That was my first thought too. But then I noticed in the summary that it specifically mentions natural disasters. I think most people would agree that there's nothing natural about the disaster known as Windows 8.
Very well stated. While there are people who abuse welfare there are many more people who do need it and society as a whole benefits from them getting it.
I think universal health care is similar. Not only do I like the idea that everyone has access to proper health care, I think it makes for a better society. As a Canadian I'm amazed to see the number of people in the US who reject the idea of socialized health care.
I like the following quote that I've seen a number of times: I like paying taxes, with them I buy civilization.
However when priests have sexually abuse young children the Catholic church has in many cases protected those priests, not reporting them to legal authorities and transferring them to other locations to protect them. This was even done by the current pope, while still Cardinal Ratzinger. So I'd say the church has to accept some of the blame since they send a pretty strong message that it's OK to do it.
While I generally agree with your your comment, I disagree with the following part:
altruism, the natural and uniquely human quality
Animals show altruistic behaviours. Even more interesting, I've read about examples like the vampire bats that share blood who will remember and punish other bats that don't share in return.
The answer is so that people can have a chance to become accustomed to a radical new technology and we have time to work out the bugs with that new technology. Once we get past those two steps and maybe even get to the point that everyone is (not) driving a robot car then we can think seriously about not requiring a driver. Let's try walking before we try running. Or maybe someone could think up some sort of car analogy.
Once we stop requiring drivers then the ticket should probably go to the owner of the vehicle. If the vehicle was operated according to the manufacturer's instructions and was not modified in any way that would cause it to behave incorrectly then the owner can pass the ticket on to the manufacturer or seller. Just as cars have warranties now and must meet certain requirements to be operated now, robot cars should have to meet certain requirements and likely would be guaranteed to drive correctly. If a manufacturer wants to sell a robot car than does not require a driver they should want to offer a guarantee against tickets. (Or be required to, if necessary.)
('381)
('163)
(the, uh, "rounded corners and color" and "rounded edges on icons" design patents, I'll leave the validity of a patent on those up to the reader)
Apple is already contacting their lawyers about suing you for the rounded corners on those parentheses. I hope you have a bajillion dollars.
I'd agree that fair is not the right word to be using here. "To be brutally honest" would probably be better (and more correct) than "To be fair".
As a pedestrian I'm amazed at how stupid many drivers are. As a driver I'm amazed at how stupid many pedestrians are.
Whether walking (or biking ) I treat it like a game where the drivers are actively trying to kill me and won't be punished if they do. That is definitely not true, and wouldn't be fair if it was, but thinking that way is a great survival tactic.
As a driver I've many times let someone "steal" my right of way since that seemed preferable to being in an accident, even if it would have been the other driver's fault.
Most of the apartments I've lived in had electric baseboard heating. For some reason the building owners didn't want to let me install my own gas furnace. Maybe I should ask them if I can drill from the 20th floor down to the ground and a bit more so I can install a heat pump.
I'm sure if he contacted Microsoft they could have easily fixed this. It's not like their whole security model was based on some simple idea that is just completely flawed, right.
They could swap the meanings of "Trial" and "Full" in the XML attribute.Then when those clever hackers thought they were pirating the app they would really be turning their full version of the app into a trial version. I think should patent this new security system I've devised.
The problem here is you are being reasonable and thinking logically about what you're doing. I'm sure you've noticed how much the average person hates having to think. Compare your comment with the average YouTube comment and see if you don't notice a difference.
Now, try behaving like the average person for a bit: point at the QR code and then click whatever link pops up. Come on, you've already done more than enough thinking: putting the app on your phone, loading the app and pressing a button while aiming at the QR code. Now you want to have to think some more, think about where that link is going to take you?
The meaning of "they" is not very clear. Does "they" mean all Android users? You might say I'm trying to misunderstand what you said. But would you and anyone else who read your statement see a difference in the following statement?
Some Android users have cheap phones on cheap contracts... At the same time, other Android users have expensive phones on expensive contracts because they surf the net , a lot, and....
Data transmission using photons rather than electrons is better. IBM has figured out how to do parts of that on silicon.
Processing the data using photons instead of silicon might be better too. How much does what IBM has done help us towards being able to produce photonic logic?
I looked at the map, saw what was coloured. Thought a bit about possible definitions of "half the world". I was having trouble matching them. Then I noticed that the use of "we've sold" suggests it was written by an American. Couldn't help smiling and thinking "proof that some Americans DO know that there are other parts of the world".
Maybe try using a bit less tinfoil next time. The whole roll is definitely too much. If you learn to fold it just right and not wrinkle it you can make a really good hat from a small piece of tinfoil.
Then consider the example of catfish crossing mud flats. Presumably there's a reason to do this. (Why did the catfish cross the mud flats?) Let's say that there's a benefit in being able to move on land, from one body of water to another. Being able to survive longer out of water and being able to move better on land could both be good for survival. Both for the individual and for genetic changes which favour such abilities. Where might such genetic traits lead?
As for the pigeons: It could be a vision problem, that they don't really see the fish. Either an optics issue with being too close to the water or something about the pigeons eyes. Or it could be something else such as a preference to watch overhead more since that's where most predators come from. Seems reasonable since most of the time there not that many things ready to spring up out of the ground at you, although in some sense the fish could be seen as doing something similar to this.
I'd say the cat leaping into the air is not quite at the same level. The cat is in no danger of suffocating while up in the air. The catfish and and the bird are both going into a domain where they cannot "breathe".
The workers aren't imaginary, they're in China. Well, maybe that makes them imaginary to some people in the U.S.
There's much less labour in designing, building and operating the automated plants than in building regular ones and then running them with people. And even though the people creating the automated plants will be better paid, the end cost of production will still be lower.
But now those people in China are going to need new jobs. And there are probably still jobs in the U.S. that could be outsourced to China in order to lower costs. In which case the displaced workers are actually other Americans.
If the food is more plentiful at the water's edge than in the water then a better ability to temporarily leave the water to go after food could give a survival advantage.
So they've got their heads stuck in the sand that's in their ass? I'm thinking anyone with that much sand in their ass (not to mention their head) should really be worrying about their problems first.
Am I just not picking up on the sarcasm? (It's not in your mode specification.) Maybe I'm trying to over explain the joke.
connected to a world-wide network that allows formerly unimaginable near instantaneous communication
Unfortunately it allows both good and bad communication. There's plenty of information out there, and there's also plenty of garbage and misinformation out there. And sometimes it can be hard to know which is which.
I remember some popular web site running this story about NASA finding what looked like plastic beads on Mars. And I would not be at all surprised to hear that somewhere on the internet there would have been something saying they couldn't be of natural origin and drawing any number of crazy conclusions from that idea and people believing that's the truth.
The internet is a tool which can allow you access to information from and maybe communication with some of the smartest people on the planet. Unfortunately it also allows you to connect with some of the dumbest people on the planet,
Slashdot Mirror
That was my first thought too. But then I noticed in the summary that it specifically mentions natural disasters. I think most people would agree that there's nothing natural about the disaster known as Windows 8.
The G stands for Goodness, you know what nice people we are.
And in this case goodness as in not just bowing to the US who are bowing to their corporate overlords.
I'm just waiting for the declaration from the US that Canada has joined the "axis of evil".
OMG, we* have a nuclear program! And oil!
* see username
Very well stated. While there are people who abuse welfare there are many more people who do need it and society as a whole benefits from them getting it.
I think universal health care is similar. Not only do I like the idea that everyone has access to proper health care, I think it makes for a better society. As a Canadian I'm amazed to see the number of people in the US who reject the idea of socialized health care.
I like the following quote that I've seen a number of times: I like paying taxes, with them I buy civilization.
However when priests have sexually abuse young children the Catholic church has in many cases protected those priests, not reporting them to legal authorities and transferring them to other locations to protect them. This was even done by the current pope, while still Cardinal Ratzinger. So I'd say the church has to accept some of the blame since they send a pretty strong message that it's OK to do it.
While I generally agree with your your comment, I disagree with the following part:
Animals show altruistic behaviours. Even more interesting, I've read about examples like the vampire bats that share blood who will remember and punish other bats that don't share in return.
And they eject the casette when the right button is pushed.
Let's deal with the last question first:
The answer is so that people can have a chance to become accustomed to a radical new technology and we have time to work out the bugs with that new technology. Once we get past those two steps and maybe even get to the point that everyone is (not) driving a robot car then we can think seriously about not requiring a driver. Let's try walking before we try running. Or maybe someone could think up some sort of car analogy.
Once we stop requiring drivers then the ticket should probably go to the owner of the vehicle. If the vehicle was operated according to the manufacturer's instructions and was not modified in any way that would cause it to behave incorrectly then the owner can pass the ticket on to the manufacturer or seller. Just as cars have warranties now and must meet certain requirements to be operated now, robot cars should have to meet certain requirements and likely would be guaranteed to drive correctly. If a manufacturer wants to sell a robot car than does not require a driver they should want to offer a guarantee against tickets. (Or be required to, if necessary.)
I think a T-Rex could pretty much screw anything it wanted, whenever it wanted. Ergo no need to evolve long arms.
Apple is already contacting their lawyers about suing you for the rounded corners on those parentheses. I hope you have a bajillion dollars.
I'd agree that fair is not the right word to be using here. "To be brutally honest" would probably be better (and more correct) than "To be fair".
As a pedestrian I'm amazed at how stupid many drivers are. As a driver I'm amazed at how stupid many pedestrians are.
Whether walking (or biking ) I treat it like a game where the drivers are actively trying to kill me and won't be punished if they do. That is definitely not true, and wouldn't be fair if it was, but thinking that way is a great survival tactic.
As a driver I've many times let someone "steal" my right of way since that seemed preferable to being in an accident, even if it would have been the other driver's fault.
So living in an apartment is "doing it wrong"?
Most of the apartments I've lived in had electric baseboard heating. For some reason the building owners didn't want to let me install my own gas furnace. Maybe I should ask them if I can drill from the 20th floor down to the ground and a bit more so I can install a heat pump.
I'm sure if he contacted Microsoft they could have easily fixed this. It's not like their whole security model was based on some simple idea that is just completely flawed, right.
They could swap the meanings of "Trial" and "Full" in the XML attribute.Then when those clever hackers thought they were pirating the app they would really be turning their full version of the app into a trial version. I think should patent this new security system I've devised.
The problem here is you are being reasonable and thinking logically about what you're doing. I'm sure you've noticed how much the average person hates having to think. Compare your comment with the average YouTube comment and see if you don't notice a difference.
Now, try behaving like the average person for a bit: point at the QR code and then click whatever link pops up. Come on, you've already done more than enough thinking: putting the app on your phone, loading the app and pressing a button while aiming at the QR code. Now you want to have to think some more, think about where that link is going to take you?
I bet the problem makes much more sense now.
The meaning of "they" is not very clear. Does "they" mean all Android users? You might say I'm trying to misunderstand what you said. But would you and anyone else who read your statement see a difference in the following statement?
Some Android users have cheap phones on cheap contracts... At the same time, other Android users have expensive phones on expensive contracts because they surf the net , a lot, and ....
Data transmission using photons rather than electrons is better. IBM has figured out how to do parts of that on silicon.
Processing the data using photons instead of silicon might be better too. How much does what IBM has done help us towards being able to produce photonic logic?
I looked at the map, saw what was coloured. Thought a bit about possible definitions of "half the world". I was having trouble matching them. Then I noticed that the use of "we've sold" suggests it was written by an American. Couldn't help smiling and thinking "proof that some Americans DO know that there are other parts of the world".
Maybe try using a bit less tinfoil next time. The whole roll is definitely too much. If you learn to fold it just right and not wrinkle it you can make a really good hat from a small piece of tinfoil.
Then consider the example of catfish crossing mud flats. Presumably there's a reason to do this. (Why did the catfish cross the mud flats?) Let's say that there's a benefit in being able to move on land, from one body of water to another. Being able to survive longer out of water and being able to move better on land could both be good for survival. Both for the individual and for genetic changes which favour such abilities. Where might such genetic traits lead?
As for the pigeons: It could be a vision problem, that they don't really see the fish. Either an optics issue with being too close to the water or something about the pigeons eyes. Or it could be something else such as a preference to watch overhead more since that's where most predators come from. Seems reasonable since most of the time there not that many things ready to spring up out of the ground at you, although in some sense the fish could be seen as doing something similar to this.
I'd say the cat leaping into the air is not quite at the same level. The cat is in no danger of suffocating while up in the air. The catfish and and the bird are both going into a domain where they cannot "breathe".
The workers aren't imaginary, they're in China. Well, maybe that makes them imaginary to some people in the U.S.
There's much less labour in designing, building and operating the automated plants than in building regular ones and then running them with people. And even though the people creating the automated plants will be better paid, the end cost of production will still be lower.
But now those people in China are going to need new jobs. And there are probably still jobs in the U.S. that could be outsourced to China in order to lower costs. In which case the displaced workers are actually other Americans.
If the food is more plentiful at the water's edge than in the water then a better ability to temporarily leave the water to go after food could give a survival advantage.
So they've got their heads stuck in the sand that's in their ass? I'm thinking anyone with that much sand in their ass (not to mention their head) should really be worrying about their problems first.
Unfortunately it allows both good and bad communication. There's plenty of information out there, and there's also plenty of garbage and misinformation out there. And sometimes it can be hard to know which is which.
I remember some popular web site running this story about NASA finding what looked like plastic beads on Mars. And I would not be at all surprised to hear that somewhere on the internet there would have been something saying they couldn't be of natural origin and drawing any number of crazy conclusions from that idea and people believing that's the truth.
The internet is a tool which can allow you access to information from and maybe communication with some of the smartest people on the planet. Unfortunately it also allows you to connect with some of the dumbest people on the planet,
True, but there are way more stupid people out there than bad people so...
Hmm, I guess I need to think a bit more about my counter argument. Let me get back to you.