You do realize, that what they currently have *is* the two state solution, right? They just don't recognize each-other. I can tell you from what I've seen separation will never bring peace. It may reduce fire to smoldering to build giant walls, but smolder will not cease. I think they'll have to find a way to live with each-other instead.
Actually, your math is wrong - it's worse than that. You'd actually need 150% more (that is, 2.5 times as much) renewable resources to pack the same amount of energy using a 20% efficient fuel production process as you would with a 50% efficient battery production process. However, this may improve, do not dismiss renewable fuel production just yet. The main advantage to fuel is that it can store more energy in an equivalent amount of space compared to batteries. But neither this, nor the overlooked issue of what is worse for the environment (chemicals from dead cells, or unrecoverable byproduct gasses) is as important as the fact that the amount of carbon dioxide in air is not inexhaustible either. That's right, one could imagine, given the increased demand, the exact opposite of today's situation happening: Killing nature by *reducing* CO2.
Analysis of your post: Misunderstanding of Russian outlook on manhood, misunderstanding of the social situation there and how wealth is relative, obvious lack of paranoia, a really good car and a friend in the background (http://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/vorvnsdyt.png).
If this was a honeypot post, you got me. I am bound to be a criminal, book me, Sigmund Holmes from Precrime.
If only I were a stupid uneducated rich boy in either my teens, or at least 30s watching TV instead of hacking, and not caring about social justice. Maybe I would start on the good path then. -_-
The richest man alive and a prestigious university offer to pay development costs a single educational software package, while N parties develop each their own, and he gets to choose who is the best, ie who he'd like to sponsor. GATES THE ORPHAN SAVER! -_-
What's wrong with Windows 8 on mobile platforms? AFAIK, it's just that it's unsuitable for desktop. Not that I care about non-free OS', I'm just saying.
You're basically saying that lack of competition doesn't matter because eventually someone will catch up. Not only is that faulty logic, that "eventually" can last for decades, as was/is the case with Microsoft's products. Monopolies should be cut at the root whenever possible. Which is exactly why Adam Smith's invisible hand of free markets sometimes needs help from the state.
Thank you, master teacher! You have bestowed upon us poors the light of your first world wisdom! Let us hurry, and fix our country. We will tell El Presidente to stop being a dictator. And we will tell our politicians to be honest. And then we shall renew by sprinkling 1000s of public schools accross the country. Alas, the dawn of the new world is here! -With utmost respect for the holy IPO, Poor_Man_12000001
P.S. In fear that your 1st world education will not allow you to see my point: You have been planted into prosperity, and are no more responsible for it than the guy in the 3rd world. And if you are, it's only because you pay El Presidente to be able to exploit the resources of the poor countries. Now meditate on the eye of the needle, camel.
I thought they finally "invented" something a common Joe haven't thought of: Recognizing actors/actress' faces and recommending shows which feature our favorites. But it seems it's just spy tech again. Taking it further: Software might also recognize a genre by analyzing program textual info, music, natural language phrases or even objects in the video, and might augment the remote, or the TV guide.
When Microsoft paid that antitrust fine a long time ago I thought: This is nothing more than tax for them. Their browser's popularity owes EVERYTHING to that disloyal behavior. The Apple case sounds just like that. I think research should be conducted into how much companies earned by their unethical practices, then fine them with twice as much. If they were willing to con/force people to give them money, let them return it, and ensure they don't think of it again. Otherwise it'll be business as usual.
No, x in that f(x) is not a number of globally registered domains, it is the number of domains owned by an individual/company. That is, for every subject, registration of the first domain is cheap. The more *they* buy, the more they pay for the next one. Thus, moderation is advised (and cybersquatting eliminated). Again, just an idea, I don't claim it's bulletproof. For example there may be places on earth where starting a "company" is extremely easy. Also, abuses such as having employees register domains in their names are possible, and would have to be regulated, which wouldn't be convenient. At least transferring to the real subject behind the buy could easily be regulated. P.S. During the auction, it'd be necessary to differentiate two kinds of costs: "base"(same as after the auction), and "bid"(whatever the highest bid is). The company would pay the bid cost of course, but the next base value is independent of it (function f is independent of the bid values).
Maybe I'm uninformed on the matter, but if you ask me, they should drop top level domains altogether. Everyone has a.com. Few other things really "exist":.org + some popular at the moment (cc, ca, what have you). Imagine perhaps a blank global TLD, and make the trailing dot optional. Then make a distributed, global DNS system. Sit and wait till those with extensions fade to obscurity ("translating" them to new TLDs would also be an option). Let the bidding begin. Then after the dust from the auctions sets, make each new domain exponentially more costly to obtain. As to who gets the profits, depends on the implementation (server owners get it?). If the system is truly distributed, it could go towards feeding the world (Country that needs the money the most, by assesment of all other countries, gets it - so, start with African countries. We need such a system of charity anyway. Disclaimer: I haven't thought this through thoroughly, I'm just throwing it out there.
Alcohol and marijuana do not make you inventive. Creative? Sure, since anything is called art these days. I do realize you didn't argue in favor of alcohol. But if "wandering" is the key, and it is what drugs do, then so does alcohol. In fact, you can just start flapping around on the floor like a fish, or rolling in the dirt, like they used to do in psychiatric sessions of the 70s. You'll achieve the same "wandering" state of mind.
No. It is when you learn things, and then your mind wanders, that you make connections, discover, imagine new things. It's also called called thinking about things. If you go into a world with white rabbits that lead you through holes, it might make for a wild children story, but it won't cure cancer. Despite the fact that those 3 or so Nobel prize winners, whom you can undoubtedly name by heart, experimented with LSD.
P.S. While often arguing "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" is a description of a trip, none of Lewis Caroll's biographers implied drug abuse on his part. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (real name of Lewis Caroll) was a mathematician, and a logician.
Funny you should say that, because as far as I understood the story, it was Gallileo who was sloppy in his research, and precisely because of that was he unable to convince the court. If so, this post is, along with its upvoters, an epic fail.
Ouch, hesychasm? I hope I'm not being the devil's advocate here (literally), but couldn't that be like meditation, where sensory deprivation makes you hallucinate? P.S. If you ever fall out of Christian faith due to doubts, I urge you to do everything necessary to get back with as little delays as possible. ( Washing my hands D: )
Slashdot Mirror
I was just going to ask for his source.
You do realize, that what they currently have *is* the two state solution, right? They just don't recognize each-other.
I can tell you from what I've seen separation will never bring peace. It may reduce fire to smoldering to build giant walls, but smolder will not cease.
I think they'll have to find a way to live with each-other instead.
You're talking about me, and not the other man. You can treat the other man as you wish, but treat *me* well!
Actually, your math is wrong - it's worse than that. You'd actually need 150% more (that is, 2.5 times as much) renewable resources to pack the same amount of energy using a 20% efficient fuel production process as you would with a 50% efficient battery production process. However, this may improve, do not dismiss renewable fuel production just yet. The main advantage to fuel is that it can store more energy in an equivalent amount of space compared to batteries. But neither this, nor the overlooked issue of what is worse for the environment (chemicals from dead cells, or unrecoverable byproduct gasses) is as important as the fact that the amount of carbon dioxide in air is not inexhaustible either. That's right, one could imagine, given the increased demand, the exact opposite of today's situation happening: Killing nature by *reducing* CO2.
Analysis of your post: Misunderstanding of Russian outlook on manhood, misunderstanding of the social situation there and how wealth is relative, obvious lack of paranoia, a really good car and a friend in the background (http://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/vorvnsdyt.png).
If this was a honeypot post, you got me. I am bound to be a criminal, book me, Sigmund Holmes from Precrime.
If only I were a stupid uneducated rich boy in either my teens, or at least 30s watching TV instead of hacking, and not caring about social justice. Maybe I would start on the good path then. -_-
The richest man alive and a prestigious university offer to pay development costs a single educational software package, while N parties develop each their own, and he gets to choose who is the best, ie who he'd like to sponsor. GATES THE ORPHAN SAVER! -_-
What's wrong with Windows 8 on mobile platforms? AFAIK, it's just that it's unsuitable for desktop. Not that I care about non-free OS', I'm just saying.
Who is "we"? And how do we refuse the patent-encumbered standard next time? How is next time more appropriate than right now?
You're basically saying that lack of competition doesn't matter because eventually someone will catch up. Not only is that faulty logic, that "eventually" can last for decades, as was/is the case with Microsoft's products.
Monopolies should be cut at the root whenever possible. Which is exactly why Adam Smith's invisible hand of free markets sometimes needs help from the state.
Enable WebRTC in Chromium (about:flags), and use https://apprtc.appspot.com/. Here's the code if they block the rendes-vouz server: http://www.webrtc.org/blog/sourcecodetoapprtcappspotcomexampleappavailable
Thank you, master teacher! You have bestowed upon us poors the light of your first world wisdom! Let us hurry, and fix our country. We will tell El Presidente to stop being a dictator. And we will tell our politicians to be honest. And then we shall renew by sprinkling 1000s of public schools accross the country. Alas, the dawn of the new world is here!
-With utmost respect for the holy IPO, Poor_Man_12000001
P.S. In fear that your 1st world education will not allow you to see my point: You have been planted into prosperity, and are no more responsible for it than the guy in the 3rd world. And if you are, it's only because you pay El Presidente to be able to exploit the resources of the poor countries. Now meditate on the eye of the needle, camel.
TL;DR: The Rich are Blind
I thought they finally "invented" something a common Joe haven't thought of: Recognizing actors/actress' faces and recommending shows which feature our favorites. But it seems it's just spy tech again.
Taking it further: Software might also recognize a genre by analyzing program textual info, music, natural language phrases or even objects in the video, and might augment the remote, or the TV guide.
When Microsoft paid that antitrust fine a long time ago I thought: This is nothing more than tax for them. Their browser's popularity owes EVERYTHING to that disloyal behavior. The Apple case sounds just like that. I think research should be conducted into how much companies earned by their unethical practices, then fine them with twice as much. If they were willing to con/force people to give them money, let them return it, and ensure they don't think of it again. Otherwise it'll be business as usual.
No, x in that f(x) is not a number of globally registered domains, it is the number of domains owned by an individual/company. That is, for every subject, registration of the first domain is cheap. The more *they* buy, the more they pay for the next one. Thus, moderation is advised (and cybersquatting eliminated). Again, just an idea, I don't claim it's bulletproof. For example there may be places on earth where starting a "company" is extremely easy. Also, abuses such as having employees register domains in their names are possible, and would have to be regulated, which wouldn't be convenient. At least transferring to the real subject behind the buy could easily be regulated.
P.S. During the auction, it'd be necessary to differentiate two kinds of costs: "base"(same as after the auction), and "bid"(whatever the highest bid is). The company would pay the bid cost of course, but the next base value is independent of it (function f is independent of the bid values).
Maybe I'm uninformed on the matter, but if you ask me, they should drop top level domains altogether. Everyone has a .com. Few other things really "exist": .org + some popular at the moment (cc, ca, what have you). Imagine perhaps a blank global TLD, and make the trailing dot optional. Then make a distributed, global DNS system. Sit and wait till those with extensions fade to obscurity ("translating" them to new TLDs would also be an option). Let the bidding begin. Then after the dust from the auctions sets, make each new domain exponentially more costly to obtain. As to who gets the profits, depends on the implementation (server owners get it?). If the system is truly distributed, it could go towards feeding the world (Country that needs the money the most, by assesment of all other countries, gets it - so, start with African countries. We need such a system of charity anyway. Disclaimer: I haven't thought this through thoroughly, I'm just throwing it out there.
7. Your vote is readily availible to be tampered with by banks.
Oh, cut the crap, 2641925.
Alcohol and marijuana do not make you inventive. Creative? Sure, since anything is called art these days.
I do realize you didn't argue in favor of alcohol. But if "wandering" is the key, and it is what drugs do, then so does alcohol. In fact, you can just start flapping around on the floor like a fish, or rolling in the dirt, like they used to do in psychiatric sessions of the 70s. You'll achieve the same "wandering" state of mind.
No. It is when you learn things, and then your mind wanders, that you make connections, discover, imagine new things. It's also called called thinking about things. If you go into a world with white rabbits that lead you through holes, it might make for a wild children story, but it won't cure cancer. Despite the fact that those 3 or so Nobel prize winners, whom you can undoubtedly name by heart, experimented with LSD.
P.S. While often arguing "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" is a description of a trip, none of Lewis Caroll's biographers implied drug abuse on his part. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (real name of Lewis Caroll) was a mathematician, and a logician.
Not sure whom, but I've heard someone did something like this (>5?) years ago.
Wrong thread.
Not sure by whom, but I've heard about something like this (>5?) years ago.
As opposed to...?
Britain? I guess it takes care of Northern Ireland, sometimes.
Funny you should say that, because as far as I understood the story, it was Gallileo who was sloppy in his research, and precisely because of that was he unable to convince the court. If so, this post is, along with its upvoters, an epic fail.
Please stop using that racist adjective of yours, English speakers. Thank you. --A Slavic guy
Ouch, hesychasm? I hope I'm not being the devil's advocate here (literally), but couldn't that be like meditation, where sensory deprivation makes you hallucinate?
P.S. If you ever fall out of Christian faith due to doubts, I urge you to do everything necessary to get back with as little delays as possible. ( Washing my hands D: )