I don't know his answer, but my answer is monocrystal silicon of defined purity. It is precisely as common as we're willing to put in the effort to creating it. It can be made from common sand. (Generally sand from particular beaches are preferred, as they are better ores, but the difference is only in the amount of effort required.) And it's useful, so if you have a monetary oversupply, you can sell your excess to a silicon fab.
Actually it's never been tried, but the country came close under the Articles of Confederation, before the constitution. At that time anyone who wanted to could open their own bank and print their own money. The problem with that was that it lead to unnumbered different kinds of money circulating, most of which had NO standard conversion rate. Just whatever the local moneychanger felt like offering.
So that system didn't work very well for trade outside of a local village. I'll agree that it had it's good points, but if you consider trade worthwhile then it had overwhelming bad points.
Probably the thing to do is separate banks, money lenders, etc. completely from management of the money supply...and don't allow them to "create money". What they lend needs to be based on what they have, not on what they expect to have eventually. If they want to lend more, first they need to borrow it from someone who actually has the money. New money could be entered into the system via tax refunds or other payments from the govt. This, however, is also dangerous as governments have never shown restraint in the management of finances. The other possibility is to base the money on something specific. Gold was once used for this purpose, but I think silicon would be a better choice. Large rods of defect free (to some measure) silicon are something of real value, and can be made with sufficient effort from sand. As such the money supply would not be limited by a rare material, but rather would be limited by the amount of effort required.
N.B.: I'm not sure that this would work, but it's had as much thought put into it as I think worthwhile for something that has no chance of implementation.
The difference is that if you forget the things you have previously enjoyed, then you have lost the joy that they brought to you. You won't know what you've lost, so you won't know where to search, or even why you should.
And the next time you do experience one of them, you won't be starting from the same place that you did last time. It might well not seem anywhere nearly as good. For many things a part of their value is the context within which they are encountered. Often, even if that isn't the major component, it is a significant enough component that without it, you would lack the enjoyment.
E.g., remember the title of a book that you enjoyed as a child, but which you can't recall in detail at the moment. Now search it out and read it again. It may well seem totally inane.
I understand your point, but programmers generally don't include the period within the quotes unless they intend it to be a part of the string.
I'll agree that this doesn't agree with the practice recommended by English teachers, and that when writing for such a teacher one should remember that the period goes before the terminal quote, even when the quoted fragment doesn't include a sentence termination. But this rule is logically inconsistent, and therefore should be replaced. The time I experience dissonance is when I am terminating both a quote and a sentence, e.g.: He said "That's not what I said.".
Note the '.".' construction. That seems excessively awkward, but is the only consistent was that I can determine to punctuate it.
Remember, the rules of grammar were largely written based upon Latin. They don't actually fit English all that well. Sometimes they need to be updated. For programmers, a quoted selection is a string, and everything within the quotes is a part of the string. (There seems to be no generally accepted rule as to how to escape quotes within a string, but \" would generally be recognized. Some double the quotes, but that rapidly becomes unintelligible whenever even a slight amount of internal quoting exists.
Personally I've always favored exsanguination, the favored form of suicide among the non-militaristic Roman nobility.
I do, however, prefer a modified version where the blood that's extracted is saved for later use, though of course it would need to be carefully tested for viruses and bacteria. I don't suppose that one could trust the unwilling donors to be honest.
This process is supposedly essentially painless, being similar to hypooxygenia.
You mean as in: Hamlet to Ophelia "Did you think I talk of country matters?"
I didn't get that one until my professor pointed it out to me in college. Before then it just seemed like Shakespeare was being obscure, or possibly using some obsolete metaphor.
But I think that most people who are objecting consider the entire idea repellent. I certainly do. You make work-arounds to avoid tyrannical impositions, not because you think the rule is a good one.
Actually, I've heard two translations of "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" that are supposed to be reasonably accurate: 1) "Thou shalt not suffer a blower upon knots to live" (Apparently a form of black magic.) 2) "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live" (Sounds reasonable.)
What an actual accurate translation would be I can't say, but the current Bible is not a reflection of the original, except loosely. So it *IS* intended as instruction for modern individuals. Because it was re-written. (Of course, modern here means at around the time of King James, for the most common version.)
Still, what it's supposed to be doing is displaying scenarios, and then telling you what god would want you to do in that scenario. This isn't the same as a direct command.
THAT said, anyone who takes instructions written by a bunch of semi-literate men who had never seen powered machinery that wasn't animal powered, and uses it to tell them how to live in the current world, is so stupid that it might actually be a good idea to take their advice. It will still be stupid, but at least it once wouldn't have been, and analogies might be reasonable.
Sorry, but the extract, at least, is vague enough that it might actually work. I visualize pumping CO2 through an algae pond repeatedly...but the earlier claim using a willow tree example is perhaps even better, and also fits the summary description.
So this isn't like perpetual motion. But that doesn't keep it from being a scam.
Still, better cameras, etc. are also very worthwhile, and perhaps after a while of making this material, ways will be found which are cheaper. THEN it will be interesting as a solar cell material.
Not exactly. Our city decided to attract a professional sports team. I had no part in the decision, and if I had I would have voted the other way. The ******** thing has been a financial drain on the entire city for decades, but most people who decide still seem to think it was a good idea. (I suspect kickbacks, but without evidence.)
Now it's true that this relates more directly to the owner of the team than to the individual athletes, but he has to pay them from some source of funds, and the fans are only a part of his income. Other parts come from the contract with the city, which makes it supply him with a satisfactory-to-him stadium. (At one point he was planning to break the contract and go elsewhere...he used this to extort even more subsidy from the city, on what basis I don't understand. I'd have sued him for damages caused by breaking the contract.)
Money's the answer alright, but it's nothing as straightforward as what the fans are willing to pay.
Battery improvement has been slow, but recently there have been many encouraging signs. I'm most impressed by reports of progress in super-capacitors. They don't use any unusual metals to hold the charge, though they do depend on extremely precise manufacturing (which raises the price, at least for now).
OTOH, I don't expect volume shipments of super-capacitors within the next five years. (But would I know? I only know what the official reports say that the science press finds interesting. It's not something I follow as a specialty.)
It's not clear that super-capacitors will ever hold more power than an advanced battery, but it looks like they can be recharged more quickly and more often (essentially forever). I'm not sure this is what an electric car needs, but it sounds perfect for a mobile device that will often be near an electric outlet.
That depends an awful lot on just which cell phone you are looking at. There are some models that are fairly large and dead simple. Some of them don't even have ONE pre-programmed memory, and have keys larger than those on my keyboard, which digits that take up the entire key in black and white for sharp contrast.
No special functions.
That may be just a little bit too simple. I think the keypad should have 3 or 4 special keys that each dials a preprogrammed number. 1) Non-urgent assistance/Family (Pink) 2) Emergency assistance-medical (Red with small white polka-dots). 3) Fire (white with red flames) 4) Police (black & white checks)
The color scheme is basically arbitrary, but it's intended to be easily distinguishable even by color-blind people. The particular choice of four options is also nearly arbitrary. Places that divide the services differently would have a different selection of four preprogrammed choices.
Note this is still basically just a phone. Nothing fancy. I didn't even include an automatic redial. It's got a standard phone keypad, with four extra function keys. And each key is about 3/8" X 3/8", which allows large easily visible letters.
But that's just my design. There are simple, easy, phones on the market. There's also phones on the market that are super-glitzed to where most users can use less than half the features, and the elderly can't use at all.
Interestingly enough, the internment camps were state specific. If a Japanese citizen had been lucky enough to have been visiting in, say, Utah or Colorado, and hadn't returned to California, then he could have lived out the war without suffering internment. Many did.
But notice that Hawaii didn't have internment camps, either. This causes me to think that it was economic collusion with the state government. But it's not proof. One can imagine all sorts of different stories, some with a reputable government, and some with a *really* corrupt government.
With Lincoln we have even fewer facts to go on. What we have is generally lots of specifics that caught someone's attention, and nothing about the local context. Frequently we can judge whether a specific act was legal, but it's much less common to be able to judge with reasonable assurance whether it was just.
Great leaders aren't always picky about the legality of their actions, but they should be very careful about the morality of them. Of course, Ivan the Terrible and Vlad the Impaler spring to mind as counter-examples, but I'm not sure I want to consider them as great leaders...even though Vlad kept his country clear of foreign invaders at a time when this was extremely difficult.
I don't consider the Chinese demand for source code to be a moral position, but rather a self-serving one. I just happen to think that EVERY customer should have the right to make that demand.
If China wanted to make a moral demand, then they would have required that every device that was sold in China should publish it's source code openly. That would have been a moral statement. Not sure I would agree with them, but it would have been taking a moral position.
RMS took a moral position. I happen to agree with the moral position that he took, which is that customers should have the right to the source code. If he had just re-implemented the printer driver for his own use, or reverse-engineered it, then it would not have been a moral position, but merely a self-serving one.
N.B.: 1) Self-serving isn't particularly bad. Not in essence. It can be, but that's an independent argument, and it's bad for other reasons than for being self-serving. 2) Self-serving also isn't particularly good. It can be, but that's an independent argument, and it's good for other reasons than for being self-serving.
To say that something is done for self-serving reasons is to say that it's done without taking a moral position. Things generally aren't that clear and separate, especially when organizations are involved. Some people in an organization are usually taking a moral stance, while others are acting in a self-serving manner, either for themselves or for their organization (and thus, indirectly for themselves).
Personally, I think everyone should demand the source code. Most people won't be able to use it, but without the source code they are at a severe disadvantage in getting bugs fixed.
And "everyone" includes China. I may not trust their intentions, but their request is reasonable. I don't trust closed source applications or products either. I just have less leverage.
I think it's reasonable to not trust China. I don't trust any government's intentions, and few corporations...and those only at a single point in time.) Individual people can be trustworthy. Organizations can be trustworthy only if they are controlled by a trustworthy individual, and then only for as long as that person remains in charge, and only to the extent that that person prevents his subordinates from acting in an untrustworthy manner. This is difficult, and requires the development of a strong corporate culture...note that this is like one of the problems of evil. It's immensely more easy to destroy than to build. Equally it's immensely more easy to have an untrustworthy organization than a trustworthy one. Just, e.g., allowing the sales department to put selling before honor will do so...and that's what salesmen WANT to do. Especially if they're on a commission, but not only then.
Do you have any evidence from reliable sources for your claims? Then how do you know they are correct.
That said, it's quite possible that some people planned to protest at the RNC. And to arrest them for trespass, or some such, AFTER THEY HAD DONE SO would have been reasonable. To arrest them ahead of time is "prior restraint" and has in past decades been held to be unconstitutional.
Well, the court has changed, and there likely won't be an appeal that reaches them, so clearly the governments actions must be legal. Clearly.
OTOH, this *IS* a major difference. It's legal for the Chinese government to do whatever it decides to do. For the US government to act in the same way is illegal. This, however, is not proof that the government is acting legally.
Possibly not, but we're only talking about a chemical explosion here, so even if it happens it won't hurt anyone not involved.
Chemical? Well, kind of. It's heat released by a phase change transition. Somebody just stuck an alarming name on it. It has no more to do with nuclear reactions than does your bathtub. True, while you're taking a bath some of the water could get zapped by a cosmic ray and split into dangerously active radicals...but this is hardly something worth worrying about. With the LHC it's worth worrying about because a worst case scenario would be very expensive...but not because it would be dangerous to anyone who wasn't already present on the scene.
Possibly true now, but when I went to school the teachers talked about degrees Fahrenheit, Centigrade, and Kelvin. I have no idea what the Celsius or Kelvin terms corresponding to a degree Fahrenheit would be, though I *have* heard that degree isn't the accepted term. Still, if I wanted to talk about a temperature I'd have the choice of talking about degrees Fahrenheit, or gibbering, or saying "degrees Celsius" or "degrees Kelvin", and presuming that the hearer would understand what I meant.
Slashdot Mirror
Greenspan is talking to the US Congress, so it's the US constitution that applies. (I have to admit that I'm not familiar with the Australian one.)
I don't know his answer, but my answer is monocrystal silicon of defined purity. It is precisely as common as we're willing to put in the effort to creating it. It can be made from common sand. (Generally sand from particular beaches are preferred, as they are better ores, but the difference is only in the amount of effort required.) And it's useful, so if you have a monetary oversupply, you can sell your excess to a silicon fab.
Actually it's never been tried, but the country came close under the Articles of Confederation, before the constitution. At that time anyone who wanted to could open their own bank and print their own money. The problem with that was that it lead to unnumbered different kinds of money circulating, most of which had NO standard conversion rate. Just whatever the local moneychanger felt like offering.
So that system didn't work very well for trade outside of a local village. I'll agree that it had it's good points, but if you consider trade worthwhile then it had overwhelming bad points.
Probably the thing to do is separate banks, money lenders, etc. completely from management of the money supply...and don't allow them to "create money". What they lend needs to be based on what they have, not on what they expect to have eventually. If they want to lend more, first they need to borrow it from someone who actually has the money. New money could be entered into the system via tax refunds or other payments from the govt. This, however, is also dangerous as governments have never shown restraint in the management of finances. The other possibility is to base the money on something specific. Gold was once used for this purpose, but I think silicon would be a better choice. Large rods of defect free (to some measure) silicon are something of real value, and can be made with sufficient effort from sand. As such the money supply would not be limited by a rare material, but rather would be limited by the amount of effort required.
N.B.: I'm not sure that this would work, but it's had as much thought put into it as I think worthwhile for something that has no chance of implementation.
The correct term is not "retrospective law", but rather "ex post facto law". See the constitution.
The difference is that if you forget the things you have previously enjoyed, then you have lost the joy that they brought to you. You won't know what you've lost, so you won't know where to search, or even why you should.
And the next time you do experience one of them, you won't be starting from the same place that you did last time. It might well not seem anywhere nearly as good. For many things a part of their value is the context within which they are encountered. Often, even if that isn't the major component, it is a significant enough component that without it, you would lack the enjoyment.
E.g., remember the title of a book that you enjoyed as a child, but which you can't recall in detail at the moment. Now search it out and read it again. It may well seem totally inane.
I understand your point, but programmers generally don't include the period within the quotes unless they intend it to be a part of the string.
I'll agree that this doesn't agree with the practice recommended by English teachers, and that when writing for such a teacher one should remember that the period goes before the terminal quote, even when the quoted fragment doesn't include a sentence termination. But this rule is logically inconsistent, and therefore should be replaced. The time I experience dissonance is when I am terminating both a quote and a sentence, e.g.: He said "That's not what I said.".
Note the '.".' construction. That seems excessively awkward, but is the only consistent was that I can determine to punctuate it.
Remember, the rules of grammar were largely written based upon Latin. They don't actually fit English all that well. Sometimes they need to be updated. For programmers, a quoted selection is a string, and everything within the quotes is a part of the string. (There seems to be no generally accepted rule as to how to escape quotes within a string, but \" would generally be recognized. Some double the quotes, but that rapidly becomes unintelligible whenever even a slight amount of internal quoting exists.
No. For the most part, Google is the most authoritative source a normal human will check.
Unfortunately, most people don't check beyond the first page of what Google returns as answers, so they still only get the most popular answers.
Personally I've always favored exsanguination, the favored form of suicide among the non-militaristic Roman nobility.
I do, however, prefer a modified version where the blood that's extracted is saved for later use, though of course it would need to be carefully tested for viruses and bacteria. I don't suppose that one could trust the unwilling donors to be honest.
This process is supposedly essentially painless, being similar to hypooxygenia.
You mean as in:
Hamlet to Ophelia "Did you think I talk of country matters?"
I didn't get that one until my professor pointed it out to me in college. Before then it just seemed like Shakespeare was being obscure, or possibly using some obsolete metaphor.
But I think that most people who are objecting consider the entire idea repellent. I certainly do. You make work-arounds to avoid tyrannical impositions, not because you think the rule is a good one.
You might consider the effect that Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein are having.
Those two "Democrats" are stalwart supporters of the Republican party, more so that any single Republican legislator.
Actually, I've heard two translations of "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" that are supposed to be reasonably accurate:
1) "Thou shalt not suffer a blower upon knots to live" (Apparently a form of black magic.)
2) "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live" (Sounds reasonable.)
What an actual accurate translation would be I can't say, but the current Bible is not a reflection of the original, except loosely. So it *IS* intended as instruction for modern individuals. Because it was re-written. (Of course, modern here means at around the time of King James, for the most common version.)
Still, what it's supposed to be doing is displaying scenarios, and then telling you what god would want you to do in that scenario. This isn't the same as a direct command.
THAT said, anyone who takes instructions written by a bunch of semi-literate men who had never seen powered machinery that wasn't animal powered, and uses it to tell them how to live in the current world, is so stupid that it might actually be a good idea to take their advice. It will still be stupid, but at least it once wouldn't have been, and analogies might be reasonable.
Sorry, but the extract, at least, is vague enough that it might actually work. I visualize pumping CO2 through an algae pond repeatedly...but the earlier claim using a willow tree example is perhaps even better, and also fits the summary description.
So this isn't like perpetual motion. But that doesn't keep it from being a scam.
The Alaskans I know don't want her.
Not necessarily. It sounds expensive to make.
Still, better cameras, etc. are also very worthwhile, and perhaps after a while of making this material, ways will be found which are cheaper. THEN it will be interesting as a solar cell material.
Not exactly. Our city decided to attract a professional sports team. I had no part in the decision, and if I had I would have voted the other way. The ******** thing has been a financial drain on the entire city for decades, but most people who decide still seem to think it was a good idea. (I suspect kickbacks, but without evidence.)
Now it's true that this relates more directly to the owner of the team than to the individual athletes, but he has to pay them from some source of funds, and the fans are only a part of his income. Other parts come from the contract with the city, which makes it supply him with a satisfactory-to-him stadium. (At one point he was planning to break the contract and go elsewhere...he used this to extort even more subsidy from the city, on what basis I don't understand. I'd have sued him for damages caused by breaking the contract.)
Money's the answer alright, but it's nothing as straightforward as what the fans are willing to pay.
Didn't "Waldo and Grommit" do a film about that?
Yes, but...
Battery improvement has been slow, but recently there have been many encouraging signs. I'm most impressed by reports of progress in super-capacitors. They don't use any unusual metals to hold the charge, though they do depend on extremely precise manufacturing (which raises the price, at least for now).
OTOH, I don't expect volume shipments of super-capacitors within the next five years. (But would I know? I only know what the official reports say that the science press finds interesting. It's not something I follow as a specialty.)
It's not clear that super-capacitors will ever hold more power than an advanced battery, but it looks like they can be recharged more quickly and more often (essentially forever). I'm not sure this is what an electric car needs, but it sounds perfect for a mobile device that will often be near an electric outlet.
That depends an awful lot on just which cell phone you are looking at. There are some models that are fairly large and dead simple. Some of them don't even have ONE pre-programmed memory, and have keys larger than those on my keyboard, which digits that take up the entire key in black and white for sharp contrast.
No special functions.
That may be just a little bit too simple. I think the keypad should have 3 or 4 special keys that each dials a preprogrammed number.
1) Non-urgent assistance/Family (Pink)
2) Emergency assistance-medical (Red with small white polka-dots).
3) Fire (white with red flames)
4) Police (black & white checks)
The color scheme is basically arbitrary, but it's intended to be easily distinguishable even by color-blind people. The particular choice of four options is also nearly arbitrary. Places that divide the services differently would have a different selection of four preprogrammed choices.
Note this is still basically just a phone. Nothing fancy. I didn't even include an automatic redial. It's got a standard phone keypad, with four extra function keys. And each key is about 3/8" X 3/8", which allows large easily visible letters.
But that's just my design. There are simple, easy, phones on the market. There's also phones on the market that are super-glitzed to where most users can use less than half the features, and the elderly can't use at all.
Interestingly enough, the internment camps were state specific. If a Japanese citizen had been lucky enough to have been visiting in, say, Utah or Colorado, and hadn't returned to California, then he could have lived out the war without suffering internment. Many did.
But notice that Hawaii didn't have internment camps, either. This causes me to think that it was economic collusion with the state government. But it's not proof. One can imagine all sorts of different stories, some with a reputable government, and some with a *really* corrupt government.
With Lincoln we have even fewer facts to go on. What we have is generally lots of specifics that caught someone's attention, and nothing about the local context. Frequently we can judge whether a specific act was legal, but it's much less common to be able to judge with reasonable assurance whether it was just.
Great leaders aren't always picky about the legality of their actions, but they should be very careful about the morality of them. Of course, Ivan the Terrible and Vlad the Impaler spring to mind as counter-examples, but I'm not sure I want to consider them as great leaders...even though Vlad kept his country clear of foreign invaders at a time when this was extremely difficult.
I don't consider the Chinese demand for source code to be a moral position, but rather a self-serving one. I just happen to think that EVERY customer should have the right to make that demand.
If China wanted to make a moral demand, then they would have required that every device that was sold in China should publish it's source code openly. That would have been a moral statement. Not sure I would agree with them, but it would have been taking a moral position.
RMS took a moral position. I happen to agree with the moral position that he took, which is that customers should have the right to the source code. If he had just re-implemented the printer driver for his own use, or reverse-engineered it, then it would not have been a moral position, but merely a self-serving one.
N.B.:
1) Self-serving isn't particularly bad. Not in essence. It can be, but that's an independent argument, and it's bad for other reasons than for being self-serving.
2) Self-serving also isn't particularly good. It can be, but that's an independent argument, and it's good for other reasons than for being self-serving.
To say that something is done for self-serving reasons is to say that it's done without taking a moral position. Things generally aren't that clear and separate, especially when organizations are involved. Some people in an organization are usually taking a moral stance, while others are acting in a self-serving manner, either for themselves or for their organization (and thus, indirectly for themselves).
Personally, I think everyone should demand the source code. Most people won't be able to use it, but without the source code they are at a severe disadvantage in getting bugs fixed.
And "everyone" includes China. I may not trust their intentions, but their request is reasonable. I don't trust closed source applications or products either. I just have less leverage.
I think it's reasonable to not trust China. I don't trust any government's intentions, and few corporations...and those only at a single point in time.) Individual people can be trustworthy. Organizations can be trustworthy only if they are controlled by a trustworthy individual, and then only for as long as that person remains in charge, and only to the extent that that person prevents his subordinates from acting in an untrustworthy manner. This is difficult, and requires the development of a strong corporate culture...note that this is like one of the problems of evil. It's immensely more easy to destroy than to build. Equally it's immensely more easy to have an untrustworthy organization than a trustworthy one. Just, e.g., allowing the sales department to put selling before honor will do so...and that's what salesmen WANT to do. Especially if they're on a commission, but not only then.
Thank you, especially for giving multiple sources. I hadn't seen that.
Do you have any evidence from reliable sources for your claims? Then how do you know they are correct.
That said, it's quite possible that some people planned to protest at the RNC. And to arrest them for trespass, or some such, AFTER THEY HAD DONE SO would have been reasonable. To arrest them ahead of time is "prior restraint" and has in past decades been held to be unconstitutional.
Well, the court has changed, and there likely won't be an appeal that reaches them, so clearly the governments actions must be legal. Clearly.
OTOH, this *IS* a major difference. It's legal for the Chinese government to do whatever it decides to do. For the US government to act in the same way is illegal. This, however, is not proof that the government is acting legally.
Possibly not, but we're only talking about a chemical explosion here, so even if it happens it won't hurt anyone not involved.
Chemical? Well, kind of. It's heat released by a phase change transition. Somebody just stuck an alarming name on it. It has no more to do with nuclear reactions than does your bathtub. True, while you're taking a bath some of the water could get zapped by a cosmic ray and split into dangerously active radicals...but this is hardly something worth worrying about. With the LHC it's worth worrying about because a worst case scenario would be very expensive...but not because it would be dangerous to anyone who wasn't already present on the scene.
Possibly true now, but when I went to school the teachers talked about degrees Fahrenheit, Centigrade, and Kelvin. I have no idea what the Celsius or Kelvin terms corresponding to a degree Fahrenheit would be, though I *have* heard that degree isn't the accepted term. Still, if I wanted to talk about a temperature I'd have the choice of talking about degrees Fahrenheit, or gibbering, or saying "degrees Celsius" or "degrees Kelvin", and presuming that the hearer would understand what I meant.