Ah yes observing the passenger's body language definitely increases the safety factor:)
Actually the advantage of talking to a passenger is that the passenger is also paying (some) attention to the road, and so usually (a) knows when to shut up and let you drive, and (b) sometimes will even tell you to look out for some hazard you didn't notice. Contrast that to the person at the other end of the cell phone connection, who has no idea what is on the road around you, and will happily blabber on, demanding your attention even when you really ought to be swerving/braking.
This has to be the most petty thing I've seen. How many millions of other people would be guilty of this as well?
Yes, I believe that was the point.
I know there are people who hate Bush, but really, this is insane.
Again, that was the point -- to make it obvious to everyone that the RIAA's legal claims are ridiculous. Not everything is a conspiracy against Bush, you know.
I think people use newspeak bullcrap words like and "meme" because they're so ill-defined that people can use them any way they want without conveying any meaning at all
I disagree.... I think "meme" is a useful word to use when you want to draw attention to the way that ideas propagate and evolve over time. It's only 'newspeak' for a few years and then it becomes part of the language, just like any other word.
Of course it is possible to misuse or overuse the concept, but that's the speaker's fault, not the word's.
In essence, we're stuck on this rock we call earth. So how about, instead of wasting all this money so a bunch of scifi dreamers can get their jollies, we spend our money and effort trying to make earth a better place instead?
While I agree with the above, I'd like to propose a middle way: do all of our exploration using unmanned craft until we have developed an economical way to lift large payloads into GEO. Trying to send humans to Mars using our current lift-to-dollars ratio is like Columbus trying to explore the New World by swimming across the Atlantic. Once we can safely and economically lift hundreds of tons of material into orbit on a daily basis, then it's time to think about sending humans to Mars.
So, yeah, rather than killing 100,000 Iraqi civilians, turning Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorists, making the rest of the world hate us, and destroying the US constitution as an added bonus, we *could* have done a LOT more fun and worthwhile things. Or Bush could instead have just given $10,000 to each family in the US to spend how they please. Same cost.
I should probably point out that if we divide the cost of the war in Iraq ($400 billion) by the population of Iraq (a bit over 26 million), we find that we've already spent $14,934 per Iraqi citizen. In retrospect, perhaps we should have just mailed them each a check with a note that says "this check will be valid as soon as Saddam Hussein is out of power". That would have accomplished our goals more cheaply, with far less loss of life.
And of course if you use the more realistic $1 trillion figure mentioned above instead of just the $400 billion we've spent so far, then when all is said and done we will have spent $37,336 for each Iraqi citizen. Maybe we should just bought them all a new SUV? (Oprah style!)
But I suppose it's not how much money we spend, but rather who we spend it on. A cool trillion dollars of US tax money in defense contractors' pockets is a pretty good return on their political investment, isn't it? What a wonderful coincidence that Halliburton's former CEOjust happens to be the Vice President who was the driving force behind this, err, extraordinarily generous expenditure of US tax dollars.
The way to end this cycle of corruption is to extract the money and the power from Washington. If this government was ~20% of its current size and focused on the core mission outlined in The Constitution, many of the issues related to big-money influence in DC would take care of themselves.
Of course, the people with the power to make that change (i.e. the elected officials) are by definition the ones who benefitted most from the status quo. Convincing them to bite the hand that feeds them is therefore quite difficult. Catch-22:^(
Hea, I'd like to know.. Where did you get the authority to tell me I have to follow this system?
Me? I don't have the authority to tell you anything, I'm just some random guy on Slashdot. Now if you are asking, where does the government get the authority to tell you what to do... ultimately, that authority comes from the barrel of a gun.
But if I !*DARE*! smoke a marijuana cigarette they they have the right to kill me..?
Err, no. At least in the US, they would at worst throw you in jail. They certainly don't have the right to kill you for smoking marijuana.
I have a hard time believing that my neighbor would be laying an ambush for me, *IF ONLY* that police car didn't drive by every 12 hours.
That's because you haven't thought it through. It's not just a matter of the police not driving by. Imagine a scenario where the US government has ceased to function (say, due to a biological attack that killed 95% of the government officials, or something). Now you (and your neighbors) all know that not only will the police not be driving down your block today or tomorrow or next week, but possibly there won't be a police department ever again. And furthermore, your neighbors know that you have some good stuff that they would really like to have for themselves (perhaps a big screen TV, or some canned food), and that they can come and take it from you with absolutely no consequences, because the police force no longer exists. How many days do you think it would be before someone comes to your door and demands that you give them what they want, or they will just beat you up and take it? Not too many, I'd bet.
Clearly, most of your neighbors are good people and wouldn't go around bullying and mugging people even if they knew they could get away with it. But there will always be some people who are like that, and who don't do that thing only because they know they'd probably get caught and thrown in jail. That is why governments were created, and that is why they are useful.
They don't keep us safe.. they enforce our oppression, we protect ourselves.. they clean up the mess.
I think you must be very young or naive, because you only think about the drawbacks of government and never about the benefits (which you take for granted because you've never had to worry about losing them). Suffice it to say, the government is what keeps you from being the bitch of the biggest strongest meanest guy on your block.
Nuclear Energy is non-renewable? Excuse me? That is like stating that solar energy or wind power is non-renewable. They are ALL in infinite supply and are non-expendable (we cannot use them all up.)
As I understand it, nuclear fission requires a steady supply of uranium fuel. Uranium must be mined from the ground, which contains a finite supply. Therefore, nuclear energy is non-renewable: some day, the Earth's supply of usable uranium will run out.
Solar and wind, on the other hand, will only run out of "fuel" when the sun ceases to shine, billions of years from now. Since mankind will either have died out or gone on to other things by then, these energy sources can be considered renewable.
Which is not going to happen in the US because the greens have made it impossible to get licenses for new nuclear plants.
I wouldn't be so sure about that... many environmentalists are starting to consider nuclear power as a way to address global warming. I expect the movement towards nuclear power will continue as the climate change problem gets worse, unless some better power technology appears.
one of the main reasons the fuel chosen away back when was the fuel chosen was because gas was so friggen' dirt cheap. Why bother putting ANY more development into gas burning vehicles, hybrid or otherwise?
Back when gasoline was chosen as a fuel, their was no infrastructure built for any fuel type. But now we live in a world with trillions of dollars in infrastructure available to support gasoline production/distribution/consumption. Any (incompatible) competing fuel would have to be so incredibly cheap that building a second infrastructure on that same scale would be cheaper than continuing to use the one we have. So far, that hasn't happened (although I have no doubt it will at some point)
The gangs that run things here are so brutal that you could never stand a chance against them.. that is why I follow their rules.. I mean "laws".
Yep, you and everybody else. Which is why you can (generally speaking) go about your life without having to worry that you'll be shot dead in the street by one armed group or another.
A government monopoly on violence is a good thing. A government where the will of the people can be expressed is even better (note: by "will of the people", I don't mean your personal will to do whatever you want, I mean the aggregate will of the majority).
Granted, some medical problems are genetic or birth defects, but the vast majority are the fault of the individual.
Evidence, please? Or are you just assuming that everyone's health problems have to be somehow their own fault, because otherwise you'd look like a heartless bastard?
So if you're accident-prone and I'm not, or you're stupid enough to smoke or do drugs while I maintain a healthy lifestyle, why should I pay to support your stupidity?
Right, because children of poor parents are too stupid to deserve health care. That's just what they get for being born poor. Get over yourself and your sense of entitlement. Not everybody is as rich as you, or as smart as you think you are.
Frankly, I'm sick and tired of this nanny-state mentality. Why should it be the states responsibility to protect you from everything? What the hell happened to being self-sufficient?
Self-suffiency went out when agriculture and civilization came in. Unless you're the Unabomber and till the soil yourself, you depend on thousands of people every day for your very survival. Having a system where sick or injured people can get health care when they need it is simply common sense. And denying health care to people who can't afford it is cruel, inhumane, and unworthy of a first world country.
Just because responsibility is no longer in style doesn't mean we should be encouraging people to act irresponsibly.
Hahaha! Health insurance is "encouraging people to act irresponsibly". That's hilarious!
Ah, no. Re-read what I said: a representitive democracy. As in, the people vote in representatives for themselves, and the representatives make the decisions. Something like what we have now, except that the representatives would be beholden to voters, not campaign donors.
(Further description of straw man omitted)
Let me get this straight.. your saying that anarchy is not freedom because men with guns will come and use force on you to make you pay what they call "taxes"? How is this any different than the system we have now?
In the system we have now, everyone agrees on a single system of taxation and (in theory, at least) has the ability to lobby to change it if they feel it's not fair. In an anarchy, there is no agreement as to who has the authority to wield power, and thus there are constant battles between factions. If you want to see what anarchy is like, take a trip to Baghdad (either right now, or better yet, in the months after the US soldiers finally pull out and leave everyone to their own devices). See if you can tell the difference between that and "what we have now", and whether you think anarchy is an improvement, or not.
No, you need either the foresight to have bought medical insurance
If you're in perfect health (and thus don't much need it), you can buy health insurance in the US. If not, good luck... you'll either pay a boatload of money every month, or find it impossible to get health insurance for any amount of money.
Perhaps what we need is a law that (a) requires everybody to have health insurance (similar to what we do with auto liability insurance now), and (b) requires insurance companies to offer basic health insurance to everybody at the same price, regardless of their medical history. That way the large new pool of healthy insured people would amortize the costs of the large new people of unhealthy insured people... which I believe is the way insurance is supposed to work.
I've always been partial to that whole 'representative democracy' thing, where the people themselves are in charge via their votes. Of course, that would require an informed electorate, and some sort of public financing system, so that every election doesn't degenerate into a game of "whoever can raise the most money and buy the most TV time, wins"
I would counter that in order for it to be freedom nobody can be "in charge".
Nah, you're thinking of anarchy. Anarchy isn't freedom, because in an anarchy, the only people who are "free" to live their lives the way they want are those that can afford to buy the necessary machine guns, platoons of bodyguards, etc, to protect themselves. For the average person, having a stable, government (one with a monopoly on violence and the wisdom not to abus that monopoly) gives them much more freedom than they would have without one.
No it is a profound wake up call to the fat lazy middle class by just another lazy fat bastard
Not to rain on your parade or anything, but how many fat lazy bastards do you know that create successful feature-length documentaries? A proper fat lazy bastard wouldn't do that, he'd sit on the couch, eat corn chips by the bucket, and post angry pointless rants to Slashdot.
His movies and opinions don't incite change, they just fucking piss everyone off.
And yet here we all are, discussing way to improve the U.S. health care system, and the movie hasn't even been released yet. And the only one "fucking pissed off" so far, is you.
Yes, but the downside is that you'll have to spend the rest of your life with a known criminal: you. Personally I think that's too high a price to pay for a lousy Dell laptop.
Iraq may not be the best model, but it's worth considering that dictatorships should be outlawed once and for all.
Great... first we have to decide which countries qualify as "dictatorships" (e.g. does Russia? How about Venezuela? How about Pakistan?). Then once everybody has agreed on that, we'll have to decide who is going to invade the now-outlawed countries to force them to have a democracy instead. Should the USA do it? How about China? Or perhaps the United Nations should assemble a vast army and implement regime change? Anyway, I'm sure that will be sorted out one way or another.... once that's done, the only remaining thing to do will be to ensure that the now-liberated countries don't just go ahead and vote in another dictator strongman the first chance they get... so we'll have to threaten to invade any country whose citizens don't vote for "acceptable" candidates. Of course that might be impractical, so maybe we'll just have to tell them who they must vote for during each election, and bomb them if they don't comply.
think the moral of this story is that archiving anything, even if it seems durable, is hard. Now, how confident do you feel about those backup tapes that are in the closet down the hall? How much moisture is getting to them just from the humidity in the air?
Never mind your old data... how confident are we that our canisters of radioactive waste are going to remain inviolate for <the remainder of humanity's time on Earth>?
As to people who think that "turbo" is simply another word for "fast," I submit that the English language is dying in bits and pieces
s/dying/evolving
Actually, French is dying, specifically because there is Official Standard French and the French government won't allow people to use the language they way they want to. English, on the other hand, can be abused and mutated any way you like, and because of that flexibility it has become one of the world's most popular languages.
Not that this has anything to do with memory, "turbo" or otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the advantage of talking to a passenger is that the passenger is also paying (some) attention to the road, and so usually (a) knows when to shut up and let you drive, and (b) sometimes will even tell you to look out for some hazard you didn't notice. Contrast that to the person at the other end of the cell phone connection, who has no idea what is on the road around you, and will happily blabber on, demanding your attention even when you really ought to be swerving/braking.
Yes, I believe that was the point.
I know there are people who hate Bush, but really, this is insane.
Again, that was the point -- to make it obvious to everyone that the RIAA's legal claims are ridiculous. Not everything is a conspiracy against Bush, you know.
Shortening means something else entirely.
I disagree.... I think "meme" is a useful word to use when you want to draw attention to the way that ideas propagate and evolve over time. It's only 'newspeak' for a few years and then it becomes part of the language, just like any other word.
Of course it is possible to misuse or overuse the concept, but that's the speaker's fault, not the word's.
While I agree with the above, I'd like to propose a middle way: do all of our exploration using unmanned craft until we have developed an economical way to lift large payloads into GEO. Trying to send humans to Mars using our current lift-to-dollars ratio is like Columbus trying to explore the New World by swimming across the Atlantic. Once we can safely and economically lift hundreds of tons of material into orbit on a daily basis, then it's time to think about sending humans to Mars.
I should probably point out that if we divide the cost of the war in Iraq ($400 billion) by the population of Iraq (a bit over 26 million), we find that we've already spent $14,934 per Iraqi citizen. In retrospect, perhaps we should have just mailed them each a check with a note that says "this check will be valid as soon as Saddam Hussein is out of power". That would have accomplished our goals more cheaply, with far less loss of life.
And of course if you use the more realistic $1 trillion figure mentioned above instead of just the $400 billion we've spent so far, then when all is said and done we will have spent $37,336 for each Iraqi citizen. Maybe we should just bought them all a new SUV? (Oprah style!)
But I suppose it's not how much money we spend, but rather who we spend it on. A cool trillion dollars of US tax money in defense contractors' pockets is a pretty good return on their political investment, isn't it? What a wonderful coincidence that Halliburton's former CEO just happens to be the Vice President who was the driving force behind this, err, extraordinarily generous expenditure of US tax dollars.
Not that I'm bitter or anything....
Of course, the people with the power to make that change (i.e. the elected officials) are by definition the ones who benefitted most from the status quo. Convincing them to bite the hand that feeds them is therefore quite difficult. Catch-22
Me? I don't have the authority to tell you anything, I'm just some random guy on Slashdot. Now if you are asking, where does the government get the authority to tell you what to do... ultimately, that authority comes from the barrel of a gun.
But if I !*DARE*! smoke a marijuana cigarette they they have the right to kill me..?
Err, no. At least in the US, they would at worst throw you in jail. They certainly don't have the right to kill you for smoking marijuana.
I have a hard time believing that my neighbor would be laying an ambush for me, *IF ONLY* that police car didn't drive by every 12 hours.
That's because you haven't thought it through. It's not just a matter of the police not driving by. Imagine a scenario where the US government has ceased to function (say, due to a biological attack that killed 95% of the government officials, or something). Now you (and your neighbors) all know that not only will the police not be driving down your block today or tomorrow or next week, but possibly there won't be a police department ever again. And furthermore, your neighbors know that you have some good stuff that they would really like to have for themselves (perhaps a big screen TV, or some canned food), and that they can come and take it from you with absolutely no consequences, because the police force no longer exists. How many days do you think it would be before someone comes to your door and demands that you give them what they want, or they will just beat you up and take it? Not too many, I'd bet.
Clearly, most of your neighbors are good people and wouldn't go around bullying and mugging people even if they knew they could get away with it. But there will always be some people who are like that, and who don't do that thing only because they know they'd probably get caught and thrown in jail. That is why governments were created, and that is why they are useful.
They don't keep us safe.. they enforce our oppression, we protect ourselves.. they clean up the mess.
I think you must be very young or naive, because you only think about the drawbacks of government and never about the benefits (which you take for granted because you've never had to worry about losing them). Suffice it to say, the government is what keeps you from being the bitch of the biggest strongest meanest guy on your block.
As I understand it, nuclear fission requires a steady supply of uranium fuel. Uranium must be mined from the ground, which contains a finite supply. Therefore, nuclear energy is non-renewable: some day, the Earth's supply of usable uranium will run out.
Solar and wind, on the other hand, will only run out of "fuel" when the sun ceases to shine, billions of years from now. Since mankind will either have died out or gone on to other things by then, these energy sources can be considered renewable.
I wouldn't be so sure about that... many environmentalists are starting to consider nuclear power as a way to address global warming. I expect the movement towards nuclear power will continue as the climate change problem gets worse, unless some better power technology appears.
Back when gasoline was chosen as a fuel, their was no infrastructure built for any fuel type. But now we live in a world with trillions of dollars in infrastructure available to support gasoline production/distribution/consumption. Any (incompatible) competing fuel would have to be so incredibly cheap that building a second infrastructure on that same scale would be cheaper than continuing to use the one we have. So far, that hasn't happened (although I have no doubt it will at some point)
Yep, you and everybody else. Which is why you can (generally speaking) go about your life without having to worry that you'll be shot dead in the street by one armed group or another.
A government monopoly on violence is a good thing. A government where the will of the people can be expressed is even better (note: by "will of the people", I don't mean your personal will to do whatever you want, I mean the aggregate will of the majority).
Evidence, please? Or are you just assuming that everyone's health problems have to be somehow their own fault, because otherwise you'd look like a heartless bastard?
So if you're accident-prone and I'm not, or you're stupid enough to smoke or do drugs while I maintain a healthy lifestyle, why should I pay to support your stupidity?
Right, because children of poor parents are too stupid to deserve health care. That's just what they get for being born poor. Get over yourself and your sense of entitlement. Not everybody is as rich as you, or as smart as you think you are.
Frankly, I'm sick and tired of this nanny-state mentality. Why should it be the states responsibility to protect you from everything? What the hell happened to being self-sufficient?
Self-suffiency went out when agriculture and civilization came in. Unless you're the Unabomber and till the soil yourself, you depend on thousands of people every day for your very survival. Having a system where sick or injured people can get health care when they need it is simply common sense. And denying health care to people who can't afford it is cruel, inhumane, and unworthy of a first world country.
Just because responsibility is no longer in style doesn't mean we should be encouraging people to act irresponsibly.
Hahaha! Health insurance is "encouraging people to act irresponsibly". That's hilarious!
Ah, no. Re-read what I said: a representitive democracy. As in, the people vote in representatives for themselves, and the representatives make the decisions. Something like what we have now, except that the representatives would be beholden to voters, not campaign donors.
(Further description of straw man omitted)
Let me get this straight.. your saying that anarchy is not freedom because men with guns will come and use force on you to make you pay what they call "taxes"? How is this any different than the system we have now?
In the system we have now, everyone agrees on a single system of taxation and (in theory, at least) has the ability to lobby to change it if they feel it's not fair. In an anarchy, there is no agreement as to who has the authority to wield power, and thus there are constant battles between factions. If you want to see what anarchy is like, take a trip to Baghdad (either right now, or better yet, in the months after the US soldiers finally pull out and leave everyone to their own devices). See if you can tell the difference between that and "what we have now", and whether you think anarchy is an improvement, or not.
No, you need either the foresight to have bought medical insurance
If you're in perfect health (and thus don't much need it), you can buy health insurance in the US. If not, good luck... you'll either pay a boatload of money every month, or find it impossible to get health insurance for any amount of money.
Perhaps what we need is a law that (a) requires everybody to have health insurance (similar to what we do with auto liability insurance now), and (b) requires insurance companies to offer basic health insurance to everybody at the same price, regardless of their medical history. That way the large new pool of healthy insured people would amortize the costs of the large new people of unhealthy insured people... which I believe is the way insurance is supposed to work.
..And just who would you like to put in charge?
I've always been partial to that whole 'representative democracy' thing, where the people themselves are in charge via their votes. Of course, that would require an informed electorate, and some sort of public financing system, so that every election doesn't degenerate into a game of "whoever can raise the most money and buy the most TV time, wins"
I would counter that in order for it to be freedom nobody can be "in charge".
Nah, you're thinking of anarchy. Anarchy isn't freedom, because in an anarchy, the only people who are "free" to live their lives the way they want are those that can afford to buy the necessary machine guns, platoons of bodyguards, etc, to protect themselves. For the average person, having a stable, government (one with a monopoly on violence and the wisdom not to abus that monopoly) gives them much more freedom than they would have without one.
Not to rain on your parade or anything, but how many fat lazy bastards do you know that create successful feature-length documentaries? A proper fat lazy bastard wouldn't do that, he'd sit on the couch, eat corn chips by the bucket, and post angry pointless rants to Slashdot.
His movies and opinions don't incite change, they just fucking piss everyone off.
And yet here we all are, discussing way to improve the U.S. health care system, and the movie hasn't even been released yet. And the only one "fucking pissed off" so far, is you.
Is that true? I know that doing the above is unethical, but is it actually illegal?
Yes, but the downside is that you'll have to spend the rest of your life with a known criminal: you. Personally I think that's too high a price to pay for a lousy Dell laptop.
Great... first we have to decide which countries qualify as "dictatorships" (e.g. does Russia? How about Venezuela? How about Pakistan?). Then once everybody has agreed on that, we'll have to decide who is going to invade the now-outlawed countries to force them to have a democracy instead. Should the USA do it? How about China? Or perhaps the United Nations should assemble a vast army and implement regime change? Anyway, I'm sure that will be sorted out one way or another.... once that's done, the only remaining thing to do will be to ensure that the now-liberated countries don't just go ahead and vote in another dictator strongman the first chance they get... so we'll have to threaten to invade any country whose citizens don't vote for "acceptable" candidates. Of course that might be impractical, so maybe we'll just have to tell them who they must vote for during each election, and bomb them if they don't comply.
That ought to work well, no?
Never mind your old data... how confident are we that our canisters of radioactive waste are going to remain inviolate for <the remainder of humanity's time on Earth>?
For that matter, why do people consider any cars sexy? Anyone attempting to have sex with a car would suffer some very embarrassing 3rd degree burns.
The millions of people who live on low-lying coastal land that ends up under water? Moving entire cities uphill won't be cheap.
Hannibal? Is that you?
s/dying/evolving
Actually, French is dying, specifically because there is Official Standard French and the French government won't allow people to use the language they way they want to. English, on the other hand, can be abused and mutated any way you like, and because of that flexibility it has become one of the world's most popular languages.
Not that this has anything to do with memory, "turbo" or otherwise.