Like I said set the taxes high enough and there'll be restaurants that allow smoking and restaurants that don't.
If you really have such a strange situation where the restaurants that allow smoking and pay higher taxes are the only ones willing to hire her, and the ones that don't allow smoking are unwilling to hire her. Then doesn't that make it more likely that if you ban smoking completely there wouldn't be such restaurants and she wouldn't even have a job?
Therefore there is no problem with her rights. She has the choice to experience the same jobless smokeless situation she would have if smoking was banned in restaurants, or risk her health and have a job.
The situation can never be perfect but with my proposal there is more choice.
Of course there are some who believe that more choice is bad.
More choice often makes people unhappy. Because if you had no choice you don't have to blame yourself - you have an excuse. Whereas if you have lots of choice, you are responsible for all the bad choices you made:). And there's often a "what if" feeling.
Murder is when you kill someone for personal reasons.
War is when Person A gets a whole bunch of people to kill a whole bunch of people[1] (or die trying) for Person A's reasons, for sufficiently large magnitudes of "whole bunch".
[1] Often people you would in normal peaceful conditions hold the door open for or even share food with.
I can get up and running with FreeNAS in about 10 minutes with its GUI
A decent GUI is often better when you're configuring one machine for the first time.
A decent CLI is usually better when you're configuring 100 machines.
A CLI is typically better when you're configuring one machine via a crappy network connection.
The other issue with GUIs is most developers creating GUIs often don't care about expert users - they just create GUIs for "beginner" level users. They do not create ways for expert users to do things much much faster.
The exceptions are some game GUI developers who create GUIs that allow experts to perform very many actions per second, while still allowing beginners to play the game without too steep a learning curve.
IMO a Desktop GUI sucks if expert users can manage tasks/"windows" faster with "screen" (yep that ancient software).
I suspect it's going to be bad if it thinks something is a bump when it's actually the beginning of a steep slope.
There's a limit to how high you can pull up the tires. Once you've got it maxed, and there's still some more "bump" there'd be no more room for shock absorbing...
So I guess a really practical version would either have to have you still feel the bigger bumps when you're going high speed, or have additional sensors to tell the difference between bumps and slopes.
Doh, there is a far better solution than banning smoking.
I'm a nonsmoker and seems obvious to me that a blanket ban on smoking in pubs/restaurants/etc is just stupid.
All the Government has to do is tax certain places that allow smoking.
Set the taxes high/low enough and you'll have a balance of choice[1]. Get some actuarists and economists to help figure out how to slice and dice stuff.
This way the jerks and whingers from both sides don't have to meet each other in the same pub.
And the Gov gets extra tax revenue.
A ban will just miss a tax[2] revenue opportunity while reducing choice.
[1] If the number of smokers decrease significantly, more and more "smoking allowed/encouraged" pubs will start switching to "no smoking" to pay lower taxes or license fees.
[2] If voters are not happy about the way the Gov is spending the taxes, it's their duty to try to fix that. There's nothing wrong with collecting taxes to create more choice where there wasn't before.
It's a bad idea to ban smoking in closed spaces. You lose potential tax revenue and you reduce freedom.
Countries should instead tax (via taxes or licenses) such places that allow smoking. That way you get even more "drug money".
Crank up the tax level to the right amount then you will be able to go to a pub and have a beer in peace without being bothered by smoke, and smokers will also be able to go to a pub and have a beer and a smoke without being bothered. Regulation for increased choice.
FWIW I'm a nonsmoker who thinks that smokers are getting a raw deal from many governments.
In my country civil servants get pensions for as long as they live. Many of them smoke. So more of them smoking and thus dying not too long after retirement is good for the country's economics.
Yes you should educate and discourage people from smoking - it is bad for them. But there are zillions of things which are bad for us that we like doing. If people insist on "helping" the country why ban them from doing so?;)
Heck perhaps countries should give the biggest contributors posthumous "Black Lung" awards for their sacrifice;).
In some countries they don't need models to show that smokers cost less.
The UK for example. They get 10-12 billion pounds per year from tobacco taxes, and they estimate that smoking related costs to the NHS are about 1.5 to 3 billion.
So the smokers pay for themselves and help pay for other people too.:)
FYI: that page is about spending related to the recent Gulf Oil Spill.
2) The data+reports have to be reasonably accurate and updated in a timely manner (from the various entities required, some potentially uncooperative or even hostile).
3) the site has to cope with the load when linked to by Slashdot or mainstream media. And have similar performance to the original site.
4) the site should be about as hard to hack/deface as a similar gov site (e.g. probably possible, but not too easy).
1) Making an unauthorized copy. Let's call that copyright violation.
But making unauthorized copies is not necessarily a copyright violation in many countries. Copyright laws differ.
Just because you think making unauthorized copies is unethical or illegal doesn't make it always so in other places/cultures.
That's why the USA is going around having talks with countries around the world trying to "harmonize" the laws.
Lastly if unauthorized copying was theft copyright holders would be able to resort to the anti-theft or other laws, even in the absence of protection from copyright laws (whether due to nonexistence or because the copyright law says it's OK - fair use or whatever). But they can't, because it isn't theft. Same goes for your "freeloading" definition.
but the reality is while the next 8mpx sensor may be better than the current 5mpx, the next 5mpx would be even better.
But the reality is : 1) The next 8Mpx sensors can/will be better than the current 5Mpx sensors (due to BI tech etc). 2) Nobody selling devices in the same market segment will use 5Mpx sensors for their future offerings.
You just don't seem to get this fact of physics,
The facts of marketing often make the facts of physics irrelevant.;)
So how rich would you need to be in order to have a good chance of successfully doing that?
Seems like it would be more expensive and difficult to build a spacecraft with enough shielding, payload, the ability to go to near C for a number of years, turn around and return (at near C) intact, than it would be just to solve this pesky quantum computing problem:).
). But I sure as hell don't want to be the one guy in the statistics whos dieing is okay just because the system usually works. At least let me cause my own death, or be in control of avoiding getting hit by a drunk driver so it's at least my own fault! Yep, and when you are driving, your genes get to play a greater part in the "selection" process. So it has a higher chance of "improving" humans in the long run.
With the robot controlled cars, it's more "hit or miss".
Cyborg post-humans on the other hand might take a different evolutionary approach.
Yeah back then Netscape was actually WORSE than IE.
Microsoft may have stepped on their toes, but Netscape themselves were to blame for blowing away their own feet.
I used Netscape from 1.x till 4.7. And at the ending stages Netscape was inferior. It was slower in rendering and crashed more. Trust me I tried to look for alternatives to IE at that time.
Mozilla and Mozilla based versions of Netscape (e.g. Netscape 6) were crap too and not worth the megabytes of download. I tried Opera too but it just didn't fit with the way I did things back then.
Mozilla only got usable a few years ago (2005? 2006? Barely usable too - still had many memory issues back then) and that's when it started gaining marketshare.
If you think I'm trolling or talking shit, just look at Google Chome - it has gained so much share in a far far shorter time than Mozilla took.
Even nontechs/nonnerds are downloading and installing Google Chrome and recommending it to their friends.
FWIW, I'm currently using Mozilla for TreeStyleTabs, Noscript, Adblock Plus and Certificate Patrol:).
To be fair, there was just an article recently describing how some people have a very slight problem with their eyes and perspective, small enough that it doesn't effect their day-to-day life, but enough such that they cannot enjoy any 3D movies. Perhaps you're one of those folks?
I don't think that explains it all. My current theory: 1) Not everyone's left and right eyes are the same distance apart. 2) But the 3d cameras have to pick a left-right distance. 3) The 3d projectors have to pick a left-right distance. 4) Every viewer's eyes will have to adapt to the final distance. If they can't or it's not a good match, they get headaches/eyestrain.
Imagine if you were looking at the world but with your eyes apart/closer by more than your norm.
Whereas in the real world, you don't have to look through "someone else's eyes" and adapt to it... You just look and "it's there".
IIRC one version of the Half-Life game had some FOV or other setting that caused problems for more people than previous FPS games.
There's revenue (which can be split/siphoned/"counted differently"/etc), then after subtracting direct costs, you get gross profit (which after all isn't the same as revenue).
If you think Hollywood doesn't play about with "direct costs" you're pretty stupid.
You may wish to do this yourself, as you would then realize that Hollywood accounting is designed to reduce the âoenetâ income a film claims, to avoid paying out profit-sharing agreements based on net income.
You're naive if you think Hollywood accounting is designed to reduce the net income. Hollywood accounting is supposed to make a certain few parties as rich as possible.
By basing the renewal fee on the gross income, you can't get around it.
Oh yes they can. Before assuming I'm wrong, go look up "gross profit":
gross profit or sales profit is the difference between revenue and the cost of making a product or providing a service
Gross profit is not revenue. Go figure.
They can also have one entity owning the copyrights and not making much revenue at all, while licensing out the "limited use" rights to another entity which makes the money. So if you even if you make a "percentage of revenue deal" if the deal is done with the "wrong party" you're not going to make much if anything.
I think you're not familiar enough with the extent of tricks possible.
Of course if it goes to court, a jury might say "this is unacceptably fucked up" and punish such swindlers. This has happened before.
The problem with such fancy "secure" systems is when stuff goes wrong the Banks et all will claim stuff can't go wrong and it's the end-user's fault.
In my experience, stuff can and will go wrong, even when it's not the user's fault.
It's just like the "ID theft" stuff. It's often not the user's fault that the Banks screw up and trust the wrong person. But the nowadays the Banks try to make the user pay it. That's why they call it "ID Theft" and not "bank fraud".
Slashdot Mirror
Like I said set the taxes high enough and there'll be restaurants that allow smoking and restaurants that don't.
:). And there's often a "what if" feeling.
If you really have such a strange situation where the restaurants that allow smoking and pay higher taxes are the only ones willing to hire her, and the ones that don't allow smoking are unwilling to hire her. Then doesn't that make it more likely that if you ban smoking completely there wouldn't be such restaurants and she wouldn't even have a job?
Therefore there is no problem with her rights. She has the choice to experience the same jobless smokeless situation she would have if smoking was banned in restaurants, or risk her health and have a job.
The situation can never be perfect but with my proposal there is more choice.
Of course there are some who believe that more choice is bad.
More choice often makes people unhappy. Because if you had no choice you don't have to blame yourself - you have an excuse. Whereas if you have lots of choice, you are responsible for all the bad choices you made
Murder is when you kill someone for personal reasons.
War is when Person A gets a whole bunch of people to kill a whole bunch of people[1] (or die trying) for Person A's reasons, for sufficiently large magnitudes of "whole bunch".
[1] Often people you would in normal peaceful conditions hold the door open for or even share food with.
Read again.
If you tax "smoking allowed" restaurants/pubs/workplaces high enough, many/most of them will no longer allow smoking.
Then you can enjoy places where people won't smoke around you.
Not to you. Because you are rude.
I can get up and running with FreeNAS in about 10 minutes with its GUI
A decent GUI is often better when you're configuring one machine for the first time.
A decent CLI is usually better when you're configuring 100 machines.
A CLI is typically better when you're configuring one machine via a crappy network connection.
The other issue with GUIs is most developers creating GUIs often don't care about expert users - they just create GUIs for "beginner" level users. They do not create ways for expert users to do things much much faster.
The exceptions are some game GUI developers who create GUIs that allow experts to perform very many actions per second, while still allowing beginners to play the game without too steep a learning curve.
IMO a Desktop GUI sucks if expert users can manage tasks/"windows" faster with "screen" (yep that ancient software).
People who dismiss anecdotes just because they're anecdotes are silly.
What many researchers do is not much different from gathering a large enough sample of anecdotes.
The only issue with that is that it's only viable to be done with the topmost cargo containers.
Maybe that's one of the reasons why only 10000 shipping containers are lost each year ;).
Perhaps someone should do a study to see if putting the "less juicy" containers on top reduces the "loss" rates. ;)
I wonder how that car deals with slopes.
I suspect it's going to be bad if it thinks something is a bump when it's actually the beginning of a steep slope.
There's a limit to how high you can pull up the tires. Once you've got it maxed, and there's still some more "bump" there'd be no more room for shock absorbing...
So I guess a really practical version would either have to have you still feel the bigger bumps when you're going high speed, or have additional sensors to tell the difference between bumps and slopes.
Doh, there is a far better solution than banning smoking.
I'm a nonsmoker and seems obvious to me that a blanket ban on smoking in pubs/restaurants/etc is just stupid.
All the Government has to do is tax certain places that allow smoking.
Set the taxes high/low enough and you'll have a balance of choice[1]. Get some actuarists and economists to help figure out how to slice and dice stuff.
This way the jerks and whingers from both sides don't have to meet each other in the same pub.
And the Gov gets extra tax revenue.
A ban will just miss a tax[2] revenue opportunity while reducing choice.
[1] If the number of smokers decrease significantly, more and more "smoking allowed/encouraged" pubs will start switching to "no smoking" to pay lower taxes or license fees.
[2] If voters are not happy about the way the Gov is spending the taxes, it's their duty to try to fix that. There's nothing wrong with collecting taxes to create more choice where there wasn't before.
It's a bad idea to ban smoking in closed spaces. You lose potential tax revenue and you reduce freedom.
;)
;).
Countries should instead tax (via taxes or licenses) such places that allow smoking. That way you get even more "drug money".
Crank up the tax level to the right amount then you will be able to go to a pub and have a beer in peace without being bothered by smoke, and smokers will also be able to go to a pub and have a beer and a smoke without being bothered. Regulation for increased choice.
FWIW I'm a nonsmoker who thinks that smokers are getting a raw deal from many governments.
In my country civil servants get pensions for as long as they live. Many of them smoke. So more of them smoking and thus dying not too long after retirement is good for the country's economics.
Yes you should educate and discourage people from smoking - it is bad for them. But there are zillions of things which are bad for us that we like doing. If people insist on "helping" the country why ban them from doing so?
Heck perhaps countries should give the biggest contributors posthumous "Black Lung" awards for their sacrifice
In some countries they don't need models to show that smokers cost less.
:)
The UK for example. They get 10-12 billion pounds per year from tobacco taxes, and they estimate that smoking related costs to the NHS are about 1.5 to 3 billion.
So the smokers pay for themselves and help pay for other people too.
OK here's a deal, I'll give you 144 USD (12 usd/month as per your link) one year after you fund and operate a similar site doing the same thing:
1) One that produces reports like this:
http://www.usaspending.gov/search?query=&searchtype=&formFields=eyJOYXRpb25hbEludGVyZXN0QWN0aW9uIjpbIkd1bGYgT2lsIFNwaWxsIDA0MTAiXX0=
(and the other reports the original site provides).
FYI: that page is about spending related to the recent Gulf Oil Spill.
2) The data+reports have to be reasonably accurate and updated in a timely manner (from the various entities required, some potentially uncooperative or even hostile).
3) the site has to cope with the load when linked to by Slashdot or mainstream media. And have similar performance to the original site.
4) the site should be about as hard to hack/deface as a similar gov site (e.g. probably possible, but not too easy).
For comparison here's the Wikimedia annual report:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/AR_web_all-spreads_24mar11_72_FINAL.pdf
Summary their expenses are about USD10 million. 3.5 million in salaries/wages.
While that's for multiple wikimedia sites do remember that much wikipedia content is created by volunteers for free.
Meh, if you're that rich, and wanted to race Teslas around you wouldn't be wasting your time and money on extra battery packs.
;).
You'd waste your money on extra Tesla cars. When one stops working for whatever reason, just hop into the next one.
I think some people have no clue on how to be rich properly. Just give me a billion or two and I'll show you how it's done
1) Making an unauthorized copy. Let's call that copyright violation.
But making unauthorized copies is not necessarily a copyright violation in many countries. Copyright laws differ.
Just because you think making unauthorized copies is unethical or illegal doesn't make it always so in other places/cultures.
That's why the USA is going around having talks with countries around the world trying to "harmonize" the laws.
Lastly if unauthorized copying was theft copyright holders would be able to resort to the anti-theft or other laws, even in the absence of protection from copyright laws (whether due to nonexistence or because the copyright law says it's OK - fair use or whatever). But they can't, because it isn't theft. Same goes for your "freeloading" definition.
You mean it wasn't requested by by XSS hackers and phishers? :)
but the reality is while the next 8mpx sensor may be better than the current 5mpx, the next 5mpx would be even better.
But the reality is :
1) The next 8Mpx sensors can/will be better than the current 5Mpx sensors (due to BI tech etc).
2) Nobody selling devices in the same market segment will use 5Mpx sensors for their future offerings.
You just don't seem to get this fact of physics,
The facts of marketing often make the facts of physics irrelevant. ;)
So how rich would you need to be in order to have a good chance of successfully doing that?
:).
Seems like it would be more expensive and difficult to build a spacecraft with enough shielding, payload, the ability to go to near C for a number of years, turn around and return (at near C) intact, than it would be just to solve this pesky quantum computing problem
). But I sure as hell don't want to be the one guy in the statistics whos dieing is okay just because the system usually works. At least let me cause my own death, or be in control of avoiding getting hit by a drunk driver so it's at least my own fault!
Yep, and when you are driving, your genes get to play a greater part in the "selection" process. So it has a higher chance of "improving" humans in the long run.
With the robot controlled cars, it's more "hit or miss".
Cyborg post-humans on the other hand might take a different evolutionary approach.
Yeah back then Netscape was actually WORSE than IE.
:).
Microsoft may have stepped on their toes, but Netscape themselves were to blame for blowing away their own feet.
I used Netscape from 1.x till 4.7. And at the ending stages Netscape was inferior. It was slower in rendering and crashed more. Trust me I tried to look for alternatives to IE at that time.
Mozilla and Mozilla based versions of Netscape (e.g. Netscape 6) were crap too and not worth the megabytes of download. I tried Opera too but it just didn't fit with the way I did things back then.
Mozilla only got usable a few years ago (2005? 2006? Barely usable too - still had many memory issues back then) and that's when it started gaining marketshare.
If you think I'm trolling or talking shit, just look at Google Chome - it has gained so much share in a far far shorter time than Mozilla took.
Even nontechs/nonnerds are downloading and installing Google Chrome and recommending it to their friends.
FWIW, I'm currently using Mozilla for TreeStyleTabs, Noscript, Adblock Plus and Certificate Patrol
BTW Symantec owns PGP which owns "TC trustcenter" yet another CA with their certs in your browsers.
:).
So there'll soon be no escape from them
Once a CA loses trust, it can't be restored. And it shouldn't
How about Verisign?
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms01-017.mspx
Verisign owns Thawte, Geotrust (which owns RapidSSL).
To be fair, there was just an article recently describing how some people have a very slight problem with their eyes and perspective, small enough that it doesn't effect their day-to-day life, but enough such that they cannot enjoy any 3D movies. Perhaps you're one of those folks?
I don't think that explains it all.
My current theory:
1) Not everyone's left and right eyes are the same distance apart.
2) But the 3d cameras have to pick a left-right distance.
3) The 3d projectors have to pick a left-right distance.
4) Every viewer's eyes will have to adapt to the final distance. If they can't or it's not a good match, they get headaches/eyestrain.
Imagine if you were looking at the world but with your eyes apart/closer by more than your norm.
Whereas in the real world, you don't have to look through "someone else's eyes" and adapt to it... You just look and "it's there".
IIRC one version of the Half-Life game had some FOV or other setting that caused problems for more people than previous FPS games.
You're the one who should be modded down not me.
There's revenue (which can be split/siphoned/"counted differently"/etc), then after subtracting direct costs, you get gross profit (which after all isn't the same as revenue).
If you think Hollywood doesn't play about with "direct costs" you're pretty stupid.
You may wish to do this yourself, as you would then realize that Hollywood accounting is designed to reduce the âoenetâ income a film claims, to avoid paying out profit-sharing agreements based on net income.
You're naive if you think Hollywood accounting is designed to reduce the net income. Hollywood accounting is supposed to make a certain few parties as rich as possible.
By basing the renewal fee on the gross income, you can't get around it.
Oh yes they can. Before assuming I'm wrong, go look up "gross profit":
gross profit or sales profit is the difference between revenue and the cost of making a product or providing a service
Gross profit is not revenue. Go figure.
They can also have one entity owning the copyrights and not making much revenue at all, while licensing out the "limited use" rights to another entity which makes the money. So if you even if you make a "percentage of revenue deal" if the deal is done with the "wrong party" you're not going to make much if anything.
I think you're not familiar enough with the extent of tricks possible.
Of course if it goes to court, a jury might say "this is unacceptably fucked up" and punish such swindlers. This has happened before.
The problem with such fancy "secure" systems is when stuff goes wrong the Banks et all will claim stuff can't go wrong and it's the end-user's fault.
In my experience, stuff can and will go wrong, even when it's not the user's fault.
It's just like the "ID theft" stuff. It's often not the user's fault that the Banks screw up and trust the wrong person. But the nowadays the Banks try to make the user pay it. That's why they call it "ID Theft" and not "bank fraud".