I remember a Mr. Boffo comic several years back titled "The dark side of mnemonics," and showed a guy sitting in a car thinking to himself "Now is it 'Red, red, go ahead,' or..."
Except that any airline that did that would ONLY get tall people flying, because short people have no desire to get less legroom for the same price. Or you could charge based on the amount of legroom (so a 40" seat would be twice as much as a 20" seat), but then why wouldn't tall people just fly business class instead? The problem isn't a one-size-fits-all mentality, it's that short people aren't willing to pay more for less.
One could argue using the same logic that tall people ought to be forced to sit at the back of a theater because they can see over the short people, but the short people can't see over them. But what tall person would be willing to go to a theater where they weren't allowed to sit near the screen?
Capital-L Libertarians hold those beliefs, true, but small-L libertarians (AKA civil libertarians or social liberals) are much more varied when it comes to economic policy.
No, the guy was right the first time. A Libertarian is a member of the Libertarian party. A libertarian believes in minimal govenrment intrusion. A civil libertarian agrees with libertarians on civil issues, but not on economic ones, but without the modifier "civil," that is not implied.
And what of the rebellion? If the Rebels have obtained a complete technical readout of this station, it is possible, however unlikely, that they might find a weakness, and exploit it.
Apparently with ever-improving computer control, Boeing is working on reducing the crew requirements further. The upcoming 7E7 will replace the co-pilot with a dog, so the crew will consist merely of a pilot and a dog. What's the dog's job? To bite the pilot's hand if he tries to touch anything.
BULLSHIT yourself. In addition to what others were saying about 0.5% being statisitically insignificant, you apparently do not know what the word "majority" means. A majority is 50% + 1 vote. Gore had a plurality, according to the statistics you yourself quoted.
The electoral college system is a horrid system--it promotes two candidates that try to be as much like each other as possible to the exclusion of third-party candidates (like we have now)
Let me get this straight: one of your major objections to the electoral college is that it favors canidates who are in line with the views of the median American, and makes it impossible for extremists to be elected? Seeing as how this is Slashdot, you may very well be an extremist (of either the libertarian or socialist/green stripe), and so I can see how this would annoy you, but frankly this is how democracy is supposed to work.
That's why the law applies to ALL filesharing and not just illegal filesharing. You're not incriminating yourself if you say "I use filesharing programs."
Interestingly, many economic libertarians express to us their support for or indifference towards capital punishment; yet the execution of certain citizens is a far stronger assertion of state power than taxation.
This has always seemed like an odd argument to me. One of the defining characteristic of libertarians is that they recognize that the sole feature distinguishing a government from any other organization is its monopoly on deadly force. The reason people accept prison sentences is that the alternative is death (violently resisting arrest or attempting to escape from prison will likely result in being shot).
No libertarian that I've ever heard of has advocated that the government give up its monopoly on deadly force, so I don't see why capital punishment would be a libertarian issue. In deciding to be a libertarian instead of an anarchist, one has implicitly chosen to accept capital punishment as the "punishment of last resort."
As an aside, I found a lot of the questions in that quiz to be something of a false dichotomy. For example, one question asked if one agreed or disagreed with the statement "though a mother may have a career, her first duty is as a homemaker." Assuming that by homemaker one means "raise one's children and attempt to foster a positive environment for one's family," then I would argue that both mothers and fathers have such a duty, yet answering "agree" to such a question seems to imply support for traditional gender roles. Another question asks whether one agrees that "controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment." One can disagree, and mean that controlling unemployment is equally important, or one can disagree and mean that controlling unemployment is more important. That's a big difference.
I thought it was fairly well known that the inspiration for the AT-ATs are those giant cargo loaders in the Port of Oakland. Nothing to do with Tolkein (or even elephants) at all.
Allow me to interject a little sanity into this discussion. I agree with the various replies that pilots DO need to be screened, because their occupation hardly precludes them from suspicion. On the other hand, the parent's point is well taken: pilots have to fly one way on a regular basis, and it is ridiculous to set them aside for extra screening each time. Perhaps one way tickets should not be considered suspicious for pilots as they are for the general populace. Of course, as others have suggested, it seems like one way tickets shouldn't be considered suspicious at all, seeing as how it's now well known that if one wants to pull off an attack, one should buy a round trip ticket anyway.
You don't. The proposition was "all cards with a 5 on one side have a G on the other." Nowhere did I say that all cards with a G on one side must have a 5 on the other. In the bouncer example, all cards with an alcoholic beverage on one side must have an age equal to or greater than 21 on the other. But not all cards with an age of 21+ must have an alcoholic beverage; 30 year olds are still allowed to drink ginger ale.
Actually, let me tell you what I learned from MY psych 101 class (although we called it PY0011). People with little formal education have great difficulty solving formalized math problems, but have a much easier time solving word problems, especially word problems that relate to situations in their own lives. For example, a child who helped his family run a shop might have difficulty with 100 / 5, but would easily be able to tell you that 20 nickels go into a dollar.
Americans show similar difficulty with some logic problems. Take the following puzzle: There are 4 cards, each has a letter on one side and a number on the other. The four cards show the following on their face up sides
5 7 G K
Turn over only the cards necessary to prove the proposition that all cards with a 5 on one side have a G on the other.
The answer is turn over the 5 and the K, but most people get that wrong. A similar problem would be to imagine that you are a bouncer at a club, and now the cards have an age on one side and a drink on the other. The cards you see are
18 27 Coke Martini
Which cards do you have to turn over to make sure that there is no under age drinking (this is US-specific; assume the drinking age is 21)? The 18 and the Martini, of course. Almost everyone gets the latter problem, but not the former problem. Why? Because it is not a problem they've been exposed to.
So what does all that have to do with this article? Well clearly this tribe has no words for numbers greater than 2 because it simply isn't useful in their lives. By extension, they have not been exposed to problems which require counting higher than 2. The language is a symptom of their lack of practice counting, not a cause. If they wanted to count higher, no doubt they would start by saying one, two, one and two, two and two, and so on, not unlike Roman numerals, and over time they'd start making up new names for numbers. However, simply throw these problems at them suddenly, and of course they will be bad, they haven't ever done this before.
That is no doubt the formal reason, but I'd offer another reason: to blunt Chinese attempts to keep Taiwan out. China tries to argue that Taiwan should not be allowed to compete because it is a "rogue province." The US counters that if Puerto Rico gets its own team, Taiwan can have one too.
Personally, I thought Firefly was great, but found Buffy thoroughly uninspiring. I think I'm just not a big high school drama fan. That's okay, you like what you like, and I like what I like. Simple enough.
Or you could just order them directly from Motion Computing, since that's where Gateway gets them from. It was about $100 cheaper that way back when I bought mine, and I've been quite happy with it.
Well, my AMD 1700+ is 1.4xx ghz, so assuming that the P3 has similar performance to the AMD chips, then a P3 1.3 ghz or above should work (if they even made P3s that fast).
Isn't it actually going to be double that? It has to go up and back to send, and up and back to recieve. So a full round trip ping would have to make 4 one way trips.
Actually, the supply of diamonds is artificially controlled by the DeBeers cartel. If not for that, diamonds would be no more expensive than the carbon of which they are composed.
Woah, slow down there, cowboy. It's certainly true that DeBeers exerts a strong upward pressure on prices, but not THAT strong. First, DeBeers controls only 2/3rds of the world's diamonds these days, putting them on par with OPEC as far as control of a natural resource goes. That's strong enough to exert influence, but it's hardly an exclusive control.
Second, diamonds (especially large, high quality diamonds) ARE still rare. Rubies, emeralds, opals, and so forth are all still worth more than their base elements even without DeBeers restricting supply.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember a Mr. Boffo comic several years back titled "The dark side of mnemonics," and showed a guy sitting in a car thinking to himself "Now is it 'Red, red, go ahead,' or..."
Untrue.
One could argue using the same logic that tall people ought to be forced to sit at the back of a theater because they can see over the short people, but the short people can't see over them. But what tall person would be willing to go to a theater where they weren't allowed to sit near the screen?
That being said, people who are really undecided may give a name anyway just for the hell of it, so the results are still imperfect.
No, the guy was right the first time. A Libertarian is a member of the Libertarian party. A libertarian believes in minimal govenrment intrusion. A civil libertarian agrees with libertarians on civil issues, but not on economic ones, but without the modifier "civil," that is not implied.
And what of the rebellion? If the Rebels have obtained a complete technical readout of this station, it is possible, however unlikely, that they might find a weakness, and exploit it.
It's an old joke, but I've always liked it :)
BULLSHIT yourself. In addition to what others were saying about 0.5% being statisitically insignificant, you apparently do not know what the word "majority" means. A majority is 50% + 1 vote. Gore had a plurality, according to the statistics you yourself quoted.
Let me get this straight: one of your major objections to the electoral college is that it favors canidates who are in line with the views of the median American, and makes it impossible for extremists to be elected? Seeing as how this is Slashdot, you may very well be an extremist (of either the libertarian or socialist/green stripe), and so I can see how this would annoy you, but frankly this is how democracy is supposed to work.
Maybe that's the point? Poisoning the well.
That's why the law applies to ALL filesharing and not just illegal filesharing. You're not incriminating yourself if you say "I use filesharing programs."
This has always seemed like an odd argument to me. One of the defining characteristic of libertarians is that they recognize that the sole feature distinguishing a government from any other organization is its monopoly on deadly force. The reason people accept prison sentences is that the alternative is death (violently resisting arrest or attempting to escape from prison will likely result in being shot).
No libertarian that I've ever heard of has advocated that the government give up its monopoly on deadly force, so I don't see why capital punishment would be a libertarian issue. In deciding to be a libertarian instead of an anarchist, one has implicitly chosen to accept capital punishment as the "punishment of last resort."
As an aside, I found a lot of the questions in that quiz to be something of a false dichotomy. For example, one question asked if one agreed or disagreed with the statement "though a mother may have a career, her first duty is as a homemaker." Assuming that by homemaker one means "raise one's children and attempt to foster a positive environment for one's family," then I would argue that both mothers and fathers have such a duty, yet answering "agree" to such a question seems to imply support for traditional gender roles. Another question asks whether one agrees that "controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment." One can disagree, and mean that controlling unemployment is equally important, or one can disagree and mean that controlling unemployment is more important. That's a big difference.
I thought it was fairly well known that the inspiration for the AT-ATs are those giant cargo loaders in the Port of Oakland. Nothing to do with Tolkein (or even elephants) at all.
Allow me to interject a little sanity into this discussion. I agree with the various replies that pilots DO need to be screened, because their occupation hardly precludes them from suspicion. On the other hand, the parent's point is well taken: pilots have to fly one way on a regular basis, and it is ridiculous to set them aside for extra screening each time. Perhaps one way tickets should not be considered suspicious for pilots as they are for the general populace. Of course, as others have suggested, it seems like one way tickets shouldn't be considered suspicious at all, seeing as how it's now well known that if one wants to pull off an attack, one should buy a round trip ticket anyway.
You don't. The proposition was "all cards with a 5 on one side have a G on the other." Nowhere did I say that all cards with a G on one side must have a 5 on the other. In the bouncer example, all cards with an alcoholic beverage on one side must have an age equal to or greater than 21 on the other. But not all cards with an age of 21+ must have an alcoholic beverage; 30 year olds are still allowed to drink ginger ale.
Americans show similar difficulty with some logic problems. Take the following puzzle: There are 4 cards, each has a letter on one side and a number on the other. The four cards show the following on their face up sides
5 7 G K
Turn over only the cards necessary to prove the proposition that all cards with a 5 on one side have a G on the other.
The answer is turn over the 5 and the K, but most people get that wrong. A similar problem would be to imagine that you are a bouncer at a club, and now the cards have an age on one side and a drink on the other. The cards you see are
18 27 Coke Martini
Which cards do you have to turn over to make sure that there is no under age drinking (this is US-specific; assume the drinking age is 21)? The 18 and the Martini, of course. Almost everyone gets the latter problem, but not the former problem. Why? Because it is not a problem they've been exposed to.
So what does all that have to do with this article? Well clearly this tribe has no words for numbers greater than 2 because it simply isn't useful in their lives. By extension, they have not been exposed to problems which require counting higher than 2. The language is a symptom of their lack of practice counting, not a cause. If they wanted to count higher, no doubt they would start by saying one, two, one and two, two and two, and so on, not unlike Roman numerals, and over time they'd start making up new names for numbers. However, simply throw these problems at them suddenly, and of course they will be bad, they haven't ever done this before.
That is no doubt the formal reason, but I'd offer another reason: to blunt Chinese attempts to keep Taiwan out. China tries to argue that Taiwan should not be allowed to compete because it is a "rogue province." The US counters that if Puerto Rico gets its own team, Taiwan can have one too.
Only if Reagan was president during the 1800's...
The current population of the earth could fit in the Grand Canyon with a population density similar to Tokyo. Who modded this insightful?
Personally, I thought Firefly was great, but found Buffy thoroughly uninspiring. I think I'm just not a big high school drama fan. That's okay, you like what you like, and I like what I like. Simple enough.
Or you could just order them directly from Motion Computing, since that's where Gateway gets them from. It was about $100 cheaper that way back when I bought mine, and I've been quite happy with it.
Well, my AMD 1700+ is 1.4xx ghz, so assuming that the P3 has similar performance to the AMD chips, then a P3 1.3 ghz or above should work (if they even made P3s that fast).
Isn't it actually going to be double that? It has to go up and back to send, and up and back to recieve. So a full round trip ping would have to make 4 one way trips.
Woah, slow down there, cowboy. It's certainly true that DeBeers exerts a strong upward pressure on prices, but not THAT strong. First, DeBeers controls only 2/3rds of the world's diamonds these days, putting them on par with OPEC as far as control of a natural resource goes. That's strong enough to exert influence, but it's hardly an exclusive control.
Second, diamonds (especially large, high quality diamonds) ARE still rare. Rubies, emeralds, opals, and so forth are all still worth more than their base elements even without DeBeers restricting supply.
Just thought I'd bring you up to date: it's now just "the Wachowskis." See this article.