Food is only a small part of enjoyment. Our children in this dystopia will see food eating as a mundane but necessary task like drinking water and will focus on all the other joys of life instead.
Have you ever gone door to door in a rural environment and met people? Seriously, you select your friends, your friends select you, your family members were raised by the same people, there's a lot of bias going on.
"Moral people" as you would like describe them are extremely, extremely rare. Most people bend the rules in their favour, especially when there's little to no chance of being caught and they don't perceive anything bad happening from their actions.
You never exceeded the speed limit on an empty road?
I have to slightly disagree on this point. Breaking the law is not automatically immoral - it's just a piece of paper written by people with more hired guns than everyone else and 51% popular support. What is immoral is violating other people's rights. Laws are usually made so that their infringement constitutes the violation of other people's rights, and those laws should be followed. However, when a law is defective in that you're not doing anything wrong by violating it (as in the case of a speed limit on an empty road), there's nothing morally wrong with violating it - it's just a pragmatic cost-benefit analysis with the fine. Immoral people are people who don't particularly care about other people's rights (eg. people who swerve their way through traffic twice as fast as everyone else as if the road is some kind of video game, endangering everyone's safety).
We're already deciding what can and cannot be used as a criterion. For example, Brand A cannot send soldiers to trash Brand B's factory. If you do not accept that, then you have an anarchy not a free market. I'm not arbitrarily deciding what can and cannot be a criterion, I made a very clear rule: making your product better = good, making others' product worse = bad. Your argument about hurting Brand B being the product falls apart (unless you happen to advocate anarchy) once you realize that sending soldiers against Brand B's factory is identical to sending lawyers against them or using dirty advertising tactics against them.
In an ideal free market, people compete by making the best possible product, not by attacking each other. When a company attacks another company, however, that's a type of competition which does not benefit, and in fact harms, the consumer. Thus, any kind of offensive tactics (this includes negative advertisement, "don't buy any of our competitor's product and get 10% off", hitting competitors with lawsuits, etc) violate basic free market principles and should be scorned for this reason.
It's usually closer to the lower end of that range. Subway drivers, who have two fewer dimensions and one tenth the speed to worry about, make more than pilots do. So no, there is not much incentive to fully replace pilots with robots any time soon.
(And replacing subway drivers with robots probably won't happen either because of the same unions that got them their high salaries in the first place)
I love how the only one harmed in your example is the person carrying the weapon himself. If someone carrying a concealed weapon is harming no one but himself, that's not exactly a reason to ban the practice.
Concealed or not, guns turn things into life-or-death situations, that's kind of the point of a gun. The life-saving aspect of guns, as my above post illustrated, is deterrence. That's why this town, despite requiring a gun in every home, has had 0 murders in the last 25 years. Weapons that are clearly visible apply this deterrence effect to protect you, but the presence of concealed weapons protects the entire community, even those who don't have a gun.
The general public carrying a hidden gun may get some sort of James Bond vibe but they really have no functional reason to hide their weapon.
Hmm, I think I'll go out mugging today. Mugging people with guns is too dangerous, so I'll just mug the people without guns. Good thing concealed carry is illegal, because if it wasn't I would never know for sure if someone is armed or not and my criminal activity might actually become dangerous for me!
Except Bush was a lot more powerful than Castro, so if the two were to be equally evil Bush would cause a few hundred times more deaths. I'm pretty sure that's not the case, so Castro is in fact worse.
Some kind of encryption as obfuscation, DRM-style, is still better than just plain text. One of the tricks used by people who steal hard drives is to try every possible chain of subsequent bits as a password. It's only at most a few trillion tries (less than brute-forcing an 8-char alphanumeric password, and quite feasible with a botnet or a few days of time), and often as few as a few billion, but it gets passwords right quite often. Encryption would defeat this attack.
Slashdot Mirror
Food is only a small part of enjoyment. Our children in this dystopia will see food eating as a mundane but necessary task like drinking water and will focus on all the other joys of life instead.
Have you ever gone door to door in a rural environment and met people? Seriously, you select your friends, your friends select you, your family members were raised by the same people, there's a lot of bias going on.
So, in that limited since, Aristotle was as right as Galileo. Galileo just happens to be more useful.
Science is not about figuring out what's "right". That is, in fact, the domain of religion. Science is about creating a model that's useful.
I think we should just apply the wisdom of your sig to these people.
You'd be surprised
Thankfully, there are anonymous internet service offerings. Starbucks offers one, AFAIK. I'd love to have anonymous housing, though.
And $20 million is more than courts normally award even in the event of a death.
Chromium is not proprietary.
"Moral people" as you would like describe them are extremely, extremely rare. Most people bend the rules in their favour, especially when there's little to no chance of being caught and they don't perceive anything bad happening from their actions.
You never exceeded the speed limit on an empty road?
I have to slightly disagree on this point. Breaking the law is not automatically immoral - it's just a piece of paper written by people with more hired guns than everyone else and 51% popular support. What is immoral is violating other people's rights. Laws are usually made so that their infringement constitutes the violation of other people's rights, and those laws should be followed. However, when a law is defective in that you're not doing anything wrong by violating it (as in the case of a speed limit on an empty road), there's nothing morally wrong with violating it - it's just a pragmatic cost-benefit analysis with the fine. Immoral people are people who don't particularly care about other people's rights (eg. people who swerve their way through traffic twice as fast as everyone else as if the road is some kind of video game, endangering everyone's safety).
We're already deciding what can and cannot be used as a criterion. For example, Brand A cannot send soldiers to trash Brand B's factory. If you do not accept that, then you have an anarchy not a free market. I'm not arbitrarily deciding what can and cannot be a criterion, I made a very clear rule: making your product better = good, making others' product worse = bad. Your argument about hurting Brand B being the product falls apart (unless you happen to advocate anarchy) once you realize that sending soldiers against Brand B's factory is identical to sending lawyers against them or using dirty advertising tactics against them.
In an ideal free market, people compete by making the best possible product, not by attacking each other. When a company attacks another company, however, that's a type of competition which does not benefit, and in fact harms, the consumer. Thus, any kind of offensive tactics (this includes negative advertisement, "don't buy any of our competitor's product and get 10% off", hitting competitors with lawsuits, etc) violate basic free market principles and should be scorned for this reason.
Then what is real encapsulation, and what are its benefits? Not very experienced programmer here, honestly wondering.
The code in question (9 lines actually) is:
Ironically, making your code less object oriented (ie. screw encapsulation) fixes this problem.
Ok sorry, guess we're living in different countries (Canada here).
$10,000-$100,000/year pilot salary
It's usually closer to the lower end of that range. Subway drivers, who have two fewer dimensions and one tenth the speed to worry about, make more than pilots do. So no, there is not much incentive to fully replace pilots with robots any time soon.
(And replacing subway drivers with robots probably won't happen either because of the same unions that got them their high salaries in the first place)
I love how the only one harmed in your example is the person carrying the weapon himself. If someone carrying a concealed weapon is harming no one but himself, that's not exactly a reason to ban the practice.
Concealed or not, guns turn things into life-or-death situations, that's kind of the point of a gun. The life-saving aspect of guns, as my above post illustrated, is deterrence. That's why this town, despite requiring a gun in every home, has had 0 murders in the last 25 years. Weapons that are clearly visible apply this deterrence effect to protect you, but the presence of concealed weapons protects the entire community, even those who don't have a gun.
The general public carrying a hidden gun may get some sort of James Bond vibe but they really have no functional reason to hide their weapon.
Hmm, I think I'll go out mugging today. Mugging people with guns is too dangerous, so I'll just mug the people without guns. Good thing concealed carry is illegal, because if it wasn't I would never know for sure if someone is armed or not and my criminal activity might actually become dangerous for me!
Except Bush was a lot more powerful than Castro, so if the two were to be equally evil Bush would cause a few hundred times more deaths. I'm pretty sure that's not the case, so Castro is in fact worse.
And how do you fix it just using a mouse?
On-screen keyboard.
Some kind of encryption as obfuscation, DRM-style, is still better than just plain text. One of the tricks used by people who steal hard drives is to try every possible chain of subsequent bits as a password. It's only at most a few trillion tries (less than brute-forcing an 8-char alphanumeric password, and quite feasible with a botnet or a few days of time), and often as few as a few billion, but it gets passwords right quite often. Encryption would defeat this attack.
Then stop conscripting jurors. That way the ones that do volunteer will probably know how the system is supposed to work anyway.
It's not her fault. She got the juror to do her homework for her.
FTFY
Basic statistics, I assume? The chance that the majority of 12 people have had prior contact with one of less than a hundred is vanishingly small.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography
You forgot those who like to insert themselves into the big money hoses so they can have a sip without contributing anything.
Basically, managers and much of the financial industry.