This really is Economics 101. The maximum profit margin comes at the point where the supply curve and the demand curve meet.
Methinks you should look up "profilt margin", and particularly how it differs from "profit". Profit *margins* can be driven arbitrarily high by raising the price arbitrarily high.
I know you made a joke, but this right here is why believing in intelligent design and evolution etc are not necessarily incompatible with each other.
No, it is not. They are incompatible.
Intelligent Design comes in two forms. The first is when we admit that it is just a euphemism for creationism. In this case, the theory of evolution (as well as most of the field of archaeology) clearly contradicts the story of Genesis, thus rendering the two incompatible.
The second is the form in which ID, in an attempt to distance itself from religion, rests upon the principle of irreducible complexity. The basic idea is that certain constructs represented in nature today (the human eye is an oft-used example) would have been useless in a less-complex or less specific form, and thus these traits would not have evolved (a half-formed eye is an evolutionary disadvantage, a being is better off not wasting the calories keeping that useless tissue alive). Since these traits could not develop through incremental changes, some traits must not evolve, but must have been put there by some intelligent agent.
This second form is not so much a scientific theory as it is a fundamental misunderstanding of stochastic processes and the field of mathematical optimization. This form of ID is basically the claim that evolutionary optimization can never escape local optima to discover global optima - something a competent applied mathematician knows to be false.
As you can see, this causes the proportion of games you properly predict to go down with each level of the competition. Now consider that the scoring is weighted by round - games in round 2 are worth twice as much as games in round one.
That's how coin-flip gets you worse than 50%.
There have only been two - Vietnam and Korea
My current political knowledge and world history are insufficient to comment on the exact number of wars that have occurred since 1945, but I'm quite certain it's more than those two. I think perhaps you mis-interpreted the issue as the number of wars the U.S. has been involved in.
And that's not really true. Yes, our executives have recently avoided the legitimacy of getting a declaration of war before mounting a large-scale military invasion of a nation, doing combat with the armed forces of that nation, and ultimately replacing the government of that nation. However, just because they haven't had the integrity to use the word "war" doesn't mean we didn't go to war - it just means our Congress should be upset that its constitutional role was usurped by another branch of government.
It also mentions the incorrect, but increasingly common amongst the un- or insufficiently-educated, usage of quotes for emphasis ( "No" food or drink in the theater).
That said, none of these categories explain the use (I was referring to the title) of quotes around "too intrusive". Context clues still indicate to a reader that this is a direct quote, but he did not say it.
Seriously? This is months old! You know how old this is?
It's a collection of new C++ features, and prominent compilers have already added support for it. Getting C++ compiler vendors off their butts to implement new features takes freakin' forever, but I can already play with lambdas, auto, and variadic templates - at least.
That said, as a professional C++ developer working in HPC, this is exciting.
I think medcalf is specifically referring to the precedent set by Wickard v Filburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn).
tl;dr: Federal government used ICC to set wheat farming maximums (to drive prices up). A farmer grows more than his quota, but not for sale - only personal consumption. Supreme court rules that ICC applies even though the situation doesn't relate to interstate commerce because, had he not produced his own wheat for his own consumption, he *might have* bought it, and he *might have* done so from a farmer in another state.
So, under current Supreme-Court precedent, yes they could take away your hand-blown bulbs. You are correct to point out that they would not under current law, but medcalf is correct that they *could* (if the law were changed).
But just in general, the federal government does a lot of things that are outside its constitutionally enumerated powers. Whenever this fact is brought up in relation to a specific law, it is usually ICC that is used to justify it.
As much as we complain about obnoxious flash ads and the like, it's pretty rare to see a website where made up of more than 25% advertisements.
We should be careful about how we define what "25%" is a percentage of? Your estimate is right on if we're discussing screen real-estate.
But screen real-estate doesn't contribute to anyone's bandwidth cap, so maybe we should consider bytes. In that case, most blogs have >75% ads, since they consist of text content (small) a logo (cached after loading once) and flash video or image ads (very large, reload each time you open a new article or refresh the same article).
Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition. - Isaac Asimov