Comment Re:rewilding? (Score 1) 214
Hm. I thought you were extinct: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
Hm. I thought you were extinct: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
Crap. I used up all my mod points yesterday. You do NOT deserve to have your comment labelled as Troll. Such a shame.
If combat was really at that range, why isn't everyone armed with 8" battleship guns? That'll rip through an armored building, built with no concern about weight or movement.
Actually, one of the four main "races" does indeed use those types of guns and yes, they are quite devastating.
I was not trying to contradict you. I was just answering your question about ranges.
What range are you presuming these space battles take place?
No more than 200km. Usually quite a bit less. 30km is fairly normal.
(I should have been in that battle but I have not logged in for over a week now
The fallacy still exists. They could have used the money/time in game for other things, or to expand their holdings instead of rebuilding, they could have been larger.
Not true. All of the space in Eve is claimed. Either by NPCs or player organizations. You can not "grow bigger" without taking something from someone else.
In short, the battle was about control of territory. The loss of ships on the winning side granted control of that territory. It is therefore, not a loss but a gain. The price was only the price of the lost ships. Granted, the people who lost, lost big, but even then the fallacy is not valid. They "spent" those ships in the hopes of having control of the territory after the battle was over. They lost so they did not have control.
It is not recommended that people drive more than 8 hours in a day. There are people like me, who will drive coast to coast in roughly 38 hours of straight driving. That is not a common trip for me but driving halfway is relatively common. I drive for 12 to 20 hours straight (stopping only momentarily for gas) several times a year.
Granted, this is not considered normal for most people but a surprisingly large number of people do have to travel more than 300 miles in a trip. America is not exactly a small place.
Now, I lost some faith in the Surface when I saw it have a BSOD just after 8.1 rolled out, but it only happened to him once.
Brutal. BSODs were claimed to always be for crappy drivers provided by 3rd parties and then they claimed their driver signing program reduced the BSODs to virtually nil... and now you have seen a BSOD on Microsoft hardware with Microsoft drivers?
The ultimate in nastiness. It calls into question their own code quality. Yowsa.
Hm... Okay, let's make this simple: More money has been paid into the Social Security fund than has been withdrawn.
That does not make a deficit in the budget. It makes a surplus.
It was in the early 80s when congress decided that there was too much cash sitting in the Social Security account and decided to take it with the excuse that the money was just sitting there and should be used for the General Fund. So yeah, not 20 years ago but 30... but I figured exact dates were not terribly meaningful in this context.
So running cash-flow negative, and cashing in IOUs that the Government wrote to itself by borrowing money to cover them, doesn't add to our deficit.
No. It does not add to the deficit. The deficit was created more than twenty years ago. That is the problem, you are only now seeing it and incorrectly saying it is adding to the deficit now.
If you steal (borrow?!) $20 dollars from me and tell me you will pay it back in a year, does it add to your deficit when you pay it back? No. You already benefited from it so all it does is return you to normal, even if that normal is deep in debt. Keep your accounting books in order and these types of confusions will not occur.
I do not currently have a newsletter but I will keep you informed.
Social Security is running cash-flow negative, meaning it is spending reserves rather than living on current cash flow. And whilst, on paper, that looks like it doesn't add to the overall Federal deficit, those reserves are simply bonds from the Federal Government which must be redeemed out of current Federal revenues.
Except those bonds were taken out on cash that was already in the SS system. In other words, SS was already paid for and the government spent all the cash and replaced them with bonds.
Saying SS isn't adding to the deficit is like saying your department in a company that is losing money isn't adding to the loss because you're still under budget - even if the products your department builds don't cover your budgeted costs.
Absolutely wrong. SS is NOT adding to the deficit. Spending the money that was in SS 20 years ago is what makes SS look like a deficit to YOU. Those of us who were alive and aware in the early 80s knew this was going to happen and... here it is: Some moron claiming that Social Security is a drain on the budget when in fact, it was fully paid for and the money spent with "bonds" being given in return.
I hate to be rude... Reality specifies otherwise.
I've looked for regedit in the Fedora repo and I couldn't find it.
It is in the Wine package.
That alone is enough to turn me into a rapid FreeBSD supporter.
Rabid perhaps?
"Socialism" really is a synonym for "badness" in the US, isn't it?
Well, to be honest, anything that puts a "governmental body" in charge of production or distribution is just begging for massive pain and misery on scales already seen in history. This is why Capitalism is so popular even though it is so terrible.
Socialism and Communism (twins in a shallow American point of view) are the very epitome of evil when you can see what kinds of governmental abuses they have allowed/permitted/enabled.
In other words, Socialism and Communism concentrate power while Capitalism at least has the chance of spreading power.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4430195&cid=45411093
Heh, no. I did not think you meant Anonymous. I was assuming an Anonymous Coward type of person.
I'd warrant (but don't have the statistics to back me up) that the typical ad-block user would be less prone to click on ads if forced to see them than a typical surfer.
The click is golden, but what they REALLY want is to ensure that you are aware of whatever they are advertising. That way, when you next think about such a thing, their product/service/whatever is now an option in your mind. Does it guarantee a sale? No. Does it create more sales than total ignorance of their product/service/whatever? You betcha.
I wonder what effect the bad taste of the popup/ad/whatever has on sales though... hm.
Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"
