The game clock is one of the more common rules that tends to warp gameplay in this way, with teams that are ahead trying to avoid play and run out the clock rather than continue to engage in the contest. The other team, meanwhile, resorts to increasingly desperate tactics like pulling the goalie, intentionally committing fouls, or laterals and trying for the onside kick.
I don't know if your situation allows you to run off Local Cache, but that made a big difference for us in terms of stability with regard to Azure storage resets.
The "best and brightest" visa is the O-1. The H-1B visa is a "specialty occupation" visa, defined roughly as an occupation that requires a Bachelor's degree in a particular field of study.
Agreed; having something like this tied to your GPS would be a great service. It would also be useful to quickly know the time the spot becomes illegal again.
I can imagine, too, this would be incredibly useful if self-driving cars ever become a reality (or in helping them become a reality). After one drops you off at the show downtown, it could then check for nearby parking. But maybe this is dreaming too far down the road...
Does any know whether "Chrome" signifies the browser or the OS? Everyone here seems to assume the browser, but my first thought was that it referred to the new OS since I was reading just yesterday that you will be able to read the NY Times offline on there. Also, when I opened the link in Opera it asked me if I wanted to let the site store 10mb of data, which I assumed related to that feature.
I was under the impression that last June (2009) the House voted 310-118 to add an amendment (the Chaffetz amendment) to a bill to ban the scanners as a primary means of screening, but that the Senate never voted on the bill. It seems to me that such a bill would have popular support - supposedly it was backed by both the ACLU and the NRA - but maybe I am understanding the politics wrong.
What percentage of apps are spam? If it is a rather large percentage, it seems like Apple has an incentive to keep them around so that they can advertise they have x thousands of apps. But maybe it is not that large.
Probably the least sophisticated way is to buy shares in an inverse ETF. There are a couple bear market ETFs that target Chinese indexes (FXP and CZI). (I'm not endorsing anything here; please understand whatever you invest in before doing so.)
Nobody has the right to assemble on someone else's private property. Moreover, even with public property, the right to peacefully assemble seems to be not without restraint. For instance, the courts have upheld laws creating "buffer zones" for abortion clinic protests. Likewise, a lot of cities require you to get a permit for demonstration purposes.
Except that "how well they'll stack up" with Apple isn't measured in profit; it's measured in sales or market share. While the Xbox might not yet be net profitable, it does have enough market share to claim that it stacks up with its competition. I'm not saying the Courier will be competitive, but I hardly think you can, a priori, write Microsoft off in this market.
Presumably the goal isn't reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but maintaining global temperatures, in which case possible solutions do pull in many different directions...
But anyway, that misses the point. The wager isn't cost-benefit analysis where probabilities and expected values are certain; it's decision making in the absence of compelling evidence. What you have essentially done is respond to the multiple claimants problem by saying, "But any form of belief in the Christian God pulls in more or less the same direction." In the uncertainty that the wager confronts, however, "reducing CO2 emissions" and "increasing CO2 emissions" have the same expected value - that is, they are equal claimants. Hence my point that the multiple claimants problem is equally devastating when the wager is applied to global warming.
The most devastating problem to Pascal's wager, in my opinion, is the many claimants problem - the idea being, "Which god?" The one whose favorite number is 1? 2? 3? etc... I think the same problem will ultimately be devastating to any attempt to apply it to global warming. Which solution? We only have finite resources. Do we build a giant solar shade or do we implement a cap-and-trade solution? There are perhaps an infinite number of possible solutions, each a claimant upon our wager.
Being as my desktop at home still runs Windows 2000, I used to assume this was the case as well. But the OS/browser stats on w3schools, at least, show only 1% usage of W2K as compared to 14% IE6 usage, which, if my math is right, seems to mean that a large number of IE6 users are on XP.
I agree with you, but I think Aristotle's conception of man as a political animal all the more perceives contradiction in the quote, "I want to be human again. Even if that means isolating myself from the rest of you humans." Whereas we perhaps are inclined to see socializing as something good in its own right, Aristotle taught that the community of the city/polis has a higher aim: to fulfill the higher goal of man, to make men nobler, to make them more human.
For Aristotle, to be more virtuous was to be more human. Many virtues - patience, forgiveness, generosity, thankfulness, love, courage - are either best achieved, or only achieved, in community. Hence he reasoned that a full humanity requires a community, that therefore "man is a political animal".
I'm curious about what you mean by "recent". Aristotle considered man by nature a "political animal". Genesis states that "It is not good for man to be alone." To whom do you credit the idea that man is a "social animal"?
Are these major vendors considered culpable as well? I read the NY Times article and didn't see anything about that. It seems to me, though, that behavior like this could be stopped a lot earlier if those taking what are essentially bribes were held accountable as well.
I'm sorry, it wasn't my intention to refer to your summary as vapid; and I certainly see now how you read it that way. I would ammend my post to add "makes it to be" to the end of the last sentence. I meant that your summary represents the "finding" as completely vapid.
I do trust that the detail from the article you point out, that "the survey used deliberately avoided wording that suggested 'illegal' downloading", is true. (Though, I'd still be grateful if you wanted to provide a link to the original.) What I find to be off base is the logic of your interpretation ("In other words..."), which makes their finding out to be a mere tautology. If what you say in the first paragraph is true (which I believe it to be), I don't think what you said in the second paragraph follows from that for the reason I gave above.
It's not as bad as you make it sound. There is no way for your "shocking fact" to be true, since definitionally people who have never downloaded anything have never paid to download anything either (people that pay for a download and for some reason never complete it notwithstanding). The ratio, therefore, would really be undefined, rather than 10:1.
The real inference, given what you say about the original article, is that people who obtain music online, whether by means of purchase or not, are ten times more likely to obtain music by means of purchase than those who never obtain music online. Certainly not as perhaps interesting a finding as the title, but neither as vapid as your summary.
Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elam_Ending