I spent some time in high school looking for a common form of a 2-digit multiplication trick and wound up deriving the quadratic formula. No one was impressed. So much for public school...
But back on topic, I think Homer Simpson's time traveling toaster is accurate with regards to the time portion: anything you do while in the past creates an alternate time stream only into which you may move forward. The problem the Simpson's didn't deal with is that if you exist in that new future, you will be a duplicate if you are able to travel forward in time to when you are alive. But I don't think forward time travel is possible since there is not/will not be a future.
Physical position notwithstanding, BTTF - while fun to watch - can't happen. Once you move backward through time you are screwed.
Distilling down time travel for the masses requires some dumbification of the minutia. Did you see "Primer"? Excellent, but required a flow chart. That's why the BTTF series was more popular.
ID is brilliant. It is what the scientists already said, followed by "because God did it that way."
I often wonder if we aren't coming up with ever-stranger theories just so Einstein and Hawking continue to be right. OTOH, who cares. Regardless of whether or not I am a hologram the bank still wants my mortgage payment.
You are still misquoting. An "essential liberty" is not the same thing as "liberty" in the context you are using it. Franklin was undoubtedly referring to basic liberties provided by the constitution.
So at issue is whether privately talking on the phone with mom is an "essential liberty," and whether or not we can assume Franklin would think so.
More interestingly, a company in this day and age of name-sensitivity actually called themselves Trolltech. Maybe they were trying to be ironic. You know, like ray-eee-ain on your wedding day.
The company for which I work used MS Word for document production for years. Then MS swooped in, told us we were violating the licenses we owned and told us to pony up a ton of dough. We changed to Open Office.
That said, OO doesn't meet our needs as well, and has some memory issues (20000 PDF conversions later, it crashes). Since it is open source it is harder for us to get timely issue resolution. Currently we are stuck on OO 2.1, as "improvements" in 2.3 exacerbated the issue, and 3.0 doesn't appear to support our interface at all.
So, yeah, down with MS and all that, but there product isn't that bad.
They can get emergency broadcasts over the radio, and will probably have more options as there are doubtless more radio stations than television stations.
I live very close to the "not in my neighborhood" people. Someone was trying to put a natural gas flotilla in Long Island Sound while many others were saying "anywhere but here." And I am sure right after protesting they went home and fired up the A/C.
My wife and I engage in a similar discussion, though we usually battle veganism (her) versus not veganism (me). Ultimately, power consumption and food consumption hit the same snag: too many people. Technology for making gadgets which use power is currently outpacing technology for generating power. But the problem with making laws is that while they are easy to make they are difficult to reverse.
Which brings up a chicken/egg question: do we legislate out of habit? Has the founders intended purpose of the legislative body been corrupted by lack of education about government?
I think it is misguided to make laws concerning t.v. power consumption. But perhaps at this point we have no choice but to do just that.
I am not against providing people with information. I merely am cautioning that information doesn't make us smart, and in fact may make us dumber if we either don't understand it or misuse it. Back to the food example, people hear that fat is bad. Given a choice of something containing 20g of fat or 20g of sugar, the average person will likely choose the sugar because they have been force-fed that fat is bad. But if the fat is mono-unsaturated and the sugar is from high-fructose corn syrup, they just chose wrong.
I am kind of a free-market fanboy. The government has no business forbidding a TV above a certain power rating threshold. In fact, they shouldn't even be forcing companies to supply us with specific information. People should demand it or take their business elsewhere (or nowhere).
I understand the intention of forcing fast food restaurants, for example, to post nutritional information. However, the inclusion of information without the education of the population is the fast lane to the castration of logical contemplation.
My first reaction to nationalization is usually negative. I see the government as a stifling force, too easily caught up in its bureaucracy to function efficiently. They are a better manager than they are a technician. I think that is how the framers of the constitution saw it, too.
Additionally, endowing the government with such control is dangerous. Control equals power. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." That is already evident in our government, as well as many others in the world. And no, I don't mean something obvious like the wiretapping crap.
Nationalization is similar to generalization: what you want to do is now a factor of what is good for the whole of the population. Do you really want your bank run by the government? I am happy to let the FDIC insure my funds, but I don't want a senate committee managing the bank.
Granted, much of this type of control already exists, and I think it is a problem. The government has extended its reach beyond facilitator and manager and wants to actually do stuff. Congressmen are now statesmen first and have lost touch with what it means to be a citizen. They no longer have to return to their states to tend to crops or other primary vocations/occupations. This self-importance has turned into a desire to make themselves more than what they are; they have forgotten they are public servants and that they work in our employ.
I would never willingly give these idiots more power. It will only make them huff and puff harder, and will eventually lead to a bleak, Orwellian future.
Governments outsource plenty, and have for a very long time. Sometimes doing a job sensibly means knowing when to let someone with better-developed capabilities handle it.
I have one at work and one at home. The best solution for a cluttered desk, but also fantastic for nearly every kind of use, and a very ergonomic design. While I like it better than a mouse for photo editing/image designing, the thumb-orientation of the trackball makes a straight line more challenging than it should be.
Ah, I see your point. As far as the movie example, $10 per ticket will give "top tier" movies like Benjamin Button such a jump in gross sales that art house flicks and other creepers in the long tail section will never make up the ground. Net sales, OTOH, may be a different story.
Looks like he got his long tail, but I don't know why anyone would expect Harry Potter to sell less simply because someone could chose to get some out-of-print book or the like. Fill Barnes and Noble with shitty fantasy that will never sell and HP will still break records. The Internet can't change that.
Suntan lotion won't stop you from getting baked; it will just leave your corpse without that nice, crispy skin. I say don't fight it and lather up with butter, salt, and pepper.
The denial part is anthropogenic climate change. Clearly, the climate changes in short-term and long-term cycles. Whether or not we cause those cycles or change them, or if our contribution is akin to flapping your arms to fly is what is being contested.
Slashdot Mirror
I spent some time in high school looking for a common form of a 2-digit multiplication trick and wound up deriving the quadratic formula. No one was impressed. So much for public school...
But back on topic, I think Homer Simpson's time traveling toaster is accurate with regards to the time portion: anything you do while in the past creates an alternate time stream only into which you may move forward. The problem the Simpson's didn't deal with is that if you exist in that new future, you will be a duplicate if you are able to travel forward in time to when you are alive. But I don't think forward time travel is possible since there is not/will not be a future.
Physical position notwithstanding, BTTF - while fun to watch - can't happen. Once you move backward through time you are screwed.
Distilling down time travel for the masses requires some dumbification of the minutia. Did you see "Primer"? Excellent, but required a flow chart. That's why the BTTF series was more popular.
ID is brilliant. It is what the scientists already said, followed by "because God did it that way."
I often wonder if we aren't coming up with ever-stranger theories just so Einstein and Hawking continue to be right. OTOH, who cares. Regardless of whether or not I am a hologram the bank still wants my mortgage payment.
The test was done on machines with differing configurations, so therefore is not valid. But interesting nonetheless.
You are still misquoting. An "essential liberty" is not the same thing as "liberty" in the context you are using it. Franklin was undoubtedly referring to basic liberties provided by the constitution.
So at issue is whether privately talking on the phone with mom is an "essential liberty," and whether or not we can assume Franklin would think so.
More interestingly, a company in this day and age of name-sensitivity actually called themselves Trolltech. Maybe they were trying to be ironic. You know, like ray-eee-ain on your wedding day.
We have posted a couple bug reports.
The company for which I work used MS Word for document production for years. Then MS swooped in, told us we were violating the licenses we owned and told us to pony up a ton of dough. We changed to Open Office.
That said, OO doesn't meet our needs as well, and has some memory issues (20000 PDF conversions later, it crashes). Since it is open source it is harder for us to get timely issue resolution. Currently we are stuck on OO 2.1, as "improvements" in 2.3 exacerbated the issue, and 3.0 doesn't appear to support our interface at all.
So, yeah, down with MS and all that, but there product isn't that bad.
They can get emergency broadcasts over the radio, and will probably have more options as there are doubtless more radio stations than television stations.
Maybe the problem is that their goals are wacky. Here is a blurb from the "Development of Generation 2.0" technology initiative page:
I get the feeling OLPC is a bunch of well-intentioned, high-level talking heads.
I live very close to the "not in my neighborhood" people. Someone was trying to put a natural gas flotilla in Long Island Sound while many others were saying "anywhere but here." And I am sure right after protesting they went home and fired up the A/C.
My wife and I engage in a similar discussion, though we usually battle veganism (her) versus not veganism (me). Ultimately, power consumption and food consumption hit the same snag: too many people. Technology for making gadgets which use power is currently outpacing technology for generating power. But the problem with making laws is that while they are easy to make they are difficult to reverse.
Which brings up a chicken/egg question: do we legislate out of habit? Has the founders intended purpose of the legislative body been corrupted by lack of education about government?
I think it is misguided to make laws concerning t.v. power consumption. But perhaps at this point we have no choice but to do just that.
I am not against providing people with information. I merely am cautioning that information doesn't make us smart, and in fact may make us dumber if we either don't understand it or misuse it. Back to the food example, people hear that fat is bad. Given a choice of something containing 20g of fat or 20g of sugar, the average person will likely choose the sugar because they have been force-fed that fat is bad. But if the fat is mono-unsaturated and the sugar is from high-fructose corn syrup, they just chose wrong.
I am kind of a free-market fanboy. The government has no business forbidding a TV above a certain power rating threshold. In fact, they shouldn't even be forcing companies to supply us with specific information. People should demand it or take their business elsewhere (or nowhere).
I understand the intention of forcing fast food restaurants, for example, to post nutritional information. However, the inclusion of information without the education of the population is the fast lane to the castration of logical contemplation.
My first reaction to nationalization is usually negative. I see the government as a stifling force, too easily caught up in its bureaucracy to function efficiently. They are a better manager than they are a technician. I think that is how the framers of the constitution saw it, too.
Additionally, endowing the government with such control is dangerous. Control equals power. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." That is already evident in our government, as well as many others in the world. And no, I don't mean something obvious like the wiretapping crap.
Nationalization is similar to generalization: what you want to do is now a factor of what is good for the whole of the population. Do you really want your bank run by the government? I am happy to let the FDIC insure my funds, but I don't want a senate committee managing the bank.
Granted, much of this type of control already exists, and I think it is a problem. The government has extended its reach beyond facilitator and manager and wants to actually do stuff. Congressmen are now statesmen first and have lost touch with what it means to be a citizen. They no longer have to return to their states to tend to crops or other primary vocations/occupations. This self-importance has turned into a desire to make themselves more than what they are; they have forgotten they are public servants and that they work in our employ.
I would never willingly give these idiots more power. It will only make them huff and puff harder, and will eventually lead to a bleak, Orwellian future.
Is that why my military-grade computer has only 3583 bytes free when it starts up?
Governments outsource plenty, and have for a very long time. Sometimes doing a job sensibly means knowing when to let someone with better-developed capabilities handle it.
I have one at work and one at home. The best solution for a cluttered desk, but also fantastic for nearly every kind of use, and a very ergonomic design. While I like it better than a mouse for photo editing/image designing, the thumb-orientation of the trackball makes a straight line more challenging than it should be.
When R. Kelly starts filming again.
Ah, I see your point. As far as the movie example, $10 per ticket will give "top tier" movies like Benjamin Button such a jump in gross sales that art house flicks and other creepers in the long tail section will never make up the ground. Net sales, OTOH, may be a different story.
Looks like he got his long tail, but I don't know why anyone would expect Harry Potter to sell less simply because someone could chose to get some out-of-print book or the like. Fill Barnes and Noble with shitty fantasy that will never sell and HP will still break records. The Internet can't change that.
Manbearpig.
They rose 1.7mm per year average over the last century, so what is the justification for the supposed 1m rise in the next century?
Suntan lotion won't stop you from getting baked; it will just leave your corpse without that nice, crispy skin. I say don't fight it and lather up with butter, salt, and pepper.
The denial part is anthropogenic climate change. Clearly, the climate changes in short-term and long-term cycles. Whether or not we cause those cycles or change them, or if our contribution is akin to flapping your arms to fly is what is being contested.