Well, the point you quoted was actually that your statement was inadequate:-)
But my other point is that the presence of taxis has costs not recognized by either the taxi driver or the customer, and capturing those costs is difficult. Therefore, a reasonable step is not to allow the free market to decide on one variable (the number of taxis), as it will select more than is sufficient. Note, I'm not claiming this will produce a shortage, I'm claiming its required to avoid producing a glut.
This seems like the same concept: insert mechanical devices every X feet. In case of emergency open hole in pipe using mechanical device. Have air flow through vacuum to trapped people.
I don't think it's a bad solution... I think it's the only one. I just don't get how it solves the problems off routing maintenance and testing.
Also, truthfully, I doubt that the airflow would be sufficient, unless you're saying you would open all the possible valves.
And tens of millions more think that they make enough money doing it that they choose to keep driving for Uber, and Lyft, and the other rideshares. Why?
Because the odds of them getting caught while driving for Uber without insurance* are very low, and the high penalty/low risk that will happen if they get into a wreck uninsured are discounted because human beings suck at that.
*Most insurance in the US does not cover drivers going to pick up fares, and Uber only covers while the customer is in the care.
Please explain how implementing the medallion system was a bad law.
Because it artificially limits the number of taxis available
That's some fine circular reasoning. Why is X bad? Because X achieved its stated goal of Y. (For X = medallions and Y=limit the number of taxis available).
There are lot of problems that having as many taxis as the market could bear caused. In no small part because car driving imposes externatlities on others. Therefore, the free market actively over-produces taxis.
Pre medallion-licensed taxi systems may have been fundamentally flawed, but that does not preclude the medallion system from also being fundamentally flawed.
If you advocate removing the medallion system, I think it is incumbent on you to explain what new mechanisms can be/have been introduced to prevent the recurrence of the fundamentally flawed pre-medallion system.
I never liked the concept that developers either have to volunteer help people (at stackoverflow) or donate time (at github) in order to be considered a valuable employee. I mean, for someone with no work history, but beyond entry level??
Re:And so the cycle of "reform" continues
on
FDA Bans Trans Fat
·
· Score: 1
Do you really want people who will be shown to be wrong within 40 years to be making force-of-law decisions for you on the very things that they are wrong about?
What makes you think that they'll be more wrong than you would be. They have the time to do the research, review the studies, etc.
Of course, they'll be wrong about some things. But fewer, and hopefully of smaller significance.
Or what brilliant thing do you know they are missing?
Water should not be set by the market. There is an inelastic element to demand. But you already identified the solution. Households (really, each person) should get a water allowance per month at subsidized rates. I have no desire to subsidize a millionaire's many acre estate.
As a plus side, if they want water for their lawn, maybe they can put up some low income housing on the edge of their property, and use some of their subsidized water.
Among touchy-feely people there is a tendency to think that groups are smarter than individuals. They are wrong.
Individuals have inspired every worthwhile advance in every discipline through history.
That may have been true 2500 years ago in Greece, I don't know.
It's not a question that in the 1600's a group of highly intelligent people communicating led to great advances. Because if Issac Newton was a brilliant sole inventor, how did Leibniz invent calculus at the same time? Similar stories of people working together abound around that time.
In modern times, Edison's Labs invented lightbulbs, phonographs, movie cameras, etc... all from a group of workers. Bell Labs famously put smart people from different disciplines together. And all they invented was the transistor.
It's not surprising is an answer to whether Snowden revealed something important. If it was already widely known or suspected, then Snowden didn't reveal it. Therefore, it is one reason (the other being lack of import) to question the value of Snowden's revelation
1 Well, your border thing is wrong. All the links talk about calls with at least one endpoint in those countries, not routed through.
2-3 Yes, I do. Like most adults, I recognize that countries don't have friends like people do. Countries fight wars, etc. Information smooths communication. I would expect Russia or Germany or Britain to listen to Obama's phone calls that are unencrypted (and the encrypted ones if they can). I don't harbor any grudges over it.
4 The NSA's job is to protect government communications and break into other people's job. Secure standards are someone else's job.
5 Yup, it seems like this one is spying on Americans
6 With the exception of Lavabit, those same companies sell (access to) that data to multiple parties. So why not the government. And Lavabit doesn't exist because instead of hiring a competent lawyer, they turned over the keys in 2 point font. They could have fought the turnover, but they didn't even respond to the first few requests. Ignoring a lawsuit, not even defending yourself, but doing the equivalent of paying the fine in pennies will get you in trouble. Because your choices are fight it or comply, not kinda comply.
7 Yeah, I mean, it's not perfect. But it's been going on since the Cold War. It's well known.
8 Stealing the codes gives them a technical ability. It depends on how that ability is being used.
I don't trust the NSA. But My question was "What did Snowden reveal that was (a) Surprising/new info and (b) Over the line". I totally could believe that something was happening. But it wasn't revealed by Snowden
Okay, but my point was about using a shovel, and the context clearly implies it's about makework. If the phrase "for people who cannot get work" showing up in every post wasn't a clue.
That might be true for JS, if you wanted to focus on that.
Well, this is a discussion about JS, not some platonic ideal. Their prototype system is really really bad.
Then you have not worked in "interesting" but only in "boring" projects.
I suggest to start here and figure if you can get some of the books about Talingent
Talingent, the thing that when I skim the wikipedia article (you linked to) says never got it's development act together, was the ur-example of a project death march, and was abandoned and never completed.
And if you think projects are made interesting by MI... well, in general I prefer projects where I try to solve interesting problems, not dick measuring contests.
There isn't a performance issue. It's not a compiler question. It's "what is going to require the least work to decipher when someone new comes onboard." "What's the safest/least likely to break."
I so don't follow you. I would hate to dig ditches for a living. I said "anyone who wants a job should be able to dig ditches if they have no other opportunities." It's a shitty job at subsistence levels. It doesn't rob any motivation to plan for the future. Most people would insist that forcing makework on people to avoid starving is cruel in itself.
You haven't told me what you think we should do with people who cannot get a job. Let them starve? Shoot them, because they're going to riot til they get fed soon anyway?
I live in a prosperous society, even after the great recession.
I didn't waltz in and demand a job. I worked hard. I'm not saying everyone deserves a ton of stuff. I'm saying that everyone deserves to not die on the street from starvation because of lack of money.
Because the world is a harsh place, that's why.
The world is what we make it, within some limitations on our power. It's a lot harsher than it has to be.
It's a lot more expensive when you follow up your BA with a pair of MAs and a PhD... all done in NYC at Columbia.
He's an entitled sociopath, and I would welcome the government collecting it's debts in whatever stringent ways we reserve for people who I personally despise.
Why the fuck not? I mean, I have a job, and skills, etc. But I certainly think that anyone who wants to work should be able to get some job... even if the government is just paying them to dig ditches. It's cruel to tell people they have to have money to live inside and eat food and not give them some way to earn said money.
Dude, kindly remove the self-righteous stick you have firmly lodged in your ass.
I quite clearly said that I believe in privacy. I never said I trust the government. I said that Snowden didn't surprise me with any revelations.
And, to be honest, none of ahodgson said was that surprising. Okay, one (the SIM card) was surprising and one (the breaking of internal networks) seem like it could be over the line. But really?
The NSA should have Angela Merkle's line tapped. And I'd be surprised if every intelligence agency didn't have every (non-encrypted) line of Obama's tapped.
Umm... this is kinda what I'm saying. I tried to read all the articles. Please let me know what I'm missing.
1 - Snowden revealed foreign calls are records (NSA's job) and someone else claimed US calls are also being recorded (Violation of civil liberties).
2 - This is the NSA's job description.
3 - This is the NSA's job description.
4 - Unsurprising. Disappointing, but unsurprising. I would imagine the government would keep accurate methods a secret if possible. Tricking China into using poor encryption makes perfect sense
5 -This one seems over the line.
6 - This is the fucking corporation's fault. They offer the data for sale, the government wants. Fucking companies
7 - Data sharing seems like a normal thing. See #6.
8 - The hack could make sense or not. Depends on how the data is used. If the NSA was trusted to not spy on Americans, this would be a great idea. It's really a technological ability they have, and should be treated as any other codebreaking. That is, their job is to develop that power, and the question of how they use that power is the question..
Only #5 seems over the line. Half of them seem obviously what the NSA claims to try to do, and several others seem unsurprising.
I've never seen a coding standard that didn't wave giant caution signs as multiple inheritance. Google's is easy to find, but dozens more from big companies are available.
Interfaces are different, but (a) that's not really enforceable under JS and (b) that would be totally different from your assertion, which only talked about avoiding the diamond antipattern.
you would use a an OO language that is based on prototypes people like you would not even realize the difference between a prototype based and classed base hierarchy.
You're missing the point. I'm not talking about syntax. I'm saying that the "power" that prototypical inheritance exposes is not worth the complexity that that power costs. Nothing to do with the syntax. Everything to do with all those arguments you made initially for using prototypical inheritance increasing the complexity.
Being mutable or not, that is a security thread. And to ensure immutability you often enforce that certain classes can not be extended classed like "final classes" in Java.
Except, you cannot declare a prototype final, pretty much because then it's no longer a prototype. And that's actually not going to solve the problem I bring up either.
You can change the prototype that an object is based on in runtime. I have no idea what useful purpose it serves. But that simple fact produces a ton of complexity in the code. This complexity has been the historic source of bugs and security holes.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the point you quoted was actually that your statement was inadequate :-)
But my other point is that the presence of taxis has costs not recognized by either the taxi driver or the customer, and capturing those costs is difficult. Therefore, a reasonable step is not to allow the free market to decide on one variable (the number of taxis), as it will select more than is sufficient. Note, I'm not claiming this will produce a shortage, I'm claiming its required to avoid producing a glut.
This seems like the same concept: insert mechanical devices every X feet. In case of emergency open hole in pipe using mechanical device. Have air flow through vacuum to trapped people.
I don't think it's a bad solution... I think it's the only one. I just don't get how it solves the problems off routing maintenance and testing.
Also, truthfully, I doubt that the airflow would be sufficient, unless you're saying you would open all the possible valves.
Because the odds of them getting caught while driving for Uber without insurance* are very low, and the high penalty/low risk that will happen if they get into a wreck uninsured are discounted because human beings suck at that.
*Most insurance in the US does not cover drivers going to pick up fares, and Uber only covers while the customer is in the care.
That's some fine circular reasoning. Why is X bad? Because X achieved its stated goal of Y. (For X = medallions and Y=limit the number of taxis available).
There are lot of problems that having as many taxis as the market could bear caused. In no small part because car driving imposes externatlities on others. Therefore, the free market actively over-produces taxis.
If you advocate removing the medallion system, I think it is incumbent on you to explain what new mechanisms can be/have been introduced to prevent the recurrence of the fundamentally flawed pre-medallion system.
I never liked the concept that developers either have to volunteer help people (at stackoverflow) or donate time (at github) in order to be considered a valuable employee. I mean, for someone with no work history, but beyond entry level??
What makes you think that they'll be more wrong than you would be. They have the time to do the research, review the studies, etc.
Of course, they'll be wrong about some things. But fewer, and hopefully of smaller significance.
Or what brilliant thing do you know they are missing?
Yeah, I'd imagine most software on Neptune is written in plain old C. Maybe Assembler, given how long it takes a probe to get there.
How else would you fill a tube with air?
Water should not be set by the market. There is an inelastic element to demand. But you already identified the solution. Households (really, each person) should get a water allowance per month at subsidized rates. I have no desire to subsidize a millionaire's many acre estate.
As a plus side, if they want water for their lawn, maybe they can put up some low income housing on the edge of their property, and use some of their subsidized water.
Or we could invest in cost-effective desalination...
That may have been true 2500 years ago in Greece, I don't know.
It's not a question that in the 1600's a group of highly intelligent people communicating led to great advances. Because if Issac Newton was a brilliant sole inventor, how did Leibniz invent calculus at the same time? Similar stories of people working together abound around that time.
In modern times, Edison's Labs invented lightbulbs, phonographs, movie cameras, etc... all from a group of workers. Bell Labs famously put smart people from different disciplines together. And all they invented was the transistor.
It's not surprising is an answer to whether Snowden revealed something important. If it was already widely known or suspected, then Snowden didn't reveal it. Therefore, it is one reason (the other being lack of import) to question the value of Snowden's revelation
I don't trust the NSA. But My question was "What did Snowden reveal that was (a) Surprising/new info and (b) Over the line". I totally could believe that something was happening. But it wasn't revealed by Snowden
Okay, but my point was about using a shovel, and the context clearly implies it's about makework. If the phrase "for people who cannot get work" showing up in every post wasn't a clue.
Well, this is a discussion about JS, not some platonic ideal. Their prototype system is really really bad.
Talingent, the thing that when I skim the wikipedia article (you linked to) says never got it's development act together, was the ur-example of a project death march, and was abandoned and never completed.
And if you think projects are made interesting by MI... well, in general I prefer projects where I try to solve interesting problems, not dick measuring contests.
There isn't a performance issue. It's not a compiler question. It's "what is going to require the least work to decipher when someone new comes onboard." "What's the safest/least likely to break."
I so don't follow you. I would hate to dig ditches for a living. I said "anyone who wants a job should be able to dig ditches if they have no other opportunities." It's a shitty job at subsistence levels. It doesn't rob any motivation to plan for the future. Most people would insist that forcing makework on people to avoid starving is cruel in itself.
You haven't told me what you think we should do with people who cannot get a job. Let them starve? Shoot them, because they're going to riot til they get fed soon anyway?
Seriously, what are you trying to say?
I live in a prosperous society, even after the great recession.
I didn't waltz in and demand a job. I worked hard. I'm not saying everyone deserves a ton of stuff. I'm saying that everyone deserves to not die on the street from starvation because of lack of money.
The world is what we make it, within some limitations on our power. It's a lot harsher than it has to be.
Hear, hear.
I wish I could mod you up.
It's a lot more expensive when you follow up your BA with a pair of MAs and a PhD... all done in NYC at Columbia.
He's an entitled sociopath, and I would welcome the government collecting it's debts in whatever stringent ways we reserve for people who I personally despise.
What year? Cause that matters a hell of a lot.
Why the fuck not? I mean, I have a job, and skills, etc. But I certainly think that anyone who wants to work should be able to get some job... even if the government is just paying them to dig ditches. It's cruel to tell people they have to have money to live inside and eat food and not give them some way to earn said money.
Why not? Those who drove up the price of housing with unsustainable loans got bailed out.
Dude, kindly remove the self-righteous stick you have firmly lodged in your ass.
I quite clearly said that I believe in privacy. I never said I trust the government. I said that Snowden didn't surprise me with any revelations.
And, to be honest, none of ahodgson said was that surprising. Okay, one (the SIM card) was surprising and one (the breaking of internal networks) seem like it could be over the line. But really?
The NSA should have Angela Merkle's line tapped. And I'd be surprised if every intelligence agency didn't have every (non-encrypted) line of Obama's tapped.
Umm... this is kinda what I'm saying. I tried to read all the articles. Please let me know what I'm missing.
Only #5 seems over the line. Half of them seem obviously what the NSA claims to try to do, and several others seem unsurprising.
I've never seen a coding standard that didn't wave giant caution signs as multiple inheritance. Google's is easy to find, but dozens more from big companies are available.
Interfaces are different, but (a) that's not really enforceable under JS and (b) that would be totally different from your assertion, which only talked about avoiding the diamond antipattern.
You're missing the point. I'm not talking about syntax. I'm saying that the "power" that prototypical inheritance exposes is not worth the complexity that that power costs. Nothing to do with the syntax. Everything to do with all those arguments you made initially for using prototypical inheritance increasing the complexity.
Except, you cannot declare a prototype final, pretty much because then it's no longer a prototype. And that's actually not going to solve the problem I bring up either.
You can change the prototype that an object is based on in runtime. I have no idea what useful purpose it serves. But that simple fact produces a ton of complexity in the code. This complexity has been the historic source of bugs and security holes.