I thought it was all a bit silly, but this video made me rethink that position:
Buggy whip makers may have gone the way of the horse and buggy, but those who make riding crops have found themselves a niche in which to prosper.
The trick is to adapt.
Find a niche and scratch it...
The ballast in a CFL can't handle the dimmer.
Its not that you replace the dimmer,but that you need to use "cold cathode" florescent bulbs with them--andin the smaller sizes (candelabra mount), you can't get these (or LED) that are very strong.
My house has been almost completely devoid of incandescent for about ten years--more initially for heat (broken AC in the Vegas desert!) than power.
The only place they're left are in the refrigerator (don't want mercury there if it breaks . .
In other words, if you're Brian Williams and you'd like to film a news story there, you have every right to do so. If you're Michael Bay and you want to film a movie there, somebody probably needs to step in and put a stop to it before the forest is obliterated by a multi-kiloton series of non-nuclear explosions and scantily clad women running around between them.
And even you are understating the matter.
I once represented the general manager of the biggest one of those in town on another matter.
Breakeven is on sale: the down payment is set to what they paid at auction. They sell, collect a few payments, repo, sell again . . .
Their idea of a good car is one they get to sell 3 or 4 times.
>Relatively few people pick up a masters on their way to a doctorate.
Highly dependent upon field. In mine (economics), the masters is a sidestep. In others, its the norm.
And at some schools, there is a payment to the school for each master's awarded, so they're handed out along the way . . /
read the archives of alt.folklore.computers for great examples of some of these.
Swapping registers (in a two register + ALU architecture ) used to be a common one; you'll find an answer that was a step faster than the "correct" answer by using XOR in there.
My favorite, though, was handing the candidate a piece of convoluted code and asking what it did.
"Hopefully, it got the author fired."
As a first year college student hired after high school in a startup, I had a real eye opener when the person they brought in after me--with a MS in CS--couldn't, well, do much (they'd called me back after I left).
I finally had to take a stack of cards to manually demonstrate a bubble sort. No, I'm not defending or advocating bubble sorts. With an MS, he just plain didn't understand the concept.
His output roughly quadrupled once I was around (he wasn't around much longer).
And I've seen it in other areas. I have a Ph.D. in Economics and and statistics as well as a law degree, and I've met people in both who can function their way through the classes and dissertation, but just plain can't do anything useful in the fields.
hawk, j.d., ph.d., esq.
I always ask something completely and utterly off the wall or irrelevant when interviewing someone, just to see how he reacts to the unexpected. I'm not concerned with the answer; I just want to see how the person reacts to the unexpected.
I also instruct, "call before sending resume" in the ad, just to screen for ability to follow basic instructions (at least 75% fail at this rate).
An oversimplification. The US, UK, and allies variously broke many cipher systems throughout WWII. Still the US benefitted from this.
What if the Germans were using, say, Windows, Android phones, SSL, Gmail, Yahoo, and Skype, instead of Enigma machines?
I presume you wouldn't say it was "wrong" of the United States to crack the German and Japanese codes in WWII...
This isn't so much a law enforcement question as a question of how to do SIGINT in the modern digital world, but given the above, and given that intelligence requires secrecy in order to be effective, how would you suggest the United States go after legitimate targets? Or should we not be able to, because that power "might" be able to be abused -- as can any/all government powers, by definition?
This simplistic view that the only purpose of the government in a free and democratic society must be to somehow subjugate, spy on, and violate the rights of its citizens is insane, while actual totalitarian and non-free states, to say nothing of myriad terrorist and other groups, press their advantage. And why wouldn't they? The US and its ever-imperfect system of law is not the great villain in the world.
Take a step back and get some perspective. And this is not a rhetorical question: if someone can tell me their solution for how we should be able to target technologies that are fundamentally shared with innocent Americans and foreigners everywhere while still keeping such sources, methods, capabilities, and techniques secret, I'm all ears. And if you believe the second a technology is shared it should become magically off-limits because power might be abused, you are insane -- or, more to the point, you believe you have some moral high ground which, ironically, would actually result in severe disadvantages for the system of free society you would claim to support.
The US Constitution was an open declaration of treason against the Crown, which at the time controlled the most powerful military the world had ever seen. It was signed by farmers, lawyers, and doctors who had little in the way of protection against that army and little chance of surviving the fight. To say it was anything less than a suicide pact is absurd. The fact that few alive in this country today have their intestinal fortitude speaks volumes to why we're in decline. They had balls. Somewhere along the way, we lost them.
And if you don't think voting leads to people dying, you aren't paying attention.
what does that tell you about the Second Amendment absolutists
As opposed to voting rights absolutists? Fifth Amendment absolutists? Rights aren't rights when you're only allowed to exercise them in a place and manner dictated by the government.
According to the CDC, defensive gun uses number about 1 - 2 million per year.
So several times more crimes prevented with guns than committed with them.
Your argument is identical to that about poor young crack dealers, or mafia soldiers, or . . .