There are two major downsides to a one-party system centrally planned economy. 1) Sometimes the guy at the top makes mistakes, and nobody who knows better can call him on them. See "Great Leap Forwards". 2) Sometimes the guy at the top doesn't have the best interests of the country in mind, and nobody can make him.
Mind you, the US recently has been exhibiting those very same problems. In the US it's fairly clear that the problem has been that: 1) Corporations are not people. They should not have rights. (The stockholders should, as should the management AS CITIZENS. But not the corporation.) 2) Plurality wins voting is solidly broken. It is just about guaranteed to result in vastly increaded corruption at the upper levels of the political process. It should be replaced by some form of majority (i.e., 50% or more) wind voting. One plausible candidate is Instant Runoff Voting. Another is Condorcet voting. 2a) Multiple political parties, as currently exists in the US and Europe, is beneficial, but only in the context of a Majority Wins voting system. When combined with a Plurality Wins voting system they merely serve to disenfranchise those unhappy with the two major parties. 2)
Actually China *does* have a lot of corruption. So does the US. But they have corruption in different places. (I can't speak for the EU, and I'm not even sure it's the same from country to country.)
The question is "Does China have corruption in places that would grossly interfere with the construction of a large new particle accelerator? I don't know. The US did. The Supercollider proposed location was chosen because of corruption, and the project was cancelled because of corruption. OTOH, it would have been quite expensive, and very difficult. Corruption wasn't the only factor.
I switched from MSWind to Linux back before Linux had a decent word processor, because I wouldn't agree the the MS EULA. Currently my cell phone doesn't have ANY apps, and it wouldn't support them were I willing to try to install them. OTOH, I have som apps installed in my browser, e.g. NoScript.
But, I *do* have a Google sign-on that I occasionally use. And I rarely block it. I don't have g-mail, because I don't like giving up that much control. This doesn't fool me into thinking my email is private, but it does fool me into believing that it won't just disappear on me. (I know, however, that an email program can do that to you, and the idiot providers of the email programs don't really care about any email that's over a month or two old.) What I need is something that can export emails from the browser into a commonly used format. I CAN edit them as text, but THAT's really obnoxious.
So there are some things I will accept for some levels of intrusiveness. But not all.
Well, OK, Google and the government. But Google won't "share" with it's partners any more than it must, because that's Google's business. What they do is say "You want to have your ad put up to this particular demographic? Great. We can do it. Cash up front." The don't sell the information, they sell access. That's a repeat business. If they sell the contact information, that's a one-time sale.
P.S.: This is just my opinion, and I have no particular inside information. But it's what makes sense to me.
Well, you should run a control test too. Disconnect the battery out and then walk around for twenty minutes. See if it gets hot. Of course there *IS* capacitive storage, but I doubt that they implemented that for mass market phones.
The interesting question is "What does it mean if it gets hot just from sitting in your pocket while you walk around?" (Also, are there hot spots, or is it more of a general heat.) My guess would be that in that case you have hot pants, but that wouldn't explain spots of heat rather than a more general heat.
Sorry, I can't conduct that experiment. My phone is so old that it doesn't even HAVE a GPS. I think it's even still analog transmission, though the last time I replaced it it may have gone to digital.
You lose more by needing to heat cold water to boiling every time. The way I propose basicly you pull your energy from the state transition conversion, and the hot wate coming back in is already nearly boiling. Refridgerators have been doing something similar for quite a long time. You never see one that prefers to operate on room temperature working fluid.
To an extent, but only to an extent, you are correct.
The problem is that when someone who feels they should be entitled relative to someone else also feels that the somone else is favored over them, you get a lot more vitriol. And a lot of men and boys feel that they should be entitled relative to women. And yes, this also happens along racial lines. And anonymity makes them feel safe in targeting the "unfairly" favored.
Please note that I do not intend ANY actual implication as to whether or not the targeted individual actually is favored in any sane sense of the term. I'm talking purely about perceptions. And I intentionally spoke in generalities. It could as easily describe relationships between customers and clerks as anything else, but for most people that relationship does not impact the attention that they devote to the world significantly.
Not directly. If you fed salt water into the system is would get blocked up with salt crystals. Indirectly, yes. The output is steam, and you could use that to heat the salt water to the point where it started rapidly evaporating. (You'd want to recycle the "working fluid" water, so you don't just bubble it through the salt water, but instead you use the salt water to cool the steam until it condenses and then feed it back into the heater.)
Hun? Reduce the efficiency? If you run the steam through some system to extract most of the energy, one of the outputs is going to be hot water, which you can feed back into the system as water that's already been preheated.
You might want to look at some house after the police have searched it, if you don't think they are still extremely disruptive. They are generally worse if they don't find what they hoped to find. Wantonly destructive is not always an overstatement.
The trouble is, this isn't the usual slippery slope. This started out as a reasonable legal procedure back when hard disks were small. The slippery slope was the storing more and more of personal history in digital forms. Originally allowing all digital media to searched was reasonable. Now it's quite a bit less so. Next year it will be worse.
(What was unreasonable before is that they would seize the hardware and keep it to punish the accused, often never getting around to actually filing a case.. The punishment was the loss of business records, etc. It was still abuse, but a different abuse.)
That's a pretty big place to be called "particularly described".
OTOH, it looks as if they are only allowed to look for evidence of one particular kind of crime. That narrows it a bit, if the restriction can be believed. Unfortunately, a lot of instances of "independent construction" have come to light, which shed a lot of doubt on how well this kind of restriction is enforced. (True, this case doesn't involve the spooks, but the same processes can be used.)
Sort of. But they should be required to narrowly specify the information that they are looking for, and have evidence that would lead a reasonable person to conclude it is probably there. And they shouldn't be allowed to record anything that doesn't match the items described in the warrant.
And I quote: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -- Cardinal Richelieu
The problem is that one agent of it under reckless evil can undo the work of 100 agents working selflessly for good. And that's assuming the "good" agents don't collude to protect the bad apple.
FWIW, my *GUESS* is that this wasn't planned. Somebody the other day said that this kind of rocket launcher can be set to automaticaly fire on anything passing overhead. That sounds to me quite plausible. So my guess is that somebody set it up on automatic, and took a break when they shouldn't have, or that they were assigned to do something else, so the left the launcher on automatic, or that it was lunch time, so..... etc.
As to WHO the negligent party was, it's plausibly the separtists, it's plausibly some Russian advisor who was detached to help them, it's plausibly anyone who had one of these launchers. It's the kind of stupid thing people do when they're confused and harried. It probably wasn't the Russian troops. This isn't the kind of thing people do when they're part of a standing chain of command.
The point was "without warning". Drunks generally give plenty of warning that they are getting violent. This guy was just walking down the street.
OTOH, I'm relying on third-hand information about why. Apparently he had a reputation for taking "angle dust" and then becoming violent some time later without warning. Prehaps it was an idiosyncratic reaction, sort of like the "cat" or "dot" reactions to morphine. But I was told that it's the kind of thing one needs to expect from PCP users. Is this true? I sure don't know. But the "without warning" is... rather hard to deal with.
OTOH, I guess that if it were easily available, those who liked it would kill themselves off fairly quickly. Presuming that the information that I got was correct.
I don't experiment with drugs myself because I am leery of addiction. Getting off tobacco was a difficult process the second time, whereas the first time I just stopped without problem. I don't think I want to experiment with anything else that's addictive.
WRT point 2: This came to my attention in the context of someone who apparently became violent for no reason. Police were not imvolved.
FWIW, it's my understanding that PCP is a legal horse tranquilizer, and that it works well for horses. That being the case, I doubt that it's difficult to get even now. But I don't know, because I've never tried.
That's not clear. It's true that tobacco is reputedly the hardest drug to quit, but that is not synonmous with the highest social cost. And Freud (an informed witness) though that cocaine was more destructive than either alcohol or tobacco.
But that' doesn't mean that making them illegal doesn't have a much higher social cost than having them be legal.
Have you noticed how effective the laws against operating a vehicle while using a cell phone have been? Yet that at least as dangerous as being mildly drunk. Some studies have said that typically being stoned on grass causes one to be more careful, but I have my suspcion that that may be due to fear of being caught. Still...
Perhaps the laws should be against reckless driving, not agains what you've eaten or drunk. Perhaps some people shouldn't be allowed to drive just because they're a bit senile. (My father had Alzheimers, and I'm rather sure his license should have been pulled before he was too far gone to remember that it had been pulled.)
Slashdot Mirror
There are two major downsides to a one-party system centrally planned economy.
1) Sometimes the guy at the top makes mistakes, and nobody who knows better can call him on them. See "Great Leap Forwards".
2) Sometimes the guy at the top doesn't have the best interests of the country in mind, and nobody can make him.
Mind you, the US recently has been exhibiting those very same problems. In the US it's fairly clear that the problem has been that:
1) Corporations are not people. They should not have rights. (The stockholders should, as should the management AS CITIZENS. But not the corporation.)
2) Plurality wins voting is solidly broken. It is just about guaranteed to result in vastly increaded corruption at the upper levels of the political process. It should be replaced by some form of majority (i.e., 50% or more) wind voting. One plausible candidate is Instant Runoff Voting. Another is Condorcet voting.
2a) Multiple political parties, as currently exists in the US and Europe, is beneficial, but only in the context of a Majority Wins voting system. When combined with a Plurality Wins voting system they merely serve to disenfranchise those unhappy with the two major parties.
2)
Actually China *does* have a lot of corruption. So does the US. But they have corruption in different places. (I can't speak for the EU, and I'm not even sure it's the same from country to country.)
The question is "Does China have corruption in places that would grossly interfere with the construction of a large new particle accelerator? I don't know. The US did. The Supercollider proposed location was chosen because of corruption, and the project was cancelled because of corruption. OTOH, it would have been quite expensive, and very difficult. Corruption wasn't the only factor.
Depends.
I switched from MSWind to Linux back before Linux had a decent word processor, because I wouldn't agree the the MS EULA. Currently my cell phone doesn't have ANY apps, and it wouldn't support them were I willing to try to install them.
OTOH, I have som apps installed in my browser, e.g. NoScript.
But, I *do* have a Google sign-on that I occasionally use. And I rarely block it. I don't have g-mail, because I don't like giving up that much control. This doesn't fool me into thinking my email is private, but it does fool me into believing that it won't just disappear on me. (I know, however, that an email program can do that to you, and the idiot providers of the email programs don't really care about any email that's over a month or two old.) What I need is something that can export emails from the browser into a commonly used format. I CAN edit them as text, but THAT's really obnoxious.
So there are some things I will accept for some levels of intrusiveness. But not all.
Well, OK, Google and the government. But Google won't "share" with it's partners any more than it must, because that's Google's business. What they do is say "You want to have your ad put up to this particular demographic? Great. We can do it. Cash up front." The don't sell the information, they sell access. That's a repeat business. If they sell the contact information, that's a one-time sale.
P.S.: This is just my opinion, and I have no particular inside information. But it's what makes sense to me.
Well, you should run a control test too. Disconnect the battery out and then walk around for twenty minutes. See if it gets hot. Of course there *IS* capacitive storage, but I doubt that they implemented that for mass market phones.
The interesting question is "What does it mean if it gets hot just from sitting in your pocket while you walk around?" (Also, are there hot spots, or is it more of a general heat.) My guess would be that in that case you have hot pants, but that wouldn't explain spots of heat rather than a more general heat.
Sorry, I can't conduct that experiment. My phone is so old that it doesn't even HAVE a GPS. I think it's even still analog transmission, though the last time I replaced it it may have gone to digital.
Were I to buy twinkies at Walmart, Walmart would be harming me by selling me twinkies.
You lose more by needing to heat cold water to boiling every time. The way I propose basicly you pull your energy from the state transition conversion, and the hot wate coming back in is already nearly boiling. Refridgerators have been doing something similar for quite a long time. You never see one that prefers to operate on room temperature working fluid.
To an extent, but only to an extent, you are correct.
The problem is that when someone who feels they should be entitled relative to someone else also feels that the somone else is favored over them, you get a lot more vitriol. And a lot of men and boys feel that they should be entitled relative to women. And yes, this also happens along racial lines. And anonymity makes them feel safe in targeting the "unfairly" favored.
Please note that I do not intend ANY actual implication as to whether or not the targeted individual actually is favored in any sane sense of the term. I'm talking purely about perceptions. And I intentionally spoke in generalities. It could as easily describe relationships between customers and clerks as anything else, but for most people that relationship does not impact the attention that they devote to the world significantly.
Not directly. If you fed salt water into the system is would get blocked up with salt crystals. Indirectly, yes. The output is steam, and you could use that to heat the salt water to the point where it started rapidly evaporating. (You'd want to recycle the "working fluid" water, so you don't just bubble it through the salt water, but instead you use the salt water to cool the steam until it condenses and then feed it back into the heater.)
Hun? Reduce the efficiency? If you run the steam through some system to extract most of the energy, one of the outputs is going to be hot water, which you can feed back into the system as water that's already been preheated.
You might want to look at some house after the police have searched it, if you don't think they are still extremely disruptive. They are generally worse if they don't find what they hoped to find. Wantonly destructive is not always an overstatement.
You have a lot more faith in the integrity of the government than I do.
The trouble is, this isn't the usual slippery slope. This started out as a reasonable legal procedure back when hard disks were small. The slippery slope was the storing more and more of personal history in digital forms. Originally allowing all digital media to searched was reasonable. Now it's quite a bit less so. Next year it will be worse.
(What was unreasonable before is that they would seize the hardware and keep it to punish the accused, often never getting around to actually filing a case.. The punishment was the loss of business records, etc. It was still abuse, but a different abuse.)
That's a pretty big place to be called "particularly described".
OTOH, it looks as if they are only allowed to look for evidence of one particular kind of crime. That narrows it a bit, if the restriction can be believed. Unfortunately, a lot of instances of "independent construction" have come to light, which shed a lot of doubt on how well this kind of restriction is enforced. (True, this case doesn't involve the spooks, but the same processes can be used.)
Sort of. But they should be required to narrowly specify the information that they are looking for, and have evidence that would lead a reasonable person to conclude it is probably there. And they shouldn't be allowed to record anything that doesn't match the items described in the warrant.
And I quote: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -- Cardinal Richelieu
The problem is that one agent of it under reckless evil can undo the work of 100 agents working selflessly for good. And that's assuming the "good" agents don't collude to protect the bad apple.
OTOH, this judge thought it quite reasonable to search an entier hard drive. And said it was established predecent. Yuck! That's NOT a narrow search.
FWIW, my *GUESS* is that this wasn't planned. Somebody the other day said that this kind of rocket launcher can be set to automaticaly fire on anything passing overhead. That sounds to me quite plausible. So my guess is that somebody set it up on automatic, and took a break when they shouldn't have, or that they were assigned to do something else, so the left the launcher on automatic, or that it was lunch time, so..... etc.
As to WHO the negligent party was, it's plausibly the separtists, it's plausibly some Russian advisor who was detached to help them, it's plausibly anyone who had one of these launchers. It's the kind of stupid thing people do when they're confused and harried. It probably wasn't the Russian troops. This isn't the kind of thing people do when they're part of a standing chain of command.
The point was "without warning". Drunks generally give plenty of warning that they are getting violent. This guy was just walking down the street.
OTOH, I'm relying on third-hand information about why. Apparently he had a reputation for taking "angle dust" and then becoming violent some time later without warning. Prehaps it was an idiosyncratic reaction, sort of like the "cat" or "dot" reactions to morphine. But I was told that it's the kind of thing one needs to expect from PCP users. Is this true? I sure don't know. But the "without warning" is ... rather hard to deal with.
OTOH, I guess that if it were easily available, those who liked it would kill themselves off fairly quickly. Presuming that the information that I got was correct.
I don't experiment with drugs myself because I am leery of addiction. Getting off tobacco was a difficult process the second time, whereas the first time I just stopped without problem. I don't think I want to experiment with anything else that's addictive.
WRT point 2: This came to my attention in the context of someone who apparently became violent for no reason. Police were not imvolved.
FWIW, it's my understanding that PCP is a legal horse tranquilizer, and that it works well for horses. That being the case, I doubt that it's difficult to get even now. But I don't know, because I've never tried.
Now tell me about MS wanting more H1B workers.
Why should companies that get special treatment from the government pretend that they are operating in a free market? Because fools will believe them.
I beg to differ. Financial crimes are a lot more profitable. It's just that the people who comit them have friends in the government.
That's not clear. It's true that tobacco is reputedly the hardest drug to quit, but that is not synonmous with the highest social cost. And Freud (an informed witness) though that cocaine was more destructive than either alcohol or tobacco.
But that' doesn't mean that making them illegal doesn't have a much higher social cost than having them be legal.
Have you noticed how effective the laws against operating a vehicle while using a cell phone have been? Yet that at least as dangerous as being mildly drunk. Some studies have said that typically being stoned on grass causes one to be more careful, but I have my suspcion that that may be due to fear of being caught. Still...
Perhaps the laws should be against reckless driving, not agains what you've eaten or drunk. Perhaps some people shouldn't be allowed to drive just because they're a bit senile. (My father had Alzheimers, and I'm rather sure his license should have been pulled before he was too far gone to remember that it had been pulled.)