"My ISP has made no move, at all, to restrict or limit any kind of access to anything and shows no signs of wanting to since they rather like making their customers happy."
So you have no download caps? No restrictions on what type of services you can run? Which is great. But I suspect that most do not. Not to mention the reluctance to even expand service.
"Also here's some news: Murdoch doesn't own the world."
True. But if he can make it work, others will follow. I'd rather it not start.
Whether it matters in the grand scheme of things, we'll see.
Exactly what definition of "left" are you using? If by more liberal than Fox news, sure. If you mean left of political center, you are incorrect. As a reference point, Obama is best described as moderate conservative.
"The UK does have some Fox-like media, some of it even owned by Murdoch, but like Fox it has basically zero political influence."
Which explains a great deal. Fox is not a news organization. It is a political organization that pretends to be a news organization. A news organization at least attempts to present accurate information.
"But the problem is if you don't have the multiplication tables (up to 12x12) in your head, and you don't have an intuitive sense of numbers and trigonometric operations that you get from having used a slide rule or doing certain operations by hand, then how can you possibly know if the answer is correct, or if you didn't just punch in the wrong thing?"
But why do you actually need to memorize the multiplication tables? Or use a slide rule instead of a calculator? Do those things actually make you good at math?
Because if memorizing 12 by 12 is good why not 20 by 20 or 30 by 30 or....? That's not really learning math in any case. It's learning computation. Which is better done by a machine.
"The same thing with history: I'd happily exchange the "feel good" movements in history and social studies for rote memorization of dates and facts (to help pin major events in a fixed historic framework), then augment understanding of these periods through historic tellings of relevant periods of history. And emphasize the core historic events, don't just pull selected (but historically minor) incidents out of the timeline just so you can make different racial groups feel good about themselves. Teaching history is about giving a sense of what came before, not about some sort of nihilist "self esteem building" exercise."
So exactly what are the important dates? And why is rote memorization good? The fact of the matter is that much of history ignores the contribution of the "other". It's often hard to see that from a position of priviledge. And if you think math is bad, history is even worse. At least the math that is taught is accurate.
"The cold hard reality is that the fifth graders during Laura Ingalls's period got a much better education than fifth graders are getting today."
Do we actually have any evidence for this? It's a common theme. But never backed up with evidence. It seems to be a variant on it was always better in the old days.
"I would say that making school attendance optional would be the best way to improve things."
Do you have any evidence that students that who don't want to be in class are actually in class? I don't recall that truancy has ever really been enforced. Just because attendance is mandatory doesn't mean that it is required.
"In a complementary fashion, once it became apparent to kids who "opt-out" that jobs are hard to come by for illiterate miscreants, they might enjoy a renewed interest in education."
Evidence please. The fundamental difference between adults and children is our capacity to plan for the future, to determine the outcomes of our actions. You are suggesting punishing children for actions that are entirely reasonable and predictable. We should know better. Just because it makes us feel good and is easy is not a good reason to do it.
"As a side effect, class sizes could only go down."
Which has exactly what to do with learning? After all, lots of university classes are extremely large. As are classes in countries that are supposedly "superior" in education children.
My great frustration is that we have so little actual DATA. And what data we have, we seem to be unwilling to use. Education solutions seem to be based on idealogy. Which wouldn't be so awful if we collected the proper data to evaluate it.
"It's also possible that for whatever deficiencies Sharron Angle exhibits, they see her as a vastly superior choice..."
Which is really fucking scary. Many people believe that Reid is a crappy Senator. Many of those are in his own party. But anyone who seriously believes that Angle would be an improvement is someone who is deficient in critical reasoning, thinking and logic skills.
"Simply short everything in the dot.com by the same amount. You'll lose on the two or three winners and clean-up on everyone else."
Easier said than done. You have to be able to cover the shorts (in theory). And you have to predict when it is going to happen. That's the real problem. Bubbles are easy to see. Determining when they are going to burst is much more difficult.
"Sadly, it is only hindsight that is 20:20..."
This really only applies to the timing. Anyone who thought that dot.com stocks on the whole weren't overpriced (or more recently homes), was an idiot. That doesn't mean that plenty of people who were greedy, ignorant and/or foolish didn't get burned.
"Collective bargaining fails because it fails to take into consideration everyone's strengths and weaknesses."
Then why has it been so successful? Because you are not a unique snowflake. Just because you are a vital cog in the machine does not make you indispensible. Everybody can be replaced.
"It makes it impossible for people who do well to get ahead and to remove the people who do a sub-par job."
You have summarized the management at every company I have ever worked at. Some were admittedly much better at it than others. It had nothing to do with unions.
"Secondly, the union mentality leads to groupthink, people stop thinking for themselves and instead have devotion to their union which even influences how they vote. If the union head says to vote for X candidate, people will do it thinking that they will get a better result, but very, very few will actually pursue the candidate and look at his views to see if they agree with them."
Replace "union" with "corporation", "republican", "Christian", etc. and you can get the same result. What's your fucking point?
"Unions can use mob-like tactics to block decisions made by management while management is powerless to stop them."
You have got to be kidding. Can you even provide a theoretical example of a situation where management is powerless? Or is this just a massive strawman?
"For example, if you walk out of the job and strike, you should be able to be fired, no questions asked, you broke your end of the contract."
Ever heard of the concept of "at will employment"? Now if you were stupid enough to contract that away and not have any recourse, I hardly see how that is the unions fault....
"The fact that, despite the relative novelty of the medium, and endemic resistance to ebooks, they've already captured a sizeable percentage of the venerable book market says quite a bit about the future."
But they aren't exactly new. They have been widely available for over a decade. Now that 6% doesn't sound nearly so impressive.
"The vast majority of the reading public doesn't own an ebook reader."
The vast majority of the public probably doesn't buy the vast majority of the books. I don't own an ebook reader because it makes no economic sense. If I regularly bought new books I might seriously consider it. A small portion of the public buys a large amount of books. If you can get them to buy ebooks then you can get a significant market share. Whether or not you can get the rest of the public to do so and how long it will take it is difficult to say. But I won't until it doesn't cost extra.
"There's no reason for me to lose even 15 minutes going to the store instead of 15 seconds setting up the download in my computer."
Have you ever heard of the internet? They sell things on it. You can even preorder. And they ship it directly to you. No need to go to the store.
"Downloading IS the instant gratification. Bluray disappears with high speed download which, aparently you don't have but lots of people have already.
Blueray will only live for those who live with five year old technology, which is fine and reasonable, for five years."
People like you are utterly clueless. Most people do not have access to the connections required for downloads of this nature. And even if they desired to download the data, the ISP caps would make it very difficult. Put another way, your experience is not typical.
Exactly what reality do you live in where 200k is a low threshold? That is not middle class. A household that earns 180k a year is in the top 5%. That means an individual earning 200k is within the top few percent.
It is HARD to earn 200k a year. If you think otherwise, you have no concept of "average". The median wage for workers varies depending on how it is calculated. On the high side, for full time workers, ages 25 to 64, it is approximately 40k. Median wages for those with doctorates are about 80k.
And speaking of an alternative reality, what politician is pandering to voters when they suggest raising taxes? Have you been living under a rock lately? It is precisely the opposite. Most are pandering by suggesting that lowering taxes will somehow create jobs and not affect the deficit (despite massive evidence to the contrary).
I have no issue with people who want low taxes and small government. It is just that I have never actually met any such people. And the only place to get the money for government is from the people who have it. Those same people who have benefited from decades of historically low tax rates and created historically low amounts of jobs and income increases for those jobs.
"This is a perfect example of punishing people for working hard and taking personal responsibility."
And your post is an example of unexamined privilege. Why do you assume that the things you have are a result of mostly working hard and personal responsibilty rather than mostly an accident of birth? Or at least a combination of both? Or that those that don't have what you have are by implication not hard working and not responsible?
I don't understand why so many people who have so clearly benefited from our society have the attitude of "fuck you, I have mine" when they are expected to support that society that enabled their success. Why are you afraid of being considered well off when you are? Why is supporting society considered bad? Try not to be an example of someone who was born on base and assumes that they got a hit....
"Unemployment is only 4.6% for those with a bachelor's degree or higher."
It sure doesn't feel like it. While that number may be technically true, it doesn't account for the fact that many of those with degrees have taken jobs that don't require them. And there is stiff competition for even short term part time temporary jobs that require education. That is not consistent with an unemployment level of 4.6%.
"200k is upper middle class in the high rent cities, and in most of the US is it at the low end of upper class."
Middle class and 200k salary do not belong in the same sentence. One can certainly debate where the middle class begins and ends but 200k is certainly outside of it. A household income of 50k is the 50th percentile and 180k is the 95th percentile. A single income of 200k is in the top few percent.
On that income one can easily become rich and wealthy if they choose to do so.
Is it so hard to set speed limits based on road conditions and not arbitrary values?
Could you explain to me why a school zone is 20mph, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in a normally 25mph zone? Why an unsafe country road is 50mph but that improved 4 lane portion had the limit reduced to 35mph? Why the interstate speed limit ranges from 55mph to 75mph? Why some state highways have higher speed limits than some interstates?
"Since most of us don't do anything about the ethics of those around us, then by your assessment, none of us are honest..."
How exactly is this relevant to whether or not cops are honest? It's never a good thing when the defense is that "everybody does it".
In any case we hold police to a higher standard. Or at least most people consider them to be more honest than most and the police use that trust. Considering that they have the legal authority to take your life and liberty I think that they should be actually held to a higher standard in actual practice.
"In other words, Intel have decided to bypass the central guiding principle of our economy, in order to make more profit."
The last time I checked, the central guiding principle of our economy was to make more profit.
The fact of the matter is that their slowest and cheapest chip of the current architecture is faster than most people actually need. But you have to pay for the research and development in some manner. And the expected profit. Someone is going to get gouged.
"The red herring offered consistently is, why wouldn't GM want to lead the way in electric car development? Two reasons: one, EV technology was receiving zero subsidy after CARB was bought and sold, yet gasoline in the United States is sold at a fraction of the price due to massive subsidies by the US government. The second is that electric motors are hideously reliable, as evidenced by hydroelectric dams that have been in operation for over one hundred years. If a material for infinitely durable shoes was developed by Nike, do you think they would be dumb enough to manufacture and sell it?"
But your reasons don't make any sense. They didn't exactly shun electric technology. It just wasn't viable. It still has large downsides. And the reliability issue doesn't really matter. Engines and transmissions are pretty reliable and are only a fraction of the parts on a car that wear. In any case, as long as the cars last long enough, it doesn't matter. After all, they sell NEW cars. There's a reason that car styling and features are so important. It's the primary way you get people to buy new cars. They rarely buy them because they NEED them.
Yes. By using MS Word in the first place. I don't know if they were ignorant, naive, clueless or stupid or some combination of all of them but I cannot fathom what made them think that using Word for a 2000 page document was a good idea. I made the mistake of using it for a paper a fraction of the size rather than learn latex. I'd swear it has a random formatting generator built in.
"Autism appears to have both a genetic and environmental component. We have to stop bickering over this crap and start working to resolve the issue. Anybody interested?"
The scientists doing actual science are working to resolve the issue. People who are anti vaccine are not. People who think that Jenny McCarthy or Wakefield have credibility are part of the problem.
"Funny how the rise in Autism closely matches the rise of this industry. Are there any statisticians interested in looking into this?"
This perfectly illustrates the level of critical and logical thinking present in the anti vaccine crowd. As well as research ability. There isn't much. We might as well look at the correlation to population, CO2, girl scouts, HFCS, etc. Correlation does not equal causation (oops). Then there has to be a biologically plausible mechanism for exposure (oops). And there has been research (oops). And what you are suggesting is heavy metal poisoning, not autism (oops).
The rise in autism has everything to do with diagnostics. The definition has expanded, so more people are diagnosed. More services are available for people with autism, so it is beneficial have the diagnosis. There is less stigma for autism, so it is not hidden. Autism was separated from other mental disorders. Etc.
"When it comes to vaccines, however, I am still wary of the methods of sterilization, including the addition of Formaldehyde, Aluminum, and Mercury (still in the multi-dose flu shot)."
This perfectly illustrates the level of critical and logical thinking present in the anti vaccine crowd. As well as research ability. There isn't much. Formaldehyde is present in the human body at greater levels than present in any vaccine (oops). Aluminum is perfectly safe (oops). The mercury in the shot is not dangerous (oops). Note that a can of tuna has more mercury of a dangerous variety than does any flu shot (oops).
"I also understand that it is not in the interest of vaccine manufacturers to find a link with Autism."
I also understand that you are ignorant and lazy. And creating a strawman.
"I also suspect that there is a link to the bowel. I don't know an Autistic kid who doesn't have bowel problems, but that is a limited view."
And your point is what? That you think the plural of anecdote is data? That fixing a bowel problem will magically fix a brain problem? That you are clueless and ignorant?
"What is this NVICP and why do they accept these unscientific claims of "biologically plausible mechanism"? Are they ignorant of science? Or are they required by the words of the legislation to accept claims like this?"
The court is not ignorant of the science. The court is designed that way. It has a lower burden of proof than regular civil court. There are certain injuries that are considered to be vaccine related. Other advantages include: attorney fees are paid, cases are resolved quicker and cases can still be taken to the regular court system. But if you don't win in the NVICP you probably have no chance to win in civil court. And going to civil court means giving up any award (if any) you received in the NVICP.
Eli Whitney, inventer of the cotten gin. Pretty much the definition of a patent worthy invention. Patented his invention. Didn't matter because people copied his design anyway. His patent was pretty worthless to him but he advanced society. In the end there is no way to expose an idea without it being copied. The only people who can slow that process have lots of money. (Apparently USPTO problems and litigation aren't new. Applied for patent in 1794, approved 1807. Profits from invention used in litigation. Crappy business model. Etc.)
The issue with software patents is why? They are already protected by copyright. Why exactly do they need patent protection? Does it promote the progress of society? If not, then we don't need it. Whether or not it helps people make money is irrelevent.
One should apply the same reasoning for regular patents. If they hinder progress more than advance it, get rid of them.
"After they get a "switch" to turn off the internet they can demand anything."
They don't need the switch first. Do you really think that the government couldn't get the providers to shut down the lines that carry the internet already? Willingly? In an emergency? They didn't have a problem with illegal wiretaps after all. The problem with shutting down the internet is that you tend to shut down the country with it. Which makes it less than useful for things that you would really like to use it for.
"Even if such disclosure is merely highly probable, how can they sue for something they can't show actually happened?"
Probably because if trade secrets are disclosed they cease to be trade secrets. At least if the company didn't attempt to prevent their disclosure. Secrets have little protection once exposed.
"...although their concerns about disclosing trade secrets may be justified, I'm pretty sure they'd have a hard time showing, with 100% certainty, that it is wholly unavoidable that the position would require such disclosure."
So what? That level of certainty is not even required in a criminal court. This is a civil matter with a far lower burden of proof.
"The cost of a co-pilot per years runs about $150,000 (guess)"
You might want to remove a zero.
Yes, many pilots are very poorly paid, especially on commuter airlines. In any case, how exactly do you get experienced replacement pilots if they never have an opportunity to train. Try to quantify that one.
Slashdot Mirror
"My ISP has made no move, at all, to restrict or limit any kind of access to anything and shows no signs of wanting to since they rather like making their customers happy."
So you have no download caps? No restrictions on what type of services you can run? Which is great. But I suspect that most do not. Not to mention the reluctance to even expand service.
"Also here's some news: Murdoch doesn't own the world."
True. But if he can make it work, others will follow. I'd rather it not start.
Whether it matters in the grand scheme of things, we'll see.
"TV in the UK pulls left, just like in the US..."
Exactly what definition of "left" are you using? If by more liberal than Fox news, sure. If you mean left of political center, you are incorrect. As a reference point, Obama is best described as moderate conservative.
"The UK does have some Fox-like media, some of it even owned by Murdoch, but like Fox it has basically zero political influence."
Which explains a great deal. Fox is not a news organization. It is a political organization that pretends to be a news organization. A news organization at least attempts to present accurate information.
"But the problem is if you don't have the multiplication tables (up to 12x12) in your head, and you don't have an intuitive sense of numbers and trigonometric operations that you get from having used a slide rule or doing certain operations by hand, then how can you possibly know if the answer is correct, or if you didn't just punch in the wrong thing?"
But why do you actually need to memorize the multiplication tables? Or use a slide rule instead of a calculator? Do those things actually make you good at math?
Because if memorizing 12 by 12 is good why not 20 by 20 or 30 by 30 or ....? That's not really learning math in any case. It's learning computation. Which is better done by a machine.
"The same thing with history: I'd happily exchange the "feel good" movements in history and social studies for rote memorization of dates and facts (to help pin major events in a fixed historic framework), then augment understanding of these periods through historic tellings of relevant periods of history. And emphasize the core historic events, don't just pull selected (but historically minor) incidents out of the timeline just so you can make different racial groups feel good about themselves. Teaching history is about giving a sense of what came before, not about some sort of nihilist "self esteem building" exercise."
So exactly what are the important dates? And why is rote memorization good? The fact of the matter is that much of history ignores the contribution of the "other". It's often hard to see that from a position of priviledge. And if you think math is bad, history is even worse. At least the math that is taught is accurate.
"The cold hard reality is that the fifth graders during Laura Ingalls's period got a much better education than fifth graders are getting today."
Do we actually have any evidence for this? It's a common theme. But never backed up with evidence. It seems to be a variant on it was always better in the old days.
"I would say that making school attendance optional would be the best way to improve things."
Do you have any evidence that students that who don't want to be in class are actually in class? I don't recall that truancy has ever really been enforced. Just because attendance is mandatory doesn't mean that it is required.
"In a complementary fashion, once it became apparent to kids who "opt-out" that jobs are hard to come by for illiterate miscreants, they might enjoy a renewed interest in education."
Evidence please. The fundamental difference between adults and children is our capacity to plan for the future, to determine the outcomes of our actions. You are suggesting punishing children for actions that are entirely reasonable and predictable. We should know better. Just because it makes us feel good and is easy is not a good reason to do it.
"As a side effect, class sizes could only go down."
Which has exactly what to do with learning? After all, lots of university classes are extremely large. As are classes in countries that are supposedly "superior" in education children.
My great frustration is that we have so little actual DATA. And what data we have, we seem to be unwilling to use. Education solutions seem to be based on idealogy. Which wouldn't be so awful if we collected the proper data to evaluate it.
"It's also possible that for whatever deficiencies Sharron Angle exhibits, they see her as a vastly superior choice..."
Which is really fucking scary. Many people believe that Reid is a crappy Senator. Many of those are in his own party. But anyone who seriously believes that Angle would be an improvement is someone who is deficient in critical reasoning, thinking and logic skills.
"Simply short everything in the dot.com by the same amount. You'll lose on the two or three winners and clean-up on everyone else."
Easier said than done. You have to be able to cover the shorts (in theory). And you have to predict when it is going to happen. That's the real problem. Bubbles are easy to see. Determining when they are going to burst is much more difficult.
"Sadly, it is only hindsight that is 20:20..."
This really only applies to the timing. Anyone who thought that dot.com stocks on the whole weren't overpriced (or more recently homes), was an idiot. That doesn't mean that plenty of people who were greedy, ignorant and/or foolish didn't get burned.
"Collective bargaining fails because it fails to take into consideration everyone's strengths and weaknesses."
Then why has it been so successful? Because you are not a unique snowflake. Just because you are a vital cog in the machine does not make you indispensible. Everybody can be replaced.
"It makes it impossible for people who do well to get ahead and to remove the people who do a sub-par job."
You have summarized the management at every company I have ever worked at. Some were admittedly much better at it than others. It had nothing to do with unions.
"Secondly, the union mentality leads to groupthink, people stop thinking for themselves and instead have devotion to their union which even influences how they vote. If the union head says to vote for X candidate, people will do it thinking that they will get a better result, but very, very few will actually pursue the candidate and look at his views to see if they agree with them."
Replace "union" with "corporation", "republican", "Christian", etc. and you can get the same result. What's your fucking point?
"Unions can use mob-like tactics to block decisions made by management while management is powerless to stop them."
You have got to be kidding. Can you even provide a theoretical example of a situation where management is powerless? Or is this just a massive strawman?
"For example, if you walk out of the job and strike, you should be able to be fired, no questions asked, you broke your end of the contract."
Ever heard of the concept of "at will employment"? Now if you were stupid enough to contract that away and not have any recourse, I hardly see how that is the unions fault....
"The fact that, despite the relative novelty of the medium, and endemic resistance to ebooks, they've already captured a sizeable percentage of the venerable book market says quite a bit about the future."
But they aren't exactly new. They have been widely available for over a decade. Now that 6% doesn't sound nearly so impressive.
"The vast majority of the reading public doesn't own an ebook reader."
The vast majority of the public probably doesn't buy the vast majority of the books. I don't own an ebook reader because it makes no economic sense. If I regularly bought new books I might seriously consider it. A small portion of the public buys a large amount of books. If you can get them to buy ebooks then you can get a significant market share. Whether or not you can get the rest of the public to do so and how long it will take it is difficult to say. But I won't until it doesn't cost extra.
"There's no reason for me to lose even 15 minutes going to the store instead of 15 seconds setting up the download in my computer."
Have you ever heard of the internet? They sell things on it. You can even preorder. And they ship it directly to you. No need to go to the store.
"Downloading IS the instant gratification. Bluray disappears with high speed download which, aparently you don't have but lots of people have already.
Blueray will only live for those who live with five year old technology, which is fine and reasonable, for five years."
People like you are utterly clueless. Most people do not have access to the connections required for downloads of this nature. And even if they desired to download the data, the ISP caps would make it very difficult. Put another way, your experience is not typical.
Exactly what reality do you live in where 200k is a low threshold? That is not middle class. A household that earns 180k a year is in the top 5%. That means an individual earning 200k is within the top few percent.
It is HARD to earn 200k a year. If you think otherwise, you have no concept of "average". The median wage for workers varies depending on how it is calculated. On the high side, for full time workers, ages 25 to 64, it is approximately 40k. Median wages for those with doctorates are about 80k.
And speaking of an alternative reality, what politician is pandering to voters when they suggest raising taxes? Have you been living under a rock lately? It is precisely the opposite. Most are pandering by suggesting that lowering taxes will somehow create jobs and not affect the deficit (despite massive evidence to the contrary).
I have no issue with people who want low taxes and small government. It is just that I have never actually met any such people. And the only place to get the money for government is from the people who have it. Those same people who have benefited from decades of historically low tax rates and created historically low amounts of jobs and income increases for those jobs.
"This is a perfect example of punishing people for working hard and taking personal responsibility."
And your post is an example of unexamined privilege. Why do you assume that the things you have are a result of mostly working hard and personal responsibilty rather than mostly an accident of birth? Or at least a combination of both? Or that those that don't have what you have are by implication not hard working and not responsible?
I don't understand why so many people who have so clearly benefited from our society have the attitude of "fuck you, I have mine" when they are expected to support that society that enabled their success. Why are you afraid of being considered well off when you are? Why is supporting society considered bad? Try not to be an example of someone who was born on base and assumes that they got a hit....
"Unemployment is only 4.6% for those with a bachelor's degree or higher."
It sure doesn't feel like it. While that number may be technically true, it doesn't account for the fact that many of those with degrees have taken jobs that don't require them. And there is stiff competition for even short term part time temporary jobs that require education. That is not consistent with an unemployment level of 4.6%.
"First, not "anyone" can make $200K per year. In almost all of the US, that is in the top 10% of incomes in the area."
You are being far too generous. Households making over 180k are in the top 5%. Those include more than one income. 200k is within the top few percent.
"Second, are you saying that someone who only makes $50K/year is not a "successful, responsible producer in the economy"?"
Unfortunately, many people have no concept of reality. That person would be above average income wise and solidly middle class.
"200k is upper middle class in the high rent cities, and in most of the US is it at the low end of upper class."
Middle class and 200k salary do not belong in the same sentence. One can certainly debate where the middle class begins and ends but 200k is certainly outside of it. A household income of 50k is the 50th percentile and 180k is the 95th percentile. A single income of 200k is in the top few percent.
On that income one can easily become rich and wealthy if they choose to do so.
"ffs is it so hard not to speed?"
Is it so hard to set speed limits based on road conditions and not arbitrary values?
Could you explain to me why a school zone is 20mph, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in a normally 25mph zone? Why an unsafe country road is 50mph but that improved 4 lane portion had the limit reduced to 35mph? Why the interstate speed limit ranges from 55mph to 75mph? Why some state highways have higher speed limits than some interstates?
"Since most of us don't do anything about the ethics of those around us, then by your assessment, none of us are honest..."
How exactly is this relevant to whether or not cops are honest? It's never a good thing when the defense is that "everybody does it".
In any case we hold police to a higher standard. Or at least most people consider them to be more honest than most and the police use that trust. Considering that they have the legal authority to take your life and liberty I think that they should be actually held to a higher standard in actual practice.
"In other words, Intel have decided to bypass the central guiding principle of our economy, in order to make more profit."
The last time I checked, the central guiding principle of our economy was to make more profit.
The fact of the matter is that their slowest and cheapest chip of the current architecture is faster than most people actually need. But you have to pay for the research and development in some manner. And the expected profit. Someone is going to get gouged.
"The red herring offered consistently is, why wouldn't GM want to lead the way in electric car development? Two reasons: one, EV technology was receiving zero subsidy after CARB was bought and sold, yet gasoline in the United States is sold at a fraction of the price due to massive subsidies by the US government. The second is that electric motors are hideously reliable, as evidenced by hydroelectric dams that have been in operation for over one hundred years. If a material for infinitely durable shoes was developed by Nike, do you think they would be dumb enough to manufacture and sell it?"
But your reasons don't make any sense. They didn't exactly shun electric technology. It just wasn't viable. It still has large downsides. And the reliability issue doesn't really matter. Engines and transmissions are pretty reliable and are only a fraction of the parts on a car that wear. In any case, as long as the cars last long enough, it doesn't matter. After all, they sell NEW cars. There's a reason that car styling and features are so important. It's the primary way you get people to buy new cars. They rarely buy them because they NEED them.
"The people using Word messed up..."
Yes. By using MS Word in the first place. I don't know if they were ignorant, naive, clueless or stupid or some combination of all of them but I cannot fathom what made them think that using Word for a 2000 page document was a good idea. I made the mistake of using it for a paper a fraction of the size rather than learn latex. I'd swear it has a random formatting generator built in.
"Autism appears to have both a genetic and environmental component. We have to stop bickering over this crap and start working to resolve the issue. Anybody interested?"
The scientists doing actual science are working to resolve the issue. People who are anti vaccine are not. People who think that Jenny McCarthy or Wakefield have credibility are part of the problem.
"Funny how the rise in Autism closely matches the rise of this industry. Are there any statisticians interested in looking into this?"
This perfectly illustrates the level of critical and logical thinking present in the anti vaccine crowd. As well as research ability. There isn't much. We might as well look at the correlation to population, CO2, girl scouts, HFCS, etc. Correlation does not equal causation (oops). Then there has to be a biologically plausible mechanism for exposure (oops). And there has been research (oops). And what you are suggesting is heavy metal poisoning, not autism (oops).
The rise in autism has everything to do with diagnostics. The definition has expanded, so more people are diagnosed. More services are available for people with autism, so it is beneficial have the diagnosis. There is less stigma for autism, so it is not hidden. Autism was separated from other mental disorders. Etc.
"When it comes to vaccines, however, I am still wary of the methods of sterilization, including the addition of Formaldehyde, Aluminum, and Mercury (still in the multi-dose flu shot)."
This perfectly illustrates the level of critical and logical thinking present in the anti vaccine crowd. As well as research ability. There isn't much.
Formaldehyde is present in the human body at greater levels than present in any vaccine (oops). Aluminum is perfectly safe (oops). The mercury in the shot is not dangerous (oops). Note that a can of tuna has more mercury of a dangerous variety than does any flu shot (oops).
"I also understand that it is not in the interest of vaccine manufacturers to find a link with Autism."
I also understand that you are ignorant and lazy. And creating a strawman.
"I also suspect that there is a link to the bowel. I don't know an Autistic kid who doesn't have bowel problems, but that is a limited view."
And your point is what? That you think the plural of anecdote is data? That fixing a bowel problem will magically fix a brain problem? That you are clueless and ignorant?
"What is this NVICP and why do they accept these unscientific claims of "biologically plausible mechanism"? Are they ignorant of science? Or are they required by the words of the legislation to accept claims like this?"
The court is not ignorant of the science. The court is designed that way. It has a lower burden of proof than regular civil court. There are certain injuries that are considered to be vaccine related. Other advantages include: attorney fees are paid, cases are resolved quicker and cases can still be taken to the regular court system. But if you don't win in the NVICP you probably have no chance to win in civil court. And going to civil court means giving up any award (if any) you received in the NVICP.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/09/vaccine_injury_and_compensation.php
And "biologically plausible mechanism" is not an unscientific claim. You might want to brush up on science yourself.
There is a third possibility.
Eli Whitney, inventer of the cotten gin. Pretty much the definition of a patent worthy invention. Patented his invention. Didn't matter because people copied his design anyway. His patent was pretty worthless to him but he advanced society. In the end there is no way to expose an idea without it being copied. The only people who can slow that process have lots of money. (Apparently USPTO problems and litigation aren't new. Applied for patent in 1794, approved 1807. Profits from invention used in litigation. Crappy business model. Etc.)
The issue with software patents is why? They are already protected by copyright. Why exactly do they need patent protection? Does it promote the progress of society? If not, then we don't need it. Whether or not it helps people make money is irrelevent.
One should apply the same reasoning for regular patents. If they hinder progress more than advance it, get rid of them.
"After they get a "switch" to turn off the internet they can demand anything."
They don't need the switch first. Do you really think that the government couldn't get the providers to shut down the lines that carry the internet already? Willingly? In an emergency? They didn't have a problem with illegal wiretaps after all. The problem with shutting down the internet is that you tend to shut down the country with it. Which makes it less than useful for things that you would really like to use it for.
"Even if such disclosure is merely highly probable, how can they sue for something they can't show actually happened?"
Probably because if trade secrets are disclosed they cease to be trade secrets. At least if the company didn't attempt to prevent their disclosure. Secrets have little protection once exposed.
"...although their concerns about disclosing trade secrets may be justified, I'm pretty sure they'd have a hard time showing, with 100% certainty, that it is wholly unavoidable that the position would require such disclosure."
So what? That level of certainty is not even required in a criminal court. This is a civil matter with a far lower burden of proof.
"The cost of a co-pilot per years runs about $150,000 (guess)"
You might want to remove a zero.
Yes, many pilots are very poorly paid, especially on commuter airlines. In any case, how exactly do you get experienced replacement pilots if they never have an opportunity to train. Try to quantify that one.