Old smooth-bore dueling pistols aren't terribly accurate, and a kill shot was unlikely. However, wounds and infection were more likely to kill you than they would be today. More accurate pistols may be one of the reasons the duel died out.
Actually, I think it is. It sounds like they're clawing back the investment profit, but it is likely those profits were invested in something else which also earned a profit. That additional profit is yours to keep as far as I can tell.
Alternatively, they could have spent the original profit or lost it on another investment... In other words the end result was similar to a loan. I'm curious whether the claw-back included a risk-free interest rate.
"Imagine if the apple you were eating for breakfast had 291 ingredients, or if the car you drove to work had 291 parts. You’d be worried, wouldn’t you?"
That's literally comparing...apples and cars. I would be shocked if a car only had 291 parts.
Actually, according to the original plan, the House of Representatives should have grown so that each member represents a roughly equal number of constituents (excepting very small population states which still get one). At some point it was capped at 435 (I presume for space reasons) and the disparity of representation has increased since. So it seems that more power has been transferred to rural states than the founders had originally envisioned.
The rural states' power in federal government is largely imaginary. In many elections, they have gone overwhelmingly for the losing candidate. If you look at a county by county map of the last election and then realize that the winner of the election actually lost the popular vote even after taking something like 85% of the counties in the US and you can still make the argument that the population centers should have more representation it's really just a naked left wing power grab at that point -- and likely an argument made by someone who has never really lived in rural America and doesn't understand it.
Yes, you have more people in the population centers. They're generally a very homogenous group by political thought, and vote almost as a left wing bloc in most cases. You're simply arguing that the left should be more powerful than it is. Nobody cries about the electoral college until a Republican wins. Nobody cries about representation when the left is in power.
There are things that are wrong in the US political system, but the electoral college and the house representation aren't those things. They're the best of the bad solutions to keeping away from a tyranny.
That’s because out of the five times that the electoral college winner was not the popular winner, four times it was a Republican who won and the fifth time the Republicans didn’t exist yet (but the winner was the more conservative candidate).
And also, the majority of this country votes democrat in every election since 2000, but because of gerrymandering the house retains a Republican majority. If the house matched the breakdown of national popular votes for house reps, it would be significantly Democrat.
You're using a tiny fraction of history to discuss this, and even within that tiny fraction your numbers are incorrect as the the dems held the majority from 2007 to 2011 and only lost it in the backlash from the health care debacle.
Also the national popular vote is totally irrelevant to the house membership. It's not set up that way.
In general a professor is an entrepreneur. They are running a small business where they sell their product ("knowledge") to customers (business and industry) by means of sales and marketing (conferences and papers). Grad students are employees of this business, and of course the prof's incentive is to keep the good ones and fire (graduate) the bad ones, thus the reward for the student working hard is more hard work.
1) I am evaluated on the progress of my students. While bad ones will actually be fired, good ones are more useful to me if they go off and get postdocs etc. Some of the most powerful "businesses" in the field are created by the network of people who all trained with the same PI and then went on to found their own labs.
2) A burnt out, trapped graduate student is not actually one that produces good work, in my experience.
3) Several grants, which are how I fund my lab, will look very poorly on trainees making no progress. There's very little exploitation that's worth a program officer at the NSF wondering if I'm worth there time.
Are there bad, exploitative PIs? Absolutely. But these people are assholes, not the only logical outcome of the system.
But no good student who approaches the grad school process in a sane manner is going to work for a professor whose students stay there for 12 years and don't graduate. A common thing for deciding if you want to work with someone is seeing how long their students took to graduate, where they ended up, emailing them, etc.
The flip side of this is that they charge $50 more than Apple for an iPhone. Why make all your customers demand a price match for something so widely known? It seems like it would irk most people in the hopes of extracting a few bucks from a handful of folks.
There are people storing up closets full of the old full-copper pennies waiting for the day that the penny is discontinued and they can get scrap value that is higher than the face value. For now they aren't allowed to deface money so they're just storing them. I don't even know if it's worth the time spent sorting, but everyone needs a hobby.
Additionally, they're a real pain to melt down profitably, even if it were legal. It only makes sense at very large scale, which means only the companies that invest in big foundries will be making real money if it ever becomes legal to use copper pennies for copper.
A good analogy would be like collecting aluminum cans XD
The phrase is still valid, but it is unclear that it applies to the current company. Companies do not have minds and are not people. They do have inertia, but if you change enough of the people then it's fundamentally a different company. MS is certainly different than it was 20 or 10 years ago.
MS was fined by EU for monopoly practices in 2008 and 2013. It is currently in a case against Spain when it made it harder to dual boot with Windows 8's UEFI systems.
The year is 2018 and Windows still ships with a single navigator, only supports NTFS and does not know that dual-boot is even a possibility.
While I think the parent was referring to how much a company would need to spend to buy off enough reps for their legislation, it is a valid point that increasing the current $100M or so we currently spend on these guys by 2 orders of magnitude would eat a lot of the national budget. Then again, it would also lower unemployment.
