure salaries that keep being espoused.
That's salary. It does not count overtime. It does not count being paid for not taking vacation time. They get full medical care with zero premiums. They get 90% of their base pay their last year for the rest of their life gauranteed. When you add up the total amount of money that they are either paid by the state, or would have had to pay had the state not done so for them, it's over $100,000 per year, on average. More if you lump the gauranteed pensions which they contribute to at much lower rates than private sector workers for much higher payouts (public union payouts are gauranteed by law--if my 401k tanks, too bad for me. If their pension investment tanks, too bad for ME because I still have to pay it to them). That's where the six-figure number comes from.
Right, we all forgot about those powerful prison guard unions who were able to secure those fabulous $30-60k salaries [bls.gov]
That is national, not California. The figure in California is vastly higher (mostly due to overtime/selling unused vacation time rules). You might as well cite prison guard salaries in Indochina, it'd be as relevant.
Public sector workers make MORE, on average, in California than Private sector workers when benefits are included on both sides. Their jobs are far more secure, and they get to retire sooner.
Is your penis twelve inches long too?
Your parent explicitly explained how the math behind the Laffer curve can be applied to price vs. profits (rising rates decreasing the base from which they're drawn). You still think he was talking about taxation. Learn some reading comprehension.
This has nothing to do with taxation.
This is simply a supply/demand curve where one side has managed to control the price point via monopolistic means enforced by government. (If they had to pay for their own enforcement apparatus they would quickly lower prices).
As it stands, there is no reason to believe they are selling anywhere near the "butter zone" (what ever the hell that is).
Wow. You should go play in a corner while the adults talk. I know reading comprehension is hard, and you only paid attention to the TA's tits in your Econ 101 class, but you're just embarrassing yourself. Go drink some more four loko while playing call of duty.
It's LA, so usually nothing. Worst case $20 (in places I never go to anyway), which in some cases is less than the gas it cost me to drive there (again, it's LA, a 150 mile round-trip for a day-long activity wouldn't be terribly remarkable).
Eh, I'd be inclined to call $1 low. Was the movie really worth less to me than a cup of coffee? Only if it was a really bad movie. Lunch at my favorite dive? Eh, maybe comparable. So I'd put a movie I actually enjoyed (that's the catch, most don't qualify) in the $5-$8 range. Anything over $10 and it doesn't pass the jerk-off test unless it's Casablanca or Seven Samurai.
The FBI is going to subpoena /. for your IP so they can find those kids and return them to their families.
Pretty sure he meant 6 or fewer. You can make a kid with six people, it's just overkill. You certainly don't need more than six.