When the Union of Concerned Economists starts bashing Bush, then I'll be worried.
First of all, blaming the "Bush administration" for the actions of many varied government agencies is a bit disingenous. Does anyone suppose the FDA takes daily orders from the White House? Our government just doesn't work like that.
Second, what [these particular] scientists seem to lack is a sense of perspective. There are no solutions to real-world problems. There are only trade-offs. Sure, it would be great to have perfectly clean water, but at what point is "clean enough?" How much effort do you spend saving one endangered species?
If your answer to any of these is "more!" then you haven't considered that our society, government, companies and individuals can only spend so much money and effort. Spending it all on one area leaves other, possibly more important areas unattended to.
Science is about finding ideal solutions. Politics, and economics, is about managing a finite number of resources to accomplish things. Yes, it hurts when you recommend that a rare swan be saved and nobody listens, but it's likely you don't have any clue what the trade-off would be.
The only way to make these things work is if success is based on player skill rather than how much time you've put in.
With a D&D style leveling model, this is always going to be impossible.
These games are always going to be glorified chatrooms until technology catches up and allows either much faster content creation or player skill based gameplay so that a relative beginner can be an asset to a group that's been playing a long time.
I don't think this will affect future sales of XBox 2's as much as it will hurt current sales. People will be much more likely to get a PS2 console or game if they have the option to keep playing it on the PS3.
If Sony keeps the compatibility going, I don't see MS displacing them any time soon.
I can just imagine all the imbeciles on the highway playing Grand Theft Auto while driving, because the graphics are so realistic that it really seems like you're driving.
There is a new computer smell. I don't know what causes it, but I have determined that Apple has its very own and it's very consistent. You can smell a new Mac from a mile away.
I think the odor might be a clue as to what causes the religious Mac zealotry in Mac users...
I agree with you, but again, let's judge him on the hundred counts of petty theft, not one count of grand larceny, which he didn't commit. This article is about basing laws on the cumulative economic impact of a crime, which is a bit absurd.
No matter what the economic impact of the pickpocket, he still didn't kill anyone.
Imagine you have to walk down a dark street alone. You can choose to have on that street:
A) A pickpocket whose crimes total $10 million (i.e. the estimated value of a human life) B) A murderer.
One other thing, the impact of the suicide bomber, in economic terms, would be different depending where and who he blew himself up.
Bombing the World Trade Centers has a huge economic impact. Bombing a monster truck rally, while perhaps killing the same amount of people, would likely have a lesser economic impact.
I'd submit that both are equally wrong, but not according to this article.
Kind of ridiculous to leave out the rest of that sentence:...and also has more responsibility to do the right thing, knowing that his actions affect millions.
Also, an economic impact is neither "good" or "bad." In other words, the fact that Bill Gates was born and lived caused billions of dollars to change hands, multiple times, and national wealth to be created, and thousands of people to be employed. This is an impact to society.
I'm not interested in whether Microsoft is a good software company, because in economic terms, that is neither here nor there.
If you're going to legislate based purely on economic impact, you can't also consider morality. Then, you'd have to consider ALL of the results of the virus. Maybe it's good that a sysadmin at SCO wasn't able to do his job for a few hours, for example. Does that negate the economic impact in that particular situation?
This type of legislation would be impossible to enforce, because it's impossible to know what the economic impact of any one action will be. This is why the free market is more efficient than a centrally planned economy.
I don't have any answers. I don't know why we don't kill virus writers. It seems as if punishments for crimes are fairly arbitrary in Western society. There IS no indicator or assesment we can make to determine whether a punishment is fair.
Should we execute people for jaywalking? It would certainly prevent many people from doing it. It might even save lives, and make economic sense. But that doesn't make it an appropriate punishment.
I don't know about judging a cumulative effect as the same as a one time effect.
If I give 100,000 people paper-cuts, causing them pain and wasting cumulatively a whole lifetime of hours when they take time out to apply band-aids, am I really as bad as someone who kills another person? Are people going to be afraid to go outside because of the paper-cut man? Are neighborhoods going to decay because of me?
I don't think so.
Even if a pickpocket steals from thousands of people over his lifetime, he is only guilty of many counts of petty theft. He doesn't graduate to grand larceny after a certain cumulative dollar amount.
When estimating the value of human life when making laws, a decent estimate would probably be the value of that life to society.
I'd pay quite a bit to continue my own life, or someone in my family, but that's for selfish and sentimental reasons only. Odds are, people in Montana couldn't care less whether I live or die, despite what some might say to the contrary. There are only a small amount of people who are actually aware and affected by my existence.
A simple means of measuring an individual's effect on society as a whole then is the economic impact that person would have over his lifetime. Like him or not, Bill Gates will obviously have a much greater impact on society over his lifetime than your average joe. Many more people have an interest in his continued well-being than they have an interest in mine.
Should this be weighed when making laws? I don't know. It would seem to me that since Bill Gates has a measurably greater impact on society, he deserves greater compensation for wrongs done to him and also has more responsibility to do the right thing, knowing that his actions affect millions.
But the economic impact is not the only consequence of crime. I'm not scared to walk through a bad neighborhood at night because I think Martha Stewart is going to jump out of the bushes and rob me. Her crime has little impact on the order of society and the perceived safety of its citizens.
Similarly, should we prosecute someone who kills a homeless man? They have little impact on society, and their lives aren't worth as much in economic terms. I think, however, most people would reject the idea that some murders are more ok than others based on economic reasons.
By creating a vernacular consisting of elongated words and sophisticated verbiage, obviously indifferent to definition but simultaneously observing grammar regulations while eschewing colloquialisms, perhaps students may increase individual chances of achieving substantial academic acclaim.
If this works anything like the writing level indexes you find on word processors, it should be easy to fool.
As if anyone who is an engineer can't possibly understand arts and humanities.
What a load of crap.
If anything, talent in both fields seems to be quite common among intelligent and creative people. You can't tell me that any engineer couldn't jump right into a philisophical/humanities discussion with relatively few problems understanding what's going on.
The only "problem," if there is one, is that the typical engineering type is outclassed by the guy-with-the-humanities-doctorate when it comes to spouting bullshit, and consequently yields authority or creative control to him because he doesn't want the hassle.
>It's light weight & high rigidity due to it's fiber construction should also help in case of mines by allowing it to bounce away from shocks instead of absorbing them.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. Large ships have to be somewhat flexible so that they don't break under the stresses you mention. I've seen videos of destroyers in really bad weather where you can see the deck buckling.
Interestingly, the best way to sink the ship is by creating an air bubble under the ship so that the ship falls in on itself and breaks in half. This is how torpedos are supposed to work. Simply puncturing the ship has little effect, especially on a warship.
Finally, damage control on a ship mostly consists of closing off compartments and/or stuffing the hole with wood. There are also large rubber sheets that the crew can slide along the outside of the hull to cover larger cracks. It sounds ridiculously simple, but the idea is just to quickly stem the flow of water so the pumps can do their job. Welding doesn't enter the picture until much later.
Slashdot Mirror
When the Union of Concerned Economists starts bashing Bush, then I'll be worried.
First of all, blaming the "Bush administration" for the actions of many varied government agencies is a bit disingenous. Does anyone suppose the FDA takes daily orders from the White House? Our government just doesn't work like that.
Second, what [these particular] scientists seem to lack is a sense of perspective. There are no solutions to real-world problems. There are only trade-offs. Sure, it would be great to have perfectly clean water, but at what point is "clean enough?" How much effort do you spend saving one endangered species?
If your answer to any of these is "more!" then you haven't considered that our society, government, companies and individuals can only spend so much money and effort. Spending it all on one area leaves other, possibly more important areas unattended to.
Science is about finding ideal solutions. Politics, and economics, is about managing a finite number of resources to accomplish things. Yes, it hurts when you recommend that a rare swan be saved and nobody listens, but it's likely you don't have any clue what the trade-off would be.
Haley's Comet is as rare as you can get. There's on ly one.
Except she would have seen the sun in the Matrix, so it wouldn't have been THAT fascinating.
Hell, she wore sunglasses almost the entire time. What were they for?
>Yeah, but do you really think anyone's going to be driving cars in 25 years?
I think that's a safe assumption.
I'd put money on it, in fact.
I'll just sit further away from the LCD screen that I have.
Whoa! Instant perceived resolution increase.
Manage a farm, or even two, while fighting to maintain subsidies that will ensure that your alfalfa is profitable.
Fun for the whole family!
Then why not just say "Using Binary"?
The only way to make these things work is if success is based on player skill rather than how much time you've put in.
With a D&D style leveling model, this is always going to be impossible.
These games are always going to be glorified chatrooms until technology catches up and allows either much faster content creation or player skill based gameplay so that a relative beginner can be an asset to a group that's been playing a long time.
Actually, 50% of the people are dumber than, or just as dumb as, the median person.
There can be a substantial number of people exactly at the median.
I don't think this will affect future sales of XBox 2's as much as it will hurt current sales. People will be much more likely to get a PS2 console or game if they have the option to keep playing it on the PS3.
If Sony keeps the compatibility going, I don't see MS displacing them any time soon.
I can just imagine all the imbeciles on the highway playing Grand Theft Auto while driving, because the graphics are so realistic that it really seems like you're driving.
(*#&$#(*&#!
I knew I should have gotten the PS2 instead.
There is a new computer smell. I don't know what causes it, but I have determined that Apple has its very own and it's very consistent. You can smell a new Mac from a mile away.
I think the odor might be a clue as to what causes the religious Mac zealotry in Mac users...
I can just imagine the Nader-fans heads exploding right about now.
Get cheap enviro-friendly gas, encourage evil corporate McDonalds to sell more fries.
Wow, if that's not a Greenie's nightmare dilemma, I don't know what is.
I agree with you, but again, let's judge him on the hundred counts of petty theft, not one count of grand larceny, which he didn't commit. This article is about basing laws on the cumulative economic impact of a crime, which is a bit absurd.
No matter what the economic impact of the pickpocket, he still didn't kill anyone.
Imagine you have to walk down a dark street alone. You can choose to have on that street:
A) A pickpocket whose crimes total $10 million (i.e. the estimated value of a human life)
B) A murderer.
Which would you choose?
One other thing, the impact of the suicide bomber, in economic terms, would be different depending where and who he blew himself up.
Bombing the World Trade Centers has a huge economic impact. Bombing a monster truck rally, while perhaps killing the same amount of people, would likely have a lesser economic impact.
I'd submit that both are equally wrong, but not according to this article.
Kind of ridiculous to leave out the rest of that sentence: ...and also has more responsibility to do the right thing, knowing that his actions affect millions.
Also, an economic impact is neither "good" or "bad." In other words, the fact that Bill Gates was born and lived caused billions of dollars to change hands, multiple times, and national wealth to be created, and thousands of people to be employed. This is an impact to society.
I'm not interested in whether Microsoft is a good software company, because in economic terms, that is neither here nor there.
If you're going to legislate based purely on economic impact, you can't also consider morality. Then, you'd have to consider ALL of the results of the virus. Maybe it's good that a sysadmin at SCO wasn't able to do his job for a few hours, for example. Does that negate the economic impact in that particular situation?
This type of legislation would be impossible to enforce, because it's impossible to know what the economic impact of any one action will be. This is why the free market is more efficient than a centrally planned economy.
I don't have any answers. I don't know why we don't kill virus writers. It seems as if punishments for crimes are fairly arbitrary in Western society. There IS no indicator or assesment we can make to determine whether a punishment is fair.
Should we execute people for jaywalking? It would certainly prevent many people from doing it. It might even save lives, and make economic sense. But that doesn't make it an appropriate punishment.
I don't know about judging a cumulative effect as the same as a one time effect.
If I give 100,000 people paper-cuts, causing them pain and wasting cumulatively a whole lifetime of hours when they take time out to apply band-aids, am I really as bad as someone who kills another person? Are people going to be afraid to go outside because of the paper-cut man? Are neighborhoods going to decay because of me?
I don't think so.
Even if a pickpocket steals from thousands of people over his lifetime, he is only guilty of many counts of petty theft. He doesn't graduate to grand larceny after a certain cumulative dollar amount.
I think this is quite interesting.
When estimating the value of human life when making laws, a decent estimate would probably be the value of that life to society.
I'd pay quite a bit to continue my own life, or someone in my family, but that's for selfish and sentimental reasons only. Odds are, people in Montana couldn't care less whether I live or die, despite what some might say to the contrary. There are only a small amount of people who are actually aware and affected by my existence.
A simple means of measuring an individual's effect on society as a whole then is the economic impact that person would have over his lifetime. Like him or not, Bill Gates will obviously have a much greater impact on society over his lifetime than your average joe. Many more people have an interest in his continued well-being than they have an interest in mine.
Should this be weighed when making laws? I don't know. It would seem to me that since Bill Gates has a measurably greater impact on society, he deserves greater compensation for wrongs done to him and also has more responsibility to do the right thing, knowing that his actions affect millions.
But the economic impact is not the only consequence of crime. I'm not scared to walk through a bad neighborhood at night because I think Martha Stewart is going to jump out of the bushes and rob me. Her crime has little impact on the order of society and the perceived safety of its citizens.
Similarly, should we prosecute someone who kills a homeless man? They have little impact on society, and their lives aren't worth as much in economic terms. I think, however, most people would reject the idea that some murders are more ok than others based on economic reasons.
>If you would like to try out e-rater, you can obtain an ID and password and submit and original essay for scoring on the CriterionSM Web site.
Submit "and" essay? I guess they haven't run the software on themselves.
F.
By creating a vernacular consisting of elongated words and sophisticated verbiage, obviously indifferent to definition but simultaneously observing grammar regulations while eschewing colloquialisms, perhaps students may increase individual chances of achieving substantial academic acclaim.
If this works anything like the writing level indexes you find on word processors, it should be easy to fool.
Now all of the other sports games will have to switch from the NFL...to something better.
I can't wait for "XFL 2005 - He Hate Me" to appear on the Gamecube.
As if anyone who is an engineer can't possibly understand arts and humanities.
What a load of crap.
If anything, talent in both fields seems to be quite common among intelligent and creative people. You can't tell me that any engineer couldn't jump right into a philisophical/humanities discussion with relatively few problems understanding what's going on.
The only "problem," if there is one, is that the typical engineering type is outclassed by the guy-with-the-humanities-doctorate when it comes to spouting bullshit, and consequently yields authority or creative control to him because he doesn't want the hassle.
>It's light weight & high rigidity due to it's fiber construction should also help in case of mines by allowing it to bounce away from shocks instead of absorbing them.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. Large ships have to be somewhat flexible so that they don't break under the stresses you mention. I've seen videos of destroyers in really bad weather where you can see the deck buckling.
Interestingly, the best way to sink the ship is by creating an air bubble under the ship so that the ship falls in on itself and breaks in half. This is how torpedos are supposed to work. Simply puncturing the ship has little effect, especially on a warship.
Finally, damage control on a ship mostly consists of closing off compartments and/or stuffing the hole with wood. There are also large rubber sheets that the crew can slide along the outside of the hull to cover larger cracks. It sounds ridiculously simple, but the idea is just to quickly stem the flow of water so the pumps can do their job. Welding doesn't enter the picture until much later.
>"I feel like a complete fraud driving around Cincinnati with a license plate that says MO MILES," says Blackshaw.
Not to mention a complete dork.