I was thinking "Wow this reliance on technology is a good idea"
I dream of a world where all politicians must wear explosive collars each with unique ID's, controlled remotely by exactly 10000 "regulator devices" per collar which have a button that must be pressed once per month indicating a vote to delay the collar from exploding. The collar must receive 2500 votes to delay explosion each and every month the politician is in service.
The regulator devices are distributed randomly amongst the population that the politician represents. If for any reason at all 7501 or more of the device holders are either unwilling or unable to press that button, the representative dies horribly.
Once this is in place, we can discuss how necessary the second amendment still is.
2. The kg artifact itself is soon to be rendered obsolete. In 2014, the kg is likely to be redefined in terms of the planck constant (well technically, planck constant will be fixed to a specific number and since it has the units kg*m^2/s, and the second and meter are defined in terms of oscilations of a Ce133 atom and the speed of light, these will now determine the kilogram).
I suspect that you are a little bit confused. "Planck constant" has no real meaning without agreeing on some units beforehand, and "some specific number" certainly doesnt convey the likely choice.
The Planck Units are based off the 5 known fundamental physical constants of the universe, where each constant is given the non-arbitrary value of exactly 1.0.
Pro tip for people claiming to do some basic math: they actually do some math
1 out of 7 people receive SNAP benefits, and this costs each household in America $631.58/year.. thats just the outlays, not the administrative costs.
Whats sad to me is people that don't want to include the numbers while declaring that things are cheap, all-the-while admonishing others for not doing math. Really?
I'm curious what you thought that you were hiding by not revealing the "basic math" numbers to us.
Now, I don't know where you get your $2.45 billion figure from, but if $2.45 billion was 1.9% of the total cost of UI as you claim, then UI only cost the taxpayer $127 billion in 2001 while it costs $520 billion today.,
Are unemployment payouts really 4 times higher now than in 2001? Whats going on?
A quick search reveals that in 2001, unemployment hit 4.9%.. "highest in 4 years"..
As of September 2012, unemployment was at 7.9%.
1.6 times as many people on unemployment, but 4 times as much money being spent on it...
Do you really want to continue to use unemployment as a model for some sort of fiscal responsibility metric?
Sure, why not? I mean, letting your citizens starve has worked out so well for North Korea, we should try it here.
Note to self:
Bring up North Korea (one of the poorest countries in Asia) instead of South Korea (one of the richest in Asia) as an example of how to run or not run a country.
So? The GM bailout ended up helping the UAW, an Obama ally, tremendously. It wouldn't have happened that way under a Bush administration.
You are now willfully and actively (read: intentionally) ignoring the demonstrable evidence to the contrary.
As I quoted from wikipedia, strong support for the GM bailout came from both the Bush and the Obama camps. You just now willfully and actively ignored this fact, proving that not only will you think two similar people are radically different for no reason at all, that you are now showing that you are entirely willing to completely ignore the evidence that says that you are wrong and immediately state something contrary to the evidence as if it were a fact.
It's survived (so far) both G. W. Bush and Obama, for example, and that's probably as extreme a difference in ideology as you're likely to get.
For real? You think Bush and Obama are extremely different?
December 2008, Bush was gearing up to leave office and Obama was gearing up to enter office. Both proclaimed their support for the GM bailout:
From wikipedia: December 12, 2008: General Motors stated that it was nearly out of cash, and may not survive past 2009. The U.S. Senate voted and strongly opposed any source of government assistance through a bailout bridge loan (originally worth $14 billion in emergency aid) which was aimed toward helping the struggling Big Three automakers financially, despite strong support from President George W. Bush and President-elect Barack Obama, along with some mild support from the Democratic and Republican political parties.
We could list the similarities for hours, right? Everything from the PATRIOT act, support for the TSA, the bailouts of private corporations, and countless billion dollars of government grants to private corporations that donated to campaigns, etc..
You are seeing differences where they don't exist simple because of who you are talking about, even though you arent labeling one side good and the other side bad. You have just demonstrated exactly what the GP was talking, simply pretending that one person is different than the other in spite of a lack of demonstrable evidence to suggest that it is actually the case.
and considering money buys politics and laws they also have more influence on the government than ever.
You are so close to being where you need to be, its hard to understand why you dont take the last step.
Why do corporations spend so much money lobbying?
Politicians erect substantial barriers to entry to protect established corporations, and they allocate substantial sums of public money to specific members of private corporations. The power isn't a property of the money the corporations are spending on lobbying. The power is a property of the politicians, who trade powerful laws and powerful policies for lobby money.
...despite the forced bailout. How can you say you might have made more money when your other option was collapse?
Having an option implies choice. You've already admitted that they were forced. So stop pretending that there were other options.
Share holders were denied a free market conclusion to the issue, which yes may have meant that they themselves lost their shirts, but also may have meant that anyone that held onto the shares would be better off today. The whole "it could have been worse" argument is a fallacy, as it both wasn't allowed to be worse and also wasn't allowed to be better.
..and on top of it, it was done with public money.
Let me guess: you live in isolation, using no roads, no government subsidized infrastructure,...
Let me guess, you have no idea how much money the government is actually spending per household already.
This sentence above that I quoted was somehow amazingly your response to someone pointing out that the people in the middle get "just about nothing from the government"
Federal + State spending in the United States for 2013 is scheduled to be $6.3 trillion dollars.
Number of households in the United States is approximately 115 million.
Thats $54782 per household being spent by the government.
The median household pre-tax income is $52762.
Now you take it from here. Show that people in the middle are getting value for the $54K spent on them on their behalf by the federal government.
The false dichotomy is that its been the Rich vs the Poor. its actually been the Extremes vs the Middle, and this isnt a new development.. its been that way since before FDR.
He is talking about the insurance the Hospice provider buys, not the insurance the patients have.
Welcome to the list of really clueless stains on slashdot that act like experts even when they know so little that they say something as ridiculous as well, what you just said.
Not to mention the spectacular semi-permanent decline in the economy since 2007 has not resulted in a permanent spectacular increase in crime.
It should of course be observed that a decline in an economy does not equate to a decline in standard of living. The standard of living in the western world has steadily risen fairly consistently across the countless recessions of both local and global magnitude that have occurred.
How many furlongs are there in a mile, inches in a furlong? How do we start dealing with tiny fractions of an inch or many hundreds of thousands of miles?
You know what we call one thousand miles? We call it one thousand miles.
Your problem is that you confuse Metric with SI. My favorite metric unit is the Dyne. A Dyne is the amount of force needed to accelerate 1 gram of matter to a velocity of 1 centimeter per second per second.
Quick, convert 1 Dyne to Newtons.
Quick, convert 1 Erg to Joules.
Quick, convert 1 Barye to Pascals.
Ah, whats that you are thinking? Hardly anybody uses Dynes and Ergs and that shit, and thats why you don't know the conversion factor offhand? Yeah. Hardly anybody uses Furlongs either.
Prior to SI the two most popular Metric systems were the MKS (Meters-Kilograms-Seconds) and CGS (Centimeters-Grams-Seconds) systems. Scientists did not use the former system, and instead used the later system. One of the reasons that it is my favorite is that many Issac Asimov essays use it, and of course he was writing essays long before SI.
It seems clear to me that your are simply a biggot against other systems, thats you actually dont know what "metric" means because you sure as shit dont know how to quickly convert 123 Gal to SI (quick.. do it now.. in your head) and will have to look up the conversion factor in a reference, and you will find further difficulty because in SI they dont even have a name for such quantities so you will have to express it in one unit divided by another.
The entire problem with Thunderbolt/LightPeak is cost.
The deal is that if you want a generic interface for lots of purposes, its got to be cheap, or many of those purposes simply don't make any sense when a much more economical solution exists that doesnt require any of those "advanced" features that drive up the cost.,
On the other hand if you want a specific interface with a specific purpose, its also doesnt make sense to increase costs with generic requirements.
The upshot is that by the time the market really looks at Thunderbolt/LightPeak as a viable solution outside of economics-ignoring niches (where the device is expected to be expensive anyways), a cheaper solution will be waiting. Here we are with USB getting a bump that reduces the size of the Thunderbolt niche, and then SATA/eSATA will also get a bump, reducing that niche further...
I agree with the many posters that suggest that SATA3 was too small an increment, and I was even saying that before it was finalized because it was quite apparent that SSD's were already interface limited on SATA2. It didnt' take but a few months for interface-limited SATA3 SSD's to hit the market. The next SATA (Express) will be up to 16gbps.
If they believed it wouldn't render well, then they're right to block access.
Except why would they believe that it didn't render well unless, you know, it actually didn't render well?
People seem to confuse this practice with something similar practiced by some websites in ancient times before Firefox became popular, when anything but Internet Explorer was blocked.
It looks to me like people are correctly equating the practice with a Microsoft service requiring that the user agent be Internet Explorer even when it works fine on different browsers.
It also looks to me like you are working hard trying to convolute the issue in order to make it seem like Google didn't just do what it did.
I doubt that, but anyway you should have said so from the start.
You doubt it, but then provide a citation to it being adjusted in another post.
Also, you should have assumed that it was adjusted because you shouldnt assume that people are idiots just because what they are telling you doesnt jive with the shit that you yourself cannot back up with facts.
Note that this is the second time that I am telling you the boldfaced part.
The problem isnt that I didnt provide a citation. The problem is that you were never in a position to stand firm on your beliefs because that sort of thing requires examining the data, something that you had not done.
Why do you stand firm on beliefs that cannot be supported, where there isnt even contradictory data that might have confused you?
You are the problem with America. You act like you know what you are talking about when even you yourself knows that you don't. You are harmful to society.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets examine your argument from another angle, shall we?
Are you suggesting that the mandatory implanting of RFID tags in everyone is only bad because its a form of surgery, that its not a privacy violation?
Now show me your papers, please.
some corporate crony has to provide all those badges! woohoo another way to suck the tax payer dry!
This representative is a Republican, but lets not let facts get in the way of ignorant demagoguery.
Finally the year of the linux headshot....
I was thinking "Wow this reliance on technology is a good idea"
I dream of a world where all politicians must wear explosive collars each with unique ID's, controlled remotely by exactly 10000 "regulator devices" per collar which have a button that must be pressed once per month indicating a vote to delay the collar from exploding. The collar must receive 2500 votes to delay explosion each and every month the politician is in service.
The regulator devices are distributed randomly amongst the population that the politician represents. If for any reason at all 7501 or more of the device holders are either unwilling or unable to press that button, the representative dies horribly.
Once this is in place, we can discuss how necessary the second amendment still is.
1. Use Thorotrast.
2. People get cancer and die.
This does bring up the question, what rate of cancer are we talking about?
"It causes cancer" isnt a valid argument for anything considering that damn near everything causes cancer.
We still give people X-Rays, right?
2. The kg artifact itself is soon to be rendered obsolete. In 2014, the kg is likely to be redefined in terms of the planck constant (well technically, planck constant will be fixed to a specific number and since it has the units kg*m^2/s, and the second and meter are defined in terms of oscilations of a Ce133 atom and the speed of light, these will now determine the kilogram).
I suspect that you are a little bit confused. "Planck constant" has no real meaning without agreeing on some units beforehand, and "some specific number" certainly doesnt convey the likely choice.
The Planck Units are based off the 5 known fundamental physical constants of the universe, where each constant is given the non-arbitrary value of exactly 1.0.
Pro tip for people claiming to do some basic math: they actually do some math
.. thats just the outlays, not the administrative costs.
1 out of 7 people receive SNAP benefits, and this costs each household in America $631.58/year
Whats sad to me is people that don't want to include the numbers while declaring that things are cheap, all-the-while admonishing others for not doing math. Really?
I'm curious what you thought that you were hiding by not revealing the "basic math" numbers to us.
2012 UI: $520 billion
.. "highest in 4 years" ..
Now, I don't know where you get your $2.45 billion figure from, but if $2.45 billion was 1.9% of the total cost of UI as you claim, then UI only cost the taxpayer $127 billion in 2001 while it costs $520 billion today.,
Are unemployment payouts really 4 times higher now than in 2001? Whats going on?
A quick search reveals that in 2001, unemployment hit 4.9%
As of September 2012, unemployment was at 7.9%.
1.6 times as many people on unemployment, but 4 times as much money being spent on it...
Do you really want to continue to use unemployment as a model for some sort of fiscal responsibility metric?
Sure, why not? I mean, letting your citizens starve has worked out so well for North Korea, we should try it here.
Note to self:
Bring up North Korea (one of the poorest countries in Asia) instead of South Korea (one of the richest in Asia) as an example of how to run or not run a country.
So? The GM bailout ended up helping the UAW, an Obama ally, tremendously. It wouldn't have happened that way under a Bush administration.
You are now willfully and actively (read: intentionally) ignoring the demonstrable evidence to the contrary.
As I quoted from wikipedia, strong support for the GM bailout came from both the Bush and the Obama camps. You just now willfully and actively ignored this fact, proving that not only will you think two similar people are radically different for no reason at all, that you are now showing that you are entirely willing to completely ignore the evidence that says that you are wrong and immediately state something contrary to the evidence as if it were a fact.
It's survived (so far) both G. W. Bush and Obama, for example, and that's probably as extreme a difference in ideology as you're likely to get.
For real? You think Bush and Obama are extremely different?
December 2008, Bush was gearing up to leave office and Obama was gearing up to enter office. Both proclaimed their support for the GM bailout:
From wikipedia:
December 12, 2008: General Motors stated that it was nearly out of cash, and may not survive past 2009. The U.S. Senate voted and strongly opposed any source of government assistance through a bailout bridge loan (originally worth $14 billion in emergency aid) which was aimed toward helping the struggling Big Three automakers financially, despite strong support from President George W. Bush and President-elect Barack Obama, along with some mild support from the Democratic and Republican political parties.
We could list the similarities for hours, right? Everything from the PATRIOT act, support for the TSA, the bailouts of private corporations, and countless billion dollars of government grants to private corporations that donated to campaigns, etc..
You are seeing differences where they don't exist simple because of who you are talking about, even though you arent labeling one side good and the other side bad. You have just demonstrated exactly what the GP was talking, simply pretending that one person is different than the other in spite of a lack of demonstrable evidence to suggest that it is actually the case.
and considering money buys politics and laws they also have more influence on the government than ever.
You are so close to being where you need to be, its hard to understand why you dont take the last step.
Why do corporations spend so much money lobbying?
Politicians erect substantial barriers to entry to protect established corporations, and they allocate substantial sums of public money to specific members of private corporations. The power isn't a property of the money the corporations are spending on lobbying. The power is a property of the politicians, who trade powerful laws and powerful policies for lobby money.
...despite the forced bailout. How can you say you might have made more money when your other option was collapse?
Having an option implies choice. You've already admitted that they were forced. So stop pretending that there were other options.
..and on top of it, it was done with public money.
Share holders were denied a free market conclusion to the issue, which yes may have meant that they themselves lost their shirts, but also may have meant that anyone that held onto the shares would be better off today. The whole "it could have been worse" argument is a fallacy, as it both wasn't allowed to be worse and also wasn't allowed to be better.
If you think this is an anti-Obama thing it isn't as it would be equally as terrible if a Republican did it.
I wish the Republicans did it.. that way there would be a legion of people complaining about it today.
Instead, the Democrats did it. Lets see what the legion has to say now.
Let me guess: you live in isolation, using no roads, no government subsidized infrastructure, ...
Let me guess, you have no idea how much money the government is actually spending per household already.
This sentence above that I quoted was somehow amazingly your response to someone pointing out that the people in the middle get "just about nothing from the government"
Federal + State spending in the United States for 2013 is scheduled to be $6.3 trillion dollars.
Number of households in the United States is approximately 115 million.
Thats $54782 per household being spent by the government.
The median household pre-tax income is $52762.
Now you take it from here. Show that people in the middle are getting value for the $54K spent on them on their behalf by the federal government.
The false dichotomy is that its been the Rich vs the Poor. its actually been the Extremes vs the Middle, and this isnt a new development.. its been that way since before FDR.
Wow.
He is talking about the insurance the Hospice provider buys, not the insurance the patients have.
Welcome to the list of really clueless stains on slashdot that act like experts even when they know so little that they say something as ridiculous as well, what you just said.
Not to mention the spectacular semi-permanent decline in the economy since 2007 has not resulted in a permanent spectacular increase in crime.
It should of course be observed that a decline in an economy does not equate to a decline in standard of living. The standard of living in the western world has steadily risen fairly consistently across the countless recessions of both local and global magnitude that have occurred.
Today their power and influence is incomparably greater than it was even a few decades ago.
In what way?
When you honestly answer that, we can then talk about the real growth of power.
Hint: Corporations having more power is just a symptom of something else flexing more power.
...libraries for all those managed languages and platforms.
How many furlongs are there in a mile, inches in a furlong? How do we start dealing with tiny fractions of an inch or many hundreds of thousands of miles?
You know what we call one thousand miles? We call it one thousand miles.
Your problem is that you confuse Metric with SI. My favorite metric unit is the Dyne. A Dyne is the amount of force needed to accelerate 1 gram of matter to a velocity of 1 centimeter per second per second.
Quick, convert 1 Dyne to Newtons.
Quick, convert 1 Erg to Joules.
Quick, convert 1 Barye to Pascals.
Ah, whats that you are thinking? Hardly anybody uses Dynes and Ergs and that shit, and thats why you don't know the conversion factor offhand? Yeah. Hardly anybody uses Furlongs either.
Prior to SI the two most popular Metric systems were the MKS (Meters-Kilograms-Seconds) and CGS (Centimeters-Grams-Seconds) systems. Scientists did not use the former system, and instead used the later system. One of the reasons that it is my favorite is that many Issac Asimov essays use it, and of course he was writing essays long before SI.
It seems clear to me that your are simply a biggot against other systems, thats you actually dont know what "metric" means because you sure as shit dont know how to quickly convert 123 Gal to SI (quick.. do it now.. in your head) and will have to look up the conversion factor in a reference, and you will find further difficulty because in SI they dont even have a name for such quantities so you will have to express it in one unit divided by another.
The entire problem with Thunderbolt/LightPeak is cost.
The deal is that if you want a generic interface for lots of purposes, its got to be cheap, or many of those purposes simply don't make any sense when a much more economical solution exists that doesnt require any of those "advanced" features that drive up the cost.,
On the other hand if you want a specific interface with a specific purpose, its also doesnt make sense to increase costs with generic requirements.
The upshot is that by the time the market really looks at Thunderbolt/LightPeak as a viable solution outside of economics-ignoring niches (where the device is expected to be expensive anyways), a cheaper solution will be waiting. Here we are with USB getting a bump that reduces the size of the Thunderbolt niche, and then SATA/eSATA will also get a bump, reducing that niche further...
I agree with the many posters that suggest that SATA3 was too small an increment, and I was even saying that before it was finalized because it was quite apparent that SSD's were already interface limited on SATA2. It didnt' take but a few months for interface-limited SATA3 SSD's to hit the market. The next SATA (Express) will be up to 16gbps.
If they believed it wouldn't render well, then they're right to block access.
Except why would they believe that it didn't render well unless, you know, it actually didn't render well?
People seem to confuse this practice with something similar practiced by some websites in ancient times before Firefox became popular, when anything but Internet Explorer was blocked.
It looks to me like people are correctly equating the practice with a Microsoft service requiring that the user agent be Internet Explorer even when it works fine on different browsers.
It also looks to me like you are working hard trying to convolute the issue in order to make it seem like Google didn't just do what it did.
I doubt that, but anyway you should have said so from the start.
You doubt it, but then provide a citation to it being adjusted in another post.
Also, you should have assumed that it was adjusted because you shouldnt assume that people are idiots just because what they are telling you doesnt jive with the shit that you yourself cannot back up with facts.
Note that this is the second time that I am telling you the boldfaced part.
The problem isnt that I didnt provide a citation. The problem is that you were never in a position to stand firm on your beliefs because that sort of thing requires examining the data, something that you had not done.
Why do you stand firm on beliefs that cannot be supported, where there isnt even contradictory data that might have confused you?
You are the problem with America. You act like you know what you are talking about when even you yourself knows that you don't. You are harmful to society.
Iphone DUI tester for novelty use only not certified for cops / court use.
It will be used for drinking games.
For a good experience you need to rewrite code so your apps are optimized for touch not mouse.
My apps are optimized for keyboard, thank you very much. Mice and touch are just extensions to the keyboard interface.