Ok, your heart is in the right place, but you seem a bit unprepared. I mean, if you can't cope with the bureaucracy of registering as a non-profit, how are you going to cope with the bureaucracy of school management?
So just to clarify, you mean, "Will trade for software of the same quality as half a carcass."
Sounds about right. Sounds reasonable. I'd trade my old copy of W98 for half a dead chicken.
Because the implied assumption is that the whole net except.XXX must be protected, that it all must be made child-safe. This eventually results in treating all adults like children. It is far better to give children their own ( such as.kid or.chd ) and retain the assumption that we adults are capable of making decisions for ourselves.
I agree, it does not need 02. Thermite has it's own oxygen bound up in Fe203. I never assumed otherwise.
Of my ten-sentence post, nine sentences are devoted to the question of whether or not luggage will burn.
The tenth sentence notes that when the thermite does finally get thru the luggage ( if the terrorist is lucky enough to have his suitcase on the bottom layer ) it will hit the fire-resistant wall/floor of the container.
Luggage probably does not burn very well. The suitcase and its contents are mostly fabric / leather / plastic of some type. ( think about what you packed last time... ) Most clothing has passed some kind of won't-sustain-combustion test, and that in the presence of lots of oxygen at or near sea level. Leather won't sustain a fire on its own. Plastics, who knows? But few are highly exothermic.
And add to that the fact that there is not a whole lot of air available in the luggage container - it's mostly luggage. Even if there is enough fuel to sustain a low-temp fire, it soon suffocates itself. The only jet that has crashed in the last few decades due to a cargo fire was because there was an oxygen tank in the luggage.
Also, according to federal law, all luggage compartments on commercial airliners are required to have fire-resistant walls.
Re:Socrates would be disappointed
on
New Ice Age Theory
·
· Score: 4, Funny
beginning with a conclusion and finding reasons to justify it, regardless of where the evidence points. Also known as earning tenure.
As based on Broadband deployment? Yep, gotta have broadband to carry all the traffic from zombies, and to bring the pr0n into people who stay indoors all the time because it's too cold to be out.
I'm guessing it will be even a bit more successful than XP because all those Windows 2000 holdouts are probably overdue for a machine upgrade as well. As early adopters of Vista upgrade both hardware and software, all those cheap used machines with copies of XP on them will flood the used market and undercut many people's motive for upgrading to Vista.
Shell can't afford it. If it is even half of what its proponents claim it is, the value of the technology is in the multi-trillions. Shell doesn't have that kind of cash sitting around. Perhaps they borrow it? Then they have to pay off the debt, and they are competing with the other major oil companies who don't have to service a huge debt. Perhaps a comglomeration of major oil companies? The coalition will not hold together, because the first oil company that does not join reaps all of the benefits and none of the costs.
Becuause the State of the Union speech is tonight?
Ok, this will sound like conspiracy theory stuff, but is it not interesting that a small company in *Texas* just happens to announce a 10- to 20-fold imrovement on battery technology - and emphasises cars more than they ought to - just when an embattled prez is preparing to announce new domestic energy policies, and is widely blamed for foreign policies that are driving up oil prices?
...the neat thing about laws is that they can be revised or repealed at a later date. Unfortunately, during the time that laws are in force, they often generate special interest groups that come to depend on them. ( In the 80's there were still lobbyists who worked to maintain mohair laws - initially passed to make sure that WWII troops had uniforms ) Every unfair law seems to create lobbyists, and the more unfair that it is, the more money someone makes from it, and then the stronger the lobby.
Basically you scared away some of the normal people 'Normal'? The people who hang out with junkies in front of an abandoned building? That is a bizarre definition of normal even by slashdot standards.
I think that the netcam first scared away the most prosperous buyers and sellers - ie: those with the most to lose - and then the hanger-ons who depended on them left afterwards.
The 'normal' people - at least, what I call normal, the ones who walk by on their way to local businesses or the bus stop or other non-criminal activities - are still in the neighborhood.
Did the cam derease crime on this block? Absolutely. Did the crime move elsewhere? I don't know, I can't measure it, and I don't care. I got rid of a problem in my neighborhood, which is all I expected to do. If the problem moved a mile away, then it is up to the residents and business owners there.
Crime may be a city-wide, state-wide, or even a global problem, but I can only act to reduce it locally. ( hmmm...there ought to be a catchy slogan in that, somehow )
These links about government surveys show that CCTV has almost no effect on crime. Exerpts from the five links that P mentions:
From the first link: "Home Office statistics show crime fell in 13 of the 24 cases studied after CCTV cameras were installed but crime rates rose significantly in four others." Down in 55%, up in 17%. That's a net decrease in crime.
From the second link: "The conclusion is that CCTV does have a significant desirable effect on crime, but that the overall reduction is only 4%."
The third link actually says what P claims it says, that there is little improvement.
From the fourth link: "It can be stated with some confidence, therefore, that the presence of CCTV cameras in Airdrie town centre has led to a real reduction in the level of crime and to an improvement in the detection of crime. Statistical evidence also reinforces the finding that this reduction has not been exported to immediately adjacent or nearby areas."
From the fifth link: "A comparison of 22 evaluations showed that 11 found a positive effect ( decrease in offenses ), five an undesireable effect ( an increase in crime ), five found no effect, and in one case the evidence was unclear." Again, a net decrease.
I think that P - and other posters - miss the thrust of what many studies and news articles are looking at. They are not asking the simple question of whether cams reduce overall crime rates, but whether or not they reduce it as much as the pro-camera politicians say they do.
Parent says: "this will: waste tax payer money, inconvenience innocent people, and have zero impact on actual criminals."
This has a significant impact on criminals. I speak from experience.
I own a business across the street from an unused building. For years it has been a site for heroin dealing, vandalism, muliple assults and batteries, and at least one mugging. I got a netcam, put the camera feed live on a web site, and informed anybody who cared to listen ( this included neighbors, cops, drug sellers and buyers, etc ). It took several months for people's behavior to change ( which was odd...I expected it to change almost overnight ) But now all we have is an occasional vagrant.
BTW, I share the concern, expressed by several posters, that cameras can be misused. The solution is to make them all public netcams, available to anyone with a browser. The cops can use information, but it is less likely for them to misuse it, because anybody could have copies.
What's the problem???? If you do anything more than endorse 26 paychecks, fill out a W2 and a 1040ez, there are lots of problems.
Once you get past the surface, the tax laws are not clear. Many of them use phrases like "reasonable proof" or "adequate documentation", or doing something by "industry standards", or "commonly accepted methods". You have to be an experienced accountant to have some idea what those phrases mean, and that meaning may change depending on which IRS agent you talk to.
This, IMHO, is one of the reasons that the IRS has not pushed for an explicit law that states that one must pay income tax. ( You would think that they would want a law like that to simplify the problems of dealing with people like Ed Brown ) If there were such a law, it would be found unconstitutionally vague. Then they would have to rewrite the whole thing.
On Friday the 19th, the LA Times printed a correction that says this was an unfounded rumor among the gov't employees that somehow was taken seriously.
GP is correct, but income tax is one of those lies that is just to big to argue with. The powers that be simply will not allow it. There is just too much dependent upon it. Even if you found an overlooked 11th item in the bill of rights, in Thomas Jefferson's own handwriting, that said income tax was unconstitutional, they would not allow it. As P says, sooner or later people with guns show up at your door. And their bullets don't care about legal technicalities.
1.1Developments in Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) are transforming the society in dramatic ways. These developments are creating hitherto unimaginable opportunities and possibilities, even as they pose new challenges for a society like ours Computers make a difference.
1.2 In the production processes of today's world, information and knowledge mean a great deal more than material resources and physical inputs. Knowing how to use them is good
1.3 ICT has opened up the possibility of radically different information exchange patterns by facilitating faster and more efficient dissemination of information. It can play a vital role in sustaining the democratic ethos of the Indian society and ensuring a high level of transparency in governance Nobody controls the net
1.4 Having achieved high physical quality of life index and social infrastructure development, Kerala is ideally positioned to use ICT as a catalyst for the all-round economic prosperity and social uplift of its people We haven't completely exhausted the budget
1.5 ICT and Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES) have by now turned into major sectors of economic activity in the country. Over the past one-and-a-half decades, these sectors have shown remarkable growth in the country, both in terms of export revenue and employment generation This is a good source of tax revenue
1.6 In almost every sector of socio-economic activity ranging from industrial production to education and public healthcare, ICT now plays an important role in optimizing the processes, thereby improving the quality and efficiency of human endeavors The net is cool
1.7 Growing importance of ICT in the present-day world leads to the emergence of a divide, which can be called the "digital-divide," between those who have access to sophisticated ICT infrastructure and those who do not. This is a matter of concern to civil society at large; and a challenge that has to be overcome through conscious intervention, both from the Government and the sections on the privileged side of the "digital divide Web junkies don't riot
1.8 The Government has a comprehensive view of ICT as a vehicle for transforming Kerala into a knowledge-based, economically vibrant, democratic and inclusive society. By the term "inclusive," the Government means that the benefits of the socio-economic transformation possible through ICT should reach every single citizen of the State. This policy document defines the Government's vision, mission and strategy for achieving the same. We're gonna spend lots of money
Apparently the secret service thinks so too. Both Air Force One and Marine One ( Marine One is the chopper that the prez uses ) are equipped with flare and chaff countermeasures. And neither has been seen sporting a belly bulge like TFA shows to mount lasers.
The provincial president that you guys put in charge here is causing a lot of trouble, starting wars and wrecking the environment. Will you please take him back for re-education, and appoint someone else?
BTW, it is sure good to finally know who is to blame for all the problems around here.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, your heart is in the right place, but you seem a bit unprepared. I mean, if you can't cope with the bureaucracy of registering as a non-profit, how are you going to cope with the bureaucracy of school management?
The appeal comes from not the miniscule lower cost of the OS, but the lower cost of the system required to run it.
It will when I get one.
Because the implied assumption is that the whole net except .XXX must be protected, that it all must be made child-safe. This eventually results in treating all adults like children. It is far better to give children their own ( such as .kid or .chd ) and retain the assumption that we adults are capable of making decisions for ourselves.
Nope, you're not reading too much into it. I had this disturbing image flashing though my mind of the entire google staff lining up to drink kool-aid.
I agree, it does not need 02. Thermite has it's own oxygen bound up in Fe203. I never assumed otherwise.
Of my ten-sentence post, nine sentences are devoted to the question of whether or not luggage will burn.
The tenth sentence notes that when the thermite does finally get thru the luggage ( if the terrorist is lucky enough to have his suitcase on the bottom layer ) it will hit the fire-resistant wall/floor of the container.
Please RTFP.
Luggage probably does not burn very well. The suitcase and its contents are mostly fabric / leather / plastic of some type. ( think about what you packed last time... ) Most clothing has passed some kind of won't-sustain-combustion test, and that in the presence of lots of oxygen at or near sea level. Leather won't sustain a fire on its own. Plastics, who knows? But few are highly exothermic.
And add to that the fact that there is not a whole lot of air available in the luggage container - it's mostly luggage. Even if there is enough fuel to sustain a low-temp fire, it soon suffocates itself. The only jet that has crashed in the last few decades due to a cargo fire was because there was an oxygen tank in the luggage.
Also, according to federal law, all luggage compartments on commercial airliners are required to have fire-resistant walls.
I think P was being sarcastic.
Sorry, but this is drivel.
Shell can't afford it. If it is even half of what its proponents claim it is, the value of the technology is in the multi-trillions. Shell doesn't have that kind of cash sitting around. Perhaps they borrow it? Then they have to pay off the debt, and they are competing with the other major oil companies who don't have to service a huge debt. Perhaps a comglomeration of major oil companies? The coalition will not hold together, because the first oil company that does not join reaps all of the benefits and none of the costs.
GM might buy it.
Becuause the State of the Union speech is tonight?
Ok, this will sound like conspiracy theory stuff, but is it not interesting that a small company in *Texas* just happens to announce a 10- to 20-fold imrovement on battery technology - and emphasises cars more than they ought to - just when an embattled prez is preparing to announce new domestic energy policies, and is widely blamed for foreign policies that are driving up oil prices?
...the neat thing about laws is that they can be revised or repealed at a later date. Unfortunately, during the time that laws are in force, they often generate special interest groups that come to depend on them. ( In the 80's there were still lobbyists who worked to maintain mohair laws - initially passed to make sure that WWII troops had uniforms ) Every unfair law seems to create lobbyists, and the more unfair that it is, the more money someone makes from it, and then the stronger the lobby.Another reason not to use windows...
I think that the netcam first scared away the most prosperous buyers and sellers - ie: those with the most to lose - and then the hanger-ons who depended on them left afterwards.
The 'normal' people - at least, what I call normal, the ones who walk by on their way to local businesses or the bus stop or other non-criminal activities - are still in the neighborhood.
Did the cam derease crime on this block? Absolutely. Did the crime move elsewhere? I don't know, I can't measure it, and I don't care. I got rid of a problem in my neighborhood, which is all I expected to do. If the problem moved a mile away, then it is up to the residents and business owners there.
Crime may be a city-wide, state-wide, or even a global problem, but I can only act to reduce it locally. ( hmmm...there ought to be a catchy slogan in that, somehow )
These links about government surveys show that CCTV has almost no effect on crime. Exerpts from the five links that P mentions:
From the first link: "Home Office statistics show crime fell in 13 of the 24 cases studied after CCTV cameras were installed but crime rates rose significantly in four others." Down in 55%, up in 17%. That's a net decrease in crime.
From the second link: "The conclusion is that CCTV does have a significant desirable effect on crime, but that the overall reduction is only 4%."
The third link actually says what P claims it says, that there is little improvement.
From the fourth link: "It can be stated with some confidence, therefore, that the presence of CCTV cameras in Airdrie town centre has led to a real reduction in the level of crime and to an improvement in the detection of crime. Statistical evidence also reinforces the finding that this reduction has not been exported to immediately adjacent or nearby areas."
From the fifth link: "A comparison of 22 evaluations showed that 11 found a positive effect ( decrease in offenses ), five an undesireable effect ( an increase in crime ), five found no effect, and in one case the evidence was unclear." Again, a net decrease.
I think that P - and other posters - miss the thrust of what many studies and news articles are looking at. They are not asking the simple question of whether cams reduce overall crime rates, but whether or not they reduce it as much as the pro-camera politicians say they do.
Parent says: "this will: waste tax payer money, inconvenience innocent people, and have zero impact on actual criminals."
This has a significant impact on criminals. I speak from experience.
I own a business across the street from an unused building. For years it has been a site for heroin dealing, vandalism, muliple assults and batteries, and at least one mugging. I got a netcam, put the camera feed live on a web site, and informed anybody who cared to listen ( this included neighbors, cops, drug sellers and buyers, etc ). It took several months for people's behavior to change ( which was odd...I expected it to change almost overnight ) But now all we have is an occasional vagrant.
BTW, I share the concern, expressed by several posters, that cameras can be misused. The solution is to make them all public netcams, available to anyone with a browser. The cops can use information, but it is less likely for them to misuse it, because anybody could have copies.
What's the problem???? If you do anything more than endorse 26 paychecks, fill out a W2 and a 1040ez, there are lots of problems.
Once you get past the surface, the tax laws are not clear. Many of them use phrases like "reasonable proof" or "adequate documentation", or doing something by "industry standards", or "commonly accepted methods". You have to be an experienced accountant to have some idea what those phrases mean, and that meaning may change depending on which IRS agent you talk to.
This, IMHO, is one of the reasons that the IRS has not pushed for an explicit law that states that one must pay income tax. ( You would think that they would want a law like that to simplify the problems of dealing with people like Ed Brown ) If there were such a law, it would be found unconstitutionally vague. Then they would have to rewrite the whole thing.
On Friday the 19th, the LA Times printed a correction that says this was an unfounded rumor among the gov't employees that somehow was taken seriously.
GP is correct, but income tax is one of those lies that is just to big to argue with. The powers that be simply will not allow it. There is just too much dependent upon it. Even if you found an overlooked 11th item in the bill of rights, in Thomas Jefferson's own handwriting, that said income tax was unconstitutional, they would not allow it. As P says, sooner or later people with guns show up at your door. And their bullets don't care about legal technicalities.
1.1Developments in Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) are transforming the society in dramatic ways. These developments are creating hitherto unimaginable opportunities and possibilities, even as they pose new challenges for a society like ours
Computers make a difference.
1.2 In the production processes of today's world, information and knowledge mean a great deal more than material resources and physical inputs.
Knowing how to use them is good
1.3 ICT has opened up the possibility of radically different information exchange patterns by facilitating faster and more efficient dissemination of information. It can play a vital role in sustaining the democratic ethos of the Indian society and ensuring a high level of transparency in governance
Nobody controls the net
1.4 Having achieved high physical quality of life index and social infrastructure development, Kerala is ideally positioned to use ICT as a catalyst for the all-round economic prosperity and social uplift of its people
We haven't completely exhausted the budget
1.5 ICT and Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES) have by now turned into major sectors of economic activity in the country. Over the past one-and-a-half decades, these sectors have shown remarkable growth in the country, both in terms of export revenue and employment generation
This is a good source of tax revenue
1.6 In almost every sector of socio-economic activity ranging from industrial production to education and public healthcare, ICT now plays an important role in optimizing the processes, thereby improving the quality and efficiency of human endeavors
The net is cool
1.7 Growing importance of ICT in the present-day world leads to the emergence of a divide, which can be called the "digital-divide," between those who have access to sophisticated ICT infrastructure and those who do not. This is a matter of concern to civil society at large; and a challenge that has to be overcome through conscious intervention, both from the Government and the sections on the privileged side of the "digital divide
Web junkies don't riot
1.8 The Government has a comprehensive view of ICT as a vehicle for transforming Kerala into a knowledge-based, economically vibrant, democratic and inclusive society. By the term "inclusive," the Government means that the benefits of the socio-economic transformation possible through ICT should reach every single citizen of the State. This policy document defines the Government's vision, mission and strategy for achieving the same.
We're gonna spend lots of money
Apparently the secret service thinks so too. Both Air Force One and Marine One ( Marine One is the chopper that the prez uses ) are equipped with flare and chaff countermeasures. And neither has been seen sporting a belly bulge like TFA shows to mount lasers.
The provincial president that you guys put in charge here is causing a lot of trouble, starting wars and wrecking the environment. Will you please take him back for re-education, and appoint someone else?
BTW, it is sure good to finally know who is to blame for all the problems around here.