That is what I was thinking. If you wanted to do a man in the middle attack transparently you would set up lookalike sites for a few financial institutions and only give false records for those sites while giving correct information for the rest of the internet. They don't know this was harmless by checking just a few sites against the rogue servers.
Well, my opinion is that 'rich' is very relative. Using those numbers: $43k/person would be considered pretty 'rich' in rural midwest areas, but $43k would be fairly average for metropolitan areas, and $100k might be pretty average in some coastal communities. Do you have some standard deviations for those numbers? That might go a bit further to defining 'rich' in a very general sense.
I agree with most of what you say, I was expanding on what you said and addressing some anticipated arguments as well. But do notice how I also didn't make any comment about how much the rich *should* be paying. (Though I do have some different experiences with peoples perceptions of 'rich' people not paying taxes. What I see more often is 'poor' people being bitter, not because they think rich people don't pay taxes, but rather because the 'rich' people are complaining about taxes while still taking home orders of magnitude more than they are. Though I am sure there are many people don't believe 'rich' people pay taxes, I am also sure many people of all affluences don't pay taxes.)
As to your discussion on what constitutes 'rich' - I don't think you will get a fixed answer. Cost of living, buying power etc. varies so much by location and even time.
But that makes sense. Let's say we have a group of 6 people. One person makes $100,000/yr and 5 other people in the group make $10,000/yr and they all pay 10 percent of that for taxes. The 100k/yr person will pay $10k in taxes and the 5 other people will pay $5k in taxes combined. The 100k/yr person is paying about 67 percent of the taxes! Well, duh! Throw in tax tiers, and it skews it even more. Whether tax tiers are fair is a different argument. Keep in mind, the 100k/yr earner gets to take home 90k/yr and the others get to take home 9k/yr even though they pay less taxes. That is why low to middle class workers get up in arms when the 'rich' people complain about taxes.
Great, now I'm on some government watch list for watching the video! Wait, there's someone at the door, but at least I locked it so 'they' can't get;safkljwn GVL... -NO CARRIER-
This is/. Are you saying we should be attributing every phrase we heard somewhere to some book/site/what-have-you? Try something other than an ad-hominem attack.
Wanna impress me? Build a computer from an FPGA, or TTL gates, build your own interface [something better than a parallel port].
That (hardware) falls more under the realm of Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering. For CS try something more like: design and implement a file system, create a system that can model the universe, or create a new secure message passing interface.
Hopefully he wouldn't need it, but the fact that he might have one would make a criminal think twice before attacking him. Trust me, the concept works. Around where I live I occasionally carry on my way to a range or an unknown part of town (we had 2 murders in the last year in a city pair of 100000 people, so there is little risk), and when I do I tend to be much more respectful of other people when I might not otherwise be as I know they may be carrying as well. Besides, the guys who drive around with a rifle hanging in the cab of their truck tend to be the nicer politer people in my experience.
As far as the screen is concerned, a projector is an isotropic source. As you move farther away from the source, the 'screen area' grows reducing the light per unit area (as opposed to a laser, where the illuminated dot will be roughly the same size regardless of distance, within limitations of course). This is why the inverse square law still applies in this argument. And no, 10 lumens is not very bright for a projector. Low end projectors are somewhere around 500-800 lumens and work in a windowless room fairly well with lights on (but best with the lights off) on a 50 inch screen.
I second you comment. I've known far too many people who left the local area to work somewhere that paid 50% more just for the extra money, but the cost of living in that area was 2 or 3 times more there. These are college graduates that took a cut in their standard of living simply for more money. I mean, these are supposed to be smart people, but what the heck? Is this common outside of America too?
Thank you very much for the link, but look at the mice eyes: they glow. The cat eyes aren't glowing, so it doesn't seem to be the same thing occurring. Also, why are the red cat's ears partly green? It just looks like a green light on the right and a narrow beamed red light on the left, perhaps on a black haired cat that would absorb the red light. This just looks like a hoax to me.
Well, you make a good point. Still doesn't invalidate the splitting possibility though. So we have two valid ways of humans and other primates splitting apart on the chromosome count. Double the chance, double the fun?
"There are no pink grues" is a negative, and subsequently you can't disprove it
Not true, as I have here a pink grue. There, I have disproven your argument. (I think you mean prove, not disprove perhaps?) This kind of statement has to be assumed to be correct until disproven, assuming you believe in ID. Fortunately we have enough evidence showing that normal old nature puts pressure on species causing evolution that we don't need ID to explain why things are.
You CAN construct negatives that can be proven, such as "there are no elephants in this shoebox," because you can look in the shoebox.
There is nothing in micro or macro evolution about gain versus loss of genetic information. Perhaps you don't really understand how genes and DNA work. DNA has information encoded in it using Guanine, Adenine, Thymine, and Cytosine that allow it to make proteins based on what sequence the components of DNA are in. Sometimes when the DNA is copied something is not copied correctly, so instead of gataca we get gattaca or gaaca or gataaca or gatgataca or tac. These 'errors in copying' are called mutations, and when they are used to make a protein or whatnot, they will end up making a different protein or having a different cell wall thickness. Now you may say that information was gained, lost, or changed based on what changed during the copy process, and all are considered a mutation and a part of evolution. If gain and loss are macro and micro evolution respectively, what is the change of information considered? You see, it is all just mutation and evolution, not macro or micro. Macro and micro just define what scale the evolution is operating on.
Would it not have been more likely that a chromosome split into 2? As far as I remember, having the wrong number of chromosomes is pretty unhealthy (think: sterile or dead) for an animal, but having fewer rather than more tends to be more unhealthy. So splitting chromosomes should be more survivable thus more likely to create a branch of evolution?
Lab results disputing natural selection would also be a blow, since natural selection is the primary mechanism through which evolution is presumed to act.
Fortunately, this mechanism has already been tested. We've been doing it for quite a long while with farming. We breed the biggest, or most milk producing cows, we breed pigs for their leanness, we replant the corn from stalks that produced the most ears, etc. Granted, this is all done by man, but we are just placing our own set of conditions on these animals environment, nature can do the same thing. If we let the cows go by themselves for a few hundred years, they would probably evolve back to smaller faster animals to be able to run from prey and wouldn't eat so much that they need to be fed by humans instead of grazing. A better example might be pigs though as they were bred, brought to America, some got loose, and they evolved back down to a smaller wild animal.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps we should be using the Borg logo for the Apple stories from now on...
Wait. Are you saying I can afford a Mercury on disability pay? Hmm, I think I just broke my wrist typing on a company computer...
That is what I was thinking. If you wanted to do a man in the middle attack transparently you would set up lookalike sites for a few financial institutions and only give false records for those sites while giving correct information for the rest of the internet. They don't know this was harmless by checking just a few sites against the rogue servers.
After reading the articles, you are correct. It is actually over 26,000 years old, we were just able to see in in the last 140 years.
Well, my opinion is that 'rich' is very relative. Using those numbers: $43k/person would be considered pretty 'rich' in rural midwest areas, but $43k would be fairly average for metropolitan areas, and $100k might be pretty average in some coastal communities. Do you have some standard deviations for those numbers? That might go a bit further to defining 'rich' in a very general sense.
I agree with most of what you say, I was expanding on what you said and addressing some anticipated arguments as well. But do notice how I also didn't make any comment about how much the rich *should* be paying. (Though I do have some different experiences with peoples perceptions of 'rich' people not paying taxes. What I see more often is 'poor' people being bitter, not because they think rich people don't pay taxes, but rather because the 'rich' people are complaining about taxes while still taking home orders of magnitude more than they are. Though I am sure there are many people don't believe 'rich' people pay taxes, I am also sure many people of all affluences don't pay taxes.)
As to your discussion on what constitutes 'rich' - I don't think you will get a fixed answer. Cost of living, buying power etc. varies so much by location and even time.
But that makes sense. Let's say we have a group of 6 people. One person makes $100,000/yr and 5 other people in the group make $10,000/yr and they all pay 10 percent of that for taxes. The 100k/yr person will pay $10k in taxes and the 5 other people will pay $5k in taxes combined. The 100k/yr person is paying about 67 percent of the taxes! Well, duh! Throw in tax tiers, and it skews it even more. Whether tax tiers are fair is a different argument. Keep in mind, the 100k/yr earner gets to take home 90k/yr and the others get to take home 9k/yr even though they pay less taxes. That is why low to middle class workers get up in arms when the 'rich' people complain about taxes.
Affect: yes.
Capable of stopping: no.
There is an important difference there.
Great, now I'm on some government watch list for watching the video! Wait, there's someone at the door, but at least I locked it so 'they' can't get;safkljwn GVL ... -NO CARRIER-
This is /. Are you saying we should be attributing every phrase we heard somewhere to some book/site/what-have-you? Try something other than an ad-hominem attack.
And the platters make great wind chimes (just hang 'em from the control board) On second thought, maybe I shouldn't admit to this...
Hopefully he wouldn't need it, but the fact that he might have one would make a criminal think twice before attacking him. Trust me, the concept works. Around where I live I occasionally carry on my way to a range or an unknown part of town (we had 2 murders in the last year in a city pair of 100000 people, so there is little risk), and when I do I tend to be much more respectful of other people when I might not otherwise be as I know they may be carrying as well. Besides, the guys who drive around with a rifle hanging in the cab of their truck tend to be the nicer politer people in my experience.
As far as the screen is concerned, a projector is an isotropic source. As you move farther away from the source, the 'screen area' grows reducing the light per unit area (as opposed to a laser, where the illuminated dot will be roughly the same size regardless of distance, within limitations of course). This is why the inverse square law still applies in this argument. And no, 10 lumens is not very bright for a projector. Low end projectors are somewhere around 500-800 lumens and work in a windowless room fairly well with lights on (but best with the lights off) on a 50 inch screen.
I second you comment. I've known far too many people who left the local area to work somewhere that paid 50% more just for the extra money, but the cost of living in that area was 2 or 3 times more there. These are college graduates that took a cut in their standard of living simply for more money. I mean, these are supposed to be smart people, but what the heck? Is this common outside of America too?
Thank you very much for the link, but look at the mice eyes: they glow. The cat eyes aren't glowing, so it doesn't seem to be the same thing occurring. Also, why are the red cat's ears partly green? It just looks like a green light on the right and a narrow beamed red light on the left, perhaps on a black haired cat that would absorb the red light. This just looks like a hoax to me.
So, is the true American way to shoot first and have sex with the corpse later?
Well, you make a good point. Still doesn't invalidate the splitting possibility though. So we have two valid ways of humans and other primates splitting apart on the chromosome count. Double the chance, double the fun?
Yes I would say we are in very much agreement, I was supporting your point :)
I think you need to look up the definitions of macro and micro evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_evolution
There is nothing in micro or macro evolution about gain versus loss of genetic information. Perhaps you don't really understand how genes and DNA work. DNA has information encoded in it using Guanine, Adenine, Thymine, and Cytosine that allow it to make proteins based on what sequence the components of DNA are in. Sometimes when the DNA is copied something is not copied correctly, so instead of gataca we get gattaca or gaaca or gataaca or gatgataca or tac. These 'errors in copying' are called mutations, and when they are used to make a protein or whatnot, they will end up making a different protein or having a different cell wall thickness. Now you may say that information was gained, lost, or changed based on what changed during the copy process, and all are considered a mutation and a part of evolution. If gain and loss are macro and micro evolution respectively, what is the change of information considered? You see, it is all just mutation and evolution, not macro or micro. Macro and micro just define what scale the evolution is operating on.
Would it not have been more likely that a chromosome split into 2? As far as I remember, having the wrong number of chromosomes is pretty unhealthy (think: sterile or dead) for an animal, but having fewer rather than more tends to be more unhealthy. So splitting chromosomes should be more survivable thus more likely to create a branch of evolution?