How about letting them be? You know, as a kid I always hated artificial consequences, they don't work in the real world. In most cases they were totally pointless. For example, you come home late and so you get grounded. That doesn't happen in the real world. You come home late in the real world and you either get up for work the next morning and are a bit tired, you take a "sick" day or the day off and nothing more comes of it. In the real world if you have a speech problem in general nothing major is going to come of it if you are skilled in another area. Look at Stephen Hawking, due to ALS, he requires a voice synthesizer to speak yet he is one of the most brilliant men of our time. If you are good enough in other areas to not have to speak much, good for you. We should not place false artificial consequences, people in "the real world" are generally pretty accommodating if you don't tick them off. I have no doubts that someone who is mute or talks strange can accomplish great things, if they can live their life without needing to speak properly let them.
So you're more into the line of simply taking away their computers (unless they earned it themselves) until they learn to earn it themselves. That's exactly my point. While I do see your point about Hawking he's however an exceptional man, and I wouldn't expect such an outcome for a vast number of subjects going through the same scenario. In those cases where you're not dealing with a genius you are sometimes required to aid. Not aid as in wipe their asses, but to give them the roll of paper and challenge them to do it themselves while making sure that they aren't hurt during the process (weird analogy but I get my point across). If you however do have a problem with speech you're still better off than deaf people, who nowadays live and work just like any other person does. I don't see the issue here, really. I'm having problems learning my fourth language which I'm currently trying to learn, and being a resident in the country which speaks this language I can tell you that I first learned to order food and ask for directions, as my survival instincts motivated me to do. Unfortunately I have been too lazy to learn it more properly than I could have, but I'm feeling some real pressure now and this has caused me to start studying on my own during my spare time. As you say the motivation needs to be real, no matter how harsh it might seem. Otherwise people won't change their ways, no matter if it's about learning to speak properly or going around it to become a larger human than you once were -- like Hawking did.
Evolution would just mean that whomever has the most children (that survive to also make children) becomes the dominant (in numbers) body type.
Not entirely, in you're assuming that nothing would change during this period, and that just because mother A got 5 children, so will daughter A, but of course it would as evolution itself is caused by change. It is true that evolution ultimately depends on offspring, but you can't neglect the path to having and raising that offspring. These are all events heavily based on environmental factors, and your second mistake is that evolution in our case depends on second set of genes -- our partners. You can't assume that a gene or a trait is good and that's de facto. Our traits are always based on our environments, thus what if you would mix (just as a silly example) high probability with having many children with high probability of dying during childbirth?
So you see the only assumption you can make on evolution without being subjected to the fallancy of the single cause is: whichever creatures who are best (or good enough) adapted to their environment will become a genetic base for future generations. Any simplification on that will be incorrect as it will be based on false assumptions.
What I find interesting is that you assume *everyone* is thinking you are a terrorist. I certainly don't think that every time I see someone of middle eastern descent, the same as I don't assume every Mexican jumped the border and is here illegally, or every black person is dealing crack, or...
I'm not trying to make light of your experiences, and I can only imagine the kinds of things you've certainly experienced. In a better world, maybe it wouldn't happen. But please don't just lump all of us into some expectation that we all think you're up to something. Fact is I know a fair amount of white folks that are into things a lot scarier than you probably are. Personally I look for *people* that are up to something, not based on any ethnic reasoning. Some of us are in point of fact capable of looking at people as people, instead of an ethnic box of crayons.
I hope one day you have better experiences being who you are, where you are, I truly do. Society needs to evolve everywhere.
I understand your point, and even though I'm saying everyone, I'm referring to the large mass which finds itself at the lower scale of human intelligence -- that large mass which tends to be responsible for most of the bad things, influenced by humanity, which happens in this world. I think however you missed one point which I like to make clear, which I wrote and quoted once again further up.
And please -- don't rationalize, people aren't rational.
This time I'll explain it. What I mean is: don't try to look at this problem from a rational point of view, providing such simple answers as: "well obviously people aren't guilty of a crime which they haven't yet committed, thus you should have no problems!" This is already given, but people (by people I don't mean everyone, once again I'm referring to the lower scale of human intelligence, intelligent beings deserve no such generalisations) aren't rational, they are idiots driven by hormones, instantly manipulated with the snap of a finger.
Absolutely! I have students that take notes on computer, and I think it's a terrible idea. First there is the problem of equations. In the class I teach we introduce a lot of symbols, so even if you have a fast system you would have to find the symbols in a big list. By the time you do, you're probably behind.
Second, note taking is a tool which helps you learn the material better. Transcribing the notes later helps significantly more, because now you get to revisit the material with fresh eyes. Something that may have seemed obvious initially may seem less so when you transcribe them. Now you can go to the next lecture an ask questions from the previous class. (As a professor, I'm *very* impressed when students do this, because it proves to me that they did something other than drink beer between the end of the last class and the beginning of the next.)
Finally taking notes on a computer provides you with many distractions. I know lots of students who claim "I don't get distracted from using a computer", but then my grader or another student informs me the were surfing the web, reading email, IMing, etc. Save yourself from having to avoid these and just use paper.
Your first posed problem can be easily avoided by A) him getting the application which he's asking for, and B) you sending a list of symbols to be used prior to class to have the students prepare themselves. This way they could also sneak a peak at what they mean, which incidently also helps them in learning the material better.
Your second posed problem is more about study technique, and this is a highly individual process. Some benefit from the hammer on technique, others from discussion etc..
Your third and final posed problem is about discipline, and if you lack that then your suggestion will ultimately do them no good as these studends will return to their dorm and instead of studying they will chat or surf anyway. Discipline doesn't derive from prohibition.
Don't try to fight the tools that help ease education, instead fight to make them better. Conservatism is a fools errand. Panta rei.
Yes, well then what place would pedantic pricks have in our society, if not to sit around on their perches proclaiming others inferior, using their amazing and great wit?
Either way it is pretty important that we're on the same basis when we communicate, otherwise it is pretty useless to do so. Call pedantic or whatever you want but it is valid as long as it prevents confusion.
It is interesting that they tagged it as BS and invalidated the experiment by using the single photon results... but these "major physicist" all disagree as to exactly WHY it's invalided... some say that there is no which-way information, others say there is but that it fails for other reasons... I don't really understand all the implications of the experiment, but I found his approach novel and insightful, and the stir it caused very amusing. And I still leave room for the possibility that Copenhagen may in fact be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time that "settled science" has been turned upside down.
You clearly didn't read or understand the Copenhagen interpretations. You're just making the assumption that scientists couldn't peak over the wall so they simply imagined what could be there. What was discussed in the copenhagen interpretations did not necessarily pose an answer to this experiment, but if the experiment would have been successful it would have proven some of the Copenhagen interpretations to be false. Also it is not the first time there's a difference between macroscopic and microscopic events, so you could imagine how nonsensical it would be for an established physicist to actually pursuit the reason why the experiment failed. It failed, and showed essentially nothing new, just what we already know in a slight variation. Nothing interesting really.
Foxit is evil with its crapware installer and explorer extensions. It's fat when running too. Try SumatraPDF.
Agreed, there are far better alternatives than foxit which has actually only gotten really bad lately, however Acrobat is the worst of them all. Period.
The event was approximately 2.2 seconds long. Thus it is plausible that these two photons left.9 seconds apart.
Mod parent up, obviously this is a mere effect of the size of this sun. Different layers of the sun produced different wavelenghts in the bursts as the sun would consist of various elements in layers, but you already knew this.
So what's that have to do with my original statement, that I think a private corporation like Verizon FiOS would do a better job? This is no different than if the U.S. Army says "we need more tanks." They don't build the tanks themselves. They ring-up Lockheed or Northrop or some other corporation and have them build the tanks.
Sometimes something is of the collective interest of everybody, then, in general, there are no differences. When everbody agrees (more or less) is when you create a governmental postal system, fire dept., health care, roads, and in this case communication.
Also: I don't agree with your premise that a government monopoly is any better than a Comcast monopoly or Microsoft monopoly o ATT monopoly. We should steer clear of monopolies wherever we can, which is why I disagree with having a postal monopoly (which is deep in debt) or passenger rail monopoly (ditto).
There should always be private alternatives and they should never be banned, as that would be anti capitalistic as well.
How is desiring that the government only concern itself with governance anti-capitalistic? it seems that you are using the terms free enterprise and capitalism interchangeably. While free enterprise is definitely a major factor in capitalism, equally important factors are that capitalism is privately funded and the objective is generating capital (i.e. financial wealth). Publicly funded projects focussed on helping a community or the greater good are not in line with capitalism in any way. One distinct characteristic of laissez faire capitalism is that if it does not turn a profit it fails. Publicly funded projects often have no such limiting factor, which is one reason many people prefer to see projects that are not relevant to governance to be managed by the private sector.
In a sane capitalistic system the government is not seen as a separate entity but rather as an enterprise of its own. The citizens are subscribers of the services through tax payments, and in exchange they are allowed to use these services, such as voting, schooling, healthcare etc.. E.g. variable income taxes could be seen as discounts for those whom have less income, just as other companies have e.g. other discounts such as student discounts -- which fundamentally function in the same way. In this example I'm trying to show you how a government is easily compared to a company.
You're right in that publicly funded projects don't always have profit in mind, and it's only in such cases that a public company is justified to be formed -- in a sane capitalistic system. Basic economics tell us that profit is a shift in economic balance. If everybody invests equally in a company, and everybody utilizes their services to an equal level, nobody would make profit. Of course this "perfect" scenario never plays out in that sense, but that is the motivation behind it. E.g. healthcare -- we can all get sick or injured at any time, thus a public system helps to assure the well being of everyone.
So money in this sense is not mainly used to invest and collect revenue, but merely a comphensation which in return is compatible with the private sector. Thus it is perfectly in line with capitalism since the private alternative should always be allowed to exist. And they should both be allowed to exist under fair terms. If there is a government controlled fibre network controlled by one governmental company, which is utilized for free by another governmental company, then a private company should also have the right to utilize it for free, so that they both remain under fair terms. If some people consider this network inadequate for them, then we have a demand which is not global -- paving the way for a private company to form and offer another network which they can then charge for. This is how public healthcare works. One might argue that "in that case the public sector will build a huge network making it virtually impossible for private companies to do business in this line" -- exactly -- and that is the point. Sane capitalism should always be driven by supply and demand which causes a shift of economic balance from demand to supply, and as we stated if there is a global demand there cannot be profit as there would be complete economic balance.
If you don't follow this you will be adding an artificial scarcity, and when you do this is when you get a sick capitalistic system no longer formed by the darwinistic forces which it makes it sane to begin with. It is when you do this that you hinder development, raise prices and lower quality -- because you have the power to control scarcity and not the darwinistic driven market which is fueled by -- that's right -- supply and demand.
But rather than have government do the job, I think I would simply called Verizon on the phone and said, "We want FiOS and and have the 70% of the population willing to buy it." Corporations have the expertise and experience to do the job, which politicians lack, so let corporations handle it.
Preventing the creation of a governmental company, no matter what line of business, is anti capitalistic. Sometimes something is of the collective interest of everybody, then, in general, there are no differences. When everbody agrees (more or less) is when you create a governmental postal system, fire dept., health care, roads, and in this case communication. There should always be private alternatives and they should never be banned, as that would be anti capitalistic as well. But adding the artificial constrain on a market which means prohibiting the formation of a governmental company does not foster sane capitalism. There should be fair grounds though, but that's easily arranged.
Indeed. I don't understand why Australia has better strategies than e.g. Finland, which is about to make broadband a civil right. There's your white rabbit, now follow him.
But that isn't the question at hand. And if you are willing to give up that right, what else are you wiling to give up? Where is your line?
I cannot tell you my line because the scale isn't defined. I could tell you that my line is drawn at X, but you'd have no way of telling what comes before or after X, so there's no use in my telling you "my line". What I can tell you is if X is going too far or not. In this case I don't think it's even close to being absurd to demand 100% focus at all times with both hands on the wheel unless you're shifting gears. Look I'm from a country where a drivers license is really tough to get and the whole path leading to getting to that license consists basically of the equivalent to the DMV trying to scare the living shit out of you so that you never -- never focus on anything else than driving while on the road. Of course they can only do so much and negligance occurs even here, but the point is that I'm used to this type of scenario and I think it's perfectly valid. Driving a vehicle is not "the right of every citizen", driving a vehicle requires a lot of responsibility as the pedestrians, cyclists and other motorists litteraly rely on you to take that responsibility -- with their health at stake. If people would quit being so fucking egocentric and realise that this is the reality behind it they wouldn't be so fucking reluctant to give up such silly things as their coffee or phone privileges while driving. I guess it's necessary for the majority to first kill a person by running him over while drinking coffee or talking in the phone before they can understand how fucking ridiculously low the price to avoid such a tragedy was. This isn't a freedom fight, this isn't "the man" trying to oppress you. This is cause and effect, this is common fucking sense. Not everything is about someone trying to fuck you over. Some things are plain fucking kumbaya, such as this.
And as a side note it is utterly insane to allow 16-year-olds to drive on their own, but that is a completely different discussion.
I think it is obvious to anyone that it's possible to drive and operate devices (handheld or otherwise) at the same time without the slightest compromise of safety. It's just a matter of exercising good judgment. Therein lies the problem: there are several motorists who simply lack the common sense required to exercise that good judgment.
Your mistake is to assume that all humans are equal. I'm willing to bet you that there are plenty of people who lack the ability to do this safely. But ok, let's for the hell of it say that you're right. What would be your suggestion, within a reasonable frame, to adapt to this? 100 obligatory practice hours of one hand driving? You see it's not a matter of only identifying the problem, one also has to find a practical solution. And as I said I'm willing to give up such a silly thing to keep my limbs.
The issue at hand isn't the handheld devices or their misuse. It's the safety compromise that society accepts when they allow someone utterly lacking in common sense to utilize public roadways. Lately, that compromise has manifested itself through handheld devices, but only because they are such a low-hanging fruit. Legislating against that fruit will only make the others more appealing; idiots will always partake, and idiots will cause accidents as long as idiots can drive.
You are right to say that it's unlikely there will be fewer driver's license issuances. However, you're incorrect when you state that this law is a step forwards for anybody. It does nothing to even peripherally address the real issue at hand. Until the issue of persons who are clearly incapable of operating heavy machinery (e.g., cars) are removed from the roadways, they will continue to harm the general public, with or without their handheld devices. At best, this law is a cheap and ineffective response that will distract and deter further analysis, and thus quite dangerous.
You're trying to narrow down the affected to cover the optimal range. I understand. You seem to be somewhat of a perfectionist, like myself. However how can this be applied in practice? How can you force common sense into people? I've long given up on this and instead I try to focus on expenses and gains. I pay with my right to use handheld devices, or drink coffee etc. while driving. There is a chance this will pay back directly or indirectly by me or my friends/family being able to avoid car accidents. Really -- I honestly fail to see why this is such a big deal. Are you people that addicted to phones and coffee? And don't give me that slippery slope nonsense, because by that logic we shouldn't change anything, or even avoid changing anything, because anything can potentially lead to a "slippery slope".
Sure but there's also the risk of driving with one hand.
So ban one-armed drivers as well?
That's a different case. There are ways around that handicap, just like glasses is a way around poor sight. Let me then ask you the question: should we allow people with glasses to drive without them?
Slashdot Mirror
How about letting them be? You know, as a kid I always hated artificial consequences, they don't work in the real world. In most cases they were totally pointless. For example, you come home late and so you get grounded. That doesn't happen in the real world. You come home late in the real world and you either get up for work the next morning and are a bit tired, you take a "sick" day or the day off and nothing more comes of it. In the real world if you have a speech problem in general nothing major is going to come of it if you are skilled in another area. Look at Stephen Hawking, due to ALS, he requires a voice synthesizer to speak yet he is one of the most brilliant men of our time. If you are good enough in other areas to not have to speak much, good for you. We should not place false artificial consequences, people in "the real world" are generally pretty accommodating if you don't tick them off. I have no doubts that someone who is mute or talks strange can accomplish great things, if they can live their life without needing to speak properly let them.
So you're more into the line of simply taking away their computers (unless they earned it themselves) until they learn to earn it themselves. That's exactly my point. While I do see your point about Hawking he's however an exceptional man, and I wouldn't expect such an outcome for a vast number of subjects going through the same scenario. In those cases where you're not dealing with a genius you are sometimes required to aid. Not aid as in wipe their asses, but to give them the roll of paper and challenge them to do it themselves while making sure that they aren't hurt during the process (weird analogy but I get my point across). If you however do have a problem with speech you're still better off than deaf people, who nowadays live and work just like any other person does. I don't see the issue here, really. I'm having problems learning my fourth language which I'm currently trying to learn, and being a resident in the country which speaks this language I can tell you that I first learned to order food and ask for directions, as my survival instincts motivated me to do. Unfortunately I have been too lazy to learn it more properly than I could have, but I'm feeling some real pressure now and this has caused me to start studying on my own during my spare time.
As you say the motivation needs to be real, no matter how harsh it might seem. Otherwise people won't change their ways, no matter if it's about learning to speak properly or going around it to become a larger human than you once were -- like Hawking did.
Obligatory Bill Hicks quote:
I think God put you here to test my faith dude.
Evolution would just mean that whomever has the most children (that survive to also make children) becomes the dominant (in numbers) body type.
Not entirely, in you're assuming that nothing would change during this period, and that just because mother A got 5 children, so will daughter A, but of course it would as evolution itself is caused by change. It is true that evolution ultimately depends on offspring, but you can't neglect the path to having and raising that offspring. These are all events heavily based on environmental factors, and your second mistake is that evolution in our case depends on second set of genes -- our partners. You can't assume that a gene or a trait is good and that's de facto. Our traits are always based on our environments, thus what if you would mix (just as a silly example) high probability with having many children with high probability of dying during childbirth?
So you see the only assumption you can make on evolution without being subjected to the fallancy of the single cause is: whichever creatures who are best (or good enough) adapted to their environment will become a genetic base for future generations. Any simplification on that will be incorrect as it will be based on false assumptions.
Or as a pimp protects his whores.
"I crashed my car because I was texting while driving. #*%?@! car...! "
That's completely absurd -- obviously your phone is to blame here.
What I find interesting is that you assume *everyone* is thinking you are a terrorist. I certainly don't think that every time I see someone of middle eastern descent, the same as I don't assume every Mexican jumped the border and is here illegally, or every black person is dealing crack, or...
I'm not trying to make light of your experiences, and I can only imagine the kinds of things you've certainly experienced. In a better world, maybe it wouldn't happen. But please don't just lump all of us into some expectation that we all think you're up to something. Fact is I know a fair amount of white folks that are into things a lot scarier than you probably are. Personally I look for *people* that are up to something, not based on any ethnic reasoning. Some of us are in point of fact capable of looking at people as people, instead of an ethnic box of crayons.
I hope one day you have better experiences being who you are, where you are, I truly do. Society needs to evolve everywhere.
I understand your point, and even though I'm saying everyone, I'm referring to the large mass which finds itself at the lower scale of human intelligence -- that large mass which tends to be responsible for most of the bad things, influenced by humanity, which happens in this world. I think however you missed one point which I like to make clear, which I wrote and quoted once again further up.
And please -- don't rationalize, people aren't rational.
This time I'll explain it. What I mean is: don't try to look at this problem from a rational point of view, providing such simple answers as: "well obviously people aren't guilty of a crime which they haven't yet committed, thus you should have no problems!" This is already given, but people (by people I don't mean everyone, once again I'm referring to the lower scale of human intelligence, intelligent beings deserve no such generalisations) aren't rational, they are idiots driven by hormones, instantly manipulated with the snap of a finger.
Lyx.org just got slashdotted by comment...
Absolutely! I have students that take notes on computer, and I think it's a terrible idea. First there is the problem of equations. In the class I teach we introduce a lot of symbols, so even if you have a fast system you would have to find the symbols in a big list. By the time you do, you're probably behind.
Second, note taking is a tool which helps you learn the material better. Transcribing the notes later helps significantly more, because now you get to revisit the material with fresh eyes. Something that may have seemed obvious initially may seem less so when you transcribe them. Now you can go to the next lecture an ask questions from the previous class. (As a professor, I'm *very* impressed when students do this, because it proves to me that they did something other than drink beer between the end of the last class and the beginning of the next.)
Finally taking notes on a computer provides you with many distractions. I know lots of students who claim "I don't get distracted from using a computer", but then my grader or another student informs me the were surfing the web, reading email, IMing, etc. Save yourself from having to avoid these and just use paper.
Your first posed problem can be easily avoided by A) him getting the application which he's asking for, and B) you sending a list of symbols to be used prior to class to have the students prepare themselves. This way they could also sneak a peak at what they mean, which incidently also helps them in learning the material better.
Your second posed problem is more about study technique, and this is a highly individual process. Some benefit from the hammer on technique, others from discussion etc..
Your third and final posed problem is about discipline, and if you lack that then your suggestion will ultimately do them no good as these studends will return to their dorm and instead of studying they will chat or surf anyway. Discipline doesn't derive from prohibition.
Don't try to fight the tools that help ease education, instead fight to make them better. Conservatism is a fools errand. Panta rei.
Yes, well then what place would pedantic pricks have in our society, if not to sit around on their perches proclaiming others inferior, using their amazing and great wit?
Either way it is pretty important that we're on the same basis when we communicate, otherwise it is pretty useless to do so. Call pedantic or whatever you want but it is valid as long as it prevents confusion.
It is interesting that they tagged it as BS and invalidated the experiment by using the single photon results... but these "major physicist" all disagree as to exactly WHY it's invalided... some say that there is no which-way information, others say there is but that it fails for other reasons... I don't really understand all the implications of the experiment, but I found his approach novel and insightful, and the stir it caused very amusing. And I still leave room for the possibility that Copenhagen may in fact be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time that "settled science" has been turned upside down.
You clearly didn't read or understand the Copenhagen interpretations. You're just making the assumption that scientists couldn't peak over the wall so they simply imagined what could be there. What was discussed in the copenhagen interpretations did not necessarily pose an answer to this experiment, but if the experiment would have been successful it would have proven some of the Copenhagen interpretations to be false. Also it is not the first time there's a difference between macroscopic and microscopic events, so you could imagine how nonsensical it would be for an established physicist to actually pursuit the reason why the experiment failed. It failed, and showed essentially nothing new, just what we already know in a slight variation. Nothing interesting really.
Foxit is evil with its crapware installer and explorer extensions. It's fat when running too. Try SumatraPDF.
Agreed, there are far better alternatives than foxit which has actually only gotten really bad lately, however Acrobat is the worst of them all. Period.
The event was approximately 2.2 seconds long. Thus it is plausible that these two photons left .9 seconds apart.
Mod parent up, obviously this is a mere effect of the size of this sun. Different layers of the sun produced different wavelenghts in the bursts as the sun would consist of various elements in layers, but you already knew this.
Hmm, those Nigerians sure are getting crafty, but I fail to see where they are going to make money on this.
That's easy, watch:
1. Nigerian scam.
2. ???
3. Profit!
So what's that have to do with my original statement, that I think a private corporation like Verizon FiOS would do a better job? This is no different than if the U.S. Army says "we need more tanks." They don't build the tanks themselves. They ring-up Lockheed or Northrop or some other corporation and have them build the tanks.
Sometimes something is of the collective interest of everybody, then, in general, there are no differences. When everbody agrees (more or less) is when you create a governmental postal system, fire dept., health care, roads, and in this case communication.
Also: I don't agree with your premise that a government monopoly is any better than a Comcast monopoly or Microsoft monopoly o ATT monopoly. We should steer clear of monopolies wherever we can, which is why I disagree with having a postal monopoly (which is deep in debt) or passenger rail monopoly (ditto).
There should always be private alternatives and they should never be banned, as that would be anti capitalistic as well.
No use in repeating myself.
How is desiring that the government only concern itself with governance anti-capitalistic? it seems that you are using the terms free enterprise and capitalism interchangeably. While free enterprise is definitely a major factor in capitalism, equally important factors are that capitalism is privately funded and the objective is generating capital (i.e. financial wealth). Publicly funded projects focussed on helping a community or the greater good are not in line with capitalism in any way. One distinct characteristic of laissez faire capitalism is that if it does not turn a profit it fails. Publicly funded projects often have no such limiting factor, which is one reason many people prefer to see projects that are not relevant to governance to be managed by the private sector.
In a sane capitalistic system the government is not seen as a separate entity but rather as an enterprise of its own. The citizens are subscribers of the services through tax payments, and in exchange they are allowed to use these services, such as voting, schooling, healthcare etc.. E.g. variable income taxes could be seen as discounts for those whom have less income, just as other companies have e.g. other discounts such as student discounts -- which fundamentally function in the same way. In this example I'm trying to show you how a government is easily compared to a company.
You're right in that publicly funded projects don't always have profit in mind, and it's only in such cases that a public company is justified to be formed -- in a sane capitalistic system. Basic economics tell us that profit is a shift in economic balance. If everybody invests equally in a company, and everybody utilizes their services to an equal level, nobody would make profit. Of course this "perfect" scenario never plays out in that sense, but that is the motivation behind it. E.g. healthcare -- we can all get sick or injured at any time, thus a public system helps to assure the well being of everyone.
So money in this sense is not mainly used to invest and collect revenue, but merely a comphensation which in return is compatible with the private sector. Thus it is perfectly in line with capitalism since the private alternative should always be allowed to exist. And they should both be allowed to exist under fair terms. If there is a government controlled fibre network controlled by one governmental company, which is utilized for free by another governmental company, then a private company should also have the right to utilize it for free, so that they both remain under fair terms. If some people consider this network inadequate for them, then we have a demand which is not global -- paving the way for a private company to form and offer another network which they can then charge for. This is how public healthcare works. One might argue that "in that case the public sector will build a huge network making it virtually impossible for private companies to do business in this line" -- exactly -- and that is the point. Sane capitalism should always be driven by supply and demand which causes a shift of economic balance from demand to supply, and as we stated if there is a global demand there cannot be profit as there would be complete economic balance.
If you don't follow this you will be adding an artificial scarcity, and when you do this is when you get a sick capitalistic system no longer formed by the darwinistic forces which it makes it sane to begin with. It is when you do this that you hinder development, raise prices and lower quality -- because you have the power to control scarcity and not the darwinistic driven market which is fueled by -- that's right -- supply and demand.
Is that kind of like your own personal Internet?
Do its pipes get filled with enormous amounts of materiel?
Internet is a series of tubes, not pipes. That would be plumbing, silly man.
That's fine. Their town; their decision.
But rather than have government do the job, I think I would simply called Verizon on the phone and said, "We want FiOS and and have the 70% of the population willing to buy it." Corporations have the expertise and experience to do the job, which politicians lack, so let corporations handle it.
Preventing the creation of a governmental company, no matter what line of business, is anti capitalistic. Sometimes something is of the collective interest of everybody, then, in general, there are no differences. When everbody agrees (more or less) is when you create a governmental postal system, fire dept., health care, roads, and in this case communication. There should always be private alternatives and they should never be banned, as that would be anti capitalistic as well. But adding the artificial constrain on a market which means prohibiting the formation of a governmental company does not foster sane capitalism. There should be fair grounds though, but that's easily arranged.
I can replace my racks with a three-ring binder!
It would seem viable until you realize that $99 printer has $4999.99 cartridges and the first one only comes 1% full.
I'm not expecting anything else.
"Controversy" already settled by being tagged "BS" by major physicists.
Yup, the experiment didn't work with a single photon when they wanted to verify the results. The Copenhagen interpretation still remains intact.
Oh good lord.
Indeed. I don't understand why Australia has better strategies than e.g. Finland, which is about to make broadband a civil right. There's your white rabbit, now follow him.
But that isn't the question at hand. And if you are willing to give up that right, what else are you wiling to give up? Where is your line?
I cannot tell you my line because the scale isn't defined. I could tell you that my line is drawn at X, but you'd have no way of telling what comes before or after X, so there's no use in my telling you "my line". What I can tell you is if X is going too far or not. In this case I don't think it's even close to being absurd to demand 100% focus at all times with both hands on the wheel unless you're shifting gears. Look I'm from a country where a drivers license is really tough to get and the whole path leading to getting to that license consists basically of the equivalent to the DMV trying to scare the living shit out of you so that you never -- never focus on anything else than driving while on the road. Of course they can only do so much and negligance occurs even here, but the point is that I'm used to this type of scenario and I think it's perfectly valid.
Driving a vehicle is not "the right of every citizen", driving a vehicle requires a lot of responsibility as the pedestrians, cyclists and other motorists litteraly rely on you to take that responsibility -- with their health at stake. If people would quit being so fucking egocentric and realise that this is the reality behind it they wouldn't be so fucking reluctant to give up such silly things as their coffee or phone privileges while driving. I guess it's necessary for the majority to first kill a person by running him over while drinking coffee or talking in the phone before they can understand how fucking ridiculously low the price to avoid such a tragedy was. This isn't a freedom fight, this isn't "the man" trying to oppress you. This is cause and effect, this is common fucking sense. Not everything is about someone trying to fuck you over. Some things are plain fucking kumbaya, such as this.
And as a side note it is utterly insane to allow 16-year-olds to drive on their own, but that is a completely different discussion.
Hint:
Had he said 100 degrees it would have been boiling.
Hint 2:
C not F
Hint 3:
Royale with cheese.
I think it is obvious to anyone that it's possible to drive and operate devices (handheld or otherwise) at the same time without the slightest compromise of safety. It's just a matter of exercising good judgment. Therein lies the problem: there are several motorists who simply lack the common sense required to exercise that good judgment.
Your mistake is to assume that all humans are equal. I'm willing to bet you that there are plenty of people who lack the ability to do this safely. But ok, let's for the hell of it say that you're right. What would be your suggestion, within a reasonable frame, to adapt to this? 100 obligatory practice hours of one hand driving? You see it's not a matter of only identifying the problem, one also has to find a practical solution. And as I said I'm willing to give up such a silly thing to keep my limbs.
The issue at hand isn't the handheld devices or their misuse. It's the safety compromise that society accepts when they allow someone utterly lacking in common sense to utilize public roadways. Lately, that compromise has manifested itself through handheld devices, but only because they are such a low-hanging fruit. Legislating against that fruit will only make the others more appealing; idiots will always partake, and idiots will cause accidents as long as idiots can drive.
You are right to say that it's unlikely there will be fewer driver's license issuances. However, you're incorrect when you state that this law is a step forwards for anybody. It does nothing to even peripherally address the real issue at hand. Until the issue of persons who are clearly incapable of operating heavy machinery (e.g., cars) are removed from the roadways, they will continue to harm the general public, with or without their handheld devices. At best, this law is a cheap and ineffective response that will distract and deter further analysis, and thus quite dangerous.
You're trying to narrow down the affected to cover the optimal range. I understand. You seem to be somewhat of a perfectionist, like myself. However how can this be applied in practice? How can you force common sense into people? I've long given up on this and instead I try to focus on expenses and gains. I pay with my right to use handheld devices, or drink coffee etc. while driving. There is a chance this will pay back directly or indirectly by me or my friends/family being able to avoid car accidents. Really -- I honestly fail to see why this is such a big deal. Are you people that addicted to phones and coffee? And don't give me that slippery slope nonsense, because by that logic we shouldn't change anything, or even avoid changing anything, because anything can potentially lead to a "slippery slope".
Sure but there's also the risk of driving with one hand.
So ban one-armed drivers as well?
That's a different case. There are ways around that handicap, just like glasses is a way around poor sight. Let me then ask you the question: should we allow people with glasses to drive without them?
Umm, did you read the post you were replying to? He's on your (and incidentally, my) side.
In all fairness I did ask if he was joking. I'm a bit feisty today, I admit. But since we all agree let's gather and sing kumbaya. ;-)