By that logic, car drivers shouldn't be required to pay for license tabs on their cars as they're already paid their taxes. It doesn't work that way, if cyclists want to use the streets they should pay like everybody else. The benefit for being green is that they don't have to pay the gas tax.
And the smaller footprint is not an accurate reflection of reality. Sure, they are smaller vehicles, but that doesn't mean that they take up less space. Drivers have to still allow the entire width of the lane to the cyclist and they aren't really that much smaller than a motorcycle or smart cars.
Yes, but they make virtually all their money off of other companies products. Steam itself is poorly coded and buggy. It's good enough that people don't run away from it, but the software itself is in bad need of a rewrite.
The latter half-life projects are laughably far behind.
So, I'd say that Valve really demonstrates why bossless isn't a good idea. Somebody needs to be in charge and making sure things are done at some point.
If a nuclear weapon has an accident in that fashion, there's usually not much to cover. You get a large explosion and nuclear contamination. But, nowhere near the size that you would get from a nuclear detonation. Nuclear weapons are incredibly simple in some respects, but the tolerances to get the reaction going are amazingly tight. Most likely if you get it wrong, what happens is about the same as a large dirty bomb.
And when is the last time you've heard of that happening to a commercially produced firearm? The only failures I hear of are cases where the firearm jams or accidentally discharges. Having the entire firearm blow up in your hand or have projectiles coming out of places other than the barrel is not something that gets any attention. And the accidental discharges are pretty much always the result of somebody handling the firearm in a way that's not safe.
Which suggests that it likely doesn't happen or is so common that it's no longer noteworthy. I suspect that it's the former as I've never heard of it happening in real life.
They only appear diametrically opposed if you're a moron. The reality is that people will be forced to pay into the system if they have the money rather than waiting until they get sick to get insurance so they'll at least be contributing something rather than being overwhelmed by bills and declaring bankruptcy. What's more, we're already starting to see checks mailed out to people whose health insurer charged too much for premiums. My insurer was pretty good at estimating the real costs so my check was pretty small. But for other people the checks were a lot larger.
Obamacare also mandates that insurance companies pay for preventative care, you know the care that prevents serious and expensive conditions from occurring or at least reduces the likelihood of such conditions occurring. The US pays a crap load of money for preventable diseases to people who haven't been able to afford coverage and have to wait until they have a serious illness before seeking help or worry about whether or not their trip to the hospital for a possible heart attack is going to be covered.
As far as the historical, that's not the government that's because morons like you vote for corporatists with no interest in keeping costs down if it means corporate interests and the rich suffer. Every other country that's gone with universal healthcare has lower costs than we do, if we screw that up, you can blame the GOP for corporate welfare.
They have increased job security to a point, but with the cap on non-service spending they can't make the bucket loads of cash they had been making. And Obamacare does have provisions where they pay for quality rather than quantity. Which should deal with that. What's more, with the insurance exchanges it's a lot harder for insurance companies that aren't providing quality services to keep people using their insurance.
So, collectively it may have increased their job security, but if an insurer is doing as poorly as many of them are now, in the future, the market can actually deal with that to an extent by having a mass exodus of people whose needs are being served going elsewhere.
If they hadn't voted for politicians that borrowed the money to avoid service cuts or tax raises it wouldn't be anywhere near the problem it is now. Or had been given the ability to invest the money in some low risk fashion it wouldn't be a problem.
But, in addition to that, the Boomers absolutely refuse to acknowledge that there are going to have to be cuts because the SS trust fund can't afford to pay out COLAs when wages are stagnant and there is no inflation. What's more, it's mostly their politicians that have been gutting programs like education that are necessary for younger folks to make the money necessary to pay into the trust so that it's funded.
What's even more infuriating, is that defined benefits plans are a thing of the past, younger Americans can't count on getting a dime for their retirement other than what the government hands out. And they bitch about how articles acknowledging it are getting the younger folks riled up. Well, we should be riled up, they're stealing our chance at the American dream because they were too short sighted and greedy to plan for their futures.
You mean the bill that means that I'll actually be able to buy insurance in the future? The state by state approach wasn't working because healthcare is an interstate commerce issue. People move from state to state and take their medical issues with them. I'm living in WA and it was one of the only states to guarantee health insurance to anybody that could pay for it. Which meant that they had to flunk 10% into the high risk pool no matter how healthy they were. Which meant that I'd be paying $500 or $600 a month because I was flagged as high risk.
And no health care reform? What do you call mandatory coverage for preventative care and capping the administrative fees? Or, what do you call the pay for quality changes that are coming? Sure, it wasn't what it should be, but without being able to go back to the '70s and take Nixon's proposal, it was the best we could do.
Plus, Obama should be proud of getting something done. I used to oppose the term Obamacare, but honestly, at this point, he should at least get credit for it, he's taking the heat regardless.
Which works fine, as long as you don't have an economy that's growing. In an ideal world, the USD supply would increase and decrease at roughly the rate at which the economy in general increases or decreases leaving approximately the same buying power.
The BTC, depends upon being divided in order for that to work out. The problem though, is that you can only divide coins that already exist. So, if the people who currently own the coins don't want to sell, you have to offer more money until they will sell rather than just printing more of them. This is ultimately bad as once deflationary expectations set in, there's no way of breaking it other than convincing people that it's their self interest to sell even though it's going to be nominally more valuable tomorrow. But, any rational self interest would lead one to refuse to sell and let other people take their profits early.
Sort of. They're more like penny stocks or junk bonds. The moment people actually cash them in, the value that they have collectively drops. So, if there's just one that goes for $5, the value drops to about $50m, which isn't good. And then suddenly, people rush to get in and it can easily quadruple or more all of a sudden.
This is a similar problem to looking at Apple's market cap and concluding that if everybody sold, that amount of money would be required. In practice it wouldn't because the act of selling would depress the share price pretty quickly.
You're arguing semantics here. The curve that they're using with regards to adding new BTC into the system ensures that the early adopters get money essentially for nothing and that later adopters pay more to enter.
The fact of the matter is that this looks an awful lot like a Ponzi scheme, ducking out of it with technicality doesn't change the fact that there's an inherent benefit to getting in early and hyping it up, trying to lure in suckers. And the ending will be more or less the same as in any Ponzi scheme.
Yes, but that's likely to always be true and meanwhile it's 10 years and you haven't done any meaningful upgrades. I'm not sure if it's still true, but as of when Qwest was bought by CenturyLink, there were parts of Seattle with 1.5mbps as the maximum connection speed and no plans to do anything about it. Even in my neighborhood the speeds had increased from 4mbps to a whopping 7mbps as the fastest option in a decade.
If you keep putting these things off, it just stifles innovation.
I'd settle for 600mbit that's about what I'm paying for 5mbps right now. Depending upon the specific taxes involved.
I do sort of agree with TWC that there isn't much demand. But, that's right now, the thing about increased bandwidth is that new uses come into being as people figure out how to use it. But, the real problem is the lack of upstream bandwidth. I've got 5mbps down, but only 896kbps upstream.
Bomb searches are generally pretty quick and gymnasiums typically have very little to be searched.
This isn't surprising at all, they can search the gym in very little time and keep the students there, then do a thorough search of the grounds and the other buildings. You make it sound like there's something unreasonable all of this.
It's not nonsense, this is the most reasonable way of proceeding in a case like this.
Because they have to search the entire school. Just because the threat says that it's a particular part of the school doesn't mean that the caller knows or is being honest about that. So, the entire school was presumably searched and it was determined that there were no bombs, everybody was allowed back in.
Bomb threats pretty much always result in a thorough search unless there's something that clearly indicates that it's no threat, and even then there's a tendency to err on the side of caution just in case.
I take it you've forgotten about VT Tech massacre where the school chose to delay warning the student body about the murderer on the loose. Instead of just 2 people being murdered, the eventual death toll was into the 30s.
So, they say, but the fact of the matter is that you've bought something, their ability to put their fingers in their ears and go "NaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNa" doesn't change that. It's certainly not the way that games are advertised in shops nor is that the conclusion most people would make with all those piracy PSAs that decry the stealing. If it's not sold, then that's even more meaningless.
In fact, it's pretty much just the industry that believes that they're licensing things.
Get a better bank. I haven't given my banks any money in years apart from their share of the transaction fees when I use plastic and the interest they make by lending the money out.
Also, as much as I hate MS, Intuit is far, far worse. They charge banks to support their format, and then insist upon changing it from time to time. The thing which really disgusted me was that they're so locked down that at the time, they wouldn't even accept imports from MS Money or anything else.
Seeing the video where they were explaining how they could have given a singleplayer game, but that you'd have to start over again if you wanted to play multiplayer and how they were sparing us the work to redo it, was pretty much the death of me giving them any money for the game.
I don't really have any interest in having to play with strangers or connect to the net, because Blizzard is on a power trip.
But, that's exactly what they're doing. I cannot think of a way of talking about sex which would not lead somebody out there to be triggered. It's an extremely low barrier that they're using.
Now, if the talk involved bad information or was inflammatory in nature, that would be a completely different thing. But, giving people information to protect themselves is completely reasonable.
I had to sit through an incredibly tense discussion on gender in a class where I was the only man there, do you think that was comfortable? No, I've been badly abused by women over the years and it was extremely uncomfortable. But, the subject needed to come up and I could have called in sick for the day or left. Preventing the topic from coming up would have been ridiculous.
Except it's not legitimate at all. A person that sensitive would be wise to steer clear and let other people get their information.
We're not talking about barring such talk where people are studying other things, or where people are being forced to attend. We're talking about an optional talk at a conference.
When all is said and done, allowing other people, to be raped because they didn't have the information to protect themselves is completely indefensible. And any rape survivor is going to choose to avoid the area if they're that sensitive to the topic at hand. The ones who don't, are generally asking to be triggered or lieing about the situation.
Trigger wasn't chosen by accident to describe the phenomena, it's a rather quick change for most people that are that sensitive. But, such a person would be using exceedingly poor judgment attending a talk of that nature, alone, knowing about their sensitivity.
But yes, there are many other options that could have been exercised, some of which could even have been exercised at the last minute. Posting a notice that people sensitive might want to steer clear should have been at or near the top of that list.
Bullshit. One of my friends in high school was raped after she passed out following smoking a laced joint.
So, yes, it definitely does happen, just because these survivors opt not to file charges does not mean that they were consenting to the sex nor does it mean that they aren't legally entitled to do so.
I can see why you posted this AC as the sentiment behind it is beyond ugly.
That's the thing though, public awareness in all cases is a good thing. Depriving people of necessary awareness because of ones own issues is the height of selfishness. Now, had this been buried inside of a talk without any warning ahead of time, that would have been a different matter. But, objecting to it ahead of time as a way of getting the talk yanked by somebody fraudulently claiming to be a rape survivor is the opposite of what's good.
And if the attitude is really that fratish, then that's precisely the place for a talk of this nature.
If this is genuinely how the Ada initiative is conducting its business, then women should be far more offended about it than men, as those are the sorts of self entitled princesses that have given Feminism such a bad reputation.
Bottom line is that anything can be a trigger, but depriving people of public awareness on that basis is low.
Except that it's only true if the goal is security theater. Those devices had well publicized problems where they would miss items placed in its blind spots. Meaning that, you got very little additional security, if any, and people got to be humiliated anyways.
Keep in mind that the Israelis don't use the technology and neither do the Brits as far as I know. The only reason for the machines at all is that the company that makes them is well connected.
Slashdot Mirror
By that logic, car drivers shouldn't be required to pay for license tabs on their cars as they're already paid their taxes. It doesn't work that way, if cyclists want to use the streets they should pay like everybody else. The benefit for being green is that they don't have to pay the gas tax.
And the smaller footprint is not an accurate reflection of reality. Sure, they are smaller vehicles, but that doesn't mean that they take up less space. Drivers have to still allow the entire width of the lane to the cyclist and they aren't really that much smaller than a motorcycle or smart cars.
Yes, but they make virtually all their money off of other companies products. Steam itself is poorly coded and buggy. It's good enough that people don't run away from it, but the software itself is in bad need of a rewrite.
The latter half-life projects are laughably far behind.
So, I'd say that Valve really demonstrates why bossless isn't a good idea. Somebody needs to be in charge and making sure things are done at some point.
If a nuclear weapon has an accident in that fashion, there's usually not much to cover. You get a large explosion and nuclear contamination. But, nowhere near the size that you would get from a nuclear detonation. Nuclear weapons are incredibly simple in some respects, but the tolerances to get the reaction going are amazingly tight. Most likely if you get it wrong, what happens is about the same as a large dirty bomb.
And when is the last time you've heard of that happening to a commercially produced firearm? The only failures I hear of are cases where the firearm jams or accidentally discharges. Having the entire firearm blow up in your hand or have projectiles coming out of places other than the barrel is not something that gets any attention. And the accidental discharges are pretty much always the result of somebody handling the firearm in a way that's not safe.
Which suggests that it likely doesn't happen or is so common that it's no longer noteworthy. I suspect that it's the former as I've never heard of it happening in real life.
Bullshit.
They only appear diametrically opposed if you're a moron. The reality is that people will be forced to pay into the system if they have the money rather than waiting until they get sick to get insurance so they'll at least be contributing something rather than being overwhelmed by bills and declaring bankruptcy. What's more, we're already starting to see checks mailed out to people whose health insurer charged too much for premiums. My insurer was pretty good at estimating the real costs so my check was pretty small. But for other people the checks were a lot larger.
Obamacare also mandates that insurance companies pay for preventative care, you know the care that prevents serious and expensive conditions from occurring or at least reduces the likelihood of such conditions occurring. The US pays a crap load of money for preventable diseases to people who haven't been able to afford coverage and have to wait until they have a serious illness before seeking help or worry about whether or not their trip to the hospital for a possible heart attack is going to be covered.
As far as the historical, that's not the government that's because morons like you vote for corporatists with no interest in keeping costs down if it means corporate interests and the rich suffer. Every other country that's gone with universal healthcare has lower costs than we do, if we screw that up, you can blame the GOP for corporate welfare.
They have increased job security to a point, but with the cap on non-service spending they can't make the bucket loads of cash they had been making. And Obamacare does have provisions where they pay for quality rather than quantity. Which should deal with that. What's more, with the insurance exchanges it's a lot harder for insurance companies that aren't providing quality services to keep people using their insurance.
So, collectively it may have increased their job security, but if an insurer is doing as poorly as many of them are now, in the future, the market can actually deal with that to an extent by having a mass exodus of people whose needs are being served going elsewhere.
If they hadn't voted for politicians that borrowed the money to avoid service cuts or tax raises it wouldn't be anywhere near the problem it is now. Or had been given the ability to invest the money in some low risk fashion it wouldn't be a problem.
But, in addition to that, the Boomers absolutely refuse to acknowledge that there are going to have to be cuts because the SS trust fund can't afford to pay out COLAs when wages are stagnant and there is no inflation. What's more, it's mostly their politicians that have been gutting programs like education that are necessary for younger folks to make the money necessary to pay into the trust so that it's funded.
What's even more infuriating, is that defined benefits plans are a thing of the past, younger Americans can't count on getting a dime for their retirement other than what the government hands out. And they bitch about how articles acknowledging it are getting the younger folks riled up. Well, we should be riled up, they're stealing our chance at the American dream because they were too short sighted and greedy to plan for their futures.
Obamacare? Clusterfuck?
You mean the bill that means that I'll actually be able to buy insurance in the future? The state by state approach wasn't working because healthcare is an interstate commerce issue. People move from state to state and take their medical issues with them. I'm living in WA and it was one of the only states to guarantee health insurance to anybody that could pay for it. Which meant that they had to flunk 10% into the high risk pool no matter how healthy they were. Which meant that I'd be paying $500 or $600 a month because I was flagged as high risk.
And no health care reform? What do you call mandatory coverage for preventative care and capping the administrative fees? Or, what do you call the pay for quality changes that are coming? Sure, it wasn't what it should be, but without being able to go back to the '70s and take Nixon's proposal, it was the best we could do.
Plus, Obama should be proud of getting something done. I used to oppose the term Obamacare, but honestly, at this point, he should at least get credit for it, he's taking the heat regardless.
Which works fine, as long as you don't have an economy that's growing. In an ideal world, the USD supply would increase and decrease at roughly the rate at which the economy in general increases or decreases leaving approximately the same buying power.
The BTC, depends upon being divided in order for that to work out. The problem though, is that you can only divide coins that already exist. So, if the people who currently own the coins don't want to sell, you have to offer more money until they will sell rather than just printing more of them. This is ultimately bad as once deflationary expectations set in, there's no way of breaking it other than convincing people that it's their self interest to sell even though it's going to be nominally more valuable tomorrow. But, any rational self interest would lead one to refuse to sell and let other people take their profits early.
Sort of. They're more like penny stocks or junk bonds. The moment people actually cash them in, the value that they have collectively drops. So, if there's just one that goes for $5, the value drops to about $50m, which isn't good. And then suddenly, people rush to get in and it can easily quadruple or more all of a sudden.
This is a similar problem to looking at Apple's market cap and concluding that if everybody sold, that amount of money would be required. In practice it wouldn't because the act of selling would depress the share price pretty quickly.
You're arguing semantics here. The curve that they're using with regards to adding new BTC into the system ensures that the early adopters get money essentially for nothing and that later adopters pay more to enter.
The fact of the matter is that this looks an awful lot like a Ponzi scheme, ducking out of it with technicality doesn't change the fact that there's an inherent benefit to getting in early and hyping it up, trying to lure in suckers. And the ending will be more or less the same as in any Ponzi scheme.
Yes, but that's likely to always be true and meanwhile it's 10 years and you haven't done any meaningful upgrades. I'm not sure if it's still true, but as of when Qwest was bought by CenturyLink, there were parts of Seattle with 1.5mbps as the maximum connection speed and no plans to do anything about it. Even in my neighborhood the speeds had increased from 4mbps to a whopping 7mbps as the fastest option in a decade.
If you keep putting these things off, it just stifles innovation.
I'd settle for 600mbit that's about what I'm paying for 5mbps right now. Depending upon the specific taxes involved.
I do sort of agree with TWC that there isn't much demand. But, that's right now, the thing about increased bandwidth is that new uses come into being as people figure out how to use it. But, the real problem is the lack of upstream bandwidth. I've got 5mbps down, but only 896kbps upstream.
Bomb searches are generally pretty quick and gymnasiums typically have very little to be searched.
This isn't surprising at all, they can search the gym in very little time and keep the students there, then do a thorough search of the grounds and the other buildings. You make it sound like there's something unreasonable all of this.
It's not nonsense, this is the most reasonable way of proceeding in a case like this.
Because they have to search the entire school. Just because the threat says that it's a particular part of the school doesn't mean that the caller knows or is being honest about that. So, the entire school was presumably searched and it was determined that there were no bombs, everybody was allowed back in.
Bomb threats pretty much always result in a thorough search unless there's something that clearly indicates that it's no threat, and even then there's a tendency to err on the side of caution just in case.
I take it you've forgotten about VT Tech massacre where the school chose to delay warning the student body about the murderer on the loose. Instead of just 2 people being murdered, the eventual death toll was into the 30s.
So, they say, but the fact of the matter is that you've bought something, their ability to put their fingers in their ears and go "NaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNa" doesn't change that. It's certainly not the way that games are advertised in shops nor is that the conclusion most people would make with all those piracy PSAs that decry the stealing. If it's not sold, then that's even more meaningless.
In fact, it's pretty much just the industry that believes that they're licensing things.
Get a better bank. I haven't given my banks any money in years apart from their share of the transaction fees when I use plastic and the interest they make by lending the money out.
Also, as much as I hate MS, Intuit is far, far worse. They charge banks to support their format, and then insist upon changing it from time to time. The thing which really disgusted me was that they're so locked down that at the time, they wouldn't even accept imports from MS Money or anything else.
Seeing the video where they were explaining how they could have given a singleplayer game, but that you'd have to start over again if you wanted to play multiplayer and how they were sparing us the work to redo it, was pretty much the death of me giving them any money for the game.
I don't really have any interest in having to play with strangers or connect to the net, because Blizzard is on a power trip.
But, that's exactly what they're doing. I cannot think of a way of talking about sex which would not lead somebody out there to be triggered. It's an extremely low barrier that they're using.
Now, if the talk involved bad information or was inflammatory in nature, that would be a completely different thing. But, giving people information to protect themselves is completely reasonable.
I had to sit through an incredibly tense discussion on gender in a class where I was the only man there, do you think that was comfortable? No, I've been badly abused by women over the years and it was extremely uncomfortable. But, the subject needed to come up and I could have called in sick for the day or left. Preventing the topic from coming up would have been ridiculous.
Except it's not legitimate at all. A person that sensitive would be wise to steer clear and let other people get their information.
We're not talking about barring such talk where people are studying other things, or where people are being forced to attend. We're talking about an optional talk at a conference.
When all is said and done, allowing other people, to be raped because they didn't have the information to protect themselves is completely indefensible. And any rape survivor is going to choose to avoid the area if they're that sensitive to the topic at hand. The ones who don't, are generally asking to be triggered or lieing about the situation.
Trigger wasn't chosen by accident to describe the phenomena, it's a rather quick change for most people that are that sensitive. But, such a person would be using exceedingly poor judgment attending a talk of that nature, alone, knowing about their sensitivity.
But yes, there are many other options that could have been exercised, some of which could even have been exercised at the last minute. Posting a notice that people sensitive might want to steer clear should have been at or near the top of that list.
Bullshit. One of my friends in high school was raped after she passed out following smoking a laced joint.
So, yes, it definitely does happen, just because these survivors opt not to file charges does not mean that they were consenting to the sex nor does it mean that they aren't legally entitled to do so.
I can see why you posted this AC as the sentiment behind it is beyond ugly.
That's the thing though, public awareness in all cases is a good thing. Depriving people of necessary awareness because of ones own issues is the height of selfishness. Now, had this been buried inside of a talk without any warning ahead of time, that would have been a different matter. But, objecting to it ahead of time as a way of getting the talk yanked by somebody fraudulently claiming to be a rape survivor is the opposite of what's good.
And if the attitude is really that fratish, then that's precisely the place for a talk of this nature.
If this is genuinely how the Ada initiative is conducting its business, then women should be far more offended about it than men, as those are the sorts of self entitled princesses that have given Feminism such a bad reputation.
Bottom line is that anything can be a trigger, but depriving people of public awareness on that basis is low.
Except that it's only true if the goal is security theater. Those devices had well publicized problems where they would miss items placed in its blind spots. Meaning that, you got very little additional security, if any, and people got to be humiliated anyways.
Keep in mind that the Israelis don't use the technology and neither do the Brits as far as I know. The only reason for the machines at all is that the company that makes them is well connected.