The question isn't whether water exists, but either or not it is in the free-flowing liquid form. There is probably lots of ice around, but liquid water can only exist in a relatively narrow range of conditions. And its the liquid form that is necessary for life (as we know it).
I read the article and there is no reason why Negroponte objects to Intel's efforts other than it undercuts his own project. If the goal is to have a cheap robust laptop for education, does it matter who makes it? I understand that OLPC got the ball rolling, but that doesn't make it the best solution. If its about charity, then grandstanding shouldn't get in the way.
Why don't major corporations have their own TLDs as part of the system? It would cut back on a lot of phishing and ICANN doesn't seem to be reluctant to do whatever they can to make a buck.
Lincoln had as much protections as was possible in that day. Someone being able to walk up to the White House would have been ridiculous even then.
John Wilkes Booth was able to get that close to Lincoln because he was a famous actor. Sure a regular joe wouldn't be able to get within 30 yards of a president today, but the same was true then. OTOH, if George Clooney decided to kill Bush he would have a good chance of getting past security.
What's your point? Are you saying those top 40 employee's should be taxed more? That the government should enforce a salary cap? Really what's your solution? And really what's the problem that needs to be solved? Are you you saying that Americans should be guaranteed jobs in perptuity? If we assume an average employee compensation cost the company about 100,000 a year (salarly, benefits, taxes, etc.) then that 800 million could only save 8,000 jobs out of a possible 50,000. That's not much more than a good will gesture. I wouldn't normally reply to a flip little comment like this, but you seem to be pretty confident that you have a point and I honestly don't see it.
I don't know if you can call it good or bad, but life will adapt. Some species will die off others will thrive. Humans? We're the best adapters of them all.
I like Battlestar Galactica as much as anyone, but a good story should have a beginning, a middle and an end. I would rather see the whole show wrapped up nicely after a few seasons (Babylon 5) than have it drag on indefinately until it becomes a ghost of its former self (Star Wars, Star Trek). Let all the creative people who told this story finish it, then start telling us a new story.
War isn't even good for that. The survivors tend to reproduce as a rate that more than compensates for the losses. See baby boom. Even the Soviet Union, which had more casualties than any other country, returned to its former population in a generation.
Do you have a Jump To Conclusions Mat? Are you privy to information not in the TFA? My comment was a bit of sarcasm directed towards reflexive luddites. Speak of the devil...
Funny that they are still listing Thailand as interested. Has something changed since
this?
To summarize progress:
durable => something that Kofi Annan breaks during the demo
7 countries interested => 6 countries interested
$100 => $175
Keep up the good work! At this rate you'll have $300 Dell laptop that no one wants.
You're using a quote about inspectors being denied access and ordered to leave as proof that inspections were being allowed? Do you write for the Onion??
Before 2001 no effective inspections were allowed in Iraq. In 2002 a commission lead by Hans Blix was allowed to conduct a full inspection; no WMD were found. Turns out he was right.
All of the quotes from before 2001 are irrelevent. Inspectors were not allowed in Iraq from 1998 to 2001, so it was feasible to speculate that Saddam had WMD at the time. In 2001 inspectors were allowed back in and no evidence of WMD was found. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, but I do think it's important to keep quotes in context.
Where do you get that from? Have you done some sort of long term study that correlates grades to success? Or are you just guessing from a handful of anecdotes? Are you just trying to justify your own mediocrity by putting down people who worked harder than you? I know many people who got A's through college and grad school and none are drones in the least.
I think attitudes like yours are a serious detriment to modern education. Students shouldn't be trying to get a B, they should be pushing to get the A. I've never heard of anyone in the workforce telling me to give 80% to 85% effort, why should school be different? And if the schoolwork really is too simple for your beautiful mind, then you should be getting the A's and doing extracurricular projects with ease. These half assed attitudes toward education are exactly the problem.
Where are you getting this idea that just holding a gun causes instant insanity? Another poster already mentioned that civilian firearms helped control the incident at UT Austin without any of the chaos you're describing. Every once and a while some genius will make headlines by trying to rob a gun show or gun shop and it ends with only the bad guy taking any bullets. There's been several cases of bank robberies ending similarly. In most situations it doesn't take much to decide who's the bad guy or not.
I think one caveat should be added. That if more people carried firearms and were trained to use them appropriately, these incidents could be mitigated or prevented.
Why are so many people perfectly content to cower and wait until the police get off their asses?
You can't prevent randomness. No two incidents ever seem to have the same motivation. Last week we had a murder/suicide happen on the UW campus over a relationship; this week there's a much worse case in Virginia; Charles Whitman was found to have a brain tumor that may have been affecting his decisions. Is there any "root cause"? Does it have anything to do with "ugliness in the world"? These things are very sad, but they're just outliers on the curve of human behavior. On a fundamental level there's nothing we can do to prevent a few random people from snapping.
If you're fucking my girlfriend, that gives me more time to code and play DnD! I already have had a vascectomy, so if there's a bun in oven, you can take care of that chore, too! I'll be sure to add a little to your tip next time I order a pizza and we'll call it even, okay? BTW my girlfriend is really, really fat so your efforts are truly heroic.
FIRST has been around for years. Its been in ESPN2 since at least 1997, when I competed. NASA and many, many other agencies and corporations have always been involved. If robotics were actually going mainstream, we would be treating this as routine by now. The only new should be who won, innovative strategies, etc. The fact that the competition itself is still treated as new and novel after all these years shows that it has failed in its basic goals.
Because I really do care about people's lives (I've lost too many friends and family to careless drivers), I'm going to reply one more time and I'll try to be as clear as possible.
A safe distance between you and the car in front of you is the distance at which (1) you can anticipate the traffic conditions that could require you to respond (2) give you enough time to respond safely. It doesn't matter if its 1/2 a car length or 10 car lengths. There is no set rule. I don't know why you say 2 car lengths when we've made no assumptions about speed or driving conditions. City driving could reasonably mean anywhere from stop-and-go to 45 mph.
The hidden assumption in your case seems to be that traffic coming the other way is at a full stop when the light changes and will wait for both the semi and you to run a red light. Let's assume that there is no traffic stopped at the light when it turns green, but there is another driver half a block away travelling at 35 mph. That driver will see the light turn to green, see that the semi will be through the intersection before they arrive, and that driver continues at 35 mph. But wait! you're following two car lengths behind! Even if the other driver slams on their brakes as soon as they see you, there won't be enough time. You get completely side swiped and its entirely your fault! Let's hope you don't have passengers.
Does this seem contrived? It isn't, I've seen an accident almost exactly like this happen at 1 am, (I was walking at the time and not involved). Fortunately, everyone was wearing seatbelts and noone was hurt.
BTW, I'm a bit upset that you would jump to the conclusion that I love authoritarianism. At what point did I support traffic cameras? I was just trying to point out a common misconception about safe driving. Anyway, this has gotten severely off-topic.
Any time you do not have a clear view of whether its safe to proceed, then you are following too close.
Any time you do not have enough distance to safely brake, you are following too close.
I'm not talking about what strokes your racecar-wannabe-ego, I'm talking about what's safe. If you can't drive responsibly, you shouldn't drive at all. Getting a ticket from a camera should be least of your worries, people's live are at stake.
Slashdot Mirror
The question isn't whether water exists, but either or not it is in the free-flowing liquid form. There is probably lots of ice around, but liquid water can only exist in a relatively narrow range of conditions. And its the liquid form that is necessary for life (as we know it).
I totally agree, but was trying to hold back on saying that explicitly based on a single short article.
I read the article and there is no reason why Negroponte objects to Intel's efforts other than it undercuts his own project. If the goal is to have a cheap robust laptop for education, does it matter who makes it? I understand that OLPC got the ball rolling, but that doesn't make it the best solution. If its about charity, then grandstanding shouldn't get in the way.
Why don't major corporations have their own TLDs as part of the system? It would cut back on a lot of phishing and ICANN doesn't seem to be reluctant to do whatever they can to make a buck.
Lincoln had as much protections as was possible in that day. Someone being able to walk up to the White House would have been ridiculous even then.
John Wilkes Booth was able to get that close to Lincoln because he was a famous actor. Sure a regular joe wouldn't be able to get within 30 yards of a president today, but the same was true then. OTOH, if George Clooney decided to kill Bush he would have a good chance of getting past security.
What's your point? Are you saying those top 40 employee's should be taxed more? That the government should enforce a salary cap? Really what's your solution? And really what's the problem that needs to be solved? Are you you saying that Americans should be guaranteed jobs in perptuity?
If we assume an average employee compensation cost the company about 100,000 a year (salarly, benefits, taxes, etc.) then that 800 million could only save 8,000 jobs out of a possible 50,000. That's not much more than a good will gesture.
I wouldn't normally reply to a flip little comment like this, but you seem to be pretty confident that you have a point and I honestly don't see it.
I don't know if you can call it good or bad, but life will adapt. Some species will die off others will thrive. Humans? We're the best adapters of them all.
I like Battlestar Galactica as much as anyone, but a good story should have a beginning, a middle and an end. I would rather see the whole show wrapped up nicely after a few seasons (Babylon 5) than have it drag on indefinately until it becomes a ghost of its former self (Star Wars, Star Trek). Let all the creative people who told this story finish it, then start telling us a new story.
War isn't even good for that. The survivors tend to reproduce as a rate that more than compensates for the losses. See baby boom. Even the Soviet Union, which had more casualties than any other country, returned to its former population in a generation.
Do you have a Jump To Conclusions Mat? Are you privy to information not in the TFA? My comment was a bit of sarcasm directed towards reflexive luddites. Speak of the devil...
Technology must be blamed somehow! It's always technology's fault!
Funny that they are still listing Thailand as interested. Has something changed since this?
To summarize progress:
durable => something that Kofi Annan breaks during the demo
7 countries interested => 6 countries interested
$100 => $175
Keep up the good work! At this rate you'll have $300 Dell laptop that no one wants.
I mean this Han Blix. Also,could you link to the site that you are copy and pasting from? Makes it easier to evaluate the authenticity of the quotes.
You're using a quote about inspectors being denied access and ordered to leave as proof that inspections were being allowed? Do you write for the Onion??
Before 2001 no effective inspections were allowed in Iraq. In 2002 a commission lead by Hans Blix was allowed to conduct a full inspection; no WMD were found. Turns out he was right.
And every single one of those is from before inspections were allowed.
All of the quotes from before 2001 are irrelevent. Inspectors were not allowed in Iraq from 1998 to 2001, so it was feasible to speculate that Saddam had WMD at the time. In 2001 inspectors were allowed back in and no evidence of WMD was found. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, but I do think it's important to keep quotes in context.
Where do you get that from? Have you done some sort of long term study that correlates grades to success? Or are you just guessing from a handful of anecdotes? Are you just trying to justify your own mediocrity by putting down people who worked harder than you? I know many people who got A's through college and grad school and none are drones in the least.
I think attitudes like yours are a serious detriment to modern education. Students shouldn't be trying to get a B, they should be pushing to get the A. I've never heard of anyone in the workforce telling me to give 80% to 85% effort, why should school be different? And if the schoolwork really is too simple for your beautiful mind, then you should be getting the A's and doing extracurricular projects with ease. These half assed attitudes toward education are exactly the problem.
Where are you getting this idea that just holding a gun causes instant insanity? Another poster already mentioned that civilian firearms helped control the incident at UT Austin without any of the chaos you're describing. Every once and a while some genius will make headlines by trying to rob a gun show or gun shop and it ends with only the bad guy taking any bullets. There's been several cases of bank robberies ending similarly. In most situations it doesn't take much to decide who's the bad guy or not.
I think one caveat should be added. That if more people carried firearms and were trained to use them appropriately, these incidents could be mitigated or prevented.
Why are so many people perfectly content to cower and wait until the police get off their asses?
You can't prevent randomness. No two incidents ever seem to have the same motivation. Last week we had a murder/suicide happen on the UW campus over a relationship; this week there's a much worse case in Virginia; Charles Whitman was found to have a brain tumor that may have been affecting his decisions. Is there any "root cause"? Does it have anything to do with "ugliness in the world"? These things are very sad, but they're just outliers on the curve of human behavior. On a fundamental level there's nothing we can do to prevent a few random people from snapping.
If you're fucking my girlfriend, that gives me more time to code and play DnD! I already have had a vascectomy, so if there's a bun in oven, you can take care of that chore, too! I'll be sure to add a little to your tip next time I order a pizza and we'll call it even, okay? BTW my girlfriend is really, really fat so your efforts are truly heroic.
FIRST has been around for years. Its been in ESPN2 since at least 1997, when I competed. NASA and many, many other agencies and corporations have always been involved. If robotics were actually going mainstream, we would be treating this as routine by now. The only new should be who won, innovative strategies, etc. The fact that the competition itself is still treated as new and novel after all these years shows that it has failed in its basic goals.
Because I really do care about people's lives (I've lost too many friends and family to careless drivers), I'm going to reply one more time and I'll try to be as clear as possible.
A safe distance between you and the car in front of you is the distance at which (1) you can anticipate the traffic conditions that could require you to respond (2) give you enough time to respond safely. It doesn't matter if its 1/2 a car length or 10 car lengths. There is no set rule. I don't know why you say 2 car lengths when we've made no assumptions about speed or driving conditions. City driving could reasonably mean anywhere from stop-and-go to 45 mph.
The hidden assumption in your case seems to be that traffic coming the other way is at a full stop when the light changes and will wait for both the semi and you to run a red light. Let's assume that there is no traffic stopped at the light when it turns green, but there is another driver half a block away travelling at 35 mph. That driver will see the light turn to green, see that the semi will be through the intersection before they arrive, and that driver continues at 35 mph. But wait! you're following two car lengths behind! Even if the other driver slams on their brakes as soon as they see you, there won't be enough time. You get completely side swiped and its entirely your fault! Let's hope you don't have passengers.
Does this seem contrived? It isn't, I've seen an accident almost exactly like this happen at 1 am, (I was walking at the time and not involved). Fortunately, everyone was wearing seatbelts and noone was hurt.
BTW, I'm a bit upset that you would jump to the conclusion that I love authoritarianism. At what point did I support traffic cameras? I was just trying to point out a common misconception about safe driving. Anyway, this has gotten severely off-topic.
Any time you do not have a clear view of whether its safe to proceed, then you are following too close.
Any time you do not have enough distance to safely brake, you are following too close.
I'm not talking about what strokes your racecar-wannabe-ego, I'm talking about what's safe. If you can't drive responsibly, you shouldn't drive at all. Getting a ticket from a camera should be least of your worries, people's live are at stake.
Following too close. Everyone does it, I know, but that doesn't mean its safe or legal
I don't like to "me too", but well said, sir, one hundred percent right.