Worse. If you look at the data, there were more denials than actual requests, because some requests were denied for multiple reasons. Meaning, the total number of denials is meaningless.
Who gave Bush 4 yrs before they howled, vandalized, bitched and moan - and ridiculed!?
We didn't have to wait four years for evidence of Bush's absolute incompetence. Bush screwed the pooch, firmly and repeatedly, right from day one. The jury is still out on Obama.
Except for the fact that both these systems can only print solid, unjointed, non-flexible objects with a uniform consistency. And the reprap can only make items out of a completely uneconomical material, very, very slowly.
I might buy a house built with this thing, though. That would be pretty cool. I know the reprap is 'better' in that it is a home hobbyist device, and I could build it. But the D-Shape is better in that it can print a frigen' house! I'm sorry, but that is pretty awesome.
I'm never going to be able to afford my own LHC, either, but I still like to read about it.
I hope people don't take it the wrong way because I love sword & sorcery, space opera, and hokey adventure stories of all stripes. I also love Ramen Noodles. I do not, however, regale my friends with tales of how delicious last night's Ramen Noodles tasted. They tasted like Ramen Noodles.
Tolkien wrote dialogue? I thought his books were fantasy travelogues: descriptions of places, leaving places, walking through places, and arriving at other places. I don't remember much in the way of dialogue. I just remember lots of walking. Oh, and maybe a few spiders and a dragon or something.
You see, in order to have 'brilliant timeless dialogue' your characters have to have interesting motivations. The Hobbit was a classic adventure story, which quite simply does not lend itself to interesting motivations or dialogue. The only relevant motivation in an adventure story is "We've got to achieve The Thing!" and the dialogue boils down to"Have we achieved The Thing? No? How do we achieve The Thing? Ah, we need to (go somewhere/get something/kill someone/help someone/destroy something). Let's do that now!" repeated until the answer to the first question is "Yes! We have achieved The Thing!"
The Hobbit, and Tolkien's other works are nice stories, and amazing for their time, but don't try to make them into something they aren't. "Visually stunning" was exactly what Tolkien was going for, otherwise the books wouldn't read like a travelogue.
2. If the contact lens moves with the eye, it will always be in the same position relative to the retina. Meaning, it will always be focuses on the same patch of retina (assuming the microlenses are actually, you know, lenses and not just fluffy bunnies.)
Good points, and an illustration of the classic counter argument to the theory of natural monopoly. Technological change breaks natural monopolies, the railroad breaking the canal monopoly being a classic example.
But this competition is only happening in the larger markets. And it doesn't seem to provide solutions that match what other, more regulated countries have managed to provide their citizens in terms of broadband access. Broadband penetration in the US started to lag behind many other countries about the time we overturned the rule requiring large carriers lease their wires at their own internal rates. Coincidence?
No, "it protects people's freedom's" is WHY "we think you should do this."
Hehe. Are we really just down to arguing semantics in a show of Internet chest-puffery at his point?
Maybe. But maybe I have a point.
Where do laws, rights, and freedoms come from? We can derive all sorts of fancy philosophical constructs that provide justifications and reasons for all sorts of laws, rights and freedoms. But why do we need these justifications? Because we need to get people to agree with us.
It may be an ugly truth, but there are no 'natural rights.' Without society, there is only power. With society, there are only agreements: contracts, where people give something and gain something.
So the cold hard fact is that the only reason "don't kill people" is NOT on an equal footing as a law with "go to church on Sunday or else" is because more people think agreeing not to kill each other is more important than agreeing to go to church every Sunday.
We don't have to look far for contra-examples, either. "Don't kill people" goes out the window in war, doesn't it? Every society thinks it is just fine to kill people for in certain situations. And some think everyone should go to church, by law.
If you think these societies are wrong headed about these issues, you need to change their minds, and they need to change their agreements. Freedom only comes from agreements, where something of value to each individual is offered and received.
Justification of law by the protection of freedom is a good argument. As long as you realize that everyone has a different definition of 'freedom,' and that every freedom involves a trade, a freedom lost for a freedom gained.
Hmmm, telcos, being natural monopolies, are highly regulated. Regulatory capture could be a means to raise the bar, or it could be a way to control the regulations already in place.
I can give a specific example: regulators want telcos to rent out their lines at the same rate the telcos charge themselves. Telcos don't want that, they want to price everyone else out of the business. So they spend money to change those regulations.
Name me one entity that wants to compete with the telcos in the market where telcos have a natural monopoly. Anyone trying to run additional phone lines to every single house? Thought not.
What I meant was that no company will roll out new wires where another company already has sufficient wires. I thought the reference to natural monopolies would make that clear, but I can see how you interpreted it differently.
If I wanted to convey what you believe I meant, I would have written "In every case where someone should do something, and they don't, we make a law to force them to."
What I wrote is simply true in a literal sense. I don't really see how it is controversial. "We believe you should do this" is the ultimate justification for every law on the books.
Of course there is a difference between 'should do' and 'must do.' We are a free democracy, and we have a system for determining which 'should dos' become 'must dos.' I never said that every 'should' should be made into law. I'm saying every law is something that people 'should' do, but won't, without consequences.
I hate to rain on your wishful thinking, but if what you say actually worked in reality, there should be at least one telco that already prohibits caller ID spoofing. Is there?
Really? You think laws are a bad idea? What method would you use to ensure that people's freedoms aren't infringed upon? As laws in a free democracy amount to nothing more than contracts between individuals, it seems as though you don't agree with the whole concept of contracts.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. Bush passed the buck wherever and whenever possible.
Worse. If you look at the data, there were more denials than actual requests, because some requests were denied for multiple reasons. Meaning, the total number of denials is meaningless.
Who gave Bush 4 yrs before they howled, vandalized, bitched and moan - and ridiculed!?
We didn't have to wait four years for evidence of Bush's absolute incompetence. Bush screwed the pooch, firmly and repeatedly, right from day one. The jury is still out on Obama.
Bullshit.
False.
You're giving attention and ad revenue to a political operative.
Bullshit.
Wow! What cogent reasoning. Let me add my counterpoint:
Your mother wears combat boots.
Haha! Now that I have totally demolished your argument, what will you do?
Seriously, though, how is linking to Breitbart and not the AP story NOT giving money and attention to Breitbart?
Except for the fact that both these systems can only print solid, unjointed, non-flexible objects with a uniform consistency. And the reprap can only make items out of a completely uneconomical material, very, very slowly.
Yes, there was dialogue. None of it brilliant by comparison to other books I've read.
I might buy a house built with this thing, though. That would be pretty cool. I know the reprap is 'better' in that it is a home hobbyist device, and I could build it. But the D-Shape is better in that it can print a frigen' house! I'm sorry, but that is pretty awesome.
I'm never going to be able to afford my own LHC, either, but I still like to read about it.
Youngster, simple farmer, Hobbit, it's all the same dude.
Perhaps you, as well as I, block the writings of Donaldson from your mind as a defense mechanism. But now you've gone and reminded me....
*TWITCH*
You stupid fucking self centered whiny leper, shut the fuck up already!
*TWITCH*
Sorry...
Why can't you have this? It's real. It exists. If I had enough money, I could buy a reprap. If I had enough money, I could also buy the D-Shape.
The reprap is better at printing small items in expensive plastic. The D-Shape is better at printing large items in cheap stone.
I hope people don't take it the wrong way because I love sword & sorcery, space opera, and hokey adventure stories of all stripes. I also love Ramen Noodles. I do not, however, regale my friends with tales of how delicious last night's Ramen Noodles tasted. They tasted like Ramen Noodles.
Tolkien wrote dialogue? I thought his books were fantasy travelogues: descriptions of places, leaving places, walking through places, and arriving at other places. I don't remember much in the way of dialogue. I just remember lots of walking. Oh, and maybe a few spiders and a dragon or something.
You see, in order to have 'brilliant timeless dialogue' your characters have to have interesting motivations. The Hobbit was a classic adventure story, which quite simply does not lend itself to interesting motivations or dialogue. The only relevant motivation in an adventure story is "We've got to achieve The Thing!" and the dialogue boils down to"Have we achieved The Thing? No? How do we achieve The Thing? Ah, we need to (go somewhere/get something/kill someone/help someone/destroy something). Let's do that now!" repeated until the answer to the first question is "Yes! We have achieved The Thing!"
The Hobbit, and Tolkien's other works are nice stories, and amazing for their time, but don't try to make them into something they aren't. "Visually stunning" was exactly what Tolkien was going for, otherwise the books wouldn't read like a travelogue.
1. Then what is the microlens for?
2. If the contact lens moves with the eye, it will always be in the same position relative to the retina. Meaning, it will always be focuses on the same patch of retina (assuming the microlenses are actually, you know, lenses and not just fluffy bunnies.)
1. You say each LED is not collimated or directional but then you mention a microlens system. What does this microlens do, if not collimate?
2. Contact lenses move with the eye.
3. See 2.
Yes, but Keira Knightley doesn't rhyme with any brand of vehicle I can think of.
Good points, and an illustration of the classic counter argument to the theory of natural monopoly. Technological change breaks natural monopolies, the railroad breaking the canal monopoly being a classic example.
But this competition is only happening in the larger markets. And it doesn't seem to provide solutions that match what other, more regulated countries have managed to provide their citizens in terms of broadband access. Broadband penetration in the US started to lag behind many other countries about the time we overturned the rule requiring large carriers lease their wires at their own internal rates. Coincidence?
No, "it protects people's freedom's" is WHY "we think you should do this."
Hehe. Are we really just down to arguing semantics in a show of Internet chest-puffery at his point?
Maybe. But maybe I have a point.
Where do laws, rights, and freedoms come from? We can derive all sorts of fancy philosophical constructs that provide justifications and reasons for all sorts of laws, rights and freedoms. But why do we need these justifications? Because we need to get people to agree with us.
It may be an ugly truth, but there are no 'natural rights.' Without society, there is only power. With society, there are only agreements: contracts, where people give something and gain something.
So the cold hard fact is that the only reason "don't kill people" is NOT on an equal footing as a law with "go to church on Sunday or else" is because more people think agreeing not to kill each other is more important than agreeing to go to church every Sunday.
We don't have to look far for contra-examples, either. "Don't kill people" goes out the window in war, doesn't it? Every society thinks it is just fine to kill people for in certain situations. And some think everyone should go to church, by law.
If you think these societies are wrong headed about these issues, you need to change their minds, and they need to change their agreements. Freedom only comes from agreements, where something of value to each individual is offered and received.
Justification of law by the protection of freedom is a good argument. As long as you realize that everyone has a different definition of 'freedom,' and that every freedom involves a trade, a freedom lost for a freedom gained.
Hmmm, telcos, being natural monopolies, are highly regulated. Regulatory capture could be a means to raise the bar, or it could be a way to control the regulations already in place.
I can give a specific example: regulators want telcos to rent out their lines at the same rate the telcos charge themselves. Telcos don't want that, they want to price everyone else out of the business. So they spend money to change those regulations.
Name me one entity that wants to compete with the telcos in the market where telcos have a natural monopoly. Anyone trying to run additional phone lines to every single house? Thought not.
What I meant was that no company will roll out new wires where another company already has sufficient wires. I thought the reference to natural monopolies would make that clear, but I can see how you interpreted it differently.
I'm not sure exactly what part of the theory you are objecting too, so I'm not exactly sure how to respond.
If I wanted to convey what you believe I meant, I would have written "In every case where someone should do something, and they don't, we make a law to force them to."
What I wrote is simply true in a literal sense. I don't really see how it is controversial. "We believe you should do this" is the ultimate justification for every law on the books.
Of course there is a difference between 'should do' and 'must do.' We are a free democracy, and we have a system for determining which 'should dos' become 'must dos.' I never said that every 'should' should be made into law. I'm saying every law is something that people 'should' do, but won't, without consequences.
I hate to rain on your wishful thinking, but if what you say actually worked in reality, there should be at least one telco that already prohibits caller ID spoofing. Is there?
Really? You think laws are a bad idea? What method would you use to ensure that people's freedoms aren't infringed upon? As laws in a free democracy amount to nothing more than contracts between individuals, it seems as though you don't agree with the whole concept of contracts.