It is not I who lumped it into the Arts department.
And regardless of if there is a need for some psychologists or not, and irregardless of if some make a lot of money, the vast vast majority of psychology students never enter a psychology related career, and never meant to.
Psychology is just what you take if you do not know what to take, but do not want it to be too difficult.
But why are these things not open-source? It sounds like Canonical are just a bunch of a**holes.
Re:An overly-romantic view of hunter-gatherer soci
on
Star Trek Economics
·
· Score: 1
Did you even read my comment? I am not talking about any of the same things you mention.
I just explained in broad strokes how hunter-gatherer scarcity based "economies" worked, and continue to work today; And how these economies are at the very least the closest thing to the fiction of Star Trek.
Re:You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Mea
on
Star Trek Economics
·
· Score: 1
I am not saying it is possible, I am just saying if you are making a ST style economy it would resemble the trust and communal well being type economy of the scarcity based systems. I am not even saying that there needs to be scarcity, but in the broad strokes that it will resemble these scarcity based economies.
But I think Star Trek does have scarcity. Everyone has limits, people use up their transporter privileges, their replicated credits, etc. Everyone on Earth cannot have a galaxy class spaceship built for themselves, and even master scientists do not have unlimited resources to conduct their research. I think if we are considering ST real/a possibility we might theorise that technology and specifically the warp drive opened up so many possibilities that they completely blew past their ability to gather resources, creating nearly unlimited scarcity. I could imagine this immensely challenging and resource intensive new frontier opened up by warp drive making Earth and all of its population directly analogues to a small scarcity based hunter and gather tribe.
As a lot of people have said before. Poverty in the modern world is entirely spiritual, and therefore no amount of physical wealth will ever solve it. The richer America gets, the more poor it will have.
You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means.
on
Star Trek Economics
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
In the history of humanity, and to this day, we have had societies with were scarcity was the rule and others where there was enough for everyone three times over.
Modern Western civilization (and based on some definitions, all civilization) is based on an over-abundance of the necessities of life. This invariably leads to hoarding, and monetary systems, and the rich and the poor; Because the economy can afford these inefficiencies; You might even say it needs them.
In hunter-gather based societies, things are different. There is a very limited food supply, and a huge scarcity of pretty much everything, and their economy is therefore a lot different. They invariably, share and share alike. Ownership of resources (like the only water supply for the entire village) is not a concept that is understandable. And monetary systems do not exist.
If you want a Star Trek style economy you are looking for a scarcity based economy.
Either this threshold is low, and you are charging people who are already poor, or it if decently high and that means that every art degree is being paid for by the engineering students.
Which is both unfair, and in my opinion is bad. If you want to go to college to have fun go ahead, but I do not know why anyone would want someone else to pay for it.
I think you can separate college into two sections. You have the engineering, science, mathematics, (business and law, I guess), etc. - Really the only way to learn this material in depth, and for the most part a good career move. Arts, history, psychology, women's studies, etc - Not really going to help you learn anything about these subjects, not going to open up any career opportunities. People join these to drink and party, and to have an excuse to got get a full-time job.
There will always be someone claiming to not fit into any of the classifications you supply, and now they can claim you are specifically hurting them.
These new genders are for hipsters, as soon as they become mainstream they will switch to something new and yell foul that you are not accommodating them.
It is called income tax. If your college stay helped increase your income, you should already be paying more taxes. Unfortunately, this tax is currently quite broken for the rich.
This system is far far better than extra taxes for college graduates. Most college graduates did not go to college to make more money, so they cannot afford to pay extra taxes on their income which is already lower than their peers who did not go to college.
I lot of people go to college to get art degrees. And I do not see adding an extra tax on millions of minimum wage workers.
OK, even visiting the link did not tell me what Enlightenment was. And "Enlightenment" is not the easiest thing to Google without even knowing what it is.
Yes, but both those alternatives would last longer. I imagine what Dell is trying to do here is engineer a failure around the time that the warranty runs out.
Yes, they could make a laptop for the same amount of money that does not have this fault, but it will cost them in the long run.
Meaning that they would have to increase the cost, because now buying a laptop is not an annual thing. And it might not be right, but I am not surprised that they try to weasel their way out of honouring their warranties.
Should is the key here. And technically they should, but then if they did could they offer laptops at $200 a pop? In some ways Dell purchasers are getting what they paid for.
You can damage speakers by putting too much sound through them. I do not know why there are not more safeguards, but this happens (at least for normal stereo system speakers).
So any program that allows you to increase the original file volume would only help you do this. Based on what I have seen with the quality of dell laptops, it probably is possible to break the speakers by pumping too much noise out of them, and using VLC to up the file volume could help you do this.
I do not use OS X, both simply because I never have, because it is overpriced, and because I think it has a stupid unethical locked philosophy.
In my opinion, 80% of what makes Windows superior to Linux in some areas is the free software available for it. For every tiny little niche someone[s] have built a great gui program with all the right features. You can get something almost as good as utorrent on Linux, but not quite. And games, forget about it. At the end of the day Windows allows you to install any program or game and play them, 99.9999999% at least. Linux, you are extremely restricted to a tiny subset of all programs. And Mac is similar. You cannot just hear about a great new program and give it a try, because it will not work. You cannot be impressed by a new or old game and just play it, because it will not work.
Personal OSes are primarily a way to make running software easy. Linux has completely ignored this, in my opinion (in there defence, because they have forced on the corporate environment. But even for "personal" versions like Ubuntu they do not do a good job). And Mac is not much better, in their closed community philosophy.
That said, not all films/video games are made the same; And I am not just talking better/worse/more popular.
Their are loads of films and games, both glaring failures and explosive successes, that make 50% of their money on opening week (and the following 49.99% the following four months). Their are other longform media that were never meant to make any noticeable amount of money the whole first year.
Dwarf Fortress for example was released 8 years ago, and is making more than ever. And the creators have turned it into his full time career, meaning we might have 4-+ years left of development. Additionally, this income is necessary for this very worthy addition to our culture to continue to flourish.
"It seems absurd to me that a work be protected for 95 years when the medium it was produced for will last less than a decade."
Which actually makes be think that at this point in time, 20 years is far far too long. 4 years, in my opinion, is a lot closer to some theoretical ideal timeframe (possibly with extensions for when the owners are using, updating, and expanding on the work). I think with something like that, content creators would invariably have far more freedom, and invariably make more money. I think the biggest issue is the fan scene is greatly helped, which will bring more attention and money to the original creators. And freeing up the licences from the publishers, so that the original creators cannot be shut out of their work in perpetuity.
Except that black holes come in all different masses. You do not get a super massive black holes that is heavier than 1000 of the biggest stars that ever existed, without incoming mass being added it its own.
I do not think that compression is what causes the radiation. The way I understood it, it is sort of just something that happens everywhere, but is noticeable at the black hole because it is the only thing there that escapes.
And time does not slow down because of some BH property, and it is not the center that this occurs at. We know beyond doubt both theoretically and practically that time, or the perception of it, is linked to velocity. Everything, at the event horizon is going the speed of light. Which means that time stops, based on a certain relative frame of reference.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not I who lumped it into the Arts department.
And regardless of if there is a need for some psychologists or not, and irregardless of if some make a lot of money, the vast vast majority of psychology students never enter a psychology related career, and never meant to.
Psychology is just what you take if you do not know what to take, but do not want it to be too difficult.
But why are these things not open-source?
It sounds like Canonical are just a bunch of a**holes.
Did you even read my comment? I am not talking about any of the same things you mention.
I just explained in broad strokes how hunter-gatherer scarcity based "economies" worked, and continue to work today; And how these economies are at the very least the closest thing to the fiction of Star Trek.
I am not saying it is possible, I am just saying if you are making a ST style economy it would resemble the trust and communal well being type economy of the scarcity based systems. I am not even saying that there needs to be scarcity, but in the broad strokes that it will resemble these scarcity based economies.
But I think Star Trek does have scarcity. Everyone has limits, people use up their transporter privileges, their replicated credits, etc. Everyone on Earth cannot have a galaxy class spaceship built for themselves, and even master scientists do not have unlimited resources to conduct their research. I think if we are considering ST real/a possibility we might theorise that technology and specifically the warp drive opened up so many possibilities that they completely blew past their ability to gather resources, creating nearly unlimited scarcity. I could imagine this immensely challenging and resource intensive new frontier opened up by warp drive making Earth and all of its population directly analogues to a small scarcity based hunter and gather tribe.
As a lot of people have said before. Poverty in the modern world is entirely spiritual, and therefore no amount of physical wealth will ever solve it.
The richer America gets, the more poor it will have.
A far better alternative.
In the history of humanity, and to this day, we have had societies with were scarcity was the rule and others where there was enough for everyone three times over.
Modern Western civilization (and based on some definitions, all civilization) is based on an over-abundance of the necessities of life. This invariably leads to hoarding, and monetary systems, and the rich and the poor; Because the economy can afford these inefficiencies; You might even say it needs them.
In hunter-gather based societies, things are different. There is a very limited food supply, and a huge scarcity of pretty much everything, and their economy is therefore a lot different. They invariably, share and share alike. Ownership of resources (like the only water supply for the entire village) is not a concept that is understandable. And monetary systems do not exist.
If you want a Star Trek style economy you are looking for a scarcity based economy.
Makes me think. Did plural reference for royalty start with female queens of England?
It is entirely possible they did not want to be refereed to as a woman when ruling.
Personally, there is no way I would ever use plural for non-royalty.
Well from his list you would pick number (1).
Pretty simple.
"income is above a threshold"
Either this threshold is low, and you are charging people who are already poor, or it if decently high and that means that every art degree is being paid for by the engineering students.
Which is both unfair, and in my opinion is bad. If you want to go to college to have fun go ahead, but I do not know why anyone would want someone else to pay for it.
I think you can separate college into two sections.
You have the engineering, science, mathematics, (business and law, I guess), etc. - Really the only way to learn this material in depth, and for the most part a good career move.
Arts, history, psychology, women's studies, etc - Not really going to help you learn anything about these subjects, not going to open up any career opportunities. People join these to drink and party, and to have an excuse to got get a full-time job.
There will always be someone claiming to not fit into any of the classifications you supply, and now they can claim you are specifically hurting them.
These new genders are for hipsters, as soon as they become mainstream they will switch to something new and yell foul that you are not accommodating them.
It is called income tax. If your college stay helped increase your income, you should already be paying more taxes.
Unfortunately, this tax is currently quite broken for the rich.
This system is far far better than extra taxes for college graduates. Most college graduates did not go to college to make more money, so they cannot afford to pay extra taxes on their income which is already lower than their peers who did not go to college.
I lot of people go to college to get art degrees. And I do not see adding an extra tax on millions of minimum wage workers.
OK, even visiting the link did not tell me what Enlightenment was.
And "Enlightenment" is not the easiest thing to Google without even knowing what it is.
It is an alternative to GNOME and KDE, btw.
I think slashcott turned into trolldot when everyone realised that they could not stay away for even a single day.
Yes, but both those alternatives would last longer. I imagine what Dell is trying to do here is engineer a failure around the time that the warranty runs out.
Yes, they could make a laptop for the same amount of money that does not have this fault, but it will cost them in the long run.
Meaning that they would have to increase the cost, because now buying a laptop is not an annual thing.
And it might not be right, but I am not surprised that they try to weasel their way out of honouring their warranties.
Should is the key here. And technically they should, but then if they did could they offer laptops at $200 a pop? In some ways Dell purchasers are getting what they paid for.
You can damage speakers by putting too much sound through them. I do not know why there are not more safeguards, but this happens (at least for normal stereo system speakers).
So any program that allows you to increase the original file volume would only help you do this. Based on what I have seen with the quality of dell laptops, it probably is possible to break the speakers by pumping too much noise out of them, and using VLC to up the file volume could help you do this.
I do not use OS X, both simply because I never have, because it is overpriced, and because I think it has a stupid unethical locked philosophy.
In my opinion, 80% of what makes Windows superior to Linux in some areas is the free software available for it. For every tiny little niche someone[s] have built a great gui program with all the right features.
You can get something almost as good as utorrent on Linux, but not quite. And games, forget about it. At the end of the day Windows allows you to install any program or game and play them, 99.9999999% at least.
Linux, you are extremely restricted to a tiny subset of all programs.
And Mac is similar. You cannot just hear about a great new program and give it a try, because it will not work. You cannot be impressed by a new or old game and just play it, because it will not work.
Personal OSes are primarily a way to make running software easy. Linux has completely ignored this, in my opinion (in there defence, because they have forced on the corporate environment. But even for "personal" versions like Ubuntu they do not do a good job).
And Mac is not much better, in their closed community philosophy.
I agree to an extent, and 100% for the upcoming gui, but we are not all Linux fanatics.
Linux makes Windows look like a stinking pile of garbage, in some areas.
And Windows makes Linux look like a stinking pile in others.
Linux is perfect for most corporate tasks, imho.
But Linux just makes a poor personal computer OS, for the vast majority of personal computer tasks.
Taking an interest in your kids is now an "inefficient allocation of resources"?
It would be interesting to compare the user stats (stay length, number signup, number return) for the beta vs the classic.
Seems like a perfect way to figure out when a new design is ready.
That said, not all films/video games are made the same; And I am not just talking better/worse/more popular.
Their are loads of films and games, both glaring failures and explosive successes, that make 50% of their money on opening week (and the following 49.99% the following four months).
Their are other longform media that were never meant to make any noticeable amount of money the whole first year.
Dwarf Fortress for example was released 8 years ago, and is making more than ever. And the creators have turned it into his full time career, meaning we might have 4-+ years left of development. Additionally, this income is necessary for this very worthy addition to our culture to continue to flourish.
"It seems absurd to me that a work be protected for 95 years when the medium it was produced for will last less than a decade."
Which actually makes be think that at this point in time, 20 years is far far too long. 4 years, in my opinion, is a lot closer to some theoretical ideal timeframe (possibly with extensions for when the owners are using, updating, and expanding on the work). I think with something like that, content creators would invariably have far more freedom, and invariably make more money.
I think the biggest issue is the fan scene is greatly helped, which will bring more attention and money to the original creators.
And freeing up the licences from the publishers, so that the original creators cannot be shut out of their work in perpetuity.
Except that black holes come in all different masses. You do not get a super massive black holes that is heavier than 1000 of the biggest stars that ever existed, without incoming mass being added it its own.
I think you are confused.
I do not think that compression is what causes the radiation. The way I understood it, it is sort of just something that happens everywhere, but is noticeable at the black hole because it is the only thing there that escapes.
And time does not slow down because of some BH property, and it is not the center that this occurs at. We know beyond doubt both theoretically and practically that time, or the perception of it, is linked to velocity. Everything, at the event horizon is going the speed of light. Which means that time stops, based on a certain relative frame of reference.