I think it's more basic than that. Any ideology followed closely and long enough leads to unthinking behavior and beliefs. Ideology requires a lack of thought almost by definition. Whether that is unthinkingly following a religion, an economic system, a political party, or nationalistic rhetoric doesn't really matter, what matters is the fact that people turn off their brains and allow someone or something else make decisions for them. Once turned off a brain is a very difficult thing to get turned back on again.
Offtopic but... I kdawson the only editor working today? If so I can't really complain about selection and quality, he's got a lot of cruft to sift through all by himself to find articles that at minimum will generate discussion and at best will actually be interesting.
No one wore the seat belts at that time anyway (something like 5% when these cars were built). The whole point was to show that it was possible (maybe not economical, but possible) to design a car with features that keep the occupants safe in a highway speed collision so putting the crash test dummies in seat belts would have defeated the purpose.
Don't forget, 70% of American's think that nanotechnology is inherently morally reprehensible. And the numbers are even higher if you sample highly religious people. So either the general public has absolutely no idea what the word nanotechnology means or (and this is a scarier thought in my opinion) a significant majority of American's are against a technology are against any technology that promises to significantly enhance the human body.
So, after reading the fine article, it seems to me that the company is, officially at least, a coop. Only employees are allowed to own shares, which are primarily used as a method of profit sharing and performance rewards. It's actually not a bad model if you don't need the capital you can get by selling stock. There's a handful of companies in the US that do things much the same one, Ocean-spray being the first example that comes to mind.
I don't see anything in the article about if/when/how the Chinese government influences the company beyond an offhand remark about the CEO's past work at the beginning and an otherwise unsupported statement at the end. How exactly would the company being publicly traded ally fears that the Chinese government is exerting control? It isn't as if the stockholders would have to know about the situation, nor would the fallout be any more severe if they were found out (either way the company would be going bankrupt very rapidly).
"If you have information which leads to the arrest or conviction of a distributor of child porn you will be rewarded 500,000 yen."
Good god is that ever ripe for abuse. I don't even consider myself a hacker and I'm pretty sure I could frame up the neighbor in less than a week with a couple hours research online. It would be all too easy to do, and at $5000 a pop I could make several hundred thousand dollars a year framing up people I don't like all the while being called a hero by those who don't understand how ludicrously full of holes modern computer security is.
Shouldn't it just be a matter of requiring the user to allow the mount of the iPhone side? That is, I believe, how Android handles the problem. Nothing can be mounted until the user tells the phone to allow it, which must be done from the home screen, which cannot be accessed without the sign in pattern. Unless that is how it is supposed to work but for whatever reason isn't happening on Lucid Lynx?
Perhaps "not obviously nuclear" would have been a clearer choice of words. If China or Russia detect the launch of an ICBM they're first thought is going to be that it is nuclear tipped simply because that is all ICBM's are used for. In theory you could launch from an ICBM with a secondary guidance package on the warhead and land a conventional weapon within 10 ft of your target, but you're going to make a lot of people in a lot of governments very nervous when they see the ICBM launch signature. Is it entirely rational? No, but sense when do you expect the world to be rational?
It's true that anonymous speech shouldn't be necessary in and of itself. But as part of a larger system of free speech it is essential, it acts as the last sanity check on the system such that if everything else is taken away, anonymous speech remains simply by virtue of being the hardest to take away.
It's not infringing on their liberties that is the problem, it's infringing on my liberties that is. All it takes to infringe on their liberties is a warrant or a court order. In order to infringe on my liberties you better be amending the constitution because anonymous speech is the only way to have truly free speech.
It's all part of the Prompt Global Strike program. Eventually the goal is to have scramjet powered missiles with a range of 12000+ miles. Allowing you to fire an obviously non-nuclear missile from Kansas to North Korea and have it hit the target in less than 3 hours. Basically, even launching a B2 for a direct strike takes days or weeks. Refueling planes need to be put into the air, mission plans drawn up, clearance over foreign airspace cleared, pilots briefed, etc. They want to be able to say "Fire" and have the missile in the air within minutes and at target within hours; with the added benefit of not putting any American lives in harms way.
Keep in mind that at mach six 200 seconds is 400 kilometers. That's already enough range to make a useful weapon (and yes I realize there was some acceleration time in there). Heck, that's already longer range than the most advanced missiles that many countries have. Increase the stability to just 10 minutes of burn time and you've got a missile that can go 5% of the way around the world.
Is it really possible to develop, test, and run a complex simulation of the gulf's currents and weather in time for it to be useful for the recovery? It seems to me like the kind of job that could take a couple years to get right, even assuming we know everything we need to make such a simulation. Maybe they want the simulation developed today so that it can be used to evaluate potential future disasters? To help quantify the risk involved in this kind of drilling?
How nice that they're allowed to spend ten to twenty thousand dollars applying for a patent that they don't intend to use. All in an effort to prevent what is basically being blackmailed by a company that has not only stolen your ideas from you, but also from everyone else who would do work in the field. What a wonderful, effective system we have.
A) The failure of the well is unprecedented but was still caused by cutting corners and skimping on safety regulations. B) Many of the safeguards were removed to save time and money C) At this point drilling for more oil is only delaying the innevitable. You might be able to convince me that the delay is necessary and will give us time to make the needed transitions more smoothly, but since we're not really doing much to prepare for the transition anyway you'd have to convince me. D) If things will always go wrong then you should be prepared for them to go wrong. Why didn't BP have adequate and safe dispersant prepared for such a spill? Why did they cut safety features? Why are we just now building cofferdams over the wells to prevent this from happening?
If I get hurt in a car accident because GM didn't design my brakes properly, didn't install the airbag (to save manufacturing costs), lied to get through safety inspections, and basically decided that my risk was worth their profit you can bet I wouldn't be saying 'Oh well' and walking away like nothing is wrong.
A) It's a luxury sports sedan. Not a compact, not an econocar, not a even just a luxury car. It's equivalent to an Audi A6 or a BMW 3 series. Both of which run into the $40,000s similarly equipped.
B) Fuel savings for the average driver are estimated to be at around $4000 per year. That means if you keep this puppy for as little as 3 years you've come out ahead compared to similarly equipped vehicles.
C) "Affordable" in this case is a relative term, relative to the cost of the original Tesla roadster $110,000+ and relative to the cars it is competing against $40,000+.
Your mother is no longer part of mainstream society.
Sooner or later, there won't be enough people like her to support the industries that she relies on for her news, communication, and entertainment. Adapt or learn to live without those things, it's going to happen eventually and if she's under 60 it will probably happen in her lifetime.
I'm reminded of Asimov's 0th law of robotics, "A robot may not harm humanity or through inaction allow humanity to come to harm". Hunting deer, for instance, certainly harms the deer that are killed but in many areas the natural predators have been all but wiped out and not hunting would lead to massive overpopulation. Eventually causing much more harm to both the animals not being hunted and to the ecosystem in general.
So, what is 'harm'? Is a nuclear power plant harmful to humans or animals? Is a prison harmful to humans or helpful? How about a nuclear power plant? How about a video game that depicts the harming of humans or animals?
My possible payout minus the cost of suing me is definitely higher than Google's possible payout minus the cost of suing them. Google has a very large and very well qualified legal department which, even if they are completely in the wrong, will ensure that suing them over a patent violation is a losing proposition.
Stock market data by itself is insufficient to predict the stock market because of all the external variables. It would be impossible to predict the post 9-11 crash for instance because there is nothing in the markets that changed leading up to it. It would be difficult to predict the more recent meltdown because it was caused by a combination of lax oversight, repealed laws, semi-legal trading techniques, and a culture of over borrowing. It's possible that you may be able to predict the minute to minute changes, maybe even day to day. But long term trends are almost impossible.
In a safe, controlled environment, with the necessary medical equipment and personnel available, kangaroo care is probably the way to go. That isn't the use that this device is meant for though. I understood it to be designed for transporting premature infants from remote areas to proper medical care. In other words: difficult hikes, through difficult terrain, in uncomfortably hot weather, with all the bugs, plants, and pollen that comes with it.
Their point is that there is almost definitely liquid water on several moons of Jupiter and Saturn and in limited amounts on Mars. In gaseous form it can be found in the atmospheres of all the gas giants and in solid form it can be found on our own moon, comets, asteroids, and probably a dozen other objects in our solar system. Of all the objects with water in our solar system, only a single one is believed to have life and even that is skewed by the anthropomorphic principle.
Saying 'follow the water' casts too wide a net because it is becoming increasingly apparent that water is very, very common. It's possible that a significant number of terrestrial planets may contain large amounts of water but most astrobiologists believe that life probably isn't that common. Of course, they could be wrong and we could find complex life on every single planet that has the right conditions, we just don't know yet. It seems to me that they're getting a bit ahead of themselves in assuming that their theories about abiogenisis are correct.
Hilarious. You deliver a mild rant about people spouting off "correlation!=causation" without so much as reading the article to see if the researches took that into account, all the while your post makes it obvious that you yourself didn't so much as read the article and yet your get modded insightful and informative. Sometimes I think the mods don't even try.
The researchers didn't use real court room data, they created mock criminals, attaching different pictures to the same information about the case and compared the results from online volunteer juries. In other words, there are no actual criminals involved and both of your points are... well, pointless.
Or just put the phone into 'airplane mode'. I would have thought that would be what they did anyway, do they just leave them connected to the network all the time when they're working on them or what?
But would you take that over a single high-resolution display or a giant HDTV?"
If I'm sitting at my desk play, an HDTV at 1080p is going to look absolutely horrible. So is even a ridiculously expensive large format display. Even three low end 20 inch monitors will give a much higher resolution, and much, much higher DPI than I could get for the same amount of money spent on a single large display.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's more basic than that. Any ideology followed closely and long enough leads to unthinking behavior and beliefs. Ideology requires a lack of thought almost by definition. Whether that is unthinkingly following a religion, an economic system, a political party, or nationalistic rhetoric doesn't really matter, what matters is the fact that people turn off their brains and allow someone or something else make decisions for them. Once turned off a brain is a very difficult thing to get turned back on again.
Offtopic but... I kdawson the only editor working today? If so I can't really complain about selection and quality, he's got a lot of cruft to sift through all by himself to find articles that at minimum will generate discussion and at best will actually be interesting.
No one wore the seat belts at that time anyway (something like 5% when these cars were built). The whole point was to show that it was possible (maybe not economical, but possible) to design a car with features that keep the occupants safe in a highway speed collision so putting the crash test dummies in seat belts would have defeated the purpose.
Don't forget, 70% of American's think that nanotechnology is inherently morally reprehensible. And the numbers are even higher if you sample highly religious people. So either the general public has absolutely no idea what the word nanotechnology means or (and this is a scarier thought in my opinion) a significant majority of American's are against a technology are against any technology that promises to significantly enhance the human body.
So, after reading the fine article, it seems to me that the company is, officially at least, a coop. Only employees are allowed to own shares, which are primarily used as a method of profit sharing and performance rewards. It's actually not a bad model if you don't need the capital you can get by selling stock. There's a handful of companies in the US that do things much the same one, Ocean-spray being the first example that comes to mind.
I don't see anything in the article about if/when/how the Chinese government influences the company beyond an offhand remark about the CEO's past work at the beginning and an otherwise unsupported statement at the end. How exactly would the company being publicly traded ally fears that the Chinese government is exerting control? It isn't as if the stockholders would have to know about the situation, nor would the fallout be any more severe if they were found out (either way the company would be going bankrupt very rapidly).
"If you have information which leads to the arrest or conviction of a distributor of child porn you will be rewarded 500,000 yen."
Good god is that ever ripe for abuse. I don't even consider myself a hacker and I'm pretty sure I could frame up the neighbor in less than a week with a couple hours research online. It would be all too easy to do, and at $5000 a pop I could make several hundred thousand dollars a year framing up people I don't like all the while being called a hero by those who don't understand how ludicrously full of holes modern computer security is.
Shouldn't it just be a matter of requiring the user to allow the mount of the iPhone side? That is, I believe, how Android handles the problem. Nothing can be mounted until the user tells the phone to allow it, which must be done from the home screen, which cannot be accessed without the sign in pattern. Unless that is how it is supposed to work but for whatever reason isn't happening on Lucid Lynx?
Perhaps "not obviously nuclear" would have been a clearer choice of words. If China or Russia detect the launch of an ICBM they're first thought is going to be that it is nuclear tipped simply because that is all ICBM's are used for. In theory you could launch from an ICBM with a secondary guidance package on the warhead and land a conventional weapon within 10 ft of your target, but you're going to make a lot of people in a lot of governments very nervous when they see the ICBM launch signature. Is it entirely rational? No, but sense when do you expect the world to be rational?
It's true that anonymous speech shouldn't be necessary in and of itself. But as part of a larger system of free speech it is essential, it acts as the last sanity check on the system such that if everything else is taken away, anonymous speech remains simply by virtue of being the hardest to take away.
It's not infringing on their liberties that is the problem, it's infringing on my liberties that is. All it takes to infringe on their liberties is a warrant or a court order. In order to infringe on my liberties you better be amending the constitution because anonymous speech is the only way to have truly free speech.
It's all part of the Prompt Global Strike program. Eventually the goal is to have scramjet powered missiles with a range of 12000+ miles. Allowing you to fire an obviously non-nuclear missile from Kansas to North Korea and have it hit the target in less than 3 hours. Basically, even launching a B2 for a direct strike takes days or weeks. Refueling planes need to be put into the air, mission plans drawn up, clearance over foreign airspace cleared, pilots briefed, etc. They want to be able to say "Fire" and have the missile in the air within minutes and at target within hours; with the added benefit of not putting any American lives in harms way.
Keep in mind that at mach six 200 seconds is 400 kilometers. That's already enough range to make a useful weapon (and yes I realize there was some acceleration time in there). Heck, that's already longer range than the most advanced missiles that many countries have. Increase the stability to just 10 minutes of burn time and you've got a missile that can go 5% of the way around the world.
Is it really possible to develop, test, and run a complex simulation of the gulf's currents and weather in time for it to be useful for the recovery? It seems to me like the kind of job that could take a couple years to get right, even assuming we know everything we need to make such a simulation. Maybe they want the simulation developed today so that it can be used to evaluate potential future disasters? To help quantify the risk involved in this kind of drilling?
How nice that they're allowed to spend ten to twenty thousand dollars applying for a patent that they don't intend to use. All in an effort to prevent what is basically being blackmailed by a company that has not only stolen your ideas from you, but also from everyone else who would do work in the field. What a wonderful, effective system we have.
A) The failure of the well is unprecedented but was still caused by cutting corners and skimping on safety regulations.
B) Many of the safeguards were removed to save time and money
C) At this point drilling for more oil is only delaying the innevitable. You might be able to convince me that the delay is necessary and will give us time to make the needed transitions more smoothly, but since we're not really doing much to prepare for the transition anyway you'd have to convince me.
D) If things will always go wrong then you should be prepared for them to go wrong. Why didn't BP have adequate and safe dispersant prepared for such a spill? Why did they cut safety features? Why are we just now building cofferdams over the wells to prevent this from happening?
If I get hurt in a car accident because GM didn't design my brakes properly, didn't install the airbag (to save manufacturing costs), lied to get through safety inspections, and basically decided that my risk was worth their profit you can bet I wouldn't be saying 'Oh well' and walking away like nothing is wrong.
A) It's a luxury sports sedan. Not a compact, not an econocar, not a even just a luxury car. It's equivalent to an Audi A6 or a BMW 3 series. Both of which run into the $40,000s similarly equipped.
B) Fuel savings for the average driver are estimated to be at around $4000 per year. That means if you keep this puppy for as little as 3 years you've come out ahead compared to similarly equipped vehicles.
C) "Affordable" in this case is a relative term, relative to the cost of the original Tesla roadster $110,000+ and relative to the cars it is competing against $40,000+.
Your mother is no longer part of mainstream society.
Sooner or later, there won't be enough people like her to support the industries that she relies on for her news, communication, and entertainment. Adapt or learn to live without those things, it's going to happen eventually and if she's under 60 it will probably happen in her lifetime.
I'm reminded of Asimov's 0th law of robotics, "A robot may not harm humanity or through inaction allow humanity to come to harm". Hunting deer, for instance, certainly harms the deer that are killed but in many areas the natural predators have been all but wiped out and not hunting would lead to massive overpopulation. Eventually causing much more harm to both the animals not being hunted and to the ecosystem in general.
So, what is 'harm'? Is a nuclear power plant harmful to humans or animals? Is a prison harmful to humans or helpful? How about a nuclear power plant? How about a video game that depicts the harming of humans or animals?
My possible payout minus the cost of suing me is definitely higher than Google's possible payout minus the cost of suing them. Google has a very large and very well qualified legal department which, even if they are completely in the wrong, will ensure that suing them over a patent violation is a losing proposition.
Stock market data by itself is insufficient to predict the stock market because of all the external variables. It would be impossible to predict the post 9-11 crash for instance because there is nothing in the markets that changed leading up to it. It would be difficult to predict the more recent meltdown because it was caused by a combination of lax oversight, repealed laws, semi-legal trading techniques, and a culture of over borrowing. It's possible that you may be able to predict the minute to minute changes, maybe even day to day. But long term trends are almost impossible.
In a safe, controlled environment, with the necessary medical equipment and personnel available, kangaroo care is probably the way to go. That isn't the use that this device is meant for though. I understood it to be designed for transporting premature infants from remote areas to proper medical care. In other words: difficult hikes, through difficult terrain, in uncomfortably hot weather, with all the bugs, plants, and pollen that comes with it.
Their point is that there is almost definitely liquid water on several moons of Jupiter and Saturn and in limited amounts on Mars. In gaseous form it can be found in the atmospheres of all the gas giants and in solid form it can be found on our own moon, comets, asteroids, and probably a dozen other objects in our solar system. Of all the objects with water in our solar system, only a single one is believed to have life and even that is skewed by the anthropomorphic principle.
Saying 'follow the water' casts too wide a net because it is becoming increasingly apparent that water is very, very common. It's possible that a significant number of terrestrial planets may contain large amounts of water but most astrobiologists believe that life probably isn't that common. Of course, they could be wrong and we could find complex life on every single planet that has the right conditions, we just don't know yet. It seems to me that they're getting a bit ahead of themselves in assuming that their theories about abiogenisis are correct.
Hilarious. You deliver a mild rant about people spouting off "correlation!=causation" without so much as reading the article to see if the researches took that into account, all the while your post makes it obvious that you yourself didn't so much as read the article and yet your get modded insightful and informative. Sometimes I think the mods don't even try.
The researchers didn't use real court room data, they created mock criminals, attaching different pictures to the same information about the case and compared the results from online volunteer juries. In other words, there are no actual criminals involved and both of your points are... well, pointless.
Or just put the phone into 'airplane mode'. I would have thought that would be what they did anyway, do they just leave them connected to the network all the time when they're working on them or what?
But would you take that over a single high-resolution display or a giant HDTV?"
If I'm sitting at my desk play, an HDTV at 1080p is going to look absolutely horrible. So is even a ridiculously expensive large format display. Even three low end 20 inch monitors will give a much higher resolution, and much, much higher DPI than I could get for the same amount of money spent on a single large display.