No, it is not... because you are not paying for the toy inside of it. You are paying only for the chocolate egg that the toy comes inside of, and the value of the egg is a known and fixed value. The toy is then considered a free gift that comes with the treat, designed to motivate people to buy them.
I doubt that argument would work. Once there's a 1-in-100,000 chance of getting something valuable inside the egg, people will start paying for the chance to get the valuable thing regardless of the chocolate.
The reason it isn't gambling is that all of the toys have the same value, so it doesn't really matter which one you get.
I dunno, cats are neither tasty nor particularly useful (unless you have a vermin problem)
That's exactly why they're useful. I know of a warehouse (a few decades ago now) that kept cats to hunt down the mice that were eating paper and cardboard. They were also good at hunting rats that were spreading all kinds of nasty diseases.
It can not be shorter than the longest straight line distance between any two points on the coast line.
Of course it can.
A: Not all land between points of coastline is coastline. We don't even have a solid definition of coastline to start measuring.
Instead of a straight line through three-dimensional space, the shortest possible length would be the length of the shortest line between two points (for the surface of a sphere, I think it's part of a Great Circle). Any way that the coastline deviates from that line must increase the length, since by definition that line is the shortest possible line connecting those two points. You also have to add the requirement (which the GP probably just left unstated) that you measure each contiguous coast separately; obviously Atlantic and Pacific coasts must be separate, maybe also the Gulf of Mexico. For example, the shortest possible length of the Atlantic coast is the "straight" distance from the northern-most point on the coast to the southern-most point.
But "the longest straight line distance between any two points on the coast line" in such a projection is infinite. Consider "the longest straight line distance between" your dick and your ass based on a 2D projection (flat map) of Earth. That line would simply wrap around the Earth forever in an infinitely tight spiral. Or consider the simpler scenario of wrapping around Earth once. That's "the longest straight line distance", yet we can show the actual distance is shorter, even if we don't know the true position of either point. Start by drawing a bounding box around each point with whatever accuracy/precision we want / can achieve, then measuring the distance between the outer edges of the bounding boxes. This gives us an upper bound for the actual distance. (You can simply draw a line segment between the points, then draw lines perpendicular to that segment at each point, and find where those lines intersect the bounding boxes to determine the "outer edge" of each bounding box.)
You're misinterpreting the GP. By "the longest straight line distance between any two points on the coast line", I believe the GP meant the longest of the shortest-length lines between every pair of points. In other words, the shortest line between the two farthest points.
The President is a Republican. Any one of those three people could have killed the bill.
In practice, Trump couldn't have killed it. He could have made an empty gesture and vetoed it, but unless more than 30 senators changed their mind because of the veto, it would still become law.
Microsoft Office has been the de facto standard for so long that nobody notices how bad the names are anymore. Word is the only one with an obvious connection between the name and the functionality. Outlook, Excel, and Powerpoint are all pretty meaningless names.
I like the way you verbed that noun. AFAIK "enquote" isn't a real word. But I guess it is now.
Technically, "quote" is a verb, not a noun. "To quote" is to repeat what someone said. The noun form is "quotation", and the noun for the punctuation is "quotation mark". Both of the nouns are commonly shortened to "quote", though.
"McDonalds staff are being automated away through ordering booths and robotic burger flippers."
This could have been done decades ago. Again, what magical technology is coming along that is going to do this?
Decades ago, the computers and robots were significantly more expensive than minimum-wage employees. Currently, the computers and robots are only slightly more expensive than minimum-wage employees.
It doesn't require a new magical technology, it just requires existing technology getting cheaper.
Either you run out of other peoples money to spend or you run out of businesses willing to participate in a country where the money they make doesnt primarily go to them....
Jesus kind of summed it up:
You will always have the poor...
I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you completely missed Jesus' point.
People are not working for free to sustain people that don't.
I first read that as the idea that lower- and middle-class workers are wage slaves while the executives get paid large amounts of money for doing little actual work.
If you have unlimited developer resources, by all means spend them making everything better. If you have finite developer resources, you need to prioritise.
If there's one company out there that has so little cash that they need to carefully control all of their costs, it's definitely Apple.
On the one had, with regards to the Second Amendment, some people are more than willing to infringe on Rights when they believe the greater good would be served . Often making the argument that the Second is outdated, that the founders never saw Semiautomatic weapons coming, etc.
Not really. The 2nd Amendment specifically refers to "a well-regulated militia". Almost no other parts of the Constitution and Amendments include a rationale, so the only reasonable interpretation is that the rationale was included for a specific reason. It's no different than advocating for patent reform because one feels that the current system is not meeting the purpose explicitly given in the Constitution.
First of all, Markey and Blumenthal's constituents neither know nor care about privacy considerations on the Web. Like most Americans (and Brits, and Aussies, and the bulk of Internet users everywhere), they haven't bothered to inform themselves about it, nor do they want to, because it's too confusing and "technical" for them to grasp.
I agree with most of your post, but I somewhat disagree with this part. Markey represents Massachusetts, and there is a pretty large number of intelligent, technically-knowledgeable people there.
Doesn't the FDA request and fund studies? If not, how do these studies on the new drugs get started? Please don't say the drug companies fund all of them!!
For the most part, yes, the drug companies fund them. It's part of the cost of research for developing new drugs. The FDA then reviews all of the data from the studies and decides whether or not to approve the sale of the new drug.
Yes, a company could try submitting falsified data to the FDA in order to get approval, but the penalties for doing so are quite harsh if they get caught.
2. "Your doctor" is no more able to asses the efficacy of an untested treatment than is your garbage man. In order to know whether or not a medication is effective we need large scale studies, not clinical anecdotes. Your doctor isn't doing any large scale studies; the "professional science assholes" at the FDA are.
Just to clarify a bit, the FDA doesn't conduct studies, they review and evaluate study data. Studies are usually conducted at a health care facility of some kind, so it is possible, though highly unlikely, that "your doctor" is involved in a few drug studies. Your primary physician almost certainly isn't part of any studies, but specialists at larger hospitals often have patients participating. Overall management of a study is usually, but not always, done jointly between the pharmaceutical company sponsoring the study and a specialist physician who focuses on research.
What argument is there in support of "net neutrality", which would not apply to "road neutrality" and "parking neutrality": abolishing all laws and road-signs treating trucks, as well as business-owned vehicles, apart from cars and personal pleasure-vehicles?
Do you have any real examples of public roads not being "neutral", e.g. FedEx vehicles are allowed, but UPS vehicles aren't?
Slashdot Mirror
No, it is not... because you are not paying for the toy inside of it. You are paying only for the chocolate egg that the toy comes inside of, and the value of the egg is a known and fixed value. The toy is then considered a free gift that comes with the treat, designed to motivate people to buy them.
I doubt that argument would work. Once there's a 1-in-100,000 chance of getting something valuable inside the egg, people will start paying for the chance to get the valuable thing regardless of the chocolate.
The reason it isn't gambling is that all of the toys have the same value, so it doesn't really matter which one you get.
I would prefer to see an option to use Google Authenticator
There is one. I know, because I use it.
I dunno, cats are neither tasty nor particularly useful (unless you have a vermin problem)
That's exactly why they're useful. I know of a warehouse (a few decades ago now) that kept cats to hunt down the mice that were eating paper and cardboard. They were also good at hunting rats that were spreading all kinds of nasty diseases.
Very nicely done. /hattip
It can not be shorter than the longest straight line distance between any two points on the coast line.
Of course it can.
A: Not all land between points of coastline is coastline. We don't even have a solid definition of coastline to start measuring.
Instead of a straight line through three-dimensional space, the shortest possible length would be the length of the shortest line between two points (for the surface of a sphere, I think it's part of a Great Circle). Any way that the coastline deviates from that line must increase the length, since by definition that line is the shortest possible line connecting those two points. You also have to add the requirement (which the GP probably just left unstated) that you measure each contiguous coast separately; obviously Atlantic and Pacific coasts must be separate, maybe also the Gulf of Mexico. For example, the shortest possible length of the Atlantic coast is the "straight" distance from the northern-most point on the coast to the southern-most point.
But "the longest straight line distance between any two points on the coast line" in such a projection is infinite. Consider "the longest straight line distance between" your dick and your ass based on a 2D projection (flat map) of Earth. That line would simply wrap around the Earth forever in an infinitely tight spiral. Or consider the simpler scenario of wrapping around Earth once. That's "the longest straight line distance", yet we can show the actual distance is shorter, even if we don't know the true position of either point. Start by drawing a bounding box around each point with whatever accuracy/precision we want / can achieve, then measuring the distance between the outer edges of the bounding boxes. This gives us an upper bound for the actual distance. (You can simply draw a line segment between the points, then draw lines perpendicular to that segment at each point, and find where those lines intersect the bounding boxes to determine the "outer edge" of each bounding box.)
You're misinterpreting the GP. By "the longest straight line distance between any two points on the coast line", I believe the GP meant the longest of the shortest-length lines between every pair of points. In other words, the shortest line between the two farthest points.
I think I'm a bit more surprised that Sanders voted for it than I am about Warren.
The President is a Republican. Any one of those three people could have killed the bill.
In practice, Trump couldn't have killed it. He could have made an empty gesture and vetoed it, but unless more than 30 senators changed their mind because of the veto, it would still become law.
A better example would be blaming Bill Clinton for signing the DMCA. I think the Senate vote was something like 99-0.
Microsoft Office has been the de facto standard for so long that nobody notices how bad the names are anymore. Word is the only one with an obvious connection between the name and the functionality. Outlook, Excel, and Powerpoint are all pretty meaningless names.
I like the way you verbed that noun. AFAIK "enquote" isn't a real word. But I guess it is now.
Technically, "quote" is a verb, not a noun. "To quote" is to repeat what someone said. The noun form is "quotation", and the noun for the punctuation is "quotation mark". Both of the nouns are commonly shortened to "quote", though.
Yeah, I knew it was unlikely, but there weren't any posts showing up literally 3 seconds before I clicked submit.
I'm just gonna blame Slashdot. Because why not.
10 days is considered generous? That seems pretty low to me, and I'm sure it's considered uncivilized by most other modern countries.
Also, first ever first post?
Is this really news?
Nope, but it's still fun to bash people like Mayer and Fiorina once in a while.
"McDonalds staff are being automated away through ordering booths and robotic burger flippers." This could have been done decades ago. Again, what magical technology is coming along that is going to do this?
Decades ago, the computers and robots were significantly more expensive than minimum-wage employees. Currently, the computers and robots are only slightly more expensive than minimum-wage employees.
It doesn't require a new magical technology, it just requires existing technology getting cheaper.
Either you run out of other peoples money to spend or you run out of businesses willing to participate in a country where the money they make doesnt primarily go to them....
Jesus kind of summed it up: You will always have the poor...
I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you completely missed Jesus' point.
People are not working for free to sustain people that don't.
I first read that as the idea that lower- and middle-class workers are wage slaves while the executives get paid large amounts of money for doing little actual work.
I'm a pedantic jackass - there's no such thing.
If you have unlimited developer resources, by all means spend them making everything better. If you have finite developer resources, you need to prioritise.
If there's one company out there that has so little cash that they need to carefully control all of their costs, it's definitely Apple.
And an American team wins the world series every time.
Depends on what you mean by "American". Toronto won a couple in the 1990s.
You can turn it off in the Android app: Settings -> [your email account] -> Smart Reply. I would be surprised if the web version is different.
On the one had, with regards to the Second Amendment, some people are more than willing to infringe on Rights when they believe the greater good would be served . Often making the argument that the Second is outdated, that the founders never saw Semiautomatic weapons coming, etc.
Not really. The 2nd Amendment specifically refers to "a well-regulated militia". Almost no other parts of the Constitution and Amendments include a rationale, so the only reasonable interpretation is that the rationale was included for a specific reason. It's no different than advocating for patent reform because one feels that the current system is not meeting the purpose explicitly given in the Constitution.
First of all, Markey and Blumenthal's constituents neither know nor care about privacy considerations on the Web. Like most Americans (and Brits, and Aussies, and the bulk of Internet users everywhere), they haven't bothered to inform themselves about it, nor do they want to, because it's too confusing and "technical" for them to grasp.
I agree with most of your post, but I somewhat disagree with this part. Markey represents Massachusetts, and there is a pretty large number of intelligent, technically-knowledgeable people there.
Doesn't the FDA request and fund studies? If not, how do these studies on the new drugs get started? Please don't say the drug companies fund all of them!!
For the most part, yes, the drug companies fund them. It's part of the cost of research for developing new drugs. The FDA then reviews all of the data from the studies and decides whether or not to approve the sale of the new drug.
Yes, a company could try submitting falsified data to the FDA in order to get approval, but the penalties for doing so are quite harsh if they get caught.
2. "Your doctor" is no more able to asses the efficacy of an untested treatment than is your garbage man. In order to know whether or not a medication is effective we need large scale studies, not clinical anecdotes. Your doctor isn't doing any large scale studies; the "professional science assholes" at the FDA are.
Just to clarify a bit, the FDA doesn't conduct studies, they review and evaluate study data. Studies are usually conducted at a health care facility of some kind, so it is possible, though highly unlikely, that "your doctor" is involved in a few drug studies. Your primary physician almost certainly isn't part of any studies, but specialists at larger hospitals often have patients participating. Overall management of a study is usually, but not always, done jointly between the pharmaceutical company sponsoring the study and a specialist physician who focuses on research.
What argument is there in support of "net neutrality", which would not apply to "road neutrality" and "parking neutrality": abolishing all laws and road-signs treating trucks, as well as business-owned vehicles, apart from cars and personal pleasure-vehicles?
Do you have any real examples of public roads not being "neutral", e.g. FedEx vehicles are allowed, but UPS vehicles aren't?