You may do your own study, but in the majority of heavily trafficed areas it would be impossible to maintain the correct following distance and still fit all the cars on the roadway.
Say you have a 10 km stretch, at maybe 112 kph. I find that sites list following distance to be either 3 or 6 seconds, which equates to ~100m or ~200m.
On a two lane highway (one in each direction), this means that at most you have 100 cars on that road in each direction at a time. On a 12-lane highway (6 in each direction), this capacity is only 600 cars!.
Now, since they travel at ~112kph, about every 3 seconds you can allow another set of cars on (1 car per lane) and the flow rate is 20 cars/lane/minute.
A major metropolitan area would have a lot of trouble if the flow rate were only 20 cars/lane/min.
Recommended following distances are nice, but relatively unworkable in most congested situations, simply because you are in a congested situation and need the capacity that the proper following distance would provide for other cars.
All my numbers are halved if you follow the 6 second rule.
i.e. Macs are expensive to maintain. In contrast I bought a Mickeysoft XP PC in 2002 and haven't spent a dime since then for OS updates. i.e. Cheap.
And I bought a Mac with 10.4 and haven't spend a dime since then for OS updates. i.e. Cheap.
And, just for those who are complaining about software - all my software works, still, on that version of the OS. Everything I have wanted to get has happened to work on that version of the OS.
Maybe it's because I'm boring, and don't want or need all new shiney software every ten seconds, but there it is - I have had no reason to upgrade.
[the] 'solution' to the problem was stupid, thoughtless and painfully out of line with our principles
Principles aren't something that you talk about, they are something that you do.
And Amazon certainly stood behind it's principles when it wiped the book, by acting.
The only thing Amazon is upset about is the backlash from consumers against their actual principles.
So, they go on to say "oh, no! we REALLY have these different principles, pay no attention to what we actually did".
You have to wonder if Jeff actually wrote it, or if the PR and marketing departments had their hand in the piece. That would be another "principle" derived from actions. Perhaps a good writing fingerprint program could tell you...
As an optimist, I'd say that least they didn't fail in the worst possible way.
The pessimist in me thinks I should get a bit more than "not failing in the worst possible way" when I pay somebody a barrel of cash to hash a couple numbers for me.
Er, you do realize that you yourself don't actually get to go to Mars, right?
They could have put the money into sending SOMEBODY to Mars, but the odds against it being you are, uh, astronomical. Face it: if you're very lucky, you might be able to spend $100k and get into a brief orbit before you die. Not even the Moon is in your actual reach.
I think that was his point. I believe he is saying that by now, we should probably already have a base on mars, with the various people there having the ability to post to slashdot.
So, an IP address does not identify a person if it's a privacy concern about large corporations, yet can be used that way if the RIAA is involved. Sounds about right for our system of 0wned laws.
We appear to be discussion multiple facets of the same complex, I agree. Thank you for your insightful reply, as well as for the support. We all need people to praise us at times and it takes courage to do that in public forums and I appreciate it.
I don't have much to add, except that if it hadn't been for your original comment, my thoughts would not have found expression here.
Simple, if you smile and pretend to be happy, you actually become more happy.
Not so fast.
That may work in the short term but constantly smiling even when someone is yelling at you (like many customer service people are forced to endure) seems like it could lead to being miserable.
Smiling when you don't want to, being constantly forced to wear that mask would get me. Just the cognotive dissonance that builds up, day after day, not to mention the habituation of smiling like that, would seem to tend to wear down the real happiness you feel when you do "really" smile. I think that the 'fake' you would start to take over, and you would start to become unhappy, your happiness being ground away one fake smile at a time.
the mark of a person who has any sort of personal advancement whatsoever is that these "subconscious" cues increasingly become conscious decisions.
(Most) advertising these days, perhaps as always, preys on the flaws we have found through exploration of our biology and psyche. You can consider advertising as the front-line of the consciousness wars, because they deliberately try to circumvent both inherent mechanisms one has toward discrimination as well as any added scripts one have patched into place to try and jump out of their box. Witness the rise in ads that target "enlightenment" in some sense, while selling a car, or moisturizer.
I'll put that another way. If Yogis can go to extreme, sub-zero mountainous regions wearing minimal clothing, and consciously control their body heat output to the point that they can fully dry soaking wet, freezing-cold cloths multiple times a night (because their alternative is freezing to death), then you can be your own person and become aware of subconscious influences and reject them.
Manipulative advertising, at its base, always relies on filling a need with a substitute for the real issue. The stronger the need, the bigger the hole they can claim to fill, the more powerful the gravitational memetic pull of their substitute. What you propose is that people reject the advertising, not fill the holes in their souls (metaphorically or not, as you wish).
I'll put that an other way. One cannot work towards rejecting the influences of advertising. One can only work towards the acceptance of self. After which, rejecting advertising is like the steam that rises from the Yogis bodies.
Rejecting it wholly and properly means that you become conscious of what would otherwise be subconscious influence.
I would say that rejecting it "wholly and properly" does mean becoming aware of the pushed intent, but it also means that that pushed energy finds no purchase, not that you resist the grip it finds.
I believe that you must be the one trolling, or have some deep seated need to apologise for current business practices.
The company's duties to investors and employees is continued long-term success, not short-term gain at the expense of all future gains, as GM's actions clearly were (and AIG's)
The most profit in the shortest possible time" is unrealistic and short-sighted.
Yes, but what of it? It may be "unrealistic and short-sighted" but TRILLIONS of dollars says that is exactly what happend.
GM's investment in certain types of cars was the same as investing in real estate: They thought what they were pushing would never ever go out of style. Instead, just like the banks, they got left holding an inventory of overvalued assets.
And who allowed the companies to get into such a state? The companies themselves. This does not indicate a very long term outlook. It indicates a short term outlook.
It is amusing that on one hand you defend the companies by saying in effect that they would *never* be so short-sighted, and then in the next paragraph detail exactly how short-sighted they were.
Hint - it may not be just the GP that went to the Simpson School of Economics.
Because we generally hold teachers, doctors, policemen, etc. to higher degrees of ethical standards than everyone else. And there are good reasons for that.
By letting us know that he is a scumbag, we as a society are then forced into action to remove him from the position of trust he has been placed in.
This is a tricky situation to me; while the newspaper obviously has some pretty extreme ethics problems, it's hard for me to argue that they don't have the right to report on what she said.
Is "report on what she wrote" the same thing as "reprint what she wrote"?
That seems to be the crux of the copyright issue in this case.
I would understand their behavior better if they had published it as an editorial, even if they reproduced it in it's entirety.
And still, it would be wrong. You cannot distribute someone else's copyrighted work without their permission. You cannot reprint someone else's words even as an "editorial" without their permission.
I'm sure that every newspaper editor will feel the same way - just try reprinting one of their editorials and see how far you get.
Otherwise, I'm going to start "reporting" or "editoralizing" on first-run movies by having the whole movie online.
. But the point still stands that weed makes folks do irrational things that can't be explained without assuming addiction. A lot more addiction than cough syrup.
Nope, the point doesn't stand. First, you must separate physical from psychological addiction. MJ is not physically addictive. This has been proven. Cough syrup is physically addictive. This has been proven.
That leaves psychological addiction. This is a stickier wicket, because we still don't really understand the brain.
However, using your criteria, we could say that people are addicted to cars. After all, look at the number of deaths each year! Look at all the hassle you have to go through to get one (insurance, drivers license, registration, etc). Look at the price and the ongoing monetary outlays. Look at the number of arrests! Yup, all you people with autos must be addicted to them, it's quite irrational.
Your criteria are meaningless and the inferrences you make from them make you the idiot, not the GP.
We seem to have been built with a very strong desire to alter our consciousness. Witness the thousands of years spent refining meditation techniques, Yoga, beer. Or perhaps just look at little children spinning around in circles.
Addiction has specific indicators, both physical and psychological. Only a small percentage of users will ever be psychologically addicted to pot, with none having been shown as physically addicted.
Perhaps you should do some reading instead of coming to uninformed conclusions.
"We conclude that smoking marijuana, regardless of tetrahydrocannabinol content, results in a substantially greater respiratory burden of carbon monoxide and tar than smoking a similar quantity of tobacco"
You do know that is terribly misleading though, don't you?
People don't smoke marijuana in a "similar quantity" to tobacco.
in fact, there are types of systems that deliver much less carbon monoxide and tar even when similar quantities are used. See http://www.maps.org/ for the current state of research of this kind.
So, what if the company knew what was going to happen with those tools.
Do you blame them then? Why or why not?
What if they consulted on how to use the tools for the "intended purpose", for example helped design the programs to catalogue the death camp prizoners, or gave advice on how to best implement the filtering tech?
Do you blame them then? Why or why not?
At what point does it become reasonable, in your mind, to blame the company?
Slashdot Mirror
You may do your own study, but in the majority of heavily trafficed areas it would be impossible to maintain the correct following distance and still fit all the cars on the roadway.
Say you have a 10 km stretch, at maybe 112 kph. I find that sites list following distance to be either 3 or 6 seconds, which equates to ~100m or ~200m.
On a two lane highway (one in each direction), this means that at most you have 100 cars on that road in each direction at a time. On a 12-lane highway (6 in each direction), this capacity is only 600 cars!.
Now, since they travel at ~112kph, about every 3 seconds you can allow another set of cars on (1 car per lane) and the flow rate is 20 cars/lane/minute.
A major metropolitan area would have a lot of trouble if the flow rate were only 20 cars/lane/min.
Recommended following distances are nice, but relatively unworkable in most congested situations, simply because you are in a congested situation and need the capacity that the proper following distance would provide for other cars.
All my numbers are halved if you follow the 6 second rule.
i.e. Macs are expensive to maintain. In contrast I bought a Mickeysoft XP PC in 2002 and haven't spent a dime since then for OS updates. i.e. Cheap.
And I bought a Mac with 10.4 and haven't spend a dime since then for OS updates. i.e. Cheap.
And, just for those who are complaining about software - all my software works, still, on that version of the OS. Everything I have wanted to get has happened to work on that version of the OS.
Maybe it's because I'm boring, and don't want or need all new shiney software every ten seconds, but there it is - I have had no reason to upgrade.
So much for anecdotes, you have one, so do I.
[the] 'solution' to the problem was stupid, thoughtless and painfully out of line with our principles
Principles aren't something that you talk about, they are something that you do.
And Amazon certainly stood behind it's principles when it wiped the book, by acting.
The only thing Amazon is upset about is the backlash from consumers against their actual principles.
So, they go on to say "oh, no! we REALLY have these different principles, pay no attention to what we actually did".
You have to wonder if Jeff actually wrote it, or if the PR and marketing departments had their hand in the piece. That would be another "principle" derived from actions. Perhaps a good writing fingerprint program could tell you...
Regards.
funny how things work out, isn't it?
As an optimist, I'd say that least they didn't fail in the worst possible way.
The pessimist in me thinks I should get a bit more than "not failing in the worst possible way" when I pay somebody a barrel of cash to hash a couple numbers for me.
No, that's also the optimist in you.
Cheers. :)
Er, you do realize that you yourself don't actually get to go to Mars, right?
They could have put the money into sending SOMEBODY to Mars, but the odds against it being you are, uh, astronomical. Face it: if you're very lucky, you might be able to spend $100k and get into a brief orbit before you die. Not even the Moon is in your actual reach.
I think that was his point. I believe he is saying that by now, we should probably already have a base on mars, with the various people there having the ability to post to slashdot.
Your reply is making his point, not refuting it.
RIght, because no one outside an industry should be allowed to use the magic words?
Umm, what?
I find it quite ironic that making the images available to the public elsewhere is seen as 'harming' a public institution.
If it has merit for NPG to host them, surely the *public* is better served if there are multiple copies?
Regards.
That's nice and all, but what systems are currently vulnerable to this type of attack?
I was under the impression that this variety of attack was passe since systems were hardened against it.
Regards.
So, an IP address does not identify a person if it's a privacy concern about large corporations, yet can be used that way if the RIAA is involved. Sounds about right for our system of 0wned laws.
We appear to be discussion multiple facets of the same complex, I agree. Thank you for your insightful reply, as well as for the support. We all need people to praise us at times and it takes courage to do that in public forums and I appreciate it.
I don't have much to add, except that if it hadn't been for your original comment, my thoughts would not have found expression here.
Namaste.
Simple, if you smile and pretend to be happy, you actually become more happy.
Not so fast.
That may work in the short term but constantly smiling even when someone is yelling at you (like many customer service people are forced to endure) seems like it could lead to being miserable.
Smiling when you don't want to, being constantly forced to wear that mask would get me. Just the cognotive dissonance that builds up, day after day, not to mention the habituation of smiling like that, would seem to tend to wear down the real happiness you feel when you do "really" smile. I think that the 'fake' you would start to take over, and you would start to become unhappy, your happiness being ground away one fake smile at a time.
Cheers. :)
the mark of a person who has any sort of personal advancement whatsoever is that these "subconscious" cues increasingly become conscious decisions.
(Most) advertising these days, perhaps as always, preys on the flaws we have found through exploration of our biology and psyche. You can consider advertising as the front-line of the consciousness wars, because they deliberately try to circumvent both inherent mechanisms one has toward discrimination as well as any added scripts one have patched into place to try and jump out of their box. Witness the rise in ads that target "enlightenment" in some sense, while selling a car, or moisturizer.
I'll put that another way. If Yogis can go to extreme, sub-zero mountainous regions wearing minimal clothing, and consciously control their body heat output to the point that they can fully dry soaking wet, freezing-cold cloths multiple times a night (because their alternative is freezing to death), then you can be your own person and become aware of subconscious influences and reject them.
Manipulative advertising, at its base, always relies on filling a need with a substitute for the real issue. The stronger the need, the bigger the hole they can claim to fill, the more powerful the gravitational memetic pull of their substitute. What you propose is that people reject the advertising, not fill the holes in their souls (metaphorically or not, as you wish).
I'll put that an other way. One cannot work towards rejecting the influences of advertising. One can only work towards the acceptance of self. After which, rejecting advertising is like the steam that rises from the Yogis bodies.
Rejecting it wholly and properly means that you become conscious of what would otherwise be subconscious influence.
I would say that rejecting it "wholly and properly" does mean becoming aware of the pushed intent, but it also means that that pushed energy finds no purchase, not that you resist the grip it finds.
Regards.
I believe that you must be the one trolling, or have some deep seated need to apologise for current business practices.
The company's duties to investors and employees is continued long-term success, not short-term gain at the expense of all future gains, as GM's actions clearly were (and AIG's)
The most profit in the shortest possible time" is unrealistic and short-sighted.
Yes, but what of it? It may be "unrealistic and short-sighted" but TRILLIONS of dollars says that is exactly what happend.
GM's investment in certain types of cars was the same as investing in real estate: They thought what they were pushing would never ever go out of style. Instead, just like the banks, they got left holding an inventory of overvalued assets.
And who allowed the companies to get into such a state? The companies themselves. This does not indicate a very long term outlook. It indicates a short term outlook.
It is amusing that on one hand you defend the companies by saying in effect that they would *never* be so short-sighted, and then in the next paragraph detail exactly how short-sighted they were.
Hint - it may not be just the GP that went to the Simpson School of Economics.
Because we generally hold teachers, doctors, policemen, etc. to higher degrees of ethical standards than everyone else. And there are good reasons for that.
By letting us know that he is a scumbag, we as a society are then forced into action to remove him from the position of trust he has been placed in.
That's why.
Regards.
This is a tricky situation to me; while the newspaper obviously has some pretty extreme ethics problems, it's hard for me to argue that they don't have the right to report on what she said.
Is "report on what she wrote" the same thing as "reprint what she wrote"?
That seems to be the crux of the copyright issue in this case.
I would understand their behavior better if they had published it as an editorial, even if they reproduced it in it's entirety.
And still, it would be wrong. You cannot distribute someone else's copyrighted work without their permission. You cannot reprint someone else's words even as an "editorial" without their permission.
I'm sure that every newspaper editor will feel the same way - just try reprinting one of their editorials and see how far you get.
Otherwise, I'm going to start "reporting" or "editoralizing" on first-run movies by having the whole movie online.
Regards.
but isn't that the point? the only people who would 'monetize' formerly open data are weasels.
Ok, thanks!
I guess I would then mostly agree. Do you go around pointing out all the traditional places that "government expert" is used incorrectly?
Such as, every major newspaper and cable news channel? Or is it just a pet peeve with this particular issue?
Just wondering.
. But the point still stands that weed makes folks do irrational things that can't be explained without assuming addiction. A lot more addiction than cough syrup.
Nope, the point doesn't stand. First, you must separate physical from psychological addiction. MJ is not physically addictive. This has been proven. Cough syrup is physically addictive. This has been proven.
That leaves psychological addiction. This is a stickier wicket, because we still don't really understand the brain.
However, using your criteria, we could say that people are addicted to cars. After all, look at the number of deaths each year! Look at all the hassle you have to go through to get one (insurance, drivers license, registration, etc). Look at the price and the ongoing monetary outlays. Look at the number of arrests! Yup, all you people with autos must be addicted to them, it's quite irrational.
Your criteria are meaningless and the inferrences you make from them make you the idiot, not the GP.
We seem to have been built with a very strong desire to alter our consciousness. Witness the thousands of years spent refining meditation techniques, Yoga, beer. Or perhaps just look at little children spinning around in circles.
Addiction has specific indicators, both physical and psychological. Only a small percentage of users will ever be psychologically addicted to pot, with none having been shown as physically addicted.
Perhaps you should do some reading instead of coming to uninformed conclusions.
Oh wait, this is Slashdot. Nevermind.
"We conclude that smoking marijuana, regardless of tetrahydrocannabinol content, results in a substantially greater respiratory burden of carbon monoxide and tar than smoking a similar quantity of tobacco"
You do know that is terribly misleading though, don't you?
People don't smoke marijuana in a "similar quantity" to tobacco.
in fact, there are types of systems that deliver much less carbon monoxide and tar even when similar quantities are used. See http://www.maps.org/ for the current state of research of this kind.
Cheers
Why are you continuing to try and pick apart this little bit of the claim?
I don't get it, unless you seek to somehow de-legitimize the work he did on the subject paid for by the government.
I would have thought the more interesting part is what the research actually revealed.
Pardon me if you are just a pedant.
Regards.
It's sad that you've never found an actual dojo.
Regards.
So, what if the company knew what was going to happen with those tools.
Do you blame them then? Why or why not?
What if they consulted on how to use the tools for the "intended purpose", for example helped design the programs to catalogue the death camp prizoners, or gave advice on how to best implement the filtering tech?
Do you blame them then? Why or why not?
At what point does it become reasonable, in your mind, to blame the company?
Regards.
Right, and nothing wrong with selling stun devices to South Africa during Apartied, either.
After all, what the government decides to do with those devices is entirely their responsibility.
I'm sorry if I don't equate someone cheating at WOW with the torture and death of innocent people, either.
If everything was one size fits all you may have a point. Pity that it's not. Quit pretending that it is and you may get somewhere.
Regards.
What I have is an educational prejudice.
So, you admit to being racist, it's just that you got that way through experience?
Nice. I suppose you can feel better about yourself since you use an euphamism.
And given that the parent poster proudly trumpeted his MO of floating chinese/european sounding names to the top for job applications
I never said that.
Oh, really?
Now I went on to say that I move Chinese and Europeans to the top of the interview list.
I believe that is your quote? Yes?
You can keep telling yourself that you are not racist, but repetition isn't everything.
Regards.