Is fraud not specifically doing things against regulations? Without any form of regulation at all it wouldn't be fraud. The SEC are the police but they are paid by the people they police, if not actually being the same people. Bad policing of regulation isn't a problem with the regulations and to draw such comparisons hides the nature of the problem.
Well that's lovely, other than at above about 50 degrees the winter sun is maximum of 8 hours but in the summer you get 16 hours, actually moving it in the summer makes sense so you make more use of the available light (you could change your wake up time by 1-5 minutes a day, or move the clock once, most people tend to get up at the same time each day). But it not getting light until 10am in the winter (with DST still applied) just so it can get dark at quarter to five seems really silly. It makes a lot more sense to then have mostly continuous systems countrywide to ease any confusion.
But sunset and sunrise can change by 5 minutes a DAY, which is pretty stupid if you have to reset your clocks every week, enough people forget to do it now. Yes lots of clocks are automatic now but many (annoying ones mostly) are not and people do like their heating on at sane times and the car clock to be mostly right. It's a dumb plan in every conceivable way.
Hell it'll never change there is already enough anger about leap seconds and they happen at most twice a year...
But then do you not have to evaluate all the unsuccessful stuff. How do you quantify the rapidly prototyping with a 3D printer vs. slower prototyping, which out of necessity is only going to be used on well formed ideas and the various success rates. It's pretty hard maths and it's only by judicious use of these tools can maximum benefit be obtained.
And even if you could do this you wouldn't be measuring anything, you'd be estimating.
What happens if it wasn't the last things you did? I close tabs do other shit then realise I should have that tab back, undo sucks in this situation, undo specific action much more useful.
Ctrl+T (Cmd+T) is new tab and Shift is 'backwards', Ctrl+Shift+Alt is scrolling reverse through the Alt+Tab menu. Makes perfect sense, not like the inability to tab through dialogs in MacOS without turning on an option.
So someone with admin wouldn't be able to reset your password? or change ownership of the file?
Resetting passwords is a hugely complicated process on machines you have physical access to...
This is entirely the problem with codified constitutions, especially if they don't change with the times. What worked hundreds of years ago may not apply now.
What's the point of internships if you don't want to hire any of the possibly useful people? I sort of thought the point was to give experience so that they might be useful in the future. Why spend any effort doing that if you're not going to take the reward of a useful new employee. If you are just using it as a source of free labour, fuck that shit, seriously.
I don't imagine for a second that anyone would take an unpaid internship over a paid one if they were the same in every other respect. Saying that some people want to work for free is missing the point that they shouldn't be allowed to be slaves in the first place.
It wouldn't as the SI unit is the Kilogram, so it really should be the kilo-kilogram which is just stupid (but correct).
So you wouldn't mind if pictures of you being raped were being looked at on the internet? Fair enough, personally I'd have a problem with that and want it to be a crime to look at them, but maybe that's just me, I have been known to be a little odd.
It's on the opposite side from Canada's wang going into America, so I'd say it was a wang. http://imgur.com/gallery/p2mNQ
One of the reasons that is bandied about is that advertising regions do not match up with state borders so differing sales taxes would cause the advertising to be wrong. It does piss me off when nothing in a $1 store is actually $1 though. I'm glad Europe got its shit together to get rid of most of these extra unavoidable fees.
I was just objecting to the use of set of all primes, as you say there is no easy way to construct (or test) primes, however by showing that there must be a prime greater than an arbitrary value you have demonstrated there are an infinite number of primes* without requiring that you know all the primes in the first place.
*(N!+1)! +1 ad infinitum.
The proof in the article is that there exists an infinite subset of the primes where members are separated from at least one other member by less than 70 million. Which is a pretty hard thing to even get close to proving.