Remind me again, aren't economists the ones that thought that supply side economist, was really the thing for growing an economy?
Economists are definitely not good at spotting or studying trends, it's taken an awfully long time for them to fess up and acknowledge that people don't make decisions in a cool logical fashion. It's a view which many have based upon a sort of survivorship bias, people generally forget that most economists get it wrong and just remember the couple that got it right. It was an embarassingly small number of economists that saw the current crisis coming, and it wasn't exactly a subtle one either.
Economists are the ones you consult with when you want to know about choices people make and why. I suppose game theorists might also be a good choice.
And he has a point. Most people are not well enough educated to understand that there will always be dissent. Most of the time the climate change deniers use that as evidence that there is no problem coming.
It's been the fact that the Republicans can find a half dozen hardcore scientists to question the findings of studies which has caused the kind of damage that we're already seeing. It's roughly analogous to pay a lot now or pay a lot later and put up with the inconvenience of having a mobster busting your kneecaps. One way or another we will pay, but if we allow for the dissenters to derail the progress, then we may reach the point where the only option is to cut down to 19th century levels.
Also, that's a nasty ad hominem argument to make, yes he really shouldn't live in a house like that and lecture us on cutting back, but it's really not germane to the argument.
That's part of the point, with ads as short as they are on Hulu there's really very little point to trying to skip them. It usually takes me more than 30 seconds to skip the commercials on my DVR. Even when using the increment forward button.
Additionally since Hulu gives you some say in what the adverts are for, there's an increased possibility that the product will actually be useful to the viewer. It's not really in anybody's best interest to show men adverts for vagisil.
That's not really the same thing, that was classifying human remains via the rough shape of the skull. This is a bit more personal than that is. You may very well be correct, it's just that basing it on genetics is far more likely to have some sort of meaningful accuracy.
Not really, humans as a species are just about as homogeneous as you're going to get, which makes it difficult to make those sorts of claims stick. Just as much of suggesting that Africans are inferior as superior. Additionally, there's been some research to suggest that African populations have more genetic diversity than other groups, which I wouldn't think would contribute to the suggestion that they're any more or less well adapted than other groups.
But then again, if it drives white supremecists nuts, why bother arguing.;)
That's true, if you are OK with the binaries being restricted to internal consumption. But to be honest, how many people are working or using code in an environment where that's realistic? Most of the time it costs more money to do that than it does to give the source back if there's even enough resources to make the choice available.
Not really, if you can point out a way that Nintendo could be in compliance with the GPL and accept this sort of thing, then I tip my hat to you. Well, I'll put a hat on and then tip it to you.
Typical code for a console contains everything necessary to run on the hardware. I'm guessing that the Wii is to some extent similar to their older hardware in that regard. Basically the only way that Nintendo could be in compliance with the GPL would be to either give away all their code or to ban it completely.
I can't imagine a way that they could do the former without seriously damaging their ability to conduct business. Banning GPL code from the platform is probably the most reasonable way of handling it. I can't imagine how it's Nintendo's fault that the code is GPL rather than one of the other options.
The significance is apparently that one is presumably charging for access to a specific hot spot rather than to the other ones in the area. Doesn't make it any more valid, but it does appear to mean commercial services rather than unprotected WAP.
Well, this is a tad bit different. Over all I do agree with you that this sort of intervention isn't a good idea. At best it's discouraging papers and other sources that are trying to remedy those sorts of problems.
But, by the same token living in a one paper town isn't good. It's the little things like a while back there was an article on a city employee that was seeking the names of those that were taking advantage of the cities GLBT meetings and get togethers. A fairly reasonable request, but the paper opted to gloss over the part where he's a white separatist with barely a mention. That's kind of glaring omission is far more likely to happen if there aren't other viable outlets looking for the best story possible.
I'm not personally sure that losing one or two of the big three would represent a similar threat to the democratic process.
Only if he'd have sold it. If the time frame is 12 years, there's plenty of time to make the money back. And if one were to choose a high quality company, one might very well end up with more than an equivalen 5% interest rate.
Assuming that one is savvy enough to manage stocks, but stupid enough to sell during the last bit of the down turn is kind of iffy.
Because this sort of thing doesn't scale in a linear fashion. It's a lot easier to do this sort of thing for a couple of houses, assuming a reasonable amount of light and willingness to cut back on consumption. It gets a lot more complicated when you start having to pay for extra land, land use studies and worry about transmission wires.
Xmarks, which replaced Foxmarks seems to do a pretty good job as well. Only downside is that it forces you to make an account, even if you're just wanting to sync on the same computer.
That's a solid point. I tend to segregate out the large files into their own directory, especially if I'm just storing a copy that could be downloaded again later on. Mainly because it helps keep backups sane. Things like my games collection from GoG, various installation CDs and DVDs for PC-BSD, Ubuntu, FreeBSD (AMD64 and i386) and such. Don't like to redownload unless I need to so I store them, but since they can be redownloaded later, I don't personally keep as close an eye on them for corruption.
Then there's the typically smaller files that aren't particularly sensitive, those usually get backed up offsite on a fairly regular basis and as such ought to get their own part of the home dir.
Temporary files that I don't really care a whole lot about get kept in a temp or download folder.
So, what I'm left with is something like the following which is also kind of nice for using varying tools on them.
home/$USER
=====>Backup/Large
=====>Backup/Small
=====>Backup/Small_secured
=====>Temporary
=====>Desktop
My main problem is finding a sensible tool to handle all those things. Right now I just use the MS Synctoy, but Gizmo has a few other recommendations over here.
No, you've got that backwards, the burden of proof is hardly always on the accuser. What you're suggesting is that the FDA regulating prescriptions is wrong because the accuser has to prove that it's not safe in order to keep it off the market.
That's not how it works at all, items which are ingested are assumed to be harmful unless proven otherwise. Or are you the sort of person that ingests random berries and things because nobody specifically told you that they were harmful?
It depends what you're doing, but you're not going to get the depth of field with a real HD video camera that you can with a dSLR. And additionally, it's easier to chop down the image size to HD than it is to turn and HD video camera into something that takes decent photos.
That's stretching it quite a bit, I do believe that in this case the RIAA would be the group that has the relevant rights. In this case, yes somebody should be paying money to somebody, but not to ASCAP for the performance, to the label for the recording.
Over all you're likely correct, but keep in mind that until there's a good understanding of how it actually works in the body and what the effects of various strengths of plant have, it's premature to talk about that sort of step. That's not to say that a reasonable balanced couldn't be struck, but more to say that our method of refusing to regulate herbal supplements is probably not a good idea either.
Every way? Now lets not exaggerate. Have you any idea how much time and energy has gone into getting people to give up Tobacco now that they're accustomed to it? Or to get people to drink responsibly?
Sure it may turn out to be more or less harmless, but this is the same sort of poorly formed logic that leads people to conclude that we ought to legalized the possession of all forms of firearms. It's easier to change our mind to allow it if it proves to be safe than it is to get people to give it up should it prove to be dangerous. Remember it's the burden of proof of those that want legalization not those that view it as being harmful.
Yeah, I feel sorry for the husbands that get talked into getting the snip snip by their wives because they don't want more kids. Specifically the ones that then end up getting divorced later on and have to watch their ex-wife having more children.
Just because it's a less dangerous procedure doesn't make having your partner get the operation an entitlement, ultimately it's his body, not hers.
Well no, he sounds like a perfectly sensible man. If he didn't want children and obviously couldn't trust her to behave in a responsible fashion, a vasectomy is one of a very small number of possible ways of handling it.
Slashdot Mirror
Remind me again, aren't economists the ones that thought that supply side economist, was really the thing for growing an economy?
Economists are definitely not good at spotting or studying trends, it's taken an awfully long time for them to fess up and acknowledge that people don't make decisions in a cool logical fashion. It's a view which many have based upon a sort of survivorship bias, people generally forget that most economists get it wrong and just remember the couple that got it right. It was an embarassingly small number of economists that saw the current crisis coming, and it wasn't exactly a subtle one either.
Economists are the ones you consult with when you want to know about choices people make and why. I suppose game theorists might also be a good choice.
And he has a point. Most people are not well enough educated to understand that there will always be dissent. Most of the time the climate change deniers use that as evidence that there is no problem coming.
It's been the fact that the Republicans can find a half dozen hardcore scientists to question the findings of studies which has caused the kind of damage that we're already seeing. It's roughly analogous to pay a lot now or pay a lot later and put up with the inconvenience of having a mobster busting your kneecaps. One way or another we will pay, but if we allow for the dissenters to derail the progress, then we may reach the point where the only option is to cut down to 19th century levels.
Also, that's a nasty ad hominem argument to make, yes he really shouldn't live in a house like that and lecture us on cutting back, but it's really not germane to the argument.
Because it's GPL and as such it'll buy you beer. Also it's paranoia compatible and fits in your average overhead bin.
That's part of the point, with ads as short as they are on Hulu there's really very little point to trying to skip them. It usually takes me more than 30 seconds to skip the commercials on my DVR. Even when using the increment forward button.
Additionally since Hulu gives you some say in what the adverts are for, there's an increased possibility that the product will actually be useful to the viewer. It's not really in anybody's best interest to show men adverts for vagisil.
That's not really the same thing, that was classifying human remains via the rough shape of the skull. This is a bit more personal than that is. You may very well be correct, it's just that basing it on genetics is far more likely to have some sort of meaningful accuracy.
Not really, humans as a species are just about as homogeneous as you're going to get, which makes it difficult to make those sorts of claims stick. Just as much of suggesting that Africans are inferior as superior. Additionally, there's been some research to suggest that African populations have more genetic diversity than other groups, which I wouldn't think would contribute to the suggestion that they're any more or less well adapted than other groups.
;)
But then again, if it drives white supremecists nuts, why bother arguing.
That's true, if you are OK with the binaries being restricted to internal consumption. But to be honest, how many people are working or using code in an environment where that's realistic? Most of the time it costs more money to do that than it does to give the source back if there's even enough resources to make the choice available.
Not really, if you can point out a way that Nintendo could be in compliance with the GPL and accept this sort of thing, then I tip my hat to you. Well, I'll put a hat on and then tip it to you.
Typical code for a console contains everything necessary to run on the hardware. I'm guessing that the Wii is to some extent similar to their older hardware in that regard. Basically the only way that Nintendo could be in compliance with the GPL would be to either give away all their code or to ban it completely.
I can't imagine a way that they could do the former without seriously damaging their ability to conduct business. Banning GPL code from the platform is probably the most reasonable way of handling it. I can't imagine how it's Nintendo's fault that the code is GPL rather than one of the other options.
No, that would never work, you'd need to give them photo IDs, otherwise, you'd never filter for pedophile midgets.
Indeed, Especially since Homer Simpson only took a few seconds to make a similar determination.
The significance is apparently that one is presumably charging for access to a specific hot spot rather than to the other ones in the area. Doesn't make it any more valid, but it does appear to mean commercial services rather than unprotected WAP.
Well, this is a tad bit different. Over all I do agree with you that this sort of intervention isn't a good idea. At best it's discouraging papers and other sources that are trying to remedy those sorts of problems.
But, by the same token living in a one paper town isn't good. It's the little things like a while back there was an article on a city employee that was seeking the names of those that were taking advantage of the cities GLBT meetings and get togethers. A fairly reasonable request, but the paper opted to gloss over the part where he's a white separatist with barely a mention. That's kind of glaring omission is far more likely to happen if there aren't other viable outlets looking for the best story possible.
I'm not personally sure that losing one or two of the big three would represent a similar threat to the democratic process.
Only if he'd have sold it. If the time frame is 12 years, there's plenty of time to make the money back. And if one were to choose a high quality company, one might very well end up with more than an equivalen 5% interest rate.
Assuming that one is savvy enough to manage stocks, but stupid enough to sell during the last bit of the down turn is kind of iffy.
Because this sort of thing doesn't scale in a linear fashion. It's a lot easier to do this sort of thing for a couple of houses, assuming a reasonable amount of light and willingness to cut back on consumption. It gets a lot more complicated when you start having to pay for extra land, land use studies and worry about transmission wires.
Xmarks, which replaced Foxmarks seems to do a pretty good job as well. Only downside is that it forces you to make an account, even if you're just wanting to sync on the same computer.
That's a solid point. I tend to segregate out the large files into their own directory, especially if I'm just storing a copy that could be downloaded again later on. Mainly because it helps keep backups sane. Things like my games collection from GoG, various installation CDs and DVDs for PC-BSD, Ubuntu, FreeBSD (AMD64 and i386) and such. Don't like to redownload unless I need to so I store them, but since they can be redownloaded later, I don't personally keep as close an eye on them for corruption.
Then there's the typically smaller files that aren't particularly sensitive, those usually get backed up offsite on a fairly regular basis and as such ought to get their own part of the home dir.
Temporary files that I don't really care a whole lot about get kept in a temp or download folder.
So, what I'm left with is something like the following which is also kind of nice for using varying tools on them.
home/$USER
=====>Backup/Large
=====>Backup/Small
=====>Backup/Small_secured
=====>Temporary
=====>Desktop
My main problem is finding a sensible tool to handle all those things. Right now I just use the MS Synctoy, but Gizmo has a few other recommendations over here.
No, you've got that backwards, the burden of proof is hardly always on the accuser. What you're suggesting is that the FDA regulating prescriptions is wrong because the accuser has to prove that it's not safe in order to keep it off the market.
That's not how it works at all, items which are ingested are assumed to be harmful unless proven otherwise. Or are you the sort of person that ingests random berries and things because nobody specifically told you that they were harmful?
It depends what you're doing, but you're not going to get the depth of field with a real HD video camera that you can with a dSLR. And additionally, it's easier to chop down the image size to HD than it is to turn and HD video camera into something that takes decent photos.
Good luck proving you're not guilty of infringement in court.
That's stretching it quite a bit, I do believe that in this case the RIAA would be the group that has the relevant rights. In this case, yes somebody should be paying money to somebody, but not to ASCAP for the performance, to the label for the recording.
Over all you're likely correct, but keep in mind that until there's a good understanding of how it actually works in the body and what the effects of various strengths of plant have, it's premature to talk about that sort of step. That's not to say that a reasonable balanced couldn't be struck, but more to say that our method of refusing to regulate herbal supplements is probably not a good idea either.
Every way? Now lets not exaggerate. Have you any idea how much time and energy has gone into getting people to give up Tobacco now that they're accustomed to it? Or to get people to drink responsibly?
Sure it may turn out to be more or less harmless, but this is the same sort of poorly formed logic that leads people to conclude that we ought to legalized the possession of all forms of firearms. It's easier to change our mind to allow it if it proves to be safe than it is to get people to give it up should it prove to be dangerous. Remember it's the burden of proof of those that want legalization not those that view it as being harmful.
Well, that's easy, just integrate it and beg somebody to tell you what the constant is. Problem solved.
Yeah, I feel sorry for the husbands that get talked into getting the snip snip by their wives because they don't want more kids. Specifically the ones that then end up getting divorced later on and have to watch their ex-wife having more children.
Just because it's a less dangerous procedure doesn't make having your partner get the operation an entitlement, ultimately it's his body, not hers.
Well no, he sounds like a perfectly sensible man. If he didn't want children and obviously couldn't trust her to behave in a responsible fashion, a vasectomy is one of a very small number of possible ways of handling it.