> This notion of "open source" makes this 83 year old developer insanely angry.
1) Who is forcing you to give your work away for free? 2) If your work isn't competitive with stuff that's given away for free then you should do different or better work.
I don't see many restaurants complaining about soup kitchens giving away food for free.
As for "piracy": people can copy or reverse engineer a restaurant's recipe and try to make stuff at home, but many don't and many buy overpriced coffee drinks from Starbucks. Sure people can fiddle around with piratebay, torrents etc and try to download songs, but the last I checked, iTunes is doing OK. Go figure. AFAIK, Avatar did quite well. Maybe Hollywood is going to claim it lost money due to piracy but they so often claim their movies never make money that you can't take them seriously especially with all that Hollywood Accounting going on. If they keep losing so much money why are they still around after so many decades:).
If you're selling a product, make your stuff known (marketing, viral or whatever) AND make it easy for people to pay you. If you require people to register etc or jump through other hoops, you're not going to get paid as much.
Would net-guns be better? I'm sure people can still be killed - fall down due to being tangled, break skull etc.
But between getting tased (you'd likely still falldown) and getting netted, I think I might pick the net. Might need special material to make it harder to cut through with a knife.
Even when people speak your language, making them precisely do what you want them to do is difficult (and possibly counterproductive if they're better than you in that field).
You no longer program them, you influence them to hopefully do something similar to what you think you want:).
Anyway, the AI people don't appear to know what they are doing (at least in terms of creating real AIs). Maybe someday they'll come up with a working sentient AI, and still not know what they are doing or how they actually achieved it:).
I disagree. From wikipedia: "However, it was clear that Netscape 6 was not yet ready for release and it flopped badly. It was based on Mozilla 0.6, which was not ready to be used by the general public yet due to many serious bugs that would cause it to crash often or render web pages slowly."
Sure wikipedia isn't an authoritative source, but you can find much evidence supporting that on the Internet.
Fact is, it was based on Mozilla, and Mozilla was really crap back then. Even later on Firefox 1.5 was a huge memory hog and crashed regularly - I would know I was using suse at work. It was so bad that at times it used more ram than my Windows XP virtual machine running IE (IE on XP on vmware server gsx on suse:) ).
Firefox only started getting significantly better after version 2. My colleague who was an early adopter of Firefox 2 ran into lots of probs initially. Only later on more of the bugs got fixed. So before that, Netscape could certainly not be better than IE6 or even IE5. I don't care how "standards compliant" a browser is if it keeps crashing or using up 700MB-1GB of memory.
Now, Firefox 3.5 and 3.6 are clearly better than IE6 and IE7. But years ago, Netscape 6 and 4 were pieces of shit.
Not surprised Google went with webkit instead of the Mozilla code base, and have made rather rapid progress.
FWIW, there was a time when I stuck to Netscape 3 because Netscape 4 was a piece of shit that made IE look good - kept crashing and performing badly. People like to say Microsoft killed Netscape. But IMO, Netscape killed Netscape. Their codebase was so bad that for years Mozilla languished in a "worse than IE" form. Anyone remember Netscape 6?
In the recent years Mozilla has been better than IE (and guess what its market share has gone up), but some years ago, Mozilla was something that people put up with because they somehow couldn't run Opera or IE. I remember even using Konqueror instead of Mozilla.
> because there were a lot of features they spent years working on that never made it into Vista let alone Windows 7
Maybe they outsourced too much stuff to people who kept nodding their heads and saying "Yes, no problem"... And come release time though the code kinda met the spec (if you squinted really hard and stood far enough so you couldn't smell the stench), it was still really too shitty to ship.
> I know you're an idiot but seriously try searching. It's fast, it works. Thanks, troll harder next time.
Think I don't use the winkey search? Like I said, I use Windows 7. It's fast but NOT faster than what I have on XP. I have to type more to do the same thing on windows 7. calc = 4 keys to press. In contrast on XP winkey, 2, c = 3 keys. on XP: ssh to Machine #1 = winkey, 7, 1. ssh to machine #5? winkey 7, 5.
As for works: too often with the "start" search thing, I have to type the whole name or first word of the name before the relevant shortcut shows- it doesn't even show till I type the very last letter! I don't know why that happens and what the logic is. This sort of annoying thing makes the search crap too much of a hit or miss for me. At least with my XP setup it works the same all the time.
I tried naming stuff with a number in the start to see if it makes it faster, but I get too many false positives. Perhaps I have to name stuff starting with 111,112,113, and so on, but that's still slower than XP.
You can go ahead and not believe me. And if anyone can prove me wrong and show me a way to make Windows 7 do the stuff I'm talking about faster than XP (third party-addons don't count), I'll be happy. So far it seems that with Windows 7, you're stuck with about 9 or 10 pinned apps to quick launch.
Nothing there that makes it faster. my winkey,1,1 might be slower initially than showing the desktop, but exploring the desktop and being able to sort by size, modified date etc is often much better, plus you can still access other windows doing things my way.
But anyway if there's a God, he seems to like some participation otherwise we'd be watching the "closing credits" by now. And the closing credits would probably be rather short and boring;).
UAC is nearly useless. It tells you something is about to do something exceptional, but it doesn't tell you what it is trying to do, or even the exact executable.
As for the Windows 7 UI, it doesn't speed things up for me. With XP I can close windows faster (right click on task button press C, in contrast windows 7 requires additional mouse movement to close the appropriate thumbnailed window - this is slower). I can easily set things up to launch programs or tools by creating folders[1] and short cuts in the start menu (and using Windows Classic Mode).
I use both Windows 7 and XP daily, and Windows 7 isn't more stable, it's actually a disappointment (not as big a disappointment as Vista).
The advantages of Windows 7 appear to be: 1) The per app volume control 2) Better alignment on 4K boundaries (but it's not really XP's fault that new hardware has such issues) 3) Better sandboxing (not that useful to me, since I don't use IE that much, and I run multiple browsers and some as different accounts). 4) Going to be supported for more years 5) Supports the latest DirectX stuff and graphics goodies.
The rest of the stuff just gets in the way of an "advanced" user willing to learn about how best to use the system - I haven't seen any features which actually help such users (the "god mode folder" is cool but it's more like a workaround to Window's 7 "sorry you need more clicks to do stuff now" UI)
[1] For example in Windows 95/2K/XP (and Classic Mode):
Create a folder called "1 Explore" in the start menu directory. Create shortcuts in "1 Explore": Name = Target 1 Explore Desktop = %SystemRoot%\explorer.exe ,/e, "%USERPROFILE%\Desktop" 2 Explore Home Directory = %SystemRoot%\explorer.exe ,/e, "%userprofile%" 3 Explore My Documents = %SystemRoot%\explorer.exe ,/e, "%USERPROFILE%\My Documents" 4 Explore Downloads= %SystemRoot%\explorer.exe ,/e, "C:\Documents and Settings\_www_username\My Documents\Downloads" C Explore C = %SystemRoot%\explorer.exe ,/e, c:\ D Explore D = %SystemRoot%\explorer.exe ,/e, d:\ E Explore E = %SystemRoot%\explorer.exe ,/e, e:\ F Explore F = %SystemRoot%\explorer.exe ,/e, f:\ etc
Note: _www_username is the name of the user account which my normal browser runs under (this way I already have my own sandboxing) - so even if my browser is pwned the malware cannot access my documents and other stuff.
Once you do this, you can press winkey, 1, 3 to explore My Documents (and you should set up the folder view so that you see the details and not some useless icons, this way you can sort by date, size etc.
winkey, 1, F will start the explorer to explore the F drive
I've also set winkey, 4 to launch the command prompt.
In contrast on Windows 7, winkey+<number> will just launch/foreground the relevant pinned apps or opened apps. That just limits you to just 9 (or 10?) items, there appears no way to set up your windows system to do what I normally do anymore, without resorting to a 3rd party app. Thus Windows 7 is worse for me.
> Repeat offenders should be fined in the billions of dollars as a warning to other companies
That's silly. As the various financial blow ups show: losing other people's money when you gamble with other people's money is not a big deal. Especially when you get big bonuses if you win big. It does not discourage risky/improper behaviour at all.
If you want to discourage them, send them to prison.
If a multimillionaire gets sacked because the company got huge fines, what's that to him? Though a multimillionaire may have 10-20 years more of life expectancy, but 5 years in jail would still hurt him about as much as it would hurt me. In fact it probably would be a bigger drop in lifestyle for him than for me. A multimillionaire would likely be more aware of the term "opportunity cost" than some beggar on the street.
> If the physical world is all there is, you'd think killing or mistreating someone would be worse than in a world where an eternal soul exists
That depends on whether you automatically become perfect after you die or not...
If you seriously think about it, an eternity would be too long for an imperfect sentient creature. The first thousand years might be OK. but after a thousand of those thousands, it might start not being so OK... If I'm going to be around for an eternity I'm sure going to need a significant "overhaul" so that it'll be pleasant. An eternal "heaven" with imperfect creatures would be hell.
In contrast, if it all ends after death, while it sucks but in the long run it's no big deal - since there's no long run;).
Some may say perfection is relative not absolute or there's no such thing, but let's assume the context of eternity. How long can you put up with yourself, 1000 years? 1 million years? 1 billion? Even after 1 trillion years, there'd still be plenty of time left in eternity...
And that's why when people say they would like to be like those "immortals" in Highlander, they're not thinking things through. Fortunately there's still a way of dying for those sort of "immortals", but if they somehow get encased in concrete, or left in some lagrange point...
Most such theorists assume an impersonal "force of nature" sort of God. But if God isn't like that then things become a bit more interesting.
FWIW Christians do not believe in a "force of nature" God. For example, at the wedding at Cana, though Jesus turned water into wine, he actually told the servants there to fill large jars with water (and they did), then he turned that water into wine.
It's arguable that someone who can turn water into wine miraculously would not need the water in the first place.
Similarly in the feeding of the five thousands, he started with bread and fish from the disciples. If you can create enough bread and fish from a few loaves and fish, why ask the disciples to feed the crowd? Why bother getting disciples?
Why bother with the universe in the first place?
The fact that there is a universe in the first place would seem inconsistent with the impersonal sort of God that the usual theorists think about. But not inconsistent with the sort of God Christians believe in.
Of course it could be consistent with no God as well and there being some other explanation for stuff actually existing.
Given the placebo effect exists and is so strong (lots of scientific studies out there proving it), even if there really is no God, a bunch of people who believe in a God who helps them will do better than people who don't believe there's a God. Makes it easier to access the placebo effect- anywhere, anytime. In contrast it would be harder for an "enlightened atheist" to access the placebo effect. This advantage could make a religious group evolutionarily fitter than an atheist group and do better over generations. Why is there a placebo effect in the first place? I don't know, seems it's present in some animals too.
Also, a semi-decent religion would help bias individuals towards behaving altruistically[1] which benefits the group as a whole. The individuals might die sooner or "lose out" from time to time but the group will benefit. [1] Yes I know atheists can be altruistic too. I'm saying that religion has a proven track record of influencing people to do good stuff that they otherwise wouldn't. So what if that person really isn't that good, the bottomline is others still benefit. So overall the group becomes more likely to survive. The group becomes the new evolving organism.
It'll be delusional to design a society that only works if most people are knowledgeable, intelligent, rational and altruistic. You need a system that takes into account the fact that most people are ignorant and irrational.
Why would you have to hide the radiation that much? It's not as if the terrorists can't strike targets outside the USA to badly hurt the USA.
The problem is getting a nuke in the first place. I think even the russian arms dealers know it's not a good idea to sell nukes to known terrorist groups. They might sell it to Iran or some other country, but not Al Qaeda.
What's the point of being a rich arms dealer if you have to start spending your life in a bunker because the terrorists somehow started world war 3? War is good for business, but nuclear war isn't.
But the odds are they will eventually get something else expensive before dying.
If it's all about economics we'd be happy to let the smokers smoke. After all in countries like the UK they pay more in tobacco tax than they cost the health system every year. So basically smokers are subsidizing the nonsmokers.
Fact is, eventually you are going to die. Once you're no longer producing $$$ for the country you're starting to cost it $$$.
Sure it could be your own money, but most people if they retired would eventually run out of money - unless they're the rich people who collect rents from everyone (but they start looking like the **AA bunch - not contributing much just collecting rent). Lastly not everyone can be rich enough to collect rent from everyone:).
Lastly no, it can't just be about economics. Good economics and high productivity must not be goals in themselves, they can help with providing a better life for most. But we have to be realistic about it, and not be ignorant about it. The economics are worse if we had old retired people living longer and healthier. Now if we had older working people living longer and healthier, then the economics are better. If the young bunch are fine with paying for the former case (because they think it's civilized and good) then that's great. But if instead the older people start making up the majority and vote so that the younger ones pay against their will, then more of the younger ones might leave and eventually things will go bad.
Why does it have to take up so much memory? Does doing that make it faster than Chrome?
FWIW Firefox has indeed reduced memory usage when compared to the bad old days a few years ago (when it was using more than entire vmware virtual machines:) ). Now it's less than 200MB on my machine.
OK it doesn't send HTTP requests again if you do the clearing more than once in a browser session.
But if you restart chrome then only do the clear, it will send an HTTP HEAD to Google and Google will naturally set a cookie(s). It's not the same cookie each time.
OK more details. It doesn't send HTTP requests again if you do the clearing more than once in a browser session.
But if you close all browser windows and make sure that chrome is closed, then restart it, then clear, it will send an HTTP HEAD to Google and Google will set a cookie(s). It's not the same cookie each time.
Slashdot Mirror
> This notion of "open source" makes this 83 year old developer insanely angry.
:).
1) Who is forcing you to give your work away for free?
2) If your work isn't competitive with stuff that's given away for free then you should do different or better work.
I don't see many restaurants complaining about soup kitchens giving away food for free.
As for "piracy": people can copy or reverse engineer a restaurant's recipe and try to make stuff at home, but many don't and many buy overpriced coffee drinks from Starbucks. Sure people can fiddle around with piratebay, torrents etc and try to download songs, but the last I checked, iTunes is doing OK. Go figure. AFAIK, Avatar did quite well. Maybe Hollywood is going to claim it lost money due to piracy but they so often claim their movies never make money that you can't take them seriously especially with all that Hollywood Accounting going on. If they keep losing so much money why are they still around after so many decades
If you're selling a product, make your stuff known (marketing, viral or whatever) AND make it easy for people to pay you. If you require people to register etc or jump through other hoops, you're not going to get paid as much.
Would net-guns be better? I'm sure people can still be killed - fall down due to being tangled, break skull etc.
But between getting tased (you'd likely still falldown) and getting netted, I think I might pick the net. Might need special material to make it harder to cut through with a knife.
Looks like replacing that with a combination of if-else and regexps would be more readable :)
Even when people speak your language, making them precisely do what you want them to do is difficult (and possibly counterproductive if they're better than you in that field).
:).
:).
You no longer program them, you influence them to hopefully do something similar to what you think you want
Anyway, the AI people don't appear to know what they are doing (at least in terms of creating real AIs). Maybe someday they'll come up with a working sentient AI, and still not know what they are doing or how they actually achieved it
I disagree. From wikipedia: "However, it was clear that Netscape 6 was not yet ready for release and it flopped badly. It was based on Mozilla 0.6, which was not ready to be used by the general public yet due to many serious bugs that would cause it to crash often or render web pages slowly."
:) ).
Sure wikipedia isn't an authoritative source, but you can find much evidence supporting that on the Internet.
Fact is, it was based on Mozilla, and Mozilla was really crap back then. Even later on Firefox 1.5 was a huge memory hog and crashed regularly - I would know I was using suse at work. It was so bad that at times it used more ram than my Windows XP virtual machine running IE (IE on XP on vmware server gsx on suse
Firefox only started getting significantly better after version 2. My colleague who was an early adopter of Firefox 2 ran into lots of probs initially. Only later on more of the bugs got fixed. So before that, Netscape could certainly not be better than IE6 or even IE5. I don't care how "standards compliant" a browser is if it keeps crashing or using up 700MB-1GB of memory.
Now, Firefox 3.5 and 3.6 are clearly better than IE6 and IE7. But years ago, Netscape 6 and 4 were pieces of shit.
Not surprised Google went with webkit instead of the Mozilla code base, and have made rather rapid progress.
> when you're crawling along in traffic at ~ 5 mph for an hour, the engine doesn't run for that whole hour.
With current batteries, air conditioning reduces the range of an electric car proportionately more than a normal ICE car.
Boo!!!
:p
Sorry, just too tempting
FWIW, there was a time when I stuck to Netscape 3 because Netscape 4 was a piece of shit that made IE look good - kept crashing and performing badly. People like to say Microsoft killed Netscape. But IMO, Netscape killed Netscape. Their codebase was so bad that for years Mozilla languished in a "worse than IE" form. Anyone remember Netscape 6?
In the recent years Mozilla has been better than IE (and guess what its market share has gone up), but some years ago, Mozilla was something that people put up with because they somehow couldn't run Opera or IE. I remember even using Konqueror instead of Mozilla.
> because there were a lot of features they spent years working on that never made it into Vista let alone Windows 7
Maybe they outsourced too much stuff to people who kept nodding their heads and saying "Yes, no problem"... And come release time though the code kinda met the spec (if you squinted really hard and stood far enough so you couldn't smell the stench), it was still really too shitty to ship.
> I know you're an idiot but seriously try searching. It's fast, it works. Thanks, troll harder next time.
Think I don't use the winkey search? Like I said, I use Windows 7. It's fast but NOT faster than what I have on XP. I have to type more to do the same thing on windows 7. calc = 4 keys to press. In contrast on XP winkey, 2, c = 3 keys. on XP: ssh to Machine #1 = winkey, 7, 1. ssh to machine #5? winkey 7, 5.
As for works: too often with the "start" search thing, I have to type the whole name or first word of the name before the relevant shortcut shows- it doesn't even show till I type the very last letter! I don't know why that happens and what the logic is. This sort of annoying thing makes the search crap too much of a hit or miss for me. At least with my XP setup it works the same all the time.
I tried naming stuff with a number in the start to see if it makes it faster, but I get too many false positives. Perhaps I have to name stuff starting with 111,112,113, and so on, but that's still slower than XP.
You can go ahead and not believe me. And if anyone can prove me wrong and show me a way to make Windows 7 do the stuff I'm talking about faster than XP (third party-addons don't count), I'll be happy. So far it seems that with Windows 7, you're stuck with about 9 or 10 pinned apps to quick launch.
See: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/Keyboard-shortcuts
Nothing there that makes it faster. my winkey,1,1 might be slower initially than showing the desktop, but exploring the desktop and being able to sort by size, modified date etc is often much better, plus you can still access other windows doing things my way.
Bah, just hack the ethanol generator a bit...
;).
But anyway if there's a God, he seems to like some participation otherwise we'd be watching the "closing credits" by now. And the closing credits would probably be rather short and boring
UAC is nearly useless. It tells you something is about to do something exceptional, but it doesn't tell you what it is trying to do, or even the exact executable.
/e, "%USERPROFILE%\Desktop" /e, "%userprofile%" /e, "%USERPROFILE%\My Documents" /e, "C:\Documents and Settings\_www_username\My Documents\Downloads" /e, c:\ /e, d:\ /e, e:\ /e, f:\
As for the Windows 7 UI, it doesn't speed things up for me. With XP I can close windows faster (right click on task button press C, in contrast windows 7 requires additional mouse movement to close the appropriate thumbnailed window - this is slower). I can easily set things up to launch programs or tools by creating folders[1] and short cuts in the start menu (and using Windows Classic Mode).
I use both Windows 7 and XP daily, and Windows 7 isn't more stable, it's actually a disappointment (not as big a disappointment as Vista).
The advantages of Windows 7 appear to be:
1) The per app volume control
2) Better alignment on 4K boundaries (but it's not really XP's fault that new hardware has such issues)
3) Better sandboxing (not that useful to me, since I don't use IE that much, and I run multiple browsers and some as different accounts).
4) Going to be supported for more years
5) Supports the latest DirectX stuff and graphics goodies.
The rest of the stuff just gets in the way of an "advanced" user willing to learn about how best to use the system - I haven't seen any features which actually help such users (the "god mode folder" is cool but it's more like a workaround to Window's 7 "sorry you need more clicks to do stuff now" UI)
[1] For example in Windows 95/2K/XP (and Classic Mode):
Create a folder called "1 Explore" in the start menu directory.
Create shortcuts in "1 Explore":
Name = Target
1 Explore Desktop = %SystemRoot%\explorer.exe ,
2 Explore Home Directory = %SystemRoot%\explorer.exe ,
3 Explore My Documents = %SystemRoot%\explorer.exe ,
4 Explore Downloads= %SystemRoot%\explorer.exe ,
C Explore C = %SystemRoot%\explorer.exe ,
D Explore D = %SystemRoot%\explorer.exe ,
E Explore E = %SystemRoot%\explorer.exe ,
F Explore F = %SystemRoot%\explorer.exe ,
etc
Note: _www_username is the name of the user account which my normal browser runs under (this way I already have my own sandboxing) - so even if my browser is pwned the malware cannot access my documents and other stuff.
Once you do this, you can press winkey, 1, 3 to explore My Documents (and you should set up the folder view so that you see the details and not some useless icons, this way you can sort by date, size etc.
winkey, 1, F will start the explorer to explore the F drive
I've also set winkey, 4 to launch the command prompt.
In contrast on Windows 7, winkey+<number> will just launch/foreground the relevant pinned apps or opened apps. That just limits you to just 9 (or 10?) items, there appears no way to set up your windows system to do what I normally do anymore, without resorting to a 3rd party app. Thus Windows 7 is worse for me.
The OP said: "I wonder if you need to correct for the oil if you use the Gulf of Mexico units"
So from the context the barrels are oil barrels.
> Repeat offenders should be fined in the billions of dollars as a warning to other companies
That's silly. As the various financial blow ups show: losing other people's money when you gamble with other people's money is not a big deal. Especially when you get big bonuses if you win big. It does not discourage risky/improper behaviour at all.
If you want to discourage them, send them to prison.
If a multimillionaire gets sacked because the company got huge fines, what's that to him? Though a multimillionaire may have 10-20 years more of life expectancy, but 5 years in jail would still hurt him about as much as it would hurt me. In fact it probably would be a bigger drop in lifestyle for him than for me. A multimillionaire would likely be more aware of the term "opportunity cost" than some beggar on the street.
> If the physical world is all there is, you'd think killing or mistreating someone would be worse than in a world where an eternal soul exists
;).
That depends on whether you automatically become perfect after you die or not...
If you seriously think about it, an eternity would be too long for an imperfect sentient creature. The first thousand years might be OK. but after a thousand of those thousands, it might start not being so OK... If I'm going to be around for an eternity I'm sure going to need a significant "overhaul" so that it'll be pleasant. An eternal "heaven" with imperfect creatures would be hell.
In contrast, if it all ends after death, while it sucks but in the long run it's no big deal - since there's no long run
Some may say perfection is relative not absolute or there's no such thing, but let's assume the context of eternity. How long can you put up with yourself, 1000 years? 1 million years? 1 billion? Even after 1 trillion years, there'd still be plenty of time left in eternity...
And that's why when people say they would like to be like those "immortals" in Highlander, they're not thinking things through. Fortunately there's still a way of dying for those sort of "immortals", but if they somehow get encased in concrete, or left in some lagrange point...
It does depend on what sort of God.
Most such theorists assume an impersonal "force of nature" sort of God. But if God isn't like that then things become a bit more interesting.
FWIW Christians do not believe in a "force of nature" God. For example, at the wedding at Cana, though Jesus turned water into wine, he actually told the servants there to fill large jars with water (and they did), then he turned that water into wine.
It's arguable that someone who can turn water into wine miraculously would not need the water in the first place.
Similarly in the feeding of the five thousands, he started with bread and fish from the disciples. If you can create enough bread and fish from a few loaves and fish, why ask the disciples to feed the crowd? Why bother getting disciples?
Why bother with the universe in the first place?
The fact that there is a universe in the first place would seem inconsistent with the impersonal sort of God that the usual theorists think about. But not inconsistent with the sort of God Christians believe in.
Of course it could be consistent with no God as well and there being some other explanation for stuff actually existing.
Given the placebo effect exists and is so strong (lots of scientific studies out there proving it), even if there really is no God, a bunch of people who believe in a God who helps them will do better than people who don't believe there's a God. Makes it easier to access the placebo effect- anywhere, anytime. In contrast it would be harder for an "enlightened atheist" to access the placebo effect. This advantage could make a religious group evolutionarily fitter than an atheist group and do better over generations. Why is there a placebo effect in the first place? I don't know, seems it's present in some animals too.
Also, a semi-decent religion would help bias individuals towards behaving altruistically[1] which benefits the group as a whole. The individuals might die sooner or "lose out" from time to time but the group will benefit. [1] Yes I know atheists can be altruistic too. I'm saying that religion has a proven track record of influencing people to do good stuff that they otherwise wouldn't. So what if that person really isn't that good, the bottomline is others still benefit. So overall the group becomes more likely to survive. The group becomes the new evolving organism.
It'll be delusional to design a society that only works if most people are knowledgeable, intelligent, rational and altruistic. You need a system that takes into account the fact that most people are ignorant and irrational.
> They regretted not using killer whales in the Hanoi harbor to exploit the Vietnamese cultural fear of large fish.
Cultural fear of large fish? I'm not Vietnamese and I think I'd have a better chance against an attacking great white shark than a killer whale.
Or at least a quicker death. See what killer whales get up to with their prey: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xk0fc_FzUs
FWIW, Israel has antimissile stuff and is working on more: http://www.israeli-occupation.org/2010-05-06/iaf-official-israels-anti-missile-systems-are-insufficient/
Wonder how their stuff compares to the US stuff.
Why would you have to hide the radiation that much? It's not as if the terrorists can't strike targets outside the USA to badly hurt the USA.
The problem is getting a nuke in the first place. I think even the russian arms dealers know it's not a good idea to sell nukes to known terrorist groups. They might sell it to Iran or some other country, but not Al Qaeda.
What's the point of being a rich arms dealer if you have to start spending your life in a bunker because the terrorists somehow started world war 3? War is good for business, but nuclear war isn't.
And c) isn't going to be used - even if it is, I bet you're screwed whether it works or not.
But the odds are they will eventually get something else expensive before dying.
:).
If it's all about economics we'd be happy to let the smokers smoke. After all in countries like the UK they pay more in tobacco tax than they cost the health system every year. So basically smokers are subsidizing the nonsmokers.
Fact is, eventually you are going to die. Once you're no longer producing $$$ for the country you're starting to cost it $$$.
Sure it could be your own money, but most people if they retired would eventually run out of money - unless they're the rich people who collect rents from everyone (but they start looking like the **AA bunch - not contributing much just collecting rent). Lastly not everyone can be rich enough to collect rent from everyone
Lastly no, it can't just be about economics. Good economics and high productivity must not be goals in themselves, they can help with providing a better life for most. But we have to be realistic about it, and not be ignorant about it. The economics are worse if we had old retired people living longer and healthier. Now if we had older working people living longer and healthier, then the economics are better. If the young bunch are fine with paying for the former case (because they think it's civilized and good) then that's great. But if instead the older people start making up the majority and vote so that the younger ones pay against their will, then more of the younger ones might leave and eventually things will go bad.
Why does it have to take up so much memory? Does doing that make it faster than Chrome?
:) ). Now it's less than 200MB on my machine.
FWIW Firefox has indeed reduced memory usage when compared to the bad old days a few years ago (when it was using more than entire vmware virtual machines
OK it doesn't send HTTP requests again if you do the clearing more than once in a browser session.
But if you restart chrome then only do the clear, it will send an HTTP HEAD to Google and Google will naturally set a cookie(s). It's not the same cookie each time.
OK more details. It doesn't send HTTP requests again if you do the clearing more than once in a browser session.
But if you close all browser windows and make sure that chrome is closed, then restart it, then clear, it will send an HTTP HEAD to Google and Google will set a cookie(s). It's not the same cookie each time.