Wait, so in 2004 amid shart increases in revascularization in both Canada and the US, the US had a narrow (statistically significant, but narrow) lead in 5-year mortality after heart disease, and that's the deciding factor for which healtchare system is best?
When the US has declined in revascularization since then (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3072819/) and Canada has increased (http://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov/content.aspx?id=15079&search=Aortocoronary+bypass+for+heart+revascularization%2C+not+otherwise+specified)?
Now, that doesn't necessarily mean the US was wrong to decrease its rate. The optimum might have been in the middle, or there might be some better new method.
But it's easier to say "go to Japan or, failing that, France":
There are several kinds of nuclear plants. Some are theoretically near-impossible to be a problem, and some are not. We've had accidents in the ones that are not. Even those still have a better record than basically anything else that generates power at that scale today.
The similarity between these things is a particularly never-ending invocation of the precautionary principle.
To be fair, some climate change support comes from that too. Just because people come to the correct answer doesn't mean they got there for the right reasons.
So would you be fine with GMO plants if they promised not to insert genes they found in animals (unless they also found them in non-GMO plants)? Assuming the promise could be guaranteed by an authority you trust.
I'm not really an RMS fan, and I think much of what he says amounts to incoherent word-games, but I'd say the end-user is the Palestinian authority here, not RMS himself. And he's always been very clear that you don't have to give people the code without paying for it (even if GPL-licensed software is effectively given for free after one sale to somebody willing to redistribute for free -- and the Palestinians are not doing that). I don't see any hypocrisy here.
No, it's not stupid and it's not obvious. It applies to "everything" only in that everything is composed of quantum matter, but generally it doesn't apply meaningfully to macroscale objects.
The uncertainty principle isn't some soft and squishy rule-of-thumb that can be trivially applied to the contents of your refrigerator, it is a very specific physical inequality (or set of inequalities if you want to include things like energy-time, etc. along with position-momentum) which was the result of hundreds of years of modern science (following many thousands of years of pre-modern discovery).
I have to assume you don't really understand the Heisenberg uncertain principle if you make claims like this. Because there's no way it's "obvious" to any human that the minimum product of the uncertainties of the position and momentum of a particle in a measurement is 5.27285738 × 10^-35 kg m^2 / s.
You just have to meet one of ten criteria. The Great Barrier Reef doesn't hit "human creative genius" but it's really the only one wikipedia can come close to.
It is not a natural wonder, neither by these criteria nor the common definition of natural which is, basically, "anything not man-made", so yes, the level of human involvement (basically...100%) does indeed preclude it from being a natural wonder.
I do think wikipedia is amazing but I think "The Internet" should be considered a wonder and wikipedia just one example of the cultural significance. Let's not hone in on wikipedia, which may or may not even last another ten years.
Your snarking at web browser design misses that all of these things already existed in non-icon form, so you're not saving money in that path, you're costing money. Also, any application that is accessible to the visually impaired includes localized strings anyway. And really, the iPhone has "+" at the top right, but it already has "Edit" at the top left, so it's really just a marginal cost.
The real cost savings come from rapidly implementing entirely new features, because you do not have to design and maintain a highly scaleable layout, especially in a size-constrained device like a phone. That in turn means you can generally fit more shit on the screen at once and still have plenty of visual whitespace in the worst-case.
He wants someone else AND himself to pay it. But you knew that. Also, we drifted from Washington state taxes to US federal taxes somehow.
If I were there, I'd vote for higher income taxes on people with six figure incomes, and I have six figure incomes (note: I am not American so that site is irrelevant to me even as some kind of "gotcha!"; the government budgets where I live have ups and downs but are more stable in the long view). That vote is me volunteering to pay higher taxes. But no, I don't volunteer to fund the entire country if everybody else steps back, bugs-bunny-like. It's almost like you are doing the same thing you accuse the GP of: pawning off the problem on said GP (somebody else) instead of the franchise-holders accepting responsibility for the franchise.
At the federal level, the US government has an unbelievably fucked-up deficit and debt. You either have to cut spending, raise taxes, or both. And at this point I would have trouble believing a budget that answers anything other than "both", but go right ahead and try.
And no, it's not just from Obama or just from Bush or just the Democrats or just the Republicans; there's plenty of blame to point in ten thousand directions, and the Silver Bullet Party won't fix it without making tough calls either. So: cut spending where it's truly ludicrous, is not ethically monstrous to cut (eg. can't cut all jail spending and release murderers to the street), and we do not believe it really pays for itself over time. These can be debated in many case, but make some choices and accept this pisses people off. Also, raise taxes where people can afford it, and accept that this too pisses people off.
I can afford a tax increase; so can almost all others with my salary. I can't solve or meaningfully dent the budget by myself. But I along with most others of my salary can! In fact, that's how tax works.
I guess the third path is to find another source of federal revenue. Doesn't seem terribly likely to happen at these scales, though.
I'm a person who really just got SC2 for the single-player campaign. I'd have preferred more for sure, but it wasn't exactly short. I kind of wonder whether this would be an issue if they had traded some of the Terran missions for Zerg missions (they already had a few Protoss). Or if they had outright decided not to ever release expansions and this is the full campaign.
I think arguing you're being "charged 3 times to get the entire experience" is hollow They always had expansions, so you always had to pay more than once to get the "entire experience" from that aspect.
A better argument you might make is that for the price of a full game, you want X out of the single-player experience. X can be Y hours of gameplay, a campaign for each race, branching storylines, linear storylines, cutscenes, no cutscenes, whatever.
However, when you look at the future release plans, and decide everything about Starcraft 2 should be released at once or not at all, you lose me. You're not talking about being unsatisfied with what is available, you're talking about wanting to not have more entertainment products in the future, because add-ons are offensive. And anyway, I'm sure when all the expansions are out (in other words, "when it's done") there will be some kind of "battlechest" deal.
Oh my god, I can't stand ANYTHING about my country not being the best out of all the countries ever; I'd better come up with some excuse to get defensive and turn it into a bad thing about the other countries so mine is best again!
Yes, there are reasons Europe's grid is better. That doesn't mean it's not...better. The GP was arguing that it wasn't better.
Seriously, not everything is about your smug sense of nationalistic superiority. You didn't design the fucking grid; what's it to you anyway if somebody says it's bad? Fix it, or accept that it's bad but you're going to focus on other things. Don't pretend that it's a good thing because Hitler. Or some damn thing.
Why wouldn't the null hypothesis be "people have always been basically the same as they are today"? Surely that was the null hypothesis that both evolution and creationism attempted to supplant?
Yes, it fails because of all the reasons we know life wasn't always here throughout an infinite history and that time is not cyclical over the timescale of human existence. That's why it's the null hypothesis that the theory of evolution disproves and supercedes. Creationism also seeks to supplant it by positing some creative event that put into place the current ecosystem, whose basis comes from, essentially, old books and traditions, with maybe the occasional misunderstanding of probability and the absolutely grand scales of time and space involved.
You're assuming they worked on this about 17 hours a week?
1 million dollars in 4 months / 75 students / 4 months / 4 weeks per month / $50 per work hour = 16.67 work hours per student per week.
Now, if instead of 4 months you use 10 weeks like TFA uses, you get 26.67 hours per week.
How'd you come up with that assumption? It seems unrealistically high for an undergraduate to spend on a single course, assuming 5 courses minimum during classes for full-time students.
Plus, undergraduate students rarely make $50/hr in the first place. I bet a lot of the 75 kids made very little and a few accrued most of the revenue.
Why shouldn't it go ahead of it? In fact, isn't that one of the easiest ways of creating an expansion of mankind's livable habitat?
I suspect the answer is a variant either of "because it's cooler that way" or "to hedge our bets on the next huge asteroid to hit an inner planet", but neither of those rationales provide a serious sequencing impetus.
I can't. I can see how it would be comfortable to think it's not so, but I think it is so. How interesting that you're completely the opposite.
One thing you have to remember is that evolution doesn't precision optimise your behaviour to every conceivable situation, especially in a changing environment. For instance, evolution hasn't really tuned humanity to video games, for instance. Quite the opposite: video games are tuned to humans as they are.
Could you give an example of a behaviour which you believe cannot been linked, even indirectly, to an evolutionary instinct? This is a claim I find bewilderingly broad.
The part where you click on "install adobe flash" is the one that gets nontechnical people. Mostly you can be trained to turn on a computer and, with some effort, to get them to open an arbitrary browser and send it to youtube. But when you hit install you hit two problems:
1. They have not learned to distinguish "install adobe flash" from every other advertisement that pervades common webpages, so they simply don't see it even though it's perfectly obvious to you. 2. They have not learned to distinguish legitimate software install requests from illegitimate ones, so they fall into one of two patterns:
a) Install Everything - Obviously insecure which brings us back to the point of getting them to install Windows 7 or Ubuntu in the first place.
b) Install Nothing - Now flash will never work until they bring the computer into the store or get their neighbour or niece or nephew to fix it. Their computer is effectively broken.
Also a lot of installers have implemented that thing where you have to scroll through the entire terms and conditions before you can click on "I agree". I've seen people just close the window when "I agree" doesn't work, move it to the side, mostly offscreen, and forget it exists.
I think the argument to make is that these problems aren't any different on Ubuntu than on Windows 7, at least for flash. In both cases the best answer is to get somebody else to do it (although I suppose a problem could arise if the somebody else is a just-barely-computer-literate user who does not recognize Ubuntu).
I really can't think of any non-Mac people who cannot name Ubuntu can name OSX versions.
In my experience, at least one of the following three things is always true:
1. They have a version of OSX (thus they are "Mac people" -- doesn't necessarily mean they are diehards). 2. They are a technical user who has heard of Ubuntu. If they give you a blank stare it means that one or both of you doesn't know how to pronounce Ubuntu. 3. They cannot give a large cat name to any Apple release.
I know people in all of those categories, and some in two of them. I'm sure these people exist but I really don't think "non-apple folks can generally identify the names of the Apple OSX versions".
I get that you were referring to Macs when you mentioned 5 years, but to bring this back to phones, if 5 years was a whole generation then the 3G should have a while to go. But it stopped getting updates and support in March, after just over 2.5 years. The original iPhone also lasted just over 2.5 years. Some people have phones whose contracts with the phone company last longer than the phone is officially supported! Just 2.5 years of support seems short to me, even for consumer electronics.
First off, I'm responding specifically to the question "did anyone ever use the term "app" outside of a restaurant?", and thus it is you who is barking up the wrong tree.
But anyway, I have never heard of "The Container Store". I guess that's a a US thing? I'm not American. I don't think it should have a trademark. Whether it can legally have one is a separate question. A quick search suggests that "The Container Store" can only become a trademark after everybody associated the generic term "the container store" with this specific business, so presumably Apple would have to show that just about everybody thinks specifically of Apple's App Store when they hear the term "App Store".
The term app was used as an abbreviation for application long before Apple added it to the iPhone. Google Apps existed before the iPhone. Slashdot had discussions about Apps.
The term "app" seems generic because it's generic, not because it's popular. Windows does not sound generic to me when talking about Operating Systems. Kleenex does, I grant, because "facial tissue" is not a term I ever learned; but this isn't like Kleenex at all. Nobody is claiming that the term "clean" comes from Kleenex. It's more like somebody today trying to defend a trademark on the term "boxing gloves" because before 2011 nobody used the term "boxing" for anything but packing and unpacking. It's just not true.
Also, do people seriously use "app" for "appetizers"? Or is there some other reason you would use app in a restaurant?
I wouldn't call it a status symbol, but I would call it a fashion accessory. You said yourself that you like the aesthetic ("a nice looking device"). That's what a fashion accessory is. There's nothing wrong with that (except to some philistine slashdotters).
But FYI, saying you paid a couple hundred bucks more for your Macbook doesn't really help the argument that it's not a status symbol.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, so in 2004 amid shart increases in revascularization in both Canada and the US, the US had a narrow (statistically significant, but narrow) lead in 5-year mortality after heart disease, and that's the deciding factor for which healtchare system is best?
When the US has declined in revascularization since then (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3072819/) and Canada has increased (http://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov/content.aspx?id=15079&search=Aortocoronary+bypass+for+heart+revascularization%2C+not+otherwise+specified)?
Now, that doesn't necessarily mean the US was wrong to decrease its rate. The optimum might have been in the middle, or there might be some better new method.
But it's easier to say "go to Japan or, failing that, France":
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_dis_dea-health-heart-disease-deaths
(note the US has more than 10% higher fatality than Canada in that graph...).
I can't speak to that Daily Mail article, but it's of an entirely different calibre than your other evidence.
There are several kinds of nuclear plants. Some are theoretically near-impossible to be a problem, and some are not. We've had accidents in the ones that are not. Even those still have a better record than basically anything else that generates power at that scale today.
The similarity between these things is a particularly never-ending invocation of the precautionary principle.
To be fair, some climate change support comes from that too. Just because people come to the correct answer doesn't mean they got there for the right reasons.
So would you be fine with GMO plants if they promised not to insert genes they found in animals (unless they also found them in non-GMO plants)? Assuming the promise could be guaranteed by an authority you trust.
I'm not really an RMS fan, and I think much of what he says amounts to incoherent word-games, but I'd say the end-user is the Palestinian authority here, not RMS himself. And he's always been very clear that you don't have to give people the code without paying for it (even if GPL-licensed software is effectively given for free after one sale to somebody willing to redistribute for free -- and the Palestinians are not doing that). I don't see any hypocrisy here.
Umm.
No, it's not stupid and it's not obvious. It applies to "everything" only in that everything is composed of quantum matter, but generally it doesn't apply meaningfully to macroscale objects.
The uncertainty principle isn't some soft and squishy rule-of-thumb that can be trivially applied to the contents of your refrigerator, it is a very specific physical inequality (or set of inequalities if you want to include things like energy-time, etc. along with position-momentum) which was the result of hundreds of years of modern science (following many thousands of years of pre-modern discovery).
I have to assume you don't really understand the Heisenberg uncertain principle if you make claims like this. Because there's no way it's "obvious" to any human that the minimum product of the uncertainties of the position and momentum of a particle in a measurement is 5.27285738 × 10^-35 kg m^2 / s.
You just have to meet one of ten criteria. The Great Barrier Reef doesn't hit "human creative genius" but it's really the only one wikipedia can come close to.
http://www.globalmountainsummit.org/home_page.html
It is not a natural wonder, neither by these criteria nor the common definition of natural which is, basically, "anything not man-made", so yes, the level of human involvement (basically...100%) does indeed preclude it from being a natural wonder.
I do think wikipedia is amazing but I think "The Internet" should be considered a wonder and wikipedia just one example of the cultural significance. Let's not hone in on wikipedia, which may or may not even last another ten years.
Any kid with siblings going to school.
You don't generally have an xbox 360 for every kid. Then they start going off to school, but the xbox is staying at home...
Your snarking at web browser design misses that all of these things already existed in non-icon form, so you're not saving money in that path, you're costing money. Also, any application that is accessible to the visually impaired includes localized strings anyway. And really, the iPhone has "+" at the top right, but it already has "Edit" at the top left, so it's really just a marginal cost.
The real cost savings come from rapidly implementing entirely new features, because you do not have to design and maintain a highly scaleable layout, especially in a size-constrained device like a phone. That in turn means you can generally fit more shit on the screen at once and still have plenty of visual whitespace in the worst-case.
He wants someone else AND himself to pay it. But you knew that. Also, we drifted from Washington state taxes to US federal taxes somehow.
If I were there, I'd vote for higher income taxes on people with six figure incomes, and I have six figure incomes (note: I am not American so that site is irrelevant to me even as some kind of "gotcha!"; the government budgets where I live have ups and downs but are more stable in the long view). That vote is me volunteering to pay higher taxes. But no, I don't volunteer to fund the entire country if everybody else steps back, bugs-bunny-like. It's almost like you are doing the same thing you accuse the GP of: pawning off the problem on said GP (somebody else) instead of the franchise-holders accepting responsibility for the franchise.
At the federal level, the US government has an unbelievably fucked-up deficit and debt. You either have to cut spending, raise taxes, or both. And at this point I would have trouble believing a budget that answers anything other than "both", but go right ahead and try.
And no, it's not just from Obama or just from Bush or just the Democrats or just the Republicans; there's plenty of blame to point in ten thousand directions, and the Silver Bullet Party won't fix it without making tough calls either. So: cut spending where it's truly ludicrous, is not ethically monstrous to cut (eg. can't cut all jail spending and release murderers to the street), and we do not believe it really pays for itself over time. These can be debated in many case, but make some choices and accept this pisses people off. Also, raise taxes where people can afford it, and accept that this too pisses people off.
I can afford a tax increase; so can almost all others with my salary. I can't solve or meaningfully dent the budget by myself. But I along with most others of my salary can! In fact, that's how tax works.
I guess the third path is to find another source of federal revenue. Doesn't seem terribly likely to happen at these scales, though.
I'm a person who really just got SC2 for the single-player campaign. I'd have preferred more for sure, but it wasn't exactly short. I kind of wonder whether this would be an issue if they had traded some of the Terran missions for Zerg missions (they already had a few Protoss). Or if they had outright decided not to ever release expansions and this is the full campaign.
I think arguing you're being "charged 3 times to get the entire experience" is hollow They always had expansions, so you always had to pay more than once to get the "entire experience" from that aspect.
A better argument you might make is that for the price of a full game, you want X out of the single-player experience. X can be Y hours of gameplay, a campaign for each race, branching storylines, linear storylines, cutscenes, no cutscenes, whatever.
However, when you look at the future release plans, and decide everything about Starcraft 2 should be released at once or not at all, you lose me. You're not talking about being unsatisfied with what is available, you're talking about wanting to not have more entertainment products in the future, because add-ons are offensive. And anyway, I'm sure when all the expansions are out (in other words, "when it's done") there will be some kind of "battlechest" deal.
Translation:
Oh my god, I can't stand ANYTHING about my country not being the best out of all the countries ever; I'd better come up with some excuse to get defensive and turn it into a bad thing about the other countries so mine is best again!
Yes, there are reasons Europe's grid is better. That doesn't mean it's not...better. The GP was arguing that it wasn't better.
Seriously, not everything is about your smug sense of nationalistic superiority. You didn't design the fucking grid; what's it to you anyway if somebody says it's bad? Fix it, or accept that it's bad but you're going to focus on other things. Don't pretend that it's a good thing because Hitler. Or some damn thing.
Why wouldn't the null hypothesis be "people have always been basically the same as they are today"? Surely that was the null hypothesis that both evolution and creationism attempted to supplant?
Yes, it fails because of all the reasons we know life wasn't always here throughout an infinite history and that time is not cyclical over the timescale of human existence. That's why it's the null hypothesis that the theory of evolution disproves and supercedes. Creationism also seeks to supplant it by positing some creative event that put into place the current ecosystem, whose basis comes from, essentially, old books and traditions, with maybe the occasional misunderstanding of probability and the absolutely grand scales of time and space involved.
You're assuming they worked on this about 17 hours a week?
1 million dollars in 4 months / 75 students / 4 months / 4 weeks per month / $50 per work hour = 16.67 work hours per student per week.
Now, if instead of 4 months you use 10 weeks like TFA uses, you get 26.67 hours per week.
How'd you come up with that assumption? It seems unrealistically high for an undergraduate to spend on a single course, assuming 5 courses minimum during classes for full-time students.
Plus, undergraduate students rarely make $50/hr in the first place. I bet a lot of the 75 kids made very little and a few accrued most of the revenue.
Why?
Why shouldn't it go ahead of it? In fact, isn't that one of the easiest ways of creating an expansion of mankind's livable habitat?
I suspect the answer is a variant either of "because it's cooler that way" or "to hedge our bets on the next huge asteroid to hit an inner planet", but neither of those rationales provide a serious sequencing impetus.
I can't. I can see how it would be comfortable to think it's not so, but I think it is so. How interesting that you're completely the opposite.
One thing you have to remember is that evolution doesn't precision optimise your behaviour to every conceivable situation, especially in a changing environment. For instance, evolution hasn't really tuned humanity to video games, for instance. Quite the opposite: video games are tuned to humans as they are.
Could you give an example of a behaviour which you believe cannot been linked, even indirectly, to an evolutionary instinct? This is a claim I find bewilderingly broad.
Their charts are baselined to approximately the baseline of system idle.
The part where you click on "install adobe flash" is the one that gets nontechnical people. Mostly you can be trained to turn on a computer and, with some effort, to get them to open an arbitrary browser and send it to youtube. But when you hit install you hit two problems:
1. They have not learned to distinguish "install adobe flash" from every other advertisement that pervades common webpages, so they simply don't see it even though it's perfectly obvious to you.
2. They have not learned to distinguish legitimate software install requests from illegitimate ones, so they fall into one of two patterns:
a) Install Everything - Obviously insecure which brings us back to the point of getting them to install Windows 7 or Ubuntu in the first place.
b) Install Nothing - Now flash will never work until they bring the computer into the store or get their neighbour or niece or nephew to fix it. Their computer is effectively broken.
Also a lot of installers have implemented that thing where you have to scroll through the entire terms and conditions before you can click on "I agree". I've seen people just close the window when "I agree" doesn't work, move it to the side, mostly offscreen, and forget it exists.
I think the argument to make is that these problems aren't any different on Ubuntu than on Windows 7, at least for flash. In both cases the best answer is to get somebody else to do it (although I suppose a problem could arise if the somebody else is a just-barely-computer-literate user who does not recognize Ubuntu).
I really can't think of any non-Mac people who cannot name Ubuntu can name OSX versions.
In my experience, at least one of the following three things is always true:
1. They have a version of OSX (thus they are "Mac people" -- doesn't necessarily mean they are diehards).
2. They are a technical user who has heard of Ubuntu. If they give you a blank stare it means that one or both of you doesn't know how to pronounce Ubuntu.
3. They cannot give a large cat name to any Apple release.
I know people in all of those categories, and some in two of them. I'm sure these people exist but I really don't think "non-apple folks can generally identify the names of the Apple OSX versions".
Why?
I get that you were referring to Macs when you mentioned 5 years, but to bring this back to phones, if 5 years was a whole generation then the 3G should have a while to go. But it stopped getting updates and support in March, after just over 2.5 years. The original iPhone also lasted just over 2.5 years. Some people have phones whose contracts with the phone company last longer than the phone is officially supported! Just 2.5 years of support seems short to me, even for consumer electronics.
I have a 3GS. Surely that will last forever...
Not when you're talking about tuition costs they're not.
First off, I'm responding specifically to the question "did anyone ever use the term "app" outside of a restaurant?", and thus it is you who is barking up the wrong tree.
But anyway, I have never heard of "The Container Store". I guess that's a a US thing? I'm not American. I don't think it should have a trademark. Whether it can legally have one is a separate question. A quick search suggests that "The Container Store" can only become a trademark after everybody associated the generic term "the container store" with this specific business, so presumably Apple would have to show that just about everybody thinks specifically of Apple's App Store when they hear the term "App Store".
The term app was used as an abbreviation for application long before Apple added it to the iPhone. Google Apps existed before the iPhone. Slashdot had discussions about Apps.
The term "app" seems generic because it's generic, not because it's popular. Windows does not sound generic to me when talking about Operating Systems. Kleenex does, I grant, because "facial tissue" is not a term I ever learned; but this isn't like Kleenex at all. Nobody is claiming that the term "clean" comes from Kleenex. It's more like somebody today trying to defend a trademark on the term "boxing gloves" because before 2011 nobody used the term "boxing" for anything but packing and unpacking. It's just not true.
Also, do people seriously use "app" for "appetizers"? Or is there some other reason you would use app in a restaurant?
I rent fewer than 2 movies per month. I doubt it's even one per month, but I don't keep that close track.
I wouldn't call it a status symbol, but I would call it a fashion accessory. You said yourself that you like the aesthetic ("a nice looking device"). That's what a fashion accessory is. There's nothing wrong with that (except to some philistine slashdotters).
But FYI, saying you paid a couple hundred bucks more for your Macbook doesn't really help the argument that it's not a status symbol.