To "do it right", written debates would probably be better so that there is room and time for sufficient caveats, footnotes, citations, etc.
However, most of the public won't care about that. TV debates are mostly a style and personality contest, not a substance and policy contest. TV debates are a very poor forum for the latter.
COBOL lives because it's well-tuned by time for its niche of high-volume reliable back-end business and monetary processing, and isn't jacked around by fads, trends, and whims.
It's like Latin: it's used in science and church documents BECAUSE it's a "dead" language not subject to societal whims. Nobody messes with it; here today, here tomorrow.
Count me as a member of the "angry mob". Visa replacement happened to me also several years ago. I'm glad it's finally getting national attention. I was pissed when it happened and I can relate to this citizen on a personal level.
I probably won't vote for The Don because he'll likely offend international leaders, risking war, but he knows how to tap into America's sore spots, which the other clueless or bribed politicians ignore or gloss over.
It's a breath of fresh air. I'm glad he's running. Givem' Hell, Don!
It was NOT illegal to use one's personal email server at the time*, AND the "office" server she would have been using if not for the home server was NOT designed for classified materials EITHER. The EXACT SAME PROBLEM would exist if classified material was sent to that office server also. "Home-ness" is NOT the issue. The office server was a generic server with generic setups. H's server outlived that junk-box, even.
* Some experts suggest there is a finalization procedure that she should have done when her term was complete, but was skipped. I don't have the details on this alleged violation. My interpretation is that this law is vague, not specifying what technically constitutes a "copy", since most emails were already "copied" in the sender's system, because that's what email systems do. But the office server died, complicating matters and verification.
I interpreted "population X" to mean "generation X". Perhaps that's not the intent. Our sun is considered to be approximately a "3rd generation" star, for example, because it's made of stuff belched/blown out of the previous generation of stars, and those in turn are made of stuff from the first stars.
While I imagine there might have been at least some planets in Pop II stars, you're going to want to look first at Population I stars for planets and life.
I suspect you meant "first at Population III stars".
Or, there could be "zillions" of universes all with different laws of physics. The vast majority are probably "duds" in terms of complex life. We are not "lucky" in the usual sense, but only in the sense that ponderers of existence will only exist in universes that allow ponderers to form. There are no existence-ponderers in the dud universes (by definition of "dud" here). I'd call that a form of feedback-based perspective, not luck.
Or, maybe there's something weird going on with quantum physics-like probabilities in terms of observers influencing things; guiding or pruning them in a way. Okay, time to put down Sheldon's bong...
There is only one place this has happened or ever will happen
Actually, the design of the universe suggests that our universe is merely one "bud" in a complex "vine" of universes. Each bud may have varied parameters.
The Anthropic Principle suggests that we are not in a "bad" bud (conditions poor for forming complex life) because if we were, we wouldn't be around to ponder why we were in a bad bud.
It's somewhat comparable to the fact there are not many books written by people who live at the bottom of the ocean because humans can't survive there very long. (Please, no Sponge-Bob jokes.)
But we really don't know what's out there beyond our universe yet. Too early to say. We just have spotty hints.
In the case of our "type" of universe, they said there's a trade-off: too little expansion and there's too much radiation for complex life.
Too much expansion, and then not enough "right kind" of stars form to provide homes for complex life. (Density helps star formation). The simulation seems to have us in the "sweet spot" with enough stars but not too much radiation.
I'm not sure if "right kind" of star has to do with star size, and/or heavy elements. Without enough star "recycle" generations passing, elements like carbon may not be abundant enough.
At 2mph I wouldn't be surprised if the bus driver thought the Google car was stationary.
Good point. Sometimes overly-cautious drivers are confusing because they act different than "normal" drivers.
We are tuned to expect a certain degree of human jerkativity and aggressiveness.
But that's not a reason to ban auto-cars, it just means the "culture shift" will have bumps in the road (pun intended), as is typical with technology change.
If you have the right skill at the right time, you can indeed demand a lot of pay. However, a lot of that is luck, and you can't just teach yourself the "in" skill or tool because companies want paid experience in it. It's the old catch-22 that you can't get experience until you've had experience.
MANY things in the new economy are like that: if you are at the top, you seem to get even toppier (at least for a while), while the rest get outsourced, replaced by machines, or stagnate.
Slashdot Mirror
To "do it right", written debates would probably be better so that there is room and time for sufficient caveats, footnotes, citations, etc.
However, most of the public won't care about that. TV debates are mostly a style and personality contest, not a substance and policy contest. TV debates are a very poor forum for the latter.
Same applies to multinational conglomerates.
We can't swim in nor live in nuclear blasts, but we invented/discovered them anyhow.
Your reply makes no sense to me, and as far as I can tell, fails to address my points.
Here, I'll code it for ya:
Crap! you mean those are fake?
That's why I said "quite premature".
COBOL lives because it's well-tuned by time for its niche of high-volume reliable back-end business and monetary processing, and isn't jacked around by fads, trends, and whims.
It's like Latin: it's used in science and church documents BECAUSE it's a "dead" language not subject to societal whims. Nobody messes with it; here today, here tomorrow.
Count me as a member of the "angry mob". Visa replacement happened to me also several years ago. I'm glad it's finally getting national attention. I was pissed when it happened and I can relate to this citizen on a personal level.
I probably won't vote for The Don because he'll likely offend international leaders, risking war, but he knows how to tap into America's sore spots, which the other clueless or bribed politicians ignore or gloss over.
It's a breath of fresh air. I'm glad he's running. Givem' Hell, Don!
Horse-stuff! Let's try this again:
It was NOT illegal to use one's personal email server at the time*, AND the "office" server she would have been using if not for the home server was NOT designed for classified materials EITHER. The EXACT SAME PROBLEM would exist if classified material was sent to that office server also. "Home-ness" is NOT the issue. The office server was a generic server with generic setups. H's server outlived that junk-box, even.
* Some experts suggest there is a finalization procedure that she should have done when her term was complete, but was skipped. I don't have the details on this alleged violation. My interpretation is that this law is vague, not specifying what technically constitutes a "copy", since most emails were already "copied" in the sender's system, because that's what email systems do. But the office server died, complicating matters and verification.
Is there a grave-stone we can dance on, and perform other bodily activities?
They made one for COBOL, although it was quite premature.
I interpreted "population X" to mean "generation X". Perhaps that's not the intent. Our sun is considered to be approximately a "3rd generation" star, for example, because it's made of stuff belched/blown out of the previous generation of stars, and those in turn are made of stuff from the first stars.
I suspect you meant "first at Population III stars".
Evolving life and evolving nerds may not be the same thing.
I wonder if there is not a "galactic basement" out there somewhere...
Or, there could be "zillions" of universes all with different laws of physics. The vast majority are probably "duds" in terms of complex life. We are not "lucky" in the usual sense, but only in the sense that ponderers of existence will only exist in universes that allow ponderers to form. There are no existence-ponderers in the dud universes (by definition of "dud" here). I'd call that a form of feedback-based perspective, not luck.
Or, maybe there's something weird going on with quantum physics-like probabilities in terms of observers influencing things; guiding or pruning them in a way. Okay, time to put down Sheldon's bong...
Actually, the design of the universe suggests that our universe is merely one "bud" in a complex "vine" of universes. Each bud may have varied parameters.
The Anthropic Principle suggests that we are not in a "bad" bud (conditions poor for forming complex life) because if we were, we wouldn't be around to ponder why we were in a bad bud.
It's somewhat comparable to the fact there are not many books written by people who live at the bottom of the ocean because humans can't survive there very long. (Please, no Sponge-Bob jokes.)
But we really don't know what's out there beyond our universe yet. Too early to say. We just have spotty hints.
In the case of our "type" of universe, they said there's a trade-off: too little expansion and there's too much radiation for complex life.
Too much expansion, and then not enough "right kind" of stars form to provide homes for complex life. (Density helps star formation). The simulation seems to have us in the "sweet spot" with enough stars but not too much radiation.
I'm not sure if "right kind" of star has to do with star size, and/or heavy elements. Without enough star "recycle" generations passing, elements like carbon may not be abundant enough.
Good point. Sometimes overly-cautious drivers are confusing because they act different than "normal" drivers.
We are tuned to expect a certain degree of human jerkativity and aggressiveness.
But that's not a reason to ban auto-cars, it just means the "culture shift" will have bumps in the road (pun intended), as is typical with technology change.
But those don't have glowing eyes or fire shooting out of their tail. It's all in the presentation.
If you have the right skill at the right time, you can indeed demand a lot of pay. However, a lot of that is luck, and you can't just teach yourself the "in" skill or tool because companies want paid experience in it. It's the old catch-22 that you can't get experience until you've had experience.
MANY things in the new economy are like that: if you are at the top, you seem to get even toppier (at least for a while), while the rest get outsourced, replaced by machines, or stagnate.
Shuddup and steal back
God makes us ugly after a point to save us from sex?
Why do you think the density of debris is really low there? It is a "belt" after all.
Dark Heat.
The main job of a college is to prepare you for the work world, and in the workplace you CANNOT say what you want. So, what's the problem?
And the goat liked it and voted for Trump.