In Malaysia you do get that sterilisation and anaesthetics stuff. It really is cheaper, and at the low and mid-end I bet it's the same. Maybe the high-end stuff in Australia is better. But for the usual stuff, I doubt it.
I have a dentist friend who moved from Malaysia to Australia, so I guess she gets to charge AUD prices now:). She certainly did have sterilisers for "everything".
As for the watch, did you actually see him put the cheap stuff in? I'd have thought they have the cheap movement in most of the cheaper watches anyway - they just change the outside. It's a similar thing for many genuine Swiss watches anyway - they have the same Swiss movement, they just have different cases and different brands on the outside. ETA makes a lot of movements, and used to be some of their movements ended up in fakes in Malaysian street markets too:).
Balance as practiced seems more like those two commentators in pro wrestling- each permanently sides the other wrestler no matter what they do.
As such I value truth over balance (yes I know the saying - 3 sides to a story - his version, her version and what really happened, but hey even if the scientists haven't figured out the complete unified theory yet, what they have is good enough to do many things).
Actually it's not that absurd- at least the human-animal hybrid part.
Most humans want to have special rights that other animals don't have. Despite what PETA and the rest think, we're going to be eating animals, experimenting on them, killing them.
So the problem is then: what happens when you have a human-animal hybrid?
At what percent do we regard the entity as human? And how do we calculate that percentage?
After all I see people talk about ripping organs out from a human-animal hybrid and then putting them into a human.
So the recipient becomes a human-animal hybrid too right? Does the recipient then lose rights to be considered human? Why not? If not, why doesn't the source human-animal hybrid have human rights too?
What if the "animal" human-animal hybrid turns out to be a bit more human than expected and just can't talk as well?
Or what if a bunch of hybrids turn out to be "better than human"? And use our example to justify killing or enslaving us?
Prohibiting the creation of such hybrids will reduce the scope of such problems (it won't get rid of them totally).
Don't get me wrong I'm not against progress. But we really should consider the long term consequences. Is society ready? Are our laws ready?
We're at the stage where "doing stuff just because it can be done" can have greater and more serious long-term consequences.
Those are anecdotal and perhaps skewed, however I won't be surprised if some stem cells from the transplanted organs float around and start changing things a bit.
> CNN, you know, the TV station everyone says is "unbiased" after the ENTIRE news crew came in wearing all-black and speaking as if at a funeral... the day Bush was re-elected
Yes, CNN is biased. But were they wrong that the reelection of Bush was bad?
With some banks in my country if you want to do certain online transactions on their banking web app, you need to enter an authorization code.
You click on "request code" or whatever and the Bank sends a bunch of digits via SMS to your phone. Yes SMS isn't encrypted, but to me the risk is acceptable for my scenario.
The risks might not be as low fpr people who use a fancy exploitable phone for online banking that's the same as the one that receives that SMS;).
1) The big difference is the person selling the product does not have automatic access to MY money, yet... Actually in Canada there's already a levy on stuff.
2) Making a copy and giving it to someone else is not the same as stealing in my country, yet... The USA + ACTA might convince my government to change that.
> I think the founders may have had the right idea by keeping non-wealthy people from voting > it had the effect of keeping out everyone who was uneducated
I'm not confident that in these times the "wealthy decent gentlemen" will outnumber the wealthy parasites/sociopaths.
That might actually be fine with the players and the game companies. But the Government might one day wake up and realize that it has lost a fair bit of power.
Trust me, after a while the Government will want in on the virtual property and cash stuff so that they can get taxes and control money laundering.
If you were an online gambler and someone stole USD1000 worth of your online casino "chips" I'm sure you'd be rather upset about it.
I'm not saying he should have killed that person, but I understand where he's coming from. Go factor in a typical Chinese wage and then multiply the USD1000 accordingly to get a comparison figure that's more appropriate for you. Then add in the element of betrayal - apparently he lent it to the other person. If you lend someone an item and he then sells it, it's not just about the value of the item. Even if he promises to give you the proceeds of the sale, it's not going to make you feel good about the whole thing. The cops laughing at him (that apparently happened) and refusing to take action definitely didn't help - two lives might have not been wasted if the cops had taken action - even if it's not formal action but just mediation and telling the other guy to give the stuff back.
People may think it's just a videogame just because it's all a bunch of bits in computers somewhere, but the 2008 financial blow up was only a bunch of bits in computers somewhere too. How real was it? The "finance whizkids" took the "slightly more real" money as bonuses, commissions etc, the rest of the "value" turned out to be not real enough:).
If someone stole your shares or "those bunch of digits" in your bank account, it's still theft. So it's the same in this case.
Some years back someone in China lent someone his virtual sword and the borrower refused to return it and actually sold it (for quite a bit of money), so the lender went to the cops but they laughed at him, so he took matters into his own hands and killed the thief. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4397159.stm )
Not saying it was right for him to do that, but it's quite understandable. The sword was worth a lot of money at market prices (USD1000), and probably worth even more to the lender since he didn't want to sell it. I'm sure people get killed for far less than that in China (or many other places).
p.s. reminder copying is not the same as stealing. These people lost access to stuff.
If wikileaks is getting documents by being a Tor exit node, then for someone who is trying to secretly leak stuff to wikileaks, I'd say this is not a flaw, this is a feature:).
For the topic at hand ("Peak Wood"/"Peak Oil") it doesn't really matter if there's actually abiogenic petroleum.
What matters is how fast that petroleum is created, and how fast we are consuming it. So far the evidence is the rate of consumption is far higher than the rate of production, otherwise the wells won't be running dry, and it wouldn't be harder and harder to find new places to drill.
> Most first semester CS 101 undergrad students I've met couldn't pour rocks out of a box if the instructions were printed on the underside of the box.
Because rocks are heavy, and most CS101 undergrad students aren't very strong?:)
> just every single time someone tried to establish it it led to military dictatorship and starvation
The reason why that happens is because the Communist Manifesto encourages violence (read it and you'll see it). This is the fatal flaw in their implementation plan.
When you encourage violence as part of your "overthrowing", you'll have a violent revolution. In a violent revolution, the people capable and willing of exerting the most violence will normally get to the top. Most of the time the people that reach the top aren't benevolent and aren't going to give up their power. The American Revolution is probably a notable exception (perhaps someone who knows about it better can figure out why it ended up OK - but from what I see, the USA was lucky to have good leaders at that point).
In summary: the popular Communism/Socialism Implementation Plan is easy for Dictators to hijack into starting their own Dictatorships.
This "design flaw" does look rather obvious to me, but I'm "just an EE" working in an IT line so it's really out of my field of expertise. Thus I'll be happy to see good arguments on why I'm wrong:).
If the apps access stuff over the network, there's stuff like Compuware ApplicationVantage or Netscout Sniffer.
Then you can see if an app is latency sensitive (very chatty - lots of "request-response" stuff) or bandwidth sensitive (lots of data). Sometimes the app can be tuned to behave better, sometimes you're stuck with it. For apps that use TCP, sometimes the apps are latency sensitive, have "nagling" enabled and interact badly with the tcp "delayed ack" feature. In which case one might want to turn TCP_NODELAY on, and/or have the app "ack" every thing. Stuff like that.
That Infoworld article title reminds me of those Cosmo magazines. e.g. "10 Tips for Boosting Network Performance and keeping your boss happy", "5 ways to tell if your Server needs attention" and other "Meh" stuff...:)
Slashdot Mirror
In Malaysia you do get that sterilisation and anaesthetics stuff. It really is cheaper, and at the low and mid-end I bet it's the same. Maybe the high-end stuff in Australia is better. But for the usual stuff, I doubt it.
:). She certainly did have sterilisers for "everything".
:).
I have a dentist friend who moved from Malaysia to Australia, so I guess she gets to charge AUD prices now
As for the watch, did you actually see him put the cheap stuff in? I'd have thought they have the cheap movement in most of the cheaper watches anyway - they just change the outside. It's a similar thing for many genuine Swiss watches anyway - they have the same Swiss movement, they just have different cases and different brands on the outside. ETA makes a lot of movements, and used to be some of their movements ended up in fakes in Malaysian street markets too
Then I start to consider them bad too.
Balance as practiced seems more like those two commentators in pro wrestling- each permanently sides the other wrestler no matter what they do.
As such I value truth over balance (yes I know the saying - 3 sides to a story - his version, her version and what really happened, but hey even if the scientists haven't figured out the complete unified theory yet, what they have is good enough to do many things).
Well from my subjective analysis, something like "The Economist" (the UK mag) is better than Fox.
If the good refuse to lead, the best leaders in the world might still be no good :).
Actually it's not that absurd- at least the human-animal hybrid part.
Most humans want to have special rights that other animals don't have. Despite what PETA and the rest think, we're going to be eating animals, experimenting on them, killing them.
So the problem is then: what happens when you have a human-animal hybrid?
At what percent do we regard the entity as human? And how do we calculate that percentage?
After all I see people talk about ripping organs out from a human-animal hybrid and then putting them into a human.
So the recipient becomes a human-animal hybrid too right? Does the recipient then lose rights to be considered human? Why not? If not, why doesn't the source human-animal hybrid have human rights too?
What if the "animal" human-animal hybrid turns out to be a bit more human than expected and just can't talk as well?
Or what if a bunch of hybrids turn out to be "better than human"? And use our example to justify killing or enslaving us?
Prohibiting the creation of such hybrids will reduce the scope of such problems (it won't get rid of them totally).
Don't get me wrong I'm not against progress. But we really should consider the long term consequences. Is society ready? Are our laws ready?
We're at the stage where "doing stuff just because it can be done" can have greater and more serious long-term consequences.
p.s. on the subject of transplants see:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VM8-416C9CR-3&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1358101317&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=43ba4a34044b04938f90894d2e7e2c25
Those are anecdotal and perhaps skewed, however I won't be surprised if some stem cells from the transplanted organs float around and start changing things a bit.
After all see:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=baby-to-brain
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fetal-cells-microchimerism
Then the cops should record the whole event to vindicate themselves.
It's not just Microsoft. OSX defaults to autologin too:
http://ist.mit.edu/services/software/macosx/security
http://www.rit.edu/its/services/desktop_support/mac/xdisableautomaticlogin.html
OSX is NOT more secure from a technical POV.
But it is more secure the way a house with no locks in a small village is more secure than a locked apartment in a big bad city.
Heh Apple even do silly stuff like: http://www.fuzzydice.net/?tag=macintosh-osx-linux-telnet-auto-login
> CNN, you know, the TV station everyone says is "unbiased" after the ENTIRE news crew came in wearing all-black and speaking as if at a funeral... the day Bush was re-elected
Yes, CNN is biased. But were they wrong that the reelection of Bush was bad?
Balanced like a good random number generator?
If something/someone is bad, say it's bad. Fuck "balance".
Us nerds should care about truth more than "balance".
With some banks in my country if you want to do certain online transactions on their banking web app, you need to enter an authorization code.
;).
You click on "request code" or whatever and the Bank sends a bunch of digits via SMS to your phone. Yes SMS isn't encrypted, but to me the risk is acceptable for my scenario.
The risks might not be as low fpr people who use a fancy exploitable phone for online banking that's the same as the one that receives that SMS
1) The big difference is the person selling the product does not have automatic access to MY money, yet...
Actually in Canada there's already a levy on stuff.
2) Making a copy and giving it to someone else is not the same as stealing in my country, yet...
The USA + ACTA might convince my government to change that.
> Much as I think Asians often push their kids *too* hard,
You mean like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkN9VdjgDwM&feature=related
OK it's a UK comedy show but I'm sure it's still relevant to the topic :).
> I think the founders may have had the right idea by keeping non-wealthy people from voting
> it had the effect of keeping out everyone who was uneducated
I'm not confident that in these times the "wealthy decent gentlemen" will outnumber the wealthy parasites/sociopaths.
That might actually be fine with the players and the game companies. But the Government might one day wake up and realize that it has lost a fair bit of power.
Trust me, after a while the Government will want in on the virtual property and cash stuff so that they can get taxes and control money laundering.
If you were an online gambler and someone stole USD1000 worth of your online casino "chips" I'm sure you'd be rather upset about it.
:).
:)
I'm not saying he should have killed that person, but I understand where he's coming from. Go factor in a typical Chinese wage and then multiply the USD1000 accordingly to get a comparison figure that's more appropriate for you. Then add in the element of betrayal - apparently he lent it to the other person. If you lend someone an item and he then sells it, it's not just about the value of the item. Even if he promises to give you the proceeds of the sale, it's not going to make you feel good about the whole thing. The cops laughing at him (that apparently happened) and refusing to take action definitely didn't help - two lives might have not been wasted if the cops had taken action - even if it's not formal action but just mediation and telling the other guy to give the stuff back.
People may think it's just a videogame just because it's all a bunch of bits in computers somewhere, but the 2008 financial blow up was only a bunch of bits in computers somewhere too. How real was it? The "finance whizkids" took the "slightly more real" money as bonuses, commissions etc, the rest of the "value" turned out to be not real enough
<amtrix>your mind makes it real</matrix>
> Why would you say that?
:).
Coz I forgot what freeze drying was
> It's a survival-of-our-race issue, in this case?
I hope it's not mere survival we're aiming for.
If someone stole your shares or "those bunch of digits" in your bank account, it's still theft. So it's the same in this case.
Some years back someone in China lent someone his virtual sword and the borrower refused to return it and actually sold it (for quite a bit of money), so the lender went to the cops but they laughed at him, so he took matters into his own hands and killed the thief. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4397159.stm )
Not saying it was right for him to do that, but it's quite understandable. The sword was worth a lot of money at market prices (USD1000), and probably worth even more to the lender since he didn't want to sell it. I'm sure people get killed for far less than that in China (or many other places).
p.s. reminder copying is not the same as stealing. These people lost access to stuff.
If wikileaks is getting documents by being a Tor exit node, then for someone who is trying to secretly leak stuff to wikileaks, I'd say this is not a flaw, this is a feature :).
Yeah more like freeze dried.
For the topic at hand ("Peak Wood"/"Peak Oil") it doesn't really matter if there's actually abiogenic petroleum.
What matters is how fast that petroleum is created, and how fast we are consuming it. So far the evidence is the rate of consumption is far higher than the rate of production, otherwise the wells won't be running dry, and it wouldn't be harder and harder to find new places to drill.
> Most first semester CS 101 undergrad students I've met couldn't pour rocks out of a box if the instructions were printed on the underside of the box.
:)
Because rocks are heavy, and most CS101 undergrad students aren't very strong?
> just every single time someone tried to establish it it led to military dictatorship and starvation
:).
The reason why that happens is because the Communist Manifesto encourages violence (read it and you'll see it). This is the fatal flaw in their implementation plan.
When you encourage violence as part of your "overthrowing", you'll have a violent revolution. In a violent revolution, the people capable and willing of exerting the most violence will normally get to the top. Most of the time the people that reach the top aren't benevolent and aren't going to give up their power. The American Revolution is probably a notable exception (perhaps someone who knows about it better can figure out why it ended up OK - but from what I see, the USA was lucky to have good leaders at that point).
In summary: the popular Communism/Socialism Implementation Plan is easy for Dictators to hijack into starting their own Dictatorships.
This "design flaw" does look rather obvious to me, but I'm "just an EE" working in an IT line so it's really out of my field of expertise. Thus I'll be happy to see good arguments on why I'm wrong
If the apps access stuff over the network, there's stuff like Compuware ApplicationVantage or Netscout Sniffer.
:)
Then you can see if an app is latency sensitive (very chatty - lots of "request-response" stuff) or bandwidth sensitive (lots of data). Sometimes the app can be tuned to behave better, sometimes you're stuck with it. For apps that use TCP, sometimes the apps are latency sensitive, have "nagling" enabled and interact badly with the tcp "delayed ack" feature. In which case one might want to turn TCP_NODELAY on, and/or have the app "ack" every thing. Stuff like that.
That Infoworld article title reminds me of those Cosmo magazines. e.g. "10 Tips for Boosting Network Performance and keeping your boss happy", "5 ways to tell if your Server needs attention" and other "Meh" stuff...
Morphine numbs pain, so if someone finds life a pain, it's no surprise if they get addicted to morphine.
:).
But seems to me that if they had the choice many guys would pick "hookers" and "blow" (cocaine), rather than just "blow"