What would Europe do if 2 billion Africans decided to take Europe?
If 2 billion people are organized enough to take Europe, those people do not need to take Europe. 2 billion people working together can achieve anything, they can grow all the food they need in Africa.
Global warmingists did in fact predict during the 90s that there would be no snow in certain countries (UK included) after 2005
Oh, yes, and anti-global-warmingists predicted the whole of Europe would be covered in ice three miles deep by 2006.
So, you see, by your methods Global Warming has now been fully proved without any possible doubt, because one theory presented by some people in the opposing camp have been proved false.
Religions and politics work that way, but science does not.
It reminds me of once when my boss was giving instructions on which sites were appropriate to browse from work. A secretary remarked "all I browse are news sites", the boss answered "so you think you're being paid to read newspapers?"
However, the point is not that. If the TSA had an intent to regulate which sites are not appropriate for browsing at work they should include a lot more than "controversial material". OTOH, some "controversial material" shold be allowed, at least for some employees.
An agency that has "security" in its name should be on alert for security related issues, and those often generate controversy.
stop random cars and search, get sued for racial profiling. Stop every car and search, they are 'protecting the public'
They are using the same logic as in "Kill One Person, Call it Murder: Kill Thousands, Call it Foreign Policy".
The amendment I cited continues "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
They seem to think that every vehicle is probably being driven by a drunk driver, every person who comes from abroad is probably a smuggler.
they generally don't make the initial stop to search for violations
They better not, unless they're ready to explain which part of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" they did not understand.
What is the difference between mail/fax/phone order and purchases made through "teh intertubes"?
No difference. The big difference is between local or remote purchases.
A purchase made locally puts more demands on public infrastructure. You have a physical store where they display the items. That store needs police, firefighting, street maintenance, all supported by the local government to exist.
In comparison, mail/fax/internet purchases bypass all that. The store window is virtual, goods go directly from the wholesaler's warehouse to the final consumer.
It makes perfect sense that remote purchases of any form receive special tax treatment, since they demand less expenses from the government, but it makes no sense to create a different status between mail and internet commerce.
It's even more weird how some people claim you must be an "expert" in something in the days when anyone can educate themselves in anything if they chose to apply themselves seriously enough.
You can also walk from Lisbon to Bangkok, but have you ever done it? It is possible for someone without formal training to get a good knowledge of science, true, but that's little more than a theoretical possibility.
After all, why should anyone apply seriously to get a training in science informally? If one is serious about it, the logical step would be to do it in a college and get a degree.
Most people with a "good informal knowledge" in science are like "hmmm, there's too much math in this chapter, I think I can skip that".
it would certainly be nice if scientists, as a class, were better at public communication
If they were, they would be marketroids, not scientists.
There are some, very few, true scientists who are also good at communication. Robert Forward and Isaac Asimov are two that I know of, but we could have many more of those.
If somebody happens to be the best available information source on a given issue, failure to communicate with them is a major failing on your part.
True, very true, but, sadly, the human mind does not work that way. People are egocentric, they usually see their failure at understanding as the other party's failure to communicate.
It just turns out that the companies start to use monopoly power and jack the prices up.
According to wikipedia that was only one part of a very complex problem. The cause of that market manipulation was, as I said in the GP, a result of partial deregulation where they allowed companies to charge higher prices for out of state energy than for locally generated energy.
Among other causes for the California energy crisis the wiki article mentions: - delays in approval of new power plants - the state government's cap on retail electricity charges - the complex market design produced by the process of partial deregulation - regulations allowing higher prices for electricity produced out-of-state - wholesale prices were deregulated, but retail prices were regulated
All these causes come from regulation, not deregulation.
you won't be able to tell the difference between, say, a person who lived all year in Illinois (with a moderate isotope ratio) and a person who flies back and forth between Montana and Florida
Hair grows at a rate of about a couple millimeters per week. Your frequent flier would have striped hair.
I don't know what's the minimum amount of hair needed for this test, but it's certainly possible to cut hair samples smaller than what it grows during an airplane trip from Montana to Florida.
As a citizen I am no longer "free". I pay my taxes but I can't buy or sell without these shackles?
You say you pay your taxes? Prove it, how can you say you paid taxes, if you can't even prove who you are? You want to sell me something? First you have to prove me that you are the legitimate owner.
Anonimity is fine in some circumstances, when ideas are all you are exchanging. When one gets to physical transactions a reliable proof of identification is a must.
I fail to see why the governmrent (either India, or other) thinks it needs to assign a unique ID to everyone
Yeah, it's not like they have to keep track of who is who, right?
I mean, when a crime is committed they can just throw anyone in jail, if they need to pay some benefit to someone they can just give it to the first person who shows up.
When government fucks with free markets, the customer loses, always.
Well, except in the case of energy regulation, every state that has deregulated has instantly had massive price spikes
Except that this so-called "deregulation" is actually nothing but a change of regulations. If you look closely you will see that those energy companies have as many regulations as before, only different ones. Truly deregulating electric power would be very difficult, how would you run wires from your home to any arbitrary power company you wanted?
The US government usually asks the market players to regulate themselves and hopes that works (think of movie ratings). It is only after the players show they have no interest in a fair market that it gets regulated.
You mean, it's only after the players show they have no interest in the regulations the government want that they get regulated.
If you think of it, the software industry depends entirely on government regulation to exist, what else would you call copyright legislation?
A true total deregulation is impossible. However, it can be argued that regulation should be minimalistic. In software, for instance, all those rules for interoperability could be changed by one quite simple rule: in order to enjoy the benefits of copyright, every software should be released together with its source code.
You can get *all* the tools for free, and test on the iPhone simulator without paying a dime. You only need to pay the $99 if you want to deploy your code onto a physical iPhone
It's like a country that has freedom of thought. You are allowed to have any thoughts you like, as long as you keep them inside your head and don't express them in any way.
What good is a phone application, if you can't run it in a phone?
I had a sysadmin who refused to chmod files to 666 because it was the number of the beast
Anyhow, you have to agree that he was right, for the wrong reason. Giving read/write permissions to everybody is the number of the stupid, not the number of the beast.
You help someone get credentials which they are not qualified for, they become a civil engineer and end up building a bridge that falls on your head, cause someone wrote the paper on "building bridges that don't fall on people" for them.
Usually courses like that have more stringent tests than just presenting papers written at home.
I think this is more directed at "liberal arts" students, people whose future jobs will be in sales and marketing, if they can ever get anything better than flipping burgers.
You paid for nothing so all you have the right to do is listen to the radio.
Who pays the advertiser?
Every time I buy anything I'm paying for the marketing they did for that product. If I buy a product that sponsored a radio or TV program I have paid to listen all the songs and watch all the films presented on those programs.
If, for some reason, I was unable to watch those shows I have the moral right to download the content.
Slashdot Mirror
If 2 billion people are organized enough to take Europe, those people do not need to take Europe. 2 billion people working together can achieve anything, they can grow all the food they need in Africa.
OK, since only 26%, not 55%, of Holland is below the sea level this means that CO2 does not absorb infrared radiation, right?
How much is BP paying you to astroturf for them?
Oh, yes, and anti-global-warmingists predicted the whole of Europe would be covered in ice three miles deep by 2006.
So, you see, by your methods Global Warming has now been fully proved without any possible doubt, because one theory presented by some people in the opposing camp have been proved false.
Religions and politics work that way, but science does not.
It reminds me of once when my boss was giving instructions on which sites were appropriate to browse from work. A secretary remarked "all I browse are news sites", the boss answered "so you think you're being paid to read newspapers?"
However, the point is not that. If the TSA had an intent to regulate which sites are not appropriate for browsing at work they should include a lot more than "controversial material". OTOH, some "controversial material" shold be allowed, at least for some employees.
An agency that has "security" in its name should be on alert for security related issues, and those often generate controversy.
They are using the same logic as in "Kill One Person, Call it Murder: Kill Thousands, Call it Foreign Policy".
The amendment I cited continues "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
They seem to think that every vehicle is probably being driven by a drunk driver, every person who comes from abroad is probably a smuggler.
They better not, unless they're ready to explain which part of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" they did not understand.
Yes, but that's no different from your local store getting items shipped from the wholesaler.
Internet shopping does away with the retail store entirely, that's one additional level of state-provided infrastructure that local sales need.
No difference. The big difference is between local or remote purchases.
A purchase made locally puts more demands on public infrastructure. You have a physical store where they display the items. That store needs police, firefighting, street maintenance, all supported by the local government to exist.
In comparison, mail/fax/internet purchases bypass all that. The store window is virtual, goods go directly from the wholesaler's warehouse to the final consumer.
It makes perfect sense that remote purchases of any form receive special tax treatment, since they demand less expenses from the government, but it makes no sense to create a different status between mail and internet commerce.
"One problem with learning Swedish is that it relies heavily upon tone to carry meaning"
Perhaps you could try speak Swedish like Finns do. There's much less tone that way.
You can also walk from Lisbon to Bangkok, but have you ever done it? It is possible for someone without formal training to get a good knowledge of science, true, but that's little more than a theoretical possibility.
After all, why should anyone apply seriously to get a training in science informally? If one is serious about it, the logical step would be to do it in a college and get a degree.
Most people with a "good informal knowledge" in science are like "hmmm, there's too much math in this chapter, I think I can skip that".
And then how do you eliminate the cost increase?
"In fact, forget the coding"...
If they were, they would be marketroids, not scientists.
There are some, very few, true scientists who are also good at communication. Robert Forward and Isaac Asimov are two that I know of, but we could have many more of those.
True, very true, but, sadly, the human mind does not work that way. People are egocentric, they usually see their failure at understanding as the other party's failure to communicate.
According to wikipedia that was only one part of a very complex problem. The cause of that market manipulation was, as I said in the GP, a result of partial deregulation where they allowed companies to charge higher prices for out of state energy than for locally generated energy.
Among other causes for the California energy crisis the wiki article mentions:
- delays in approval of new power plants
- the state government's cap on retail electricity charges
- the complex market design produced by the process of partial deregulation
- regulations allowing higher prices for electricity produced out-of-state
- wholesale prices were deregulated, but retail prices were regulated
All these causes come from regulation, not deregulation.
Is there?
Hair grows at a rate of about a couple millimeters per week. Your frequent flier would have striped hair.
I don't know what's the minimum amount of hair needed for this test, but it's certainly possible to cut hair samples smaller than what it grows during an airplane trip from Montana to Florida.
You say you pay your taxes? Prove it, how can you say you paid taxes, if you can't even prove who you are? You want to sell me something? First you have to prove me that you are the legitimate owner.
Anonimity is fine in some circumstances, when ideas are all you are exchanging. When one gets to physical transactions a reliable proof of identification is a must.
Yeah, it's not like they have to keep track of who is who, right?
I mean, when a crime is committed they can just throw anyone in jail, if they need to pay some benefit to someone they can just give it to the first person who shows up.
Except that this so-called "deregulation" is actually nothing but a change of regulations. If you look closely you will see that those energy companies have as many regulations as before, only different ones. Truly deregulating electric power would be very difficult, how would you run wires from your home to any arbitrary power company you wanted?
You mean, it's only after the players show they have no interest in the regulations the government want that they get regulated.
If you think of it, the software industry depends entirely on government regulation to exist, what else would you call copyright legislation?
A true total deregulation is impossible. However, it can be argued that regulation should be minimalistic. In software, for instance, all those rules for interoperability could be changed by one quite simple rule: in order to enjoy the benefits of copyright, every software should be released together with its source code.
It's like a country that has freedom of thought. You are allowed to have any thoughts you like, as long as you keep them inside your head and don't express them in any way.
What good is a phone application, if you can't run it in a phone?
Anyhow, you have to agree that he was right, for the wrong reason. Giving read/write permissions to everybody is the number of the stupid, not the number of the beast.
Perhaps it was somebody else who wrote his argument for him. Does he have a six-years-old employee?
Usually courses like that have more stringent tests than just presenting papers written at home.
I think this is more directed at "liberal arts" students, people whose future jobs will be in sales and marketing, if they can ever get anything better than flipping burgers.
When they started publisinhg so many papers on watermarking and other forms of DRM I realized that the IEEE is no longer an institute of Engineers.
It has become now an institute of the electronics industry.
Who pays the advertiser?
Every time I buy anything I'm paying for the marketing they did for that product. If I buy a product that sponsored a radio or TV program I have paid to listen all the songs and watch all the films presented on those programs.
If, for some reason, I was unable to watch those shows I have the moral right to download the content.