Republicans aren't interested in free markets. Just look at how they push bills to ban car manufacturers from selling cars directly to consumers, so that they can prop up the antiquated independent dealership business model.
To the religious conservatives and libertarians who make up the bulk of this site's demographics, those things are all "crazy" and "dangerous" and "soviet-like". Especially the LGBT equality thing; Slashdotters really hate that.
He's doubly stupid. Not only is he stupid enough to expose his bigotry, he can't even get the correct ethnic group. The majority of H1-Bs are most likely from India. India is not known for deserts (quite the opposite in fact, it has jungles and is famous for tigers). The slur he used is a reference to middle easterners, but those aren't a majority of imported tech workers by a long shot.
That's what these morons get for demanding resumes in
He makes a lot of very rational statement, but then goes for batshit insane politics that would push us back to the worst part of the soviet experiment.
So he's for establishing a gulag, is he? Citations please.
And of course it's even a *better* deal for the USA. We get to govern the place, put our military on it, claim the adjacent territorial waters, tax the people who live there etc., in return for the symbolic pretense that we're doing it according to ethical and legal principles. That's the deal.
Occasionally the pretense of principle presents some minor restrictions on what we do, but in that very same grand scheme of things it's still a pretty sweet deal.
In the neighborhood were I grew up there was a row of houses that were built on a paper street that had yet to be built. All those houses were accessed via temporary easements running over lots on the adjacent street. But after selling all the houses on the paper street the developer disappeared and nobody wanted to pay for the actual building of the paper street. The people who lived on the paper street just used the theoretically temporary easements on a practically permanent basis.
Once a year the owners of the adjacent lots would erect a temporary fence across the easement to prove that they hadn't legally abandoned their claim over the land. On that day the people who lived on the paper street had to ask permission to cross their neighbors' land. When I was a kid this had been going on longer than anyone in the neighborhood could remember -- judging from the age of the houses maybe thirty years -- but every year those neighbors would put those fences up in the hope that some day the paper street would be built and the easements would cease.
Of course the legal technicalities with the Hawaii telescopes are probably different, but the political principle is the same. If you don't assert your claims periodically, people will argue that you've abandoned them. And I suppose that Hawaiian natives are allowed to have politics like everyone else. Maybe sometimes there are more telescope friendly people in charge, and other times more native-rights assertive people.
No, its still only the interest rate percentage return. That's what compounding does. Of course compounding works on other investments too- you reinvest your profits, either there or elsewhere. So its not a magical advantage of paying off debt.
Of course there's trivial costs in a business. If you're worrying about the costs of pens and whether you can get them 10 cents cheaper, you're wasting your time. If you're worried about the cost savings of turning the thermostat from 70 to 71, you're wasting your time. If you're worried about the cost of something that is less than 1% of your budget, you're wasting your time- even if you reduce it to 0 you'd have saved more by focusing elsewhere. A good businessman realizes whats worth being concerned about and what you just have to live with. Nothing is 100% efficient in life.
If you aren't in a position where you can gamble 120 dollars a year on your business, you shouldn't have a business. There's a reason why royalty deals are considered bad decisions for small businesses.
Card counting is keeping track of cards between hands in an effort to figure out altered odds on the current hand. For example, if you're playing single shoe blackjack and have seen 10 high cards out of 11 cards, you know low cards have a higher probability than normal.
That doesn't exist in Holdem, because there's no carry over between hands. Each is an individual event, with no altered probability from previous hands. You can calculate odds, but that's easy even for a human at holdem- if there's X cards which you think will give you the winning hand (called outs), your odds are X/47 on the turn and X/46 on the river, or just under 2% per out. For seeing both cards on the flop its 1-(47-X)*(46-X)/(47*46), or about 4% per out. Generally you just use 2% and 4%, as the nature of holdem makes it unlikely that percent or two you'd be off will make a long term difference.
So there are odds calculation. But there's no card counting. Also, card counting isn't the amazing thing some people think it is- if you don't play deep into a shoe, it isn't much of an advantage. In some games like baccarat its been mathematically proven to not give an advantage at all.
There are 2 poker games where it does help- razz and 7 card stud. This is because each player has a unique hand, including individual up cards. When they fold their hands are mucked. Remembering all the cards which were showing at any time is an advantage, as it can effect the odds of drawing to a straight/flush/full house. I would suspect a computer may have a big edge over beginners on those games due to that. But a pro at those games knows how to remember the dead cards already, I'm not sure it would be much of an advantage at high end stud.
was from the text used in a graduate-level data communication course I took many, many years ago. It said, more or less, that "Communication requires three things: a shared model, a shared set of symbols, and a common system for associating symbols with objects from that model."
Now here's the thing that I think is wise about that idea. People respond as if something like a famous photograph has an objective meaning and that everyone *should* somehow all have the same reaction to it. But intelligent, educated people should know better than that. Personally, I see a considerable element of self-deprecating humor in this particular choice of photo. However nobody should be particularly surprised that not everyone is laughing.
After many years of watching people drag out the pitchforks and torches when they're offended, or man the ramparts when they're offended by that offense, here's what I think the sensible way to handle this kind of thing is. When you feel offended by something someone says, say so, but without accusing the sayer of bad faith or collusion with the Forces of Oppression. When you have given offense you apologize and express yourself a different way.
You have a choice: you can either accept that people coming from different experiences will view things differently than you and work around that; or you can try to convince everyone in the world to think and feel the same way you do about everything.
Maybe the IT's security policy doesn't allow that.
"It's the best thing since professional golfers on 'ludes." -- Rick Obidiah
