So who do you want to win. Or is the political process only about loosing no matter who beats the person you want beat.
There is a school of thought that says that the main function of elections isn't to elect the best candidate (since different people have different ideas about what is "best"), but rather to ensure that the truly dangerous candidates are kept out of power.
You may find that cynical, but certainly when the elected individual will be given the ability to do great harm (e.g. will have the nuclear launch codes), there's something to be said for weeding out the borderline-insane types.
[Hydrogen has] No reliance on a non-renewable power source or storage medium.
You're definitely going to need a storage medium for your hydrogen, or it won't be your hydrogen for very long. That means either a very large, very heavy high-pressure container, or some sort of chemical that bonds to the hydrogen until it is needed.
As far as "reliance on a non-renewable power source" goes, you can use your electricity (non-renewable or otherwise) to charge a battery, or to make and compress hydrogen gas. Barring a scientific breakthrough, charging the battery is much more efficient.
If you defined it as "during a cyberattack, would you justify turning off the Internet", you'll find that proportion is probably "no".
My feeling is the US government would never use such a kill switch unless the Internet was close to useless already. There's simply too much commerce that relies on the Internet, shutting it down would cause unacceptable damage to the US economy.
Hell, the US government isn't even willing to encrypt their GPS signals anymore (let alone shut off GPS) because too many devices rely on GPS. And many more devices rely on the Internet than on GPS.
Basically, the more people try to make this a democracy, the less free it becomes.
You sure the causality doesn't work the other way around? i.e. the less free it becomes, the more people try to make it a democracy?
Look at the full agenda of special interests who claim they're interested in "increasing democracy" for insight.
Where can I go to look at the "full agenda" of the special interests? Are you referring to their stated agenda, their actual agenda, or what you imagine their actual agenda to be?
The simple majority vote you need to execute a man (or do anything else) in the USA is 5 of 9 Supreme Court justices.
You only get to them after you've gone through the entire series of lower courts. And even if you do get to the Supreme Court, at least you're then relying on 9 legal experts who (in theory at least) will carefully consider the evidence and the law. It's not really comparable to a vote by 9 yokels who simply decide cases based on their gut instinct.
Get the fuck over yourself, people who are capable of social interaction aren't below you; you are below them. Stop jerking yourself off about how smart you are
Is the above an example of one of the "nerdrage meltdowns" you mentioned? Would you talk like this to anyone in a social situation? How would doing so make you look?
Is it worth only getting 70% of the money for the extra market presence?
To be fair, you weren't keeping 100% of the money before, either, since you had to spend money packaging/promoting/distributing/selling your app previously by some other method.
For many companies (especially small ones without a lot of volume, business acumen, or resources), having Apple handle all of that will cut their costs by enough that they'll come out ahead.
You don't consider the fact that they've done exactly that with other products to be just a little bit of evidence?
Plaintiff: Your Honor, this man is guilty of stealing cars! Judge: What is your evidence? Plaintiff: I saw him shoplifting clothes down at the mall! Judge: Well, that clinches it. Guilty as charged!
Why did they do this? I mean When we ran out phone numbers the first time we just added an exchange number, when we ran out again we just added a area code, then a country code and so on.
And how would you propose to tell all the IPv4-only apps out there to "just add an exchange number"? Oh, right, you have to modify and recompile them all to so that they will know how to do that.
Why didn't they just add an extra octet? or even just double the address space from 32 to 64?
Because breaking compatibility with all twenty gazillion existing IPv4 apps will cause the same amount of pain whether your add 1 bit or 96. Either way, all the legacy software and hardware has to be upgraded, or interfaced to.
Given that we are going to have to break compatibility once, our next goal is to not have to break it two times. Which is why IPv6 is designed to be as future-proof as possible -- so we won't have to go through this hassle again 10 years from now.
No one at Cisco is releasing big IPv6 routers. Not because there's no market demand, but because they want 20 years to have elapsed from the publication of the standard before the product comes out -- because they know that there will be hundreds of people who've had guesses at where the standard would go and filed patents around it. And it's easier to let things lapse for 20 years than fight the system.
I'm glad to see our patent system is still "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts".:^P
terrorism-noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
By your reasoning, if Apple decided they didn't want to sell me an iPhone, Apple would be engaging in terrorism.
The US and the rest of the world can not be held hostage by economic terrorism from China.
Really, must everything the US doesn't like be called terrorism? China refusing to sell us every product we want may be many things, but terrorism it isn't.
Considering you can buy a Civic for half the price, that's an awful lot of money to spend on SMUG. Particularly when it has a Chevy badge on the front.
It's a fair criticism... but so what? You don't think every Porsche, BMW, Maserati owner isn't also paying extra to "send a message" with their car?
Buying fancier-than-necessary cars as a way to express yourself is an American tradition. At least in this case, it's working to our collective benefit, as the cost of the electric technology will come down as sales volume rises and auto makers get more experience making it.
But how long before the average 'cost' of an employee is $4m?
You're not computing the cost of an employee correctly. The cost to hire an employee is (salary + benefits + taxes + office space), regardless of how much other infrastructure the company has at the same location.
Those who are employed will make more and more. And more and more will be unemployed.
Possibly true; in order to be useful, more people will have to find jobs doing things that machines can't do more efficiently. But it's not a simple zero-sum game where every job taken over by a machine means one less job for humans. The advances in efficiency also mean that activities that were previously not economical become economical, and that can open up opportunities that didn't previously exist. Efficiency can also drives down prices, to the point where people don't need as much money to get by as they used to.
You rent your land from the government for which you pay annual rent in the form of Property Tax
... and in return for paying your taxes, you get military protection, fire protection, police protection, public roads to drive on, a legal system, libraries, schools, sewers, etc etc etc.
If you feel you aren't getting a reasonable deal, you are free to go somewhere else where the social contract suits you better. Your so-called "feudal lords" won't stop you. The fact that you haven't done so suggests that you don't actually believe your own overheated rhetoric.
This is not a problem with tech, but society in general, and it is a big part on why we have 10% unemployment right now. If we changed to a 35 hour work week, as France did, we could solve the unemployment problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Marijuana is not a drug; it is a plant.
Turns out those two categories aren't mutually exclusive. Marijuana is a drug, and a plant.
So who do you want to win. Or is the political process only about loosing no matter who beats the person you want beat.
There is a school of thought that says that the main function of elections isn't to elect the best candidate (since different people have different ideas about what is "best"), but rather to ensure that the truly dangerous candidates are kept out of power.
You may find that cynical, but certainly when the elected individual will be given the ability to do great harm (e.g. will have the nuclear launch codes), there's something to be said for weeding out the borderline-insane types.
I may look like a Karma farmer
Please. We prefer the term "karma industry worker".
[Hydrogen has] No reliance on a non-renewable power source or storage medium.
You're definitely going to need a storage medium for your hydrogen, or it won't be your hydrogen for very long. That means either a very large, very heavy high-pressure container, or some sort of chemical that bonds to the hydrogen until it is needed.
As far as "reliance on a non-renewable power source" goes, you can use your electricity (non-renewable or otherwise) to charge a battery, or to make and compress hydrogen gas. Barring a scientific breakthrough, charging the battery is much more efficient.
It's incredibly expensive to build your own personal nuclear power plant just to be able to charge your car in six minutes!
True... but it's totally worth it.
If you defined it as "during a cyberattack, would you justify turning off the Internet", you'll find that proportion is probably "no".
My feeling is the US government would never use such a kill switch unless the Internet was close to useless already. There's simply too much commerce that relies on the Internet, shutting it down would cause unacceptable damage to the US economy.
Hell, the US government isn't even willing to encrypt their GPS signals anymore (let alone shut off GPS) because too many devices rely on GPS. And many more devices rely on the Internet than on GPS.
Basically, the more people try to make this a democracy, the less free it becomes.
You sure the causality doesn't work the other way around? i.e. the less free it becomes, the more people try to make it a democracy?
Look at the full agenda of special interests who claim they're interested in "increasing democracy" for insight.
Where can I go to look at the "full agenda" of the special interests? Are you referring to their stated agenda, their actual agenda, or what you imagine their actual agenda to be?
The simple majority vote you need to execute a man (or do anything else) in the USA is 5 of 9 Supreme Court justices.
You only get to them after you've gone through the entire series of lower courts. And even if you do get to the Supreme Court, at least you're then relying on 9 legal experts who (in theory at least) will carefully consider the evidence and the law. It's not really comparable to a vote by 9 yokels who simply decide cases based on their gut instinct.
Get the fuck over yourself, people who are capable of social interaction aren't below you; you are below them. Stop jerking yourself off about how smart you are
Is the above an example of one of the "nerdrage meltdowns" you mentioned? Would you talk like this to anyone in a social situation? How would doing so make you look?
Is it worth only getting 70% of the money for the extra market presence?
To be fair, you weren't keeping 100% of the money before, either, since you had to spend money packaging/promoting/distributing/selling your app previously by some other method.
For many companies (especially small ones without a lot of volume, business acumen, or resources), having Apple handle all of that will cut their costs by enough that they'll come out ahead.
You don't consider the fact that they've done exactly that with other products to be just a little bit of evidence?
Plaintiff: Your Honor, this man is guilty of stealing cars!
Judge: What is your evidence?
Plaintiff: I saw him shoplifting clothes down at the mall!
Judge: Well, that clinches it. Guilty as charged!
Nah the router just adds a prefix on the way out, and subtracts it on the way in, Kinda like how 6to4 works.
How can the router know which prefix it is supposed to add on the way out?
Why did they do this? I mean When we ran out phone numbers the first time we just added an exchange number, when we ran out again we just added a area code, then a country code and so on.
And how would you propose to tell all the IPv4-only apps out there to "just add an exchange number"? Oh, right, you have to modify and recompile them all to so that they will know how to do that.
Why didn't they just add an extra octet? or even just double the address space from 32 to 64?
Because breaking compatibility with all twenty gazillion existing IPv4 apps will cause the same amount of pain whether your add 1 bit or 96. Either way, all the legacy software and hardware has to be upgraded, or interfaced to.
Given that we are going to have to break compatibility once, our next goal is to not have to break it two times. Which is why IPv6 is designed to be as future-proof as possible -- so we won't have to go through this hassle again 10 years from now.
No one at Cisco is releasing big IPv6 routers.
Not because there's no market demand, but because they want 20
years to have elapsed from the publication of the standard before
the product comes out -- because they know that there will be
hundreds of people who've had guesses at where the standard
would go and filed patents around it. And it's easier to let things
lapse for 20 years than fight the system.
I'm glad to see our patent system is still "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts". :^P
We've known this was coming for years. Do you really think adding on another month is going to do a single thing?
Yep, it will add another month. That is a single thing.
When they are a sole supplier, it is terrorism.
Sigh....
terrorism-noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
By your reasoning, if Apple decided they didn't want to sell me an iPhone, Apple would be engaging in terrorism.
of the wto. they should never have been allowed in
Kicking China out of the World Trade Organization would be like kicking all the American teams out of the NFL.
The US and the rest of the world can not be held hostage by economic terrorism from China.
Really, must everything the US doesn't like be called terrorism? China refusing to sell us every product we want may be many things, but terrorism it isn't.
My favorite bit is 0. Where 1 is looking so inflexible, 0 shows the roundness I like.
I, for one, am looking forward to the wave of creative new euphemisms this is going to spawn.
Timken is important enough to the military that their bearing plant in Canton Ohio had its own thermonuclear warhead during the cold war.
I'm confused. Timken was so important that the military gave allocated a nuclear warhead for it? To do what, blow it up if necessary?
Considering you can buy a Civic for half the price, that's an awful lot of money to spend on SMUG. Particularly when it has a Chevy badge on the front.
It's a fair criticism... but so what? You don't think every Porsche, BMW, Maserati owner isn't also paying extra to "send a message" with their car?
Buying fancier-than-necessary cars as a way to express yourself is an American tradition. At least in this case, it's working to our collective benefit, as the cost of the electric technology will come down as sales volume rises and auto makers get more experience making it.
But how long before the average 'cost' of an employee is $4m?
You're not computing the cost of an employee correctly. The cost to hire an employee is (salary + benefits + taxes + office space), regardless of how much other infrastructure the company has at the same location.
Those who are employed will make more and more. And more and more will be unemployed.
Possibly true; in order to be useful, more people will have to find jobs doing things that machines can't do more efficiently. But it's not a simple zero-sum game where every job taken over by a machine means one less job for humans. The advances in efficiency also mean that activities that were previously not economical become economical, and that can open up opportunities that didn't previously exist. Efficiency can also drives down prices, to the point where people don't need as much money to get by as they used to.
You rent your land from the government for which you pay annual rent in the form of Property Tax
If you feel you aren't getting a reasonable deal, you are free to go somewhere else where the social contract suits you better. Your so-called "feudal lords" won't stop you. The fact that you haven't done so suggests that you don't actually believe your own overheated rhetoric.
This is not a problem with tech, but society in general, and it is a big part on why we have 10% unemployment right now. If we changed to a 35 hour work week, as France did, we could solve the unemployment problem.
Much as I love the idea of a 35 hour work week, I have to point out that France's unemployment rate is also currently at 10%.