That's just what the actual perpetrator would want you to think. It must be an anti-CoS group. No, wait, that means the CoS did it since it would discredit the anti-CoS people! No, wait, that's just what the actual perpetrator would want you to think. It must be an anti-CoS group.
This logic is somewhat... circular. I think the answer is that we just don't know who did it, until someone comes up with some convincing server logs.
The bigger problem I see is one of generational inequity. Social security was made, then the initial funds looted, and then each generation paid for the last. Medicare/aid is set up the same way, so that increasing benefits for one generation means raising taxes on the next.
Without significant policy changes, we face the specter of massive tax increases or benefit cuts in Medicare when baby boomers retire. That is why we must reform our healthcare system now, just as we must put the government as a whole on sound fiscal footing before it is too late and we are faced with unacceptable options. The time to fix medicare for the baby boomers was 30 years ago, when they started work, not now when they get to claim benefits and stop paying in. It's especially dubious that the baby-boomers are the ones now in Congress voting to increase medicare benefits by taxing the young in ways they were never taxed.
(To be fair, Steve Novick was born in 1963, so it's dubious to call him a baby-boomer.)
I like the quote from the aviation industry:
Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.
The question is: What kind of crappy friends do you have that keep sending you Britney news? And have you never heard of installing your own technological filter? Sites like GoogleNews make it pretty easy to block out all mention of celebrity news.
Unfortunately, it also makes it easy to block out news that might contradict your own opinions, but that's a topic for another day. It's also a risk in "social filters" and often but not always "professional filters".
It's just a tool. People are going to learn to use it just enough to do what they need it for. That's not stupid, it's practical (and effective).
And I'm not saying it's a bad thing to learn the in's and out's of searching. It's like a car: most people learn how to drive them just enough to get around, a few study them because they enjoy it and want to use it in more/better ways (gear head / car nerd), and others learn every detail for their job. Those latter two groups aren't mutually exclusive, thank god.
You're probably a search algorithm nerd and/or someone trained to use them. These new human-search-engine jobs the article talks about? They're for people like you.
Here's a useful link for MD residents that lets you look up who your elected officials are at the state and federal level, including contact information: http://mdelect.net/electedofficials/
To me, the more dangerous thing is shrink-wrap licensing. Why bother having copyright or patent law at all if you can slap a license on something and prevent any unauthorized distribution forever?
Hey, you want to install this in your private business where it only plays inside or on your property, you go right ahead. You use this in a public area and you're abusing the public. Let's make that clear: this isn't people defending just their own property and safety. It's them declaring other individuals to be a nuisance to society and taking the matter into their own hands (with their own prejudices and determination of right from wrong).
And just because you and your cohort (who happen to also be the police and politicians) can't hear it doesn't mean it's alright. If you started spraying pepper spray out front of your shop to disperse unruly people, it would be the same effect, but you wouldn't think of doing that because, after all, you'd hit adults, too. And adults are people, too. Not those kids, though, right?
Would it be ok if we installed the opposite version of this outside kids locations, like schools, arcades, and youth centers? After all, those pesky kiddy molesters are all adults and we need to keep them away. Sure, there are innocent adults who are going to get hit, too, but most of these adults in the kid's areas are just causing trouble. That makes it acceptable to abuse them all, right?
Want to convince me that it's fine to do this? Make it audible to *everyone*, including yourself. And put them in the hands of everyone, so anyone can start declaring nuisances. Then when you tell me that the casualties are acceptable, you'll have a leg to stand on.
When they decide to become part of society, I'll treat them like they deserve to be It's a deal. You give us the right to vote, run for office, own and manage our own property, and work, and we'll be happy to find something better to do on a Friday night. Oh, wait, sorry? You don't want to give those up to us? You didn't mean we should actually integrate, but start filling your mold of seen-but-not-heard lapdogs? Well, then, we'll be your little lapdogs and piss all over your steps.
No, we can't function in society when you actively stop us from doing so. And as long as you dictate that you know how to run our lives better than we do, you DO have a responsibility to "try to understand what is happening from [our] side." Paternalism is only remotely ethically sound if actually step in and help. If you'll "BE DAMNED" before you'll try to understand us, then you'll be damned for taking our rights, too.
And besides, even if the rights of the youth are unimportant, this device is a bad idea. It doesn't create a disincentive for being rowdy, it creates a disincentive for being young. In the face of that, the rowdy youth won't change but the "good" youth are going to be given a good reason to be rowdy. Nice job, asshole: you just made life tough for good people and encouraged the exact problem you're trying to solve, a problem you created in the first place by trampling the rights of the easily oppressed.
I was a "good" youth and I have the little paper certificates from every institution I've been in to prove that. And you know what my perspective is? I'm pretty damned pissed at you for dehumanization I suffered as a kid. I've never pissed on anyone's steps or turned over any trash cans in the streets, but I feel kind of guilty for that. I didn't do my civic duty like some of these youth did.
And, by the way, we didn't break the world: your generation got us where we are today. Please take a look in the mirror the next time you start criticizing the youth. We didn't start Iraq, excuse Darfur, send the U.S. into depression, create global warming, or create the system in which youths are turned into delinquents. You did.
Oh, the wisdom you sages impart on us. What would we do without you?
Because, of course, indiscriminately harassing an entire population for the actions of a few members is an appropriate response.
The logical response by these rebellious youth, then, should be treat all older people the exact same as those who treat them shittily. After all, why should they be bothered to actually address the pain-in-the-ass old people when they could just urinate on their steps of all the old people?
Yes, class warfare, that's how we can solve these problems.
What if there is a simple but not backwards-compatible way to improve the format? What if that improvement is DRM? In the first case, a lot of people would say, "you must update my player so I can read the new discs! I bought the player, now give me the support!" In the second case, a lot of people would say, "don't you dare update my player or put out official discs with that 'improvement'!"
This all comes down to how we are going to use standards: a concrete backbone which both solidifies and limits technological development, or a fluid platform that leads to some failures but a rapidly growing body of highly-technically-advanced media? The 1.0 vs. 1.1 vs. 2.0 thing is the creation of a fluid standard. I hope my paragraph above explains how this bleeding edge is a double-edged sword (three cheers for abused metaphors).
I think that content-distributors are only going to accept a fluid standard because DRM is wobbly and never stays on its feet for too long. I think the consumers are going to have to accept this but, through lawsuits like this one, insist that the version of the standard used be MUCH more prominent. The "1.1" needs to be right at the end of and just as a big as the "BLU-RAY" on the packaging of both the player and the media, even if it needs to say "BLU-RAY 1.1-2.0 " or "BLU-RAY 1.1 w/ 2.0 EXTRAS "
Just my two cents, no refunds.
Off topic: why is the parser throwing a space between my italic and bold tags?
Didn't the Oxygen Catastrophe create a "snowball earth" as it removed the vast majority of CO2 from the atmosphere and lowered global temperatures by something like 25 deg. C?
I would think that the Oxygen Catastrophe would have selected more towards the cryophiles, not away. This, also, is wild speculation.
I agree with you, but I want to add on to the discussion.
You can't scrub CO2 from coal combustion because CO2 is the PRIMARY PRODUCT of combusting carbon based fuels, not a contaminant. Combustion of coal is C* + O2 + heat --> CO2 + more heat + *. It's like saying that you can "scrub" the H20 out of a river to prevent flooding. If someone suggests a different condition for combustion (combusting straight to CaCO3, a solid organic buffer compound, at the plant?) I'd consider it. But you can't "scrub" the primary product out of a reaction. My point, I guess, is that there is no "scrubbing" coal burning to reduce it's greenhouse gases, except perhaps by reducing any incomplete combustion products that cause more radiative forcing than the CO2, and causing them to become CO2 instead.
And you're right, coal is a delay tactic, but not on the output side that many people think; it's a solution for supply shortages of other energy inputs, namely petroleum. It addresses the "running out of petroleum / petroleum supplied by bad parts of the world" problem, not the "carbon combustion causes climate change" problem.
As for the prospect of injecting CO2 underground, I think people forget that we actually add a lot of matter in the reaction (that O2 comes from the atmosphere, after all) and that the quantity CO2 is a linear function of the energy released. That's a LOT of gas to sequester mechanically. I think distributed biological methods (primarily photosynthesis) is our best bet. No one proposes that the SETI project handle all its data in one place, why think that CO2 emissions be handled in one place? The biggest changes are effected in small bits by many actors doing many things over a long time (think SETI, or even the release of GHG's in the first place).
Well, yes... but aren't hypotheses of what might be (as opposed to why things are) better known as philosophy?
A hypothesis that angels dance on pinheads because they are physical beings is philosophical because it is based not on the observation that angels dance on pinheads but the idea that they might exist and might be a certain way. A hypothesis that wormholes may be detectable by negative matter* is philosophical because it isn't an explanation for observations but conjecture about unseen possibilities.
I think '[G]\+GP' point was that this isn't science really, it's philosophy. I don't know why he pointed this out, though, as philosophy is a great nerd past time, and not at all inappropriate for/. After all, science fiction has a lot more philosophy than science, I'd say, and no one would gripe about articles centered on the genre.
After receiving legal advice and deciding there's no way for a poor student to fight Hasbro whether a copyright over the board shape is valid, my friend came up with totally changed rules and board
Now, I'm not a fan of copyright law as it is... but did you just say that (corporate abuse of) copyright spurred creation?
Yes, and that's what is happening. The content provider wants to sell the DRM version, and apparently accept a loss in price of $4. Did I miss something?
Well, Mr. Grammar Nazi, you are failing in your job. How did catch that and miss "the data that is".
Datum != data
So, you're a "multinational inclusivist grammar nazi" (let's ignore the punctuation error) who is neither very efficient nor interested in scientific vocabulary? Well, good to see you trawling Slashdot!
Don't get me wrong -- Ron Paul is an interesting candidate, and there are great advantages to a constitutional form of government.
The fact that we are debating whether we want to become a constitutional government (and that the decision may lie with the current president) speaks volumes to how American government has changed throughout its history. Can you imagine living 200 years ago and telling Thomas Jefferson, "Well, sure, there are some advantages to a constitutional government"?
Seriously, when did we lose the idea that we are a constitutional democracy? (And don't say January 20th, 2001.)
I had the opposite experience. I saw a guy in the parking lot outside my apartment that was maybe stealing a car (didn't know if he was just trying to get back into his own car, he wasn't breaking anything). I figured that no one was in any danger, so I'd call the none emergency number. I sat on hold for about 10 minutes, at which point the guy had already left the car. The operator at the police station threw a fit because I was watching a crime-in-progress and I didn't call the emergency number.
Admittedly, it's my responsibility to know which number to call. But couldn't they please make it a little bit more clear? I'm happy to call whichever one, as long as they'll tell me which.
As you read in chapter 1, there are different biomes in different areas of the Earth. One that is found in Southern California is the Mediterranian Chapparal. This biome is relatively dry and warm, and is known for incomplete plant cover, thick-leaved plants (schlerophylls), and lots of woody, oily biomass.
Now let's move to chapter 2, where we discuss Disturbance Ecology. The mediterranian chapparal, you see, burns regularly. This returns critical nutrients to the soil and allows many species to reproduce. Without regular disturbances, the chaparral would likely desertify. The fires are probably unavoidable outside of a desert scenario, as the low moisture, moderate soils, and warm temperatures cause combustable biomass.
Let's apply these lessons: if you're going to build a home in a rustic, rural sort of area, where should you not build it? Perhaps an ecosystem known to regularly rely on an event that will destroy your home?
Ah, but you think to yourself, "we can prevent forest fires! The laws of nature don't apply to man; we can change nature." Unfortunately, you're only half right. We can change nature, but the laws of nature are like the laws of gravity or black body radiation. So, when we prevent small scale fires, we cause a build up of the materials that fuel fires, and we see much larger fires with lower frequency. It happens like goddamn, motherfucking clockwork. It has for millions of years; it's extremely predictable. You can stick in your finger and hold back the second hand for a bit, but it's going to get loose and its going to move really fast when it does (poor analogy, I know).
On the other hand, analysis of sedimentary layers along the Gulf Coast, both on- and off-land, show that large storm events are relatively rare, and haven't occured on a regular basis for more than a hundred thousand years. A mega-storm hitting southern Louisiana and coastal Texas is considered improbable for any year or decade, or at least it was a little while ago. Changing climate conditions (largely observed over the last few years) are changing the odds significantly.
So, to recap, people who built homes and lived in Southern California at any point since the introduction of the Scientific Method should have seen large fire events coming. People who built homes and lived in coastal Louisiana really had no reason to expect a mega-storm in their lifetimes, until about 5 years ago.
Homeworks due Friday, bring your textbooks to discussion, have a nice day.
Many individual educational sales have been replaced by institutional sales, where discounts are much higher than they were before.
Apple wants institutional over individual because some of the insitutions are buying more than 50% apple hardware now, and it's easier to target the real educational sector.
Oh god, that's a good question...
For the integers 10 to 999, how many unique properties do you need to be told you know exactly which number it is? I realize this changes based on the number (for 24, it's the first factorial in the set).
Prime?
Perfect square? Cube?
Natural?
Stable electron shell configuration?
To phrase the question differently: Suppose you could create a list of X properties to ask about the number, and from that you are able to determine exactly which integer 10-999 it is. What is the lowest value of X? What are the questions (otherwise, 10 is too easy to say)?
Slashdot Mirror
That's just what the actual perpetrator would want you to think. It must be an anti-CoS group.
No, wait, that means the CoS did it since it would discredit the anti-CoS people!
No, wait, that's just what the actual perpetrator would want you to think. It must be an anti-CoS group.
This logic is somewhat... circular. I think the answer is that we just don't know who did it, until someone comes up with some convincing server logs.
(To be fair, Steve Novick was born in 1963, so it's dubious to call him a baby-boomer.)
I like the quote from the aviation industry: Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.
The question is: What kind of crappy friends do you have that keep sending you Britney news? And have you never heard of installing your own technological filter? Sites like GoogleNews make it pretty easy to block out all mention of celebrity news.
Unfortunately, it also makes it easy to block out news that might contradict your own opinions, but that's a topic for another day. It's also a risk in "social filters" and often but not always "professional filters".
It's just a tool. People are going to learn to use it just enough to do what they need it for. That's not stupid, it's practical (and effective).
And I'm not saying it's a bad thing to learn the in's and out's of searching. It's like a car: most people learn how to drive them just enough to get around, a few study them because they enjoy it and want to use it in more/better ways (gear head / car nerd), and others learn every detail for their job. Those latter two groups aren't mutually exclusive, thank god.
You're probably a search algorithm nerd and/or someone trained to use them. These new human-search-engine jobs the article talks about? They're for people like you.
But the state's aren't resisting to protect state powers. They're resisting because of the cost of implementing.
If the fed's had funded this mandate, it would have been implemented already, regardless of how it relates to individual or state rights.
Here's a useful link for MD residents that lets you look up who your elected officials are at the state and federal level, including contact information:
http://mdelect.net/electedofficials/
To me, the more dangerous thing is shrink-wrap licensing. Why bother having copyright or patent law at all if you can slap a license on something and prevent any unauthorized distribution forever?
See Jurisline v. Reed Elsevier.
Hey, you want to install this in your private business where it only plays inside or on your property, you go right ahead. You use this in a public area and you're abusing the public. Let's make that clear: this isn't people defending just their own property and safety. It's them declaring other individuals to be a nuisance to society and taking the matter into their own hands (with their own prejudices and determination of right from wrong). And just because you and your cohort (who happen to also be the police and politicians) can't hear it doesn't mean it's alright. If you started spraying pepper spray out front of your shop to disperse unruly people, it would be the same effect, but you wouldn't think of doing that because, after all, you'd hit adults, too. And adults are people, too. Not those kids, though, right? Would it be ok if we installed the opposite version of this outside kids locations, like schools, arcades, and youth centers? After all, those pesky kiddy molesters are all adults and we need to keep them away. Sure, there are innocent adults who are going to get hit, too, but most of these adults in the kid's areas are just causing trouble. That makes it acceptable to abuse them all, right? Want to convince me that it's fine to do this? Make it audible to *everyone*, including yourself. And put them in the hands of everyone, so anyone can start declaring nuisances. Then when you tell me that the casualties are acceptable, you'll have a leg to stand on.
No, we can't function in society when you actively stop us from doing so. And as long as you dictate that you know how to run our lives better than we do, you DO have a responsibility to "try to understand what is happening from [our] side." Paternalism is only remotely ethically sound if actually step in and help. If you'll "BE DAMNED" before you'll try to understand us, then you'll be damned for taking our rights, too.
And besides, even if the rights of the youth are unimportant, this device is a bad idea. It doesn't create a disincentive for being rowdy, it creates a disincentive for being young. In the face of that, the rowdy youth won't change but the "good" youth are going to be given a good reason to be rowdy. Nice job, asshole: you just made life tough for good people and encouraged the exact problem you're trying to solve, a problem you created in the first place by trampling the rights of the easily oppressed.
I was a "good" youth and I have the little paper certificates from every institution I've been in to prove that. And you know what my perspective is? I'm pretty damned pissed at you for dehumanization I suffered as a kid. I've never pissed on anyone's steps or turned over any trash cans in the streets, but I feel kind of guilty for that. I didn't do my civic duty like some of these youth did.
And, by the way, we didn't break the world: your generation got us where we are today. Please take a look in the mirror the next time you start criticizing the youth. We didn't start Iraq, excuse Darfur, send the U.S. into depression, create global warming, or create the system in which youths are turned into delinquents. You did.
Oh, the wisdom you sages impart on us. What would we do without you?
Because, of course, indiscriminately harassing an entire population for the actions of a few members is an appropriate response.
The logical response by these rebellious youth, then, should be treat all older people the exact same as those who treat them shittily. After all, why should they be bothered to actually address the pain-in-the-ass old people when they could just urinate on their steps of all the old people?
Yes, class warfare, that's how we can solve these problems.
This gets into tricky questions.
What if there is a simple but not backwards-compatible way to improve the format? What if that improvement is DRM? In the first case, a lot of people would say, "you must update my player so I can read the new discs! I bought the player, now give me the support!" In the second case, a lot of people would say, "don't you dare update my player or put out official discs with that 'improvement'!"
This all comes down to how we are going to use standards: a concrete backbone which both solidifies and limits technological development, or a fluid platform that leads to some failures but a rapidly growing body of highly-technically-advanced media? The 1.0 vs. 1.1 vs. 2.0 thing is the creation of a fluid standard. I hope my paragraph above explains how this bleeding edge is a double-edged sword (three cheers for abused metaphors).
I think that content-distributors are only going to accept a fluid standard because DRM is wobbly and never stays on its feet for too long. I think the consumers are going to have to accept this but, through lawsuits like this one, insist that the version of the standard used be MUCH more prominent. The "1.1" needs to be right at the end of and just as a big as the " BLU-RAY " on the packaging of both the player and the media, even if it needs to say " BLU-RAY 1.1-2.0 " or " BLU-RAY 1.1 w/ 2.0 EXTRAS "
Just my two cents, no refunds.
Off topic: why is the parser throwing a space between my italic and bold tags?
Didn't the Oxygen Catastrophe create a "snowball earth" as it removed the vast majority of CO2 from the atmosphere and lowered global temperatures by something like 25 deg. C?
I would think that the Oxygen Catastrophe would have selected more towards the cryophiles, not away. This, also, is wild speculation.
I agree with you, but I want to add on to the discussion.
You can't scrub CO2 from coal combustion because CO2 is the PRIMARY PRODUCT of combusting carbon based fuels, not a contaminant. Combustion of coal is C* + O2 + heat --> CO2 + more heat + *. It's like saying that you can "scrub" the H20 out of a river to prevent flooding. If someone suggests a different condition for combustion (combusting straight to CaCO3, a solid organic buffer compound, at the plant?) I'd consider it. But you can't "scrub" the primary product out of a reaction. My point, I guess, is that there is no "scrubbing" coal burning to reduce it's greenhouse gases, except perhaps by reducing any incomplete combustion products that cause more radiative forcing than the CO2, and causing them to become CO2 instead.
And you're right, coal is a delay tactic, but not on the output side that many people think; it's a solution for supply shortages of other energy inputs, namely petroleum. It addresses the "running out of petroleum / petroleum supplied by bad parts of the world" problem, not the "carbon combustion causes climate change" problem.
As for the prospect of injecting CO2 underground, I think people forget that we actually add a lot of matter in the reaction (that O2 comes from the atmosphere, after all) and that the quantity CO2 is a linear function of the energy released. That's a LOT of gas to sequester mechanically. I think distributed biological methods (primarily photosynthesis) is our best bet. No one proposes that the SETI project handle all its data in one place, why think that CO2 emissions be handled in one place? The biggest changes are effected in small bits by many actors doing many things over a long time (think SETI, or even the release of GHG's in the first place).
/rant
Well, yes... but aren't hypotheses of what might be (as opposed to why things are) better known as philosophy?
A hypothesis that angels dance on pinheads because they are physical beings is philosophical because it is based not on the observation that angels dance on pinheads but the idea that they might exist and might be a certain way. A hypothesis that wormholes may be detectable by negative matter* is philosophical because it isn't an explanation for observations but conjecture about unseen possibilities.
I think '[G]\+GP' point was that this isn't science really, it's philosophy. I don't know why he pointed this out, though, as philosophy is a great nerd past time, and not at all inappropriate for /. After all, science fiction has a lot more philosophy than science, I'd say, and no one would gripe about articles centered on the genre.
Now, I'm not a fan of copyright law as it is... but did you just say that (corporate abuse of) copyright spurred creation?
SHHHHHH!!!!!!
Yes, and that's what is happening. The content provider wants to sell the DRM version, and apparently accept a loss in price of $4. Did I miss something?
Shh... you'll ruin the greatest Slashvertisement ever. The best way to fake this word-of-mouth is through "CasualRepartee".
Well, Mr. Grammar Nazi, you are failing in your job. How did catch that and miss "the data that is". Datum != data So, you're a "multinational inclusivist grammar nazi" (let's ignore the punctuation error) who is neither very efficient nor interested in scientific vocabulary? Well, good to see you trawling Slashdot!
I'd mod it up just for scariness.
Don't get me wrong -- Ron Paul is an interesting candidate, and there are great advantages to a constitutional form of government.The fact that we are debating whether we want to become a constitutional government (and that the decision may lie with the current president) speaks volumes to how American government has changed throughout its history. Can you imagine living 200 years ago and telling Thomas Jefferson, "Well, sure, there are some advantages to a constitutional government"?
Seriously, when did we lose the idea that we are a constitutional democracy? (And don't say January 20th, 2001.)
I had the opposite experience. I saw a guy in the parking lot outside my apartment that was maybe stealing a car (didn't know if he was just trying to get back into his own car, he wasn't breaking anything). I figured that no one was in any danger, so I'd call the none emergency number. I sat on hold for about 10 minutes, at which point the guy had already left the car. The operator at the police station threw a fit because I was watching a crime-in-progress and I didn't call the emergency number.
Admittedly, it's my responsibility to know which number to call. But couldn't they please make it a little bit more clear? I'm happy to call whichever one, as long as they'll tell me which.
Hi, I'd like to introduce you to Ecology 101.
As you read in chapter 1, there are different biomes in different areas of the Earth. One that is found in Southern California is the Mediterranian Chapparal. This biome is relatively dry and warm, and is known for incomplete plant cover, thick-leaved plants (schlerophylls), and lots of woody, oily biomass.
Now let's move to chapter 2, where we discuss Disturbance Ecology. The mediterranian chapparal, you see, burns regularly. This returns critical nutrients to the soil and allows many species to reproduce. Without regular disturbances, the chaparral would likely desertify. The fires are probably unavoidable outside of a desert scenario, as the low moisture, moderate soils, and warm temperatures cause combustable biomass.
Let's apply these lessons: if you're going to build a home in a rustic, rural sort of area, where should you not build it? Perhaps an ecosystem known to regularly rely on an event that will destroy your home?
Ah, but you think to yourself, "we can prevent forest fires! The laws of nature don't apply to man; we can change nature." Unfortunately, you're only half right. We can change nature, but the laws of nature are like the laws of gravity or black body radiation. So, when we prevent small scale fires, we cause a build up of the materials that fuel fires, and we see much larger fires with lower frequency. It happens like goddamn, motherfucking clockwork. It has for millions of years; it's extremely predictable. You can stick in your finger and hold back the second hand for a bit, but it's going to get loose and its going to move really fast when it does (poor analogy, I know).
On the other hand, analysis of sedimentary layers along the Gulf Coast, both on- and off-land, show that large storm events are relatively rare, and haven't occured on a regular basis for more than a hundred thousand years. A mega-storm hitting southern Louisiana and coastal Texas is considered improbable for any year or decade, or at least it was a little while ago. Changing climate conditions (largely observed over the last few years) are changing the odds significantly.
So, to recap, people who built homes and lived in Southern California at any point since the introduction of the Scientific Method should have seen large fire events coming. People who built homes and lived in coastal Louisiana really had no reason to expect a mega-storm in their lifetimes, until about 5 years ago.
Homeworks due Friday, bring your textbooks to discussion, have a nice day.
According to the Stephen-Boltzmann law, yes.
Hey, did I just hear something fly over my head?
Many individual educational sales have been replaced by institutional sales, where discounts are much higher than they were before.
Apple wants institutional over individual because some of the insitutions are buying more than 50% apple hardware now, and it's easier to target the real educational sector.
Oh god, that's a good question... For the integers 10 to 999, how many unique properties do you need to be told you know exactly which number it is? I realize this changes based on the number (for 24, it's the first factorial in the set). Prime? Perfect square? Cube? Natural? Stable electron shell configuration? To phrase the question differently: Suppose you could create a list of X properties to ask about the number, and from that you are able to determine exactly which integer 10-999 it is. What is the lowest value of X? What are the questions (otherwise, 10 is too easy to say)?
Why do you get to determine who deserves sex, oh high and mighty master?
It seems to me that maybe you should let other people figure out who they want to have sex with, and who they want to hire.
And just for the record, I don't think anyone is entitled to either sex or a job, but they should be allowed to freely (and fairly) compete for them.