To me this goes both ways. If there is a legitimate mission for the NSA to accomplish, then perhaps they should make sure at all times to act in a way that is deserving of the public's trust. The persistent confusion you mention is not the fault of the confused.
Even with a ship capable of overcoming the gravity wells present in the movie, it would likely still make sense to launch from Earth with boosters/staging to increase the amount of fuel/energy available to the ship for the rest of the journey.
I concur, as strongly as I can, with this. This book gave me sight in a lot of areas I in which I was previously blind. Also, I couldn't put it down. I was high on insight the entire time I read it. I should point out, though, that while I did already program when I read this, I hadn't taken any CS courses, so YMMV. That being said, this book was enough to get me on the path to self-taught assembly and embedded programming.
> Seriously though in regards to some of the other names you mentioned is there really any difference by voting for whoever is running against them? Many people (myself included) though Obama was different - that obviously turned out to be completely wrong...so how are we supposed to know who won't do these things?
To me, this idea should encourage more people to vote outside the major parties. If you voted democrat to avoid the consequences of a republican victory, only to find that the results were largely the same anyway, it's no longer a "wasted" vote to vote third party.
>"Right" and "wrong" have no place in international politics. Nations exist, among themselves, in the state of nature, and in nature there is only power: the ability to do. It is irrelevant whether it is "right" for a nation to impose itself as hegemon. It is inevitable that some national will. The only topic of discussion is: would you like some other hegemon better than the one we have?
The realist in me appreciates this point, but the parts of me which are more hopeful think that this idea is the last justification available to people who are unwilling to investigate alternatives. Even if you accept that in nature there is only power: the ability to do, there are many ways to exercise that power. What if that power came from a legitimate belief that the people in the world who aren't US citizens are equally as important? American hegemony does prevent potential worse situations, but that's not its purpose. It's to protect Americans and money.
For the establishment, when it comes to secular vs. theocratic regimes, the the key factor is not whether the regime is secular/theocratic or really any other type. The key factor is how is this or that regime going to help get cheap energy into the US's hands. They can talk a good game about promoting secular democratic governments in the world, and they have to talk that game, because it's the only quasilegitimate game they can talk, but it's often a lot easier to buy oil from a dictator. If the dictator doesn't want to play ball, they can campaign for regime change, in the name of democracy.
You should maybe consider tracking which images are more likely to lead to a correct curtain selection. Then run an additional survey where subjects rank the same set of photos for hottness/arousal level, and see if there is a correlation.
I can't offer technical proof, but the snowball method saved me. Psychologically, getting rid of the easier debts wasn't the biggest factor though. The increased cash flow from the lack of those payments allowed me to make payments on larger debts that actually felt like they were making a dent. That was an awesome feeling.
As I write this the above comment is 31 points! Please don't view this as a complaint, and to eof especially, I'm not saying the comment isn't worth that value. It just seems like an anomaly to me. Is it because everyone wants to know what the business is?
I wish the author hadn't decided to use Moore's Law as a standard to measure the price against. It takes away from the point, or maybe is the wrong point entirely. I do feel prices are higher than they need to be for the consumer, and I very much feel this is because I as a consumer (at least where I live) have only one choice in the matter, cable or DSL. I wish we were debating that and not discussing why Moore's Law doesn't apply to this situation.
I think it's possible that the widespread use of non-lethal weapons could result in greater attrocities than the use of lethal weapons on the macro-level. It may not always be aparent, but in general, there is human restraint against killing other humans. A group of people would have to do, or at least be pegged with doing, something fairly high on the "bad scale" to justify use of lethal force. I suspect the threshold for beating them into submission with shotgun fired beanbags, high-pressured water, etc. would be much lower. At the level of an individual life, non-lethal would obviously be better. But at the level of one group of people trying to exert their will over another, I think non-lethal weapons would lead to more of that exertion, because it would be less difficult to justify.
Okay, I don't know about chatroullete anymore. I just came across (on the OP) a girl doing naughty naughty things... maybe this has already been considered, but what if she's not of age? Am I now guilty of possessing kiddie porn? The way current laws are written and enforced, who knows...
I'm sure with a little creativity one could figure something out. Figuring that out would certainly be easier than figuring out the order to put the cards in ;) Anyway, this is less about actually doing it and more about the coolness factor in knowing it's possible, and in seeing how to figure it out.
Could go even further with this: maximize the the number of hands the dealer should win while also maximizing the number of hands the oppenent will likely think they should win to keep the pot big! Now I'm just getting crazy...
I was thinking the same thing, a lot of those winning hands are hands that shouldn't win in actual gameplay. It'd be neat to see an algorithm that maximizes the hands that the dealer not only wins, but should win, for small numbers of players. This would be pretty complex I'm thinking.
Maybe there is no customer, not yet. I suspect that right now, Android isn't much more than market research. It's talked about all the time here: release early, iterate often. Google's initial choice for a market was the geeks, and with the Android, they've given us much capability with minimal restrictions. The geeks are going to determine Android's customer, when we collectively figure out what the best uses are for what I consider to be the first true general purpose computer that fits in my pocket.
I will do just that. First glance at the issue tracker gives me the impression that most of it's over my head, but this post has me inspired: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1048202 . Time to learn! Thank you!
I don't like the idea of doing this, but as others have pointed out, there are many many submissions that never make the front page, and in many cases I don't believe it's because they lack merit. I've seen times where the same information was posted several times before one of the submissions hit the front page. I've attempted submissions about 3-5 times, and pretty much gave up on submitting after watching those submissions fall from the front page of the new threads in a matter of about an hour. It very well could be that the quality wasn't there in what I tried to submit, but, like others have said, a lot slips through the cracks until it hits the front page.
He didn't, he left it at a gas station so it's finder would use it and lead the investigators astray. It's later in the article.
The author seems to think this was a good ruse, but I think I disagree; if I were an investigator, I think any coincidence, such as a cell phone accidentally left at a gas station, would be something I'd want to look into.
Thanks for responding with these! I share your interest in computer history, and I also enjoy seeing, as best I can, computer culture. Never have I seen such a short summarization of the latter which has given me as much insight as this.
I agree with you much on how much this makes sense for music as a business. I don't lament the death of the album though, because I don't think this will be the death of the album, this will be a filter. Many albums today are no more than a list of potentially hit singles for the "artist". If the industry heads in the direction inticated by the article, I'd bet that entire albums would still be released, but only when it made artistic sense to do so.