As long as the porta potties don't smell, the campers stay off my lawn, keep the volume down and you fence the place off such that the snakes can't get into my yard then go nuts.
List 10 actions other than sitting at home alone very quietly with your hands on the table that could not in some way theoretically impact someone else or their property or their enjoyments of their sensory input in some way shape or form.
My problem with your philosophy is that if it is followed then it gives you the right to complete control of every single aspect of my life, bar none. All because you are too much of a pussy to deal with having something you don't find athsteticly pleasing where you can see it.
And obviously if people change their property such that it is not athsteticly pleasing to you that gives you the right to take control of their property away from them and make sure it conforms to what you think is pretty.
You have no right to a high resale value. None at all. Not one iota.
If you want to drive up your resale value then make a deal with them to improve the view from your house. beyond that their property is their property. Not yours.
Just because my actions could theoretically lead to lower cash value of your property that does not give you the right to take control of my property.
The US government helped build some chunks of the early internet. Yes. It did not however created the Internet all on it's own. Lots of governments and private institutions did that.
It's a stupid little piece of American nationalist myth.
Wait.... you handed in a big wad of money to the police and it didn't disappear into the ether? Good god!
I've heard enough stories along those lines and hardly any of them ever seem to involve the money going to the person who handed it in (more than one of these stories being from cops) that I feels somehow that such police departments deserve to be added to some kind of whitelist of unusually honest stations.
I don't mean that crappy code is ok. I'm just trying to say it really is remarkable to be able to turn out any non trivial body code even with extensive testing which has no detectable flaws.
I'd have expected it to be far less than 40% of code getting through that gauntlet.
Of course unless they prove the code (and even then...) there almost certainly is flaws still in there.
I can imagine in the near future the possibility of electronic tickets being issued. With some solid crypto you could then ensure both legitimacy and identity of the seller.
Does it matter if you're bankrupt to the tune of 1 million dollars or to the tune of 10 million? Bankrupt is bankrupt.
But if you're rich enough to not be driven into bankruptcy then it's a big big difference.
"loser pays" helps poor people a lot more than rich people.
Or even more accurately "loser pays" hurts rich people more than poor people and this is one of the few situations where fairness really is better achieved by that approach.
In my experience the private sector can be just as awful as any government department. There is a certain amount of selection bias since companies which are really really really bad choke on their own incompetence and fail.(unless they have political connections/and are "too big to fail") Government departments are just less inclined to die when they're insanely inefficient and unproductive due to a money supply not based on productivity.
When it comes to government contracts there's little difference since a company which keels over and dies takes with it all the money it's been paid by the government to do it's job and so we see good money thrown after bad to try to keep the company afloat and from that point on the company is as safe from keeling over due to incompetence as any government department.
So ya. The private sector when working for the government can be every bit as bad if not worse than the government doing it in house.
Really? If anything I'm more stunned that 40% of code sent in didn't have any major flaws. It isn't easy to write secure code.
I do some amateur testing for some of my friends web apps (looking for all the common ones which I'm fairly familiar with, SQl injection, XSS, various code execution fuckery etc) and it's rare to be able to hand back a list shorter than my arm and that's when they're actually writing code with security in mind.
You're not going to be extracting that ore without the use of fossil fuels
That's a very absolute and unsupported statement.
Even if it could be done solely with electric-powered vehicles and equipment, they don't exist yet and we haven't even begun making plans for producing them.
Again, a very absolute and unsupported claim. There's plenty of companies building heavy electric equipment if only because it's getting more economic. 10 seconds googling: http://www.phmining.com/PHMining/Mining-Equipment/Electric-Shovels.htm But let me guess, some element of the equipment also currently uses oil in it's production and hence when oil price goes infinite everyone will stop using their brains and all production of it will grind to a halt.
Trading of the mineral would cease without cheap fossil fuels making it economical to transport it.
I think you're failing to take into account how valuable uranium is per ton. Transporting things which are worth 50K per ton will not be a problem.
Enterprising individuals could carry it in sail boats, large canoes or swim with chunks of it clutched in their teeth and it could still be economic to run power plants on it . Again. You've just assumed that transporting things over oceans will suddenly cost infinite dollars rather than costing twice , three times or 10 times as much.
That's assuming it can be obtained at current costs based on current consumption rates. Both costs and consumption would climb, making uranium more profitable but harder to get.
Not this crap again. Double, yes double the price of uranium and you raise the cost of the power generated from it by 7%.
Triple the current prices and you get close to the point where it's economic to extract it from seawater.
Now tell me how nuclear can fill our electricity needs when its capacity will need to double or triple, we don't have the plants to provide it, and without the fossil fuels to construct them? It doesn't matter how much uranium we have if there's no way to exploit it.
If we're going to play this game, what's your plan? nuclear is the most practical and realistic option by a long shot.
Solar? if people are too inept to transport a few tons of uranium every 5 years they're certainly going to fail utterly at transporting a few thousand tons of solar panels every 20 years. Wind? Why all that steel mining uses oil!!!! hydro? well the generators in the dam require spare parts which if you're too inept to come up with substitutes take oil to mine and shape!
Applying your arguments against nuclear to absolutely everything else leaves us with the conclusion that nothing at all can work.
If we're going to do it, we'd better get moving now.
I agree. Even without peak oil that would be the smart thing to do. The current coal power generation is bad in almost every way I can think of.
This will get a title like "child-pornography and terrorism prevention and cute puppy feeding initiative" and anyone who opposes it will be labeled as a terrorist, baby-rapist, puppy starver.
Of these, only hydro is sustainable because we rely on petroleum power to obtain and refine coal, gas, and uranium.
Sure some of the others have a point but this is simply untrue particularly for uranium. Even if every ICE dissapeared overnight we'd have years before the uranium in the reactors even needed replacing and decades before the current reserves of uranium ran out. Uranium mining is not inherently dependent on oil and it's slow rate of consumption in the reactors and ease of stockpiling nuclear fuel means that it's at the very least on a par with hydro given that the generators in dams do need the occasional servicing and replacement part.
Personally I'd love to see those hyperion guys stamping out thousands of those mini reactors. If you can't get 1 shipping container into a region every 5 years without oil then your problems are bigger than lack of oil.
It's almost funny: I spent a lot of the summer reading about AI and the various problems you can run into trying to train your AI to do a task. Quite often it will find a flaw in your measurement system. Example: a robotic vacume cleaner which gets points for picking up dust... but no penalty for dumping its dust so it just dumps and picks up the same stuff in a loop.
Now machines do this mindlessly and with no malice.
Humans do the exact same thing knowing fully that they're screwing everyone else.
Copyright? Where the hell does copyright come into this? They're not printing extra tickets.
So if 20.000 tickets are sold for $50 each, thats $1M, of which half goes to the artist. Simple math. BUT, if 1000 of those tickets are sold for say, $100, by the terms of the contract, the artist is supposed to get half of 19.000x$50 + 1000x$100 and who pays the extra ?
Nobody. and that's how it should be. If the artist wanted $50 per ticket rather than $25 per ticket then they should have sold them for more in the first place.
If I make a game, print 20,000 disks and sell for $50 each, thats $1M and if I've got a particularly lucrative contract as the developer I get half. Simple math. BUT, if 1000 of those tickets are bough by someone, I get my 250K cut and then they sell those games second hand to someone else for $100 each and make a profit then that's their buisness. I've already got my cut. I have no right to a cut of their second hand sales.
If I wanted more then I should have charged more in the first place.
Does it matter if you're bankrupt to the tune of 10,000 dollars or to the tune of 10 million? "loser pays" helps poor people a lot more than rich people.
it was a little weird . The messege was bouncing slowly around over the top of the windows 98 desktop.
It was something the monitor was generating, not windows. The resolution was a bit off- words blured in a way that reminded me of when my drivers got corrupted but I have no idea why it both displayed the error and also displayed the desktop or at least why it would display the error if it could display the desktop at all.
I've had a few cases where I didn't come at the "is the power cable definitly plugged in? are there lights on on the front of the computer?" question from enough of an angle and been fed lies which in those days I was naive enough to believe. (Case that comes to mine: Upon calling out to the site- walked in, plugged the plug into the power socket in the wall, machine booted fine, walked out)
Slashdot Mirror
As long as the porta potties don't smell, the campers stay off my lawn, keep the volume down and you fence the place off such that the snakes can't get into my yard then go nuts.
it's your property.
Lets try a challenge:
List 10 actions other than sitting at home alone very quietly with your hands on the table that could not in some way theoretically impact someone else or their property or their enjoyments of their sensory input in some way shape or form.
My problem with your philosophy is that if it is followed then it gives you the right to complete control of every single aspect of my life, bar none.
All because you are too much of a pussy to deal with having something you don't find athsteticly pleasing where you can see it.
And obviously if people change their property such that it is not athsteticly pleasing to you that gives you the right to take control of their property away from them and make sure it conforms to what you think is pretty.
You have no right to a high resale value.
None at all.
Not one iota.
If you want to drive up your resale value then make a deal with them to improve the view from your house.
beyond that their property is their property.
Not yours.
Just because my actions could theoretically lead to lower cash value of your property that does not give you the right to take control of my property.
Don't worry.
It'll only be a minority of rich people who can afford that stuff.
99% of humanity will still die the same as ever.
The US government helped build some chunks of the early internet. Yes.
It did not however created the Internet all on it's own.
Lots of governments and private institutions did that.
It's a stupid little piece of American nationalist myth.
And said income taxes on the company translate into a larger bill for each of their customers at the end of each month.
Wow.
What a stretch.
Taxes are already being paid on online transactions and a cut of every bill from your ISP.
The government can't handle the internet due to incompetence, not lack of money,
Wait.... you handed in a big wad of money to the police and it didn't disappear into the ether?
Good god!
I've heard enough stories along those lines and hardly any of them ever seem to involve the money going to the person who handed it in (more than one of these stories being from cops) that I feels somehow that such police departments deserve to be added to some kind of whitelist of unusually honest stations.
I don't mean that crappy code is ok.
I'm just trying to say it really is remarkable to be able to turn out any non trivial body code even with extensive testing which has no detectable flaws.
I'd have expected it to be far less than 40% of code getting through that gauntlet.
Of course unless they prove the code (and even then...) there almost certainly is flaws still in there.
I can imagine in the near future the possibility of electronic tickets being issued.
With some solid crypto you could then ensure both legitimacy and identity of the seller.
perhaps I should have phrased it thus:
Does it matter if you're bankrupt to the tune of 1 million dollars or to the tune of 10 million?
Bankrupt is bankrupt.
But if you're rich enough to not be driven into bankruptcy then it's a big big difference.
"loser pays" helps poor people a lot more than rich people.
Or even more accurately "loser pays" hurts rich people more than poor people and this is one of the few situations where fairness really is better achieved by that approach.
yes.
yes they do.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
It implies either/both
1: supply is too low: there's room in the market for more performances/more games/larger venues.
2: initial prices are too low.
In my experience the private sector can be just as awful as any government department. /and are "too big to fail")
There is a certain amount of selection bias since companies which are really really really bad choke on their own incompetence and fail.(unless they have political connections
Government departments are just less inclined to die when they're insanely inefficient and unproductive due to a money supply not based on productivity.
When it comes to government contracts there's little difference since a company which keels over and dies takes with it all the money it's been paid by the government to do it's job and so we see good money thrown after bad to try to keep the company afloat and from that point on the company is as safe from keeling over due to incompetence as any government department.
So ya.
The private sector when working for the government can be every bit as bad if not worse than the government doing it in house.
Really?
If anything I'm more stunned that 40% of code sent in didn't have any major flaws.
It isn't easy to write secure code.
I do some amateur testing for some of my friends web apps (looking for all the common ones which I'm fairly familiar with, SQl injection, XSS, various code execution fuckery etc) and it's rare to be able to hand back a list shorter than my arm and that's when they're actually writing code with security in mind.
Do more research.
All the big uranium mines in the USA use In situ leaching
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-situ_leaching
You're not going to be extracting that ore without the use of fossil fuels
That's a very absolute and unsupported statement.
Even if it could be done solely with electric-powered vehicles and equipment, they don't exist yet and we haven't even begun making plans for producing them.
Again, a very absolute and unsupported claim.
There's plenty of companies building heavy electric equipment if only because it's getting more economic.
10 seconds googling:
http://www.phmining.com/PHMining/Mining-Equipment/Electric-Shovels.htm
But let me guess, some element of the equipment also currently uses oil in it's production and hence when oil price goes infinite everyone will stop using their brains and all production of it will grind to a halt.
Trading of the mineral would cease without cheap fossil fuels making it economical to transport it.
I think you're failing to take into account how valuable uranium is per ton.
Transporting things which are worth 50K per ton will not be a problem.
Enterprising individuals could carry it in sail boats, large canoes or swim with chunks of it clutched in their teeth and it could still be economic to run power plants on it .
Again.
You've just assumed that transporting things over oceans will suddenly cost infinite dollars rather than costing twice , three times or 10 times as much.
That's assuming it can be obtained at current costs based on current consumption rates. Both costs and consumption would climb, making uranium more profitable but harder to get.
Not this crap again.
Double, yes double the price of uranium and you raise the cost of the power generated from it by 7%.
Triple the current prices and you get close to the point where it's economic to extract it from seawater.
Now tell me how nuclear can fill our electricity needs when its capacity will need to double or triple, we don't have the plants to provide it, and without the fossil fuels to construct them? It doesn't matter how much uranium we have if there's no way to exploit it.
If we're going to play this game, what's your plan?
nuclear is the most practical and realistic option by a long shot.
Solar? if people are too inept to transport a few tons of uranium every 5 years they're certainly going to fail utterly at transporting a few thousand tons of solar panels every 20 years.
Wind? Why all that steel mining uses oil!!!!
hydro? well the generators in the dam require spare parts which if you're too inept to come up with substitutes take oil to mine and shape!
Applying your arguments against nuclear to absolutely everything else leaves us with the conclusion that nothing at all can work.
If we're going to do it, we'd better get moving now.
I agree.
Even without peak oil that would be the smart thing to do.
The current coal power generation is bad in almost every way I can think of.
Start prepping your soon-to-be-illegal darknets.
This will get a title like "child-pornography and terrorism prevention and cute puppy feeding initiative" and anyone who opposes it will be labeled as a terrorist, baby-rapist, puppy starver.
Of these, only hydro is sustainable because we rely on petroleum power to obtain and refine coal, gas, and uranium.
Sure some of the others have a point but this is simply untrue particularly for uranium.
Even if every ICE dissapeared overnight we'd have years before the uranium in the reactors even needed replacing and decades before the current reserves of uranium ran out.
Uranium mining is not inherently dependent on oil and it's slow rate of consumption in the reactors and ease of stockpiling nuclear fuel means that it's at the very least on a par with hydro given that the generators in dams do need the occasional servicing and replacement part.
Personally I'd love to see those hyperion guys stamping out thousands of those mini reactors.
If you can't get 1 shipping container into a region every 5 years without oil then your problems are bigger than lack of oil.
It's almost funny:
I spent a lot of the summer reading about AI and the various problems you can run into trying to train your AI to do a task. Quite often it will find a flaw in your measurement system.
Example: a robotic vacume cleaner which gets points for picking up dust... but no penalty for dumping its dust so it just dumps and picks up the same stuff in a loop.
Now machines do this mindlessly and with no malice.
Humans do the exact same thing knowing fully that they're screwing everyone else.
Copyright?
Where the hell does copyright come into this?
They're not printing extra tickets.
So if 20.000 tickets are sold for $50 each, thats $1M, of which half goes to the artist. Simple math. BUT, if 1000 of those tickets are sold for say, $100, by the terms of the contract, the artist is supposed to get half of 19.000x$50 + 1000x$100 and who pays the extra ?
Nobody.
and that's how it should be.
If the artist wanted $50 per ticket rather than $25 per ticket then they should have sold them for more in the first place.
If I make a game, print 20,000 disks and sell for $50 each, thats $1M and if I've got a particularly lucrative contract as the developer I get half. Simple math.
BUT, if 1000 of those tickets are bough by someone, I get my 250K cut and then they sell those games second hand to someone else for $100 each and make a profit then that's their buisness.
I've already got my cut.
I have no right to a cut of their second hand sales.
If I wanted more then I should have charged more in the first place.
Does it matter if you're bankrupt to the tune of 10,000 dollars or to the tune of 10 million?
"loser pays" helps poor people a lot more than rich people.
You mean port 25?
Blocking port 80 would be weird.
it was a little weird .
The messege was bouncing slowly around over the top of the windows 98 desktop.
It was something the monitor was generating, not windows.
The resolution was a bit off- words blured in a way that reminded me of when my drivers got corrupted but I have no idea why it both displayed the error and also displayed the desktop or at least why it would display the error if it could display the desktop at all.
I've had a few cases where I didn't come at the "is the power cable definitly plugged in? are there lights on on the front of the computer?" question from enough of an angle and been fed lies which in those days I was naive enough to believe.
(Case that comes to mine: Upon calling out to the site- walked in, plugged the plug into the power socket in the wall, machine booted fine, walked out)