I think it depends on the content of the message rather than the means of sending it. If the message says "Get X done by the morning", or "Reply immediately" then it is, whether it is sent by blackberry or phone or whatever. But there are many messages a boss might send after hours (perhaps just because he is working late, and that includes sending emails) that don't require any action until the following day.
So if a question is posed as "Do you want to change things?" then not voting is seen as wanting to keep things as they are. If the question is posed as "Do you want to keep things as they are?" then not voting is a vote in favor of change?
I'd say a no vote most reasonably means "I'll go with whatever you guys who vote decide"
I am skeptical that analyzing the content of the books can lead to good recommendations, let alone "infallible". Two books can be very similar in subject matter and writing style and yet one can be great and the other one awful. The difference is just too subtle for an algorithm to figure out, though I hope I am wrong and it turns out that it works, it would be very useful. Same applies to movies and music as well. I always found "Customers who purchased this book also purchased...." section on amazon to be more valuable than my personalized recommendations
To cover themselves legally. The issue of whether YouTube and other similar sites are responsible for the gazillion copyright violations that occur there is legally still up in the air. This Viacom lawsuit should hopefully clear it up but until then Google's position is that they are doing everything they can to prevent copyrighted materials from being posted. Keeping the logs helps them keep up that pretense - they can cooperate if need be and identify the violators etc. They have no legal requirement to guard the privacy of their visitors but they have an enormous potential legal liability looming over their heads - guess which one is more important.
Right now the healthy people in group plans are subsidizing the unhealthy people's coverage due to the fact that the insurance companies are forced by law to cover the unhealthy. All I'm talking about is one aspect of Osama's plan that would extend that same system to the individual coverage, not just group. So it would still be the healthy people who would pay for it through higher premiums.
Here's an idea: you pay for yours, and I'll pay for mine!
You find me an insurance company that will cover me and I will gladly pay for it. Not sure if you realize this but if you are self employed and have a history of even a relatively minor illness you cannot get health insurance at any price. This is because it is only profitable for the insurance companies to insure those who are pretty close to perfectly healthy. Now, it is the government regulation that arbitrarily prohibits the insurance companies from refusing insurance based on the medical history when it comes to group coverage (typically through an employer) - which of course drives the premiums up - while it allows them to do it when it comes to individual insurance. By closing that loophole, his plan would actually make the current broken and unfair system slightly less broken and unfair.
But the very rich buying my vote might be the most beneficial option for me, at least in my judgment. So you are making me vote for my second most beneficial option because you don't like the first one? Ok, my second choice is voting for the candidate of certain skin color because I'm a racist. Oh, you don't like that one either? Hmm, it seems like you want me to vote for the option that is most beneficial to somebody else, not me
Hmm, there is a state law against selling your vote? I'd love to see that challenged all the way to the supreme court. I very much doubt it would hold up. Aren't we all selling our votes in a sense, by giving them to a candidate who promises us something we wish to happen. If I vote for Obama because I would benefit from his health care plan, am I not exchanging my vote for something that is valuable to me?
Well the problem is you can only reach so far, so you have to keep going up and down the ladder and move it bit by bit all around the house. With this you just have to reposition the ladder 4 times or however many corners your house has, so it does save quite a bit of work.
Yeah, weird article. At the last company I worked for (Oracle) any security issues were filed and treated in every way same as any other bugs. That seemed a natural thing, why would you treat them as something separate?
It's typical recently of American automakers to offer this kind of gimmicks instead of making decent quality cars. What's next, a built in coffee maker and a toaster oven so you can make your commute even more suicidal
It's a matter of degree I guess. Yes, the radical atheists are somewhat remote from the common people, but at the same time to say that we are living in a religious culture is not true either. 90% or whatever of people in USA (MUCH lower percentages in Europe, even a minority in some countries) pay lip service to religion but do they really live according to the Bible? There is not enough space here to list all the ways that the "religious" Christians disobey the God of the Bible (how many of them have even read it?) every single day. How many of them have NOT committed some or all of the deadly sins, as well as broken the 10 commandments etc. Not only that, but if they did obey God's commands to kill heretics, adulterers, homosexuals as well as those who work on Sundays etc etc they would be committing serious crimes, not only according to the law but also according to our current cultural zeitgeist as you say.
In short, I don't agree with your conclusion that the rational scientific view of the world is not part of today's culture. It might have been true back in the middle ages in Europe or in some Islamic countries today, but not in the western culture, at least since Enlightenment.
For the millionth time, Hawking (as well as Einstein in "God doesn't play dice") did not mean the same thing by "God" as is commonly meant by religious people. I personally think that the use of the word God by scientists in this way is irresponsible but then it's their right to use whatever words they choose. Besides, I doubt that your quote is accurate since Hawking would surely not say something like "before the Big Bang".
Just possibly, making the argument to most of the population that their beliefs are nothing but twaddle probably doesn't do wonders for book sales.
I dunno, The God Delusion by Dawkins make precisely that argument and it was in NYT bestsellers for 51 weeks, reaching #4, as well as #2 on Amazon. There are more atheists out there than you think, especially among the more educated and intelligent, and therefore among those who tend to read more.
I feel like I've entered a twilight zone or something. Neither the article nor any of the comments so far mention the fluorescent lights, as if they don't exist. Isn't that what we are supposed to be using now? Why set the target of beating the outdated incandescent bulbs that are being banned in many countries anyway (USA by 2014) instead of the better technologies that already exist. Weird
I don't think we know how to speak whale yet though. If we did, it would work the other way too: "Wow, what a nice bunch of plankton. Come this way, quick!" transmitted by a whaling ship.
To me, this kind of discussion is a good example of why bands should not follow this kind of a "business model". Instead of setting the price for their work, as everybody else does, they are letting the buyer choose whether to pay them and how much, essentially reducing themselves to beggars. The excuses for why not to pay (while downloading the music anyway of course) are all to easy to come by, especially since that course of action has the added benefit of saving you money.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it depends on the content of the message rather than the means of sending it. If the message says "Get X done by the morning", or "Reply immediately" then it is, whether it is sent by blackberry or phone or whatever. But there are many messages a boss might send after hours (perhaps just because he is working late, and that includes sending emails) that don't require any action until the following day.
So if a question is posed as "Do you want to change things?" then not voting is seen as wanting to keep things as they are. If the question is posed as "Do you want to keep things as they are?" then not voting is a vote in favor of change?
I'd say a no vote most reasonably means "I'll go with whatever you guys who vote decide"
So those who don't vote are counted as a "No" vote? That seems as arbitrary as counting them as "Yes"
I am skeptical that analyzing the content of the books can lead to good recommendations, let alone "infallible". Two books can be very similar in subject matter and writing style and yet one can be great and the other one awful. The difference is just too subtle for an algorithm to figure out, though I hope I am wrong and it turns out that it works, it would be very useful. Same applies to movies and music as well. I always found "Customers who purchased this book also purchased...." section on amazon to be more valuable than my personalized recommendations
To cover themselves legally. The issue of whether YouTube and other similar sites are responsible for the gazillion copyright violations that occur there is legally still up in the air. This Viacom lawsuit should hopefully clear it up but until then Google's position is that they are doing everything they can to prevent copyrighted materials from being posted. Keeping the logs helps them keep up that pretense - they can cooperate if need be and identify the violators etc. They have no legal requirement to guard the privacy of their visitors but they have an enormous potential legal liability looming over their heads - guess which one is more important.
Right now the healthy people in group plans are subsidizing the unhealthy people's coverage due to the fact that the insurance companies are forced by law to cover the unhealthy. All I'm talking about is one aspect of Osama's plan that would extend that same system to the individual coverage, not just group. So it would still be the healthy people who would pay for it through higher premiums.
Here's an idea: you pay for yours, and I'll pay for mine!
You find me an insurance company that will cover me and I will gladly pay for it. Not sure if you realize this but if you are self employed and have a history of even a relatively minor illness you cannot get health insurance at any price. This is because it is only profitable for the insurance companies to insure those who are pretty close to perfectly healthy. Now, it is the government regulation that arbitrarily prohibits the insurance companies from refusing insurance based on the medical history when it comes to group coverage (typically through an employer) - which of course drives the premiums up - while it allows them to do it when it comes to individual insurance. By closing that loophole, his plan would actually make the current broken and unfair system slightly less broken and unfair.
But the very rich buying my vote might be the most beneficial option for me, at least in my judgment. So you are making me vote for my second most beneficial option because you don't like the first one? Ok, my second choice is voting for the candidate of certain skin color because I'm a racist. Oh, you don't like that one either? Hmm, it seems like you want me to vote for the option that is most beneficial to somebody else, not me
Hmm, there is a state law against selling your vote? I'd love to see that challenged all the way to the supreme court. I very much doubt it would hold up. Aren't we all selling our votes in a sense, by giving them to a candidate who promises us something we wish to happen. If I vote for Obama because I would benefit from his health care plan, am I not exchanging my vote for something that is valuable to me?
Now I get it! Thanks, I was just waiting for a car related analogy to clear everything up.
Dear All, Sorry for delay long time!!! So far, only GSM850 Freerunner is available in stock, Debug board and spare also!!!
How come they write like retards?
Two words, sensory overload: http://www.myspace.com/soybuddha
So basically our brain is a network connected to a hub.
Now it's just a matter of figuring out the protocol used and hooking up a few brains together. Seriously
Well the problem is you can only reach so far, so you have to keep going up and down the ladder and move it bit by bit all around the house. With this you just have to reposition the ladder 4 times or however many corners your house has, so it does save quite a bit of work.
This is what I want though, although it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to make one at home: http://www.irobot.com/sp.cfm?pageid=338
Yeah, weird article. At the last company I worked for (Oracle) any security issues were filed and treated in every way same as any other bugs. That seemed a natural thing, why would you treat them as something separate?
Shaving in the car while commuting? Hmm, great idea, that should save me some time in the morning. Thanks!
It's typical recently of American automakers to offer this kind of gimmicks instead of making decent quality cars. What's next, a built in coffee maker and a toaster oven so you can make your commute even more suicidal
It's a matter of degree I guess. Yes, the radical atheists are somewhat remote from the common people, but at the same time to say that we are living in a religious culture is not true either. 90% or whatever of people in USA (MUCH lower percentages in Europe, even a minority in some countries) pay lip service to religion but do they really live according to the Bible? There is not enough space here to list all the ways that the "religious" Christians disobey the God of the Bible (how many of them have even read it?) every single day. How many of them have NOT committed some or all of the deadly sins, as well as broken the 10 commandments etc. Not only that, but if they did obey God's commands to kill heretics, adulterers, homosexuals as well as those who work on Sundays etc etc they would be committing serious crimes, not only according to the law but also according to our current cultural zeitgeist as you say.
In short, I don't agree with your conclusion that the rational scientific view of the world is not part of today's culture. It might have been true back in the middle ages in Europe or in some Islamic countries today, but not in the western culture, at least since Enlightenment.
For the millionth time, Hawking (as well as Einstein in "God doesn't play dice") did not mean the same thing by "God" as is commonly meant by religious people. I personally think that the use of the word God by scientists in this way is irresponsible but then it's their right to use whatever words they choose. Besides, I doubt that your quote is accurate since Hawking would surely not say something like "before the Big Bang".
Just possibly, making the argument to most of the population that their beliefs are nothing but twaddle probably doesn't do wonders for book sales.
I dunno, The God Delusion by Dawkins make precisely that argument and it was in NYT bestsellers for 51 weeks, reaching #4, as well as #2 on Amazon. There are more atheists out there than you think, especially among the more educated and intelligent, and therefore among those who tend to read more.
I feel like I've entered a twilight zone or something. Neither the article nor any of the comments so far mention the fluorescent lights, as if they don't exist. Isn't that what we are supposed to be using now? Why set the target of beating the outdated incandescent bulbs that are being banned in many countries anyway (USA by 2014) instead of the better technologies that already exist. Weird
I don't think we know how to speak whale yet though. If we did, it would work the other way too: "Wow, what a nice bunch of plankton. Come this way, quick!" transmitted by a whaling ship.
No, it's: Network Buys Whales to Protect Rights
Not sure I understand it though. I thought networks had enough lawyers to protect their rights, why would they need to buy a country?
To me, this kind of discussion is a good example of why bands should not follow this kind of a "business model". Instead of setting the price for their work, as everybody else does, they are letting the buyer choose whether to pay them and how much, essentially reducing themselves to beggars. The excuses for why not to pay (while downloading the music anyway of course) are all to easy to come by, especially since that course of action has the added benefit of saving you money.
#12: Post generic bullshit slogans off motivational posters as major new insights
#13: Profit???