To do what you suggest then you've got to bring everyone to the table. You have to hold everyone to the standards. That means you are going to starve growth in the third world. That means you have to get China to play ball. If you don't do that you will push first world businesses to operate in third world countries because it is cheaper to not be clean than to be clean. And who knows how you get China to play by the same rules as everyone else.
While SuperPACs are a problem, I don't think they are the fundamental problem. Lessig is promoting another patch to fix a piece of a broken system. The removal of SuperPACs would still leave us with a two party system. The people with money will continue to find ways to get around campaign finance reform and buy their power. I'll have wasted my money on a temporary solution and I'll still be practically disenfranchised by the wealthy.
My use of humanities courses has grown as much as my advanced math courses. Over my career I've used foreign language studies and psychology extensively in addition to the communication related courses. I've known of a few people who've had to some intesive historical research for technical projects and some computer science research requires a solid foundation in philosophical studies. Every education will have some stuff that you never use even in your own field, but a good education will expose you to the types of learning that you will need to grow your knowledge to complete any task.
Experience gives detailed in depth knowledge, education gives general broad knowledge. Being too far on either end of the spectrum can cause some difficulties. I've had several cases in my career where very good senior engineers were baffled by a problem too far afield of their experience and education, when the answer is basic 2nd year CS material.
I've known CC holders do the same while they carry, even when the other person starts a physical altercation. Having a firearm doesn't mean I have to use it to solve an altercation, it means having the option if things get to that point. Maybe you've got a skill, maybe you're in a good place in your life to not be as vulnerable, maybe you've just missed that situation where what you are and what you say is deterent enough. That isn't a one size fits all shoe you are wearing. Your experience doesn't change the idea that the primary purpose of a personal defense weapon is deterent.
I skimmed the article ( a little better than normal for/.), but it looked like he was arguing about the importance of humanities courses rather than humanities degrees. I'd agree with him that our current focus on STEM doesn't need to harm humanities courses. As I've grown in my field, I've found as great a wealth in my humanities classes as I have in my more advanced math courses.
"To want a gun is in a way proof that you're unfit to have one." So if a woman wants one after being raped and subsequently stalked, she is unfit? So if a prosecuter wants one because of how successful his career has been, he/she is unfit? If my grandfather wants one because the old man a block over was beaten to death by three teenagers, he is unfit? Don't imagine that the people who most vocally call for gun freedom are the people who benefit the most from it.
"Use a gun for its intended purpose = someone ends up dead" This seems rather simplistic. I don't own a gun but I've been researching and looking at various manufacturers for a while. Some firearms are clearly for personal defense (or homicide if you have little faith in humanity), some firearms are for killing specific types of animals other than humans, others are pretty poor choices for killing anything and are designed specifically for shooting inanimate targets, others are clearly designed to do little more than make the owner feel like a man. Finally, if I use a personal defense weapon for its intended purpose then I've never even drawn it because I've detered an attack by verbally confronting the person and letting them know I have the means and the will to protect myself.
"And if someone doesn't like the product or the idea of such a product, then don't buy one." Except that this technology is unproven and there are already attempts to legislate forcing it on gun owners. Although, even if it were actual law it wouldn't justify threatening anyone from the manufacturer.
This is R&D from a company that sells cars. A general assumption going in is: if the end consumer hasn't bought a new one at that point something has gone horribly wrong.
What is with these young people and their new fangled preversions? I guarantee you there were no perversions going on in my house growing up even when we had a corded phone.
Head mounted displays are used pretty regularly in military aviation. Issues typically involve either occlusion of field of view (which this project seems to utterly fail at) and additional weight putting strain on the vertebrae in the neck. The other thing about this is the use of personal viewing display which probably doesn't have a focal point of near infinity, which means you have to refocus your eyes between the real world and the displayed information. This looks like a really cool DIY project but it isn't a serious HMD.
We have a feature creep here. She creeps into your office and suggests features in your project and talks non-stop until she's pitched her whole idea and creeps back out.
Mathematics used to be a discipline that was used to teach critical thinking. Fortunately/unfortunately, the actual application of mathematics for every day life has become such an indispensible skill that we don't have classroom time to use it to teach critical thinking like we once did.
Eventually it would fall on congress to not pay congress, and they've already pointed out during the shutdowns: Sorry. It is against the constitution for congress not to pay itself...
Look at the Tennesee Valley Authority. It isn't a model that would work with every government service and the poverty of the region isn't a model of all poverty. However, it is a successful government project that took taxpayer seed money, is operating off of payment for services to taxpayers while still being part of the big bad federal bureaucracy, and lifted a huge group out of rampant poverty.
The reasoning behind learning decision theory is typically for humans the quality of choice criteria is inversely proportional to the number of choices. So a little competition is good but increasing competition trends towards horrible.
Presumably the idea that opposite sex coworkers aren't forced into the same situation is sexual harassment lawsuits. Such a policy is hinged on an assumption of sexual orientation that is outdated.
My parents trusting me with far more expensive computers as a toddler played a key role in my love of technology and eventual career. A few hundred bucks today is going to be much cheaper than having to keep a lib-arts major in my basement till he's in his mid 30s.
Here is the thing. My personal experience is that they are targeting articles based on the political slant they have assigned to my personal profile. I get that the slant sells but since yahoo seems to have a system that can deliver slant both ways in an semi-intelligent manner, I don't understand why they would alienate roughly half of their US audience. It isn't like liberal leaning Americans are too good for it, Huffington Post is probably the second most popular news source I see represented in my social network and it is overwhelmingly my liberal friend's online favorite news source and definitely has a frequent liberal slant.
Slashdot Mirror
To do what you suggest then you've got to bring everyone to the table. You have to hold everyone to the standards. That means you are going to starve growth in the third world. That means you have to get China to play ball. If you don't do that you will push first world businesses to operate in third world countries because it is cheaper to not be clean than to be clean. And who knows how you get China to play by the same rules as everyone else.
While SuperPACs are a problem, I don't think they are the fundamental problem. Lessig is promoting another patch to fix a piece of a broken system. The removal of SuperPACs would still leave us with a two party system. The people with money will continue to find ways to get around campaign finance reform and buy their power. I'll have wasted my money on a temporary solution and I'll still be practically disenfranchised by the wealthy.
My use of humanities courses has grown as much as my advanced math courses. Over my career I've used foreign language studies and psychology extensively in addition to the communication related courses. I've known of a few people who've had to some intesive historical research for technical projects and some computer science research requires a solid foundation in philosophical studies. Every education will have some stuff that you never use even in your own field, but a good education will expose you to the types of learning that you will need to grow your knowledge to complete any task.
Experience gives detailed in depth knowledge, education gives general broad knowledge. Being too far on either end of the spectrum can cause some difficulties. I've had several cases in my career where very good senior engineers were baffled by a problem too far afield of their experience and education, when the answer is basic 2nd year CS material.
I've known CC holders do the same while they carry, even when the other person starts a physical altercation. Having a firearm doesn't mean I have to use it to solve an altercation, it means having the option if things get to that point. Maybe you've got a skill, maybe you're in a good place in your life to not be as vulnerable, maybe you've just missed that situation where what you are and what you say is deterent enough. That isn't a one size fits all shoe you are wearing. Your experience doesn't change the idea that the primary purpose of a personal defense weapon is deterent.
I skimmed the article ( a little better than normal for /.), but it looked like he was arguing about the importance of humanities courses rather than humanities degrees. I'd agree with him that our current focus on STEM doesn't need to harm humanities courses. As I've grown in my field, I've found as great a wealth in my humanities classes as I have in my more advanced math courses.
"To want a gun is in a way proof that you're unfit to have one." So if a woman wants one after being raped and subsequently stalked, she is unfit? So if a prosecuter wants one because of how successful his career has been, he/she is unfit? If my grandfather wants one because the old man a block over was beaten to death by three teenagers, he is unfit? Don't imagine that the people who most vocally call for gun freedom are the people who benefit the most from it.
"Use a gun for its intended purpose = someone ends up dead" This seems rather simplistic. I don't own a gun but I've been researching and looking at various manufacturers for a while. Some firearms are clearly for personal defense (or homicide if you have little faith in humanity), some firearms are for killing specific types of animals other than humans, others are pretty poor choices for killing anything and are designed specifically for shooting inanimate targets, others are clearly designed to do little more than make the owner feel like a man. Finally, if I use a personal defense weapon for its intended purpose then I've never even drawn it because I've detered an attack by verbally confronting the person and letting them know I have the means and the will to protect myself.
"And if someone doesn't like the product or the idea of such a product, then don't buy one." Except that this technology is unproven and there are already attempts to legislate forcing it on gun owners. Although, even if it were actual law it wouldn't justify threatening anyone from the manufacturer.
This is R&D from a company that sells cars. A general assumption going in is: if the end consumer hasn't bought a new one at that point something has gone horribly wrong.
What is with these young people and their new fangled preversions? I guarantee you there were no perversions going on in my house growing up even when we had a corded phone.
Head mounted displays are used pretty regularly in military aviation. Issues typically involve either occlusion of field of view (which this project seems to utterly fail at) and additional weight putting strain on the vertebrae in the neck. The other thing about this is the use of personal viewing display which probably doesn't have a focal point of near infinity, which means you have to refocus your eyes between the real world and the displayed information. This looks like a really cool DIY project but it isn't a serious HMD.
We have a feature creep here. She creeps into your office and suggests features in your project and talks non-stop until she's pitched her whole idea and creeps back out.
Mathematics used to be a discipline that was used to teach critical thinking. Fortunately/unfortunately, the actual application of mathematics for every day life has become such an indispensible skill that we don't have classroom time to use it to teach critical thinking like we once did.
My company just gave me a second monitor instead.
Eventually it would fall on congress to not pay congress, and they've already pointed out during the shutdowns: Sorry. It is against the constitution for congress not to pay itself...
Look at the Tennesee Valley Authority. It isn't a model that would work with every government service and the poverty of the region isn't a model of all poverty. However, it is a successful government project that took taxpayer seed money, is operating off of payment for services to taxpayers while still being part of the big bad federal bureaucracy, and lifted a huge group out of rampant poverty.
Moderation +4 100% Funny Hey look. I just found four people who have never driven in Atlanta.
To top it off, if you ask a southerner where the worst drivers are then they will say almost without hesitation: Atlanta.
I'd be talking to a lawyer. Sounds like someone at Paypal owes $50k to Mr. Hiroshima.
The reasoning behind learning decision theory is typically for humans the quality of choice criteria is inversely proportional to the number of choices. So a little competition is good but increasing competition trends towards horrible.
Oh for some mod points.
Presumably the idea that opposite sex coworkers aren't forced into the same situation is sexual harassment lawsuits. Such a policy is hinged on an assumption of sexual orientation that is outdated.
My parents trusting me with far more expensive computers as a toddler played a key role in my love of technology and eventual career. A few hundred bucks today is going to be much cheaper than having to keep a lib-arts major in my basement till he's in his mid 30s.
Here is the thing. My personal experience is that they are targeting articles based on the political slant they have assigned to my personal profile. I get that the slant sells but since yahoo seems to have a system that can deliver slant both ways in an semi-intelligent manner, I don't understand why they would alienate roughly half of their US audience. It isn't like liberal leaning Americans are too good for it, Huffington Post is probably the second most popular news source I see represented in my social network and it is overwhelmingly my liberal friend's online favorite news source and definitely has a frequent liberal slant.