I bet the "85 percent of those employees [who] see no purpose in the presentations" are the same people who would be griping if those presentations did not exist. "No one tells me anything. I don't understand why the company does what it does. I do not know the direction this company is going. I do not feel part of this company." Yes there are presentations that are meaningless to some people but if everyone is not invited then the following gripes occur; "Why did they get invited and not me? Am I not important enough? What are they trying to hide from me?"
Yes, there are bad presentations. They will be bad if they use PP or a white board. It is the presenter not the software. As for PP allowing you to do bad things; HTML allows red flashing text on a pink background. Is HTML bad?
The alternative is someone standing at the front waving their hands and writing on a whiteboard or flip chart wasting time while they refer to their notes. Personally I prefer PP.
The insistence that and restriction on speech is dogma.
1. If an untrue statement about a candidate is released close to voting time there is no time to gather factual information to refute the claim. Sorry but "I didn't do it" is not sufficient. Anyone voting on that information can not retract their vote when the truth comes out.
2. I just noticed your handle IgnoramosMaxumis which translated to Big Idiot. On that note I will consider the source of the dogmatic replies and act accordingly.
Battlefield situation. How do you point at UAV that is behind a building or hill? How do you point at a UAV without exposing yourself to enemy fire be it direct or indirect? How do you get the required area for kintect to work when you are hunkered down in a building, hiding behind a wall or driving in an armoured vehicle? How do you get the power requirements for Kinect? How do you see something that small to point at it a quarter of a mile away? How does the system know you are giving it a real command and not just scratching your nose?
I am not saying that a joystick is the best solution. I am saying this is not the solution. Sorry but pointing at an object far away is not very precise at all. Cute toy but not practical.
And Australia Under Schedule 2 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, which is administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), election advertising in the electronic media is subject to a 'blackout' from midnight on the Wednesday before polling day to the end of polling on the Saturday. This three-day blackout effectively provides a "cooling off" period in the lead up to polling day, during which political parties, candidates and others are no longer able to purchase time on television and radio to broadcast political advertising.
How about Australia Under Schedule 2 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, which is administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), election advertising in the electronic media is subject to a 'blackout' from midnight on the Wednesday before polling day to the end of polling on the Saturday. This three-day blackout effectively provides a "cooling off" period in the lead up to polling day, during which political parties, candidates and others are no longer able to purchase time on television and radio to broadcast political advertising.
All last minute campaigning is illegal. Here is the relevant section from Thailand's Electoral law http://www.elections-lebanon.org/elections/docs_6_G_8_1_14.aspx [elections-lebanon.org] "Section 48. No person shall make an election campaign by any means, whether it may be favorable or disfavorable to any candidate or political party, from 6:00 pm of the day before the election day to the end of the election day."
They don't campaign in public anyway because it is against the law. It is a cooling off period for all campaigning. Here is the relevant section from Thailand's Electoral law http://www.elections-lebanon.org/elections/docs_6_G_8_1_14.aspx "Section 48. No person shall make an election campaign by any means, whether it may be favorable or disfavorable to any candidate or political party, from 6:00 pm of the day before the election day to the end of the election day." This ban on campaigning is nothing new. All that is happening is the things one can not do on the street, on TV, in newspapers, etc. can not be done on social media during the time specified. It is a ban on all campaigning not just social media as the article implies. I am for this "cooling off" period. Important decisions should not be made at the last minute based on information that can note be refuted by the target.
The issue isn't Westerners changing their vote it is westerners not voting at all. Why vote if the outcome of the elections are already known? At least allow those of us on the west coast the illusion that we have a say in Ottawa. Publishing results in one province before the polls are closed in another is bad form.
Sure it works within 20 feet in a very controlled environment; so what?
Most UAVs are much more usefull out of sight of the "pilot" and need much finer control than gestures can provide. Another issue is the space required to use gestures to control the UAV. Yeah, someone is going to set up a connects, stand 5 feet away and dance to control a UAV. That's not obvious. Great for game not so great for real life.
Most climate research is not experimentation it is analysis of records of temperature and CO2 content. Any analysis can be skewed by the preconceptions of the observer. What data is included in the study? What data is excluded? How is data averaged? There is an old saying "lies, damn lies and statistics".
The flaw in that is that CO2 may be only one of many factors that increase global temperature. Others could be solar activity, volcanic dust in the atmosphere.
Even if it can be shown that there is raised CO2 levels is all that caused by human activity. Could it be caused by volcanic activity, or natural combustion like forest fires?
Could it be a natural long term cycle the earth goes through? It seems there has been ice ages and subsequent warming in the past. How do we know this isn't happening again?
The point is that correlation is not causation. By concentrating on one theory to the exclusion of others makes the research suspect.
First ethics is extremely important. Research can and has been faked by unethical people all over the world and not just by people funded by corporations. Unethical researchers can produce research that appears high quality buy is flawed.
As for vested interests, how are these two scenarios different? A researcher who is told by a corporation to produce papers agreeing with their position or funding is removed. A researcher who is told by a non-profit to produce papers agreeing with their position or funding is removed. I see no difference between the corporate vested interest in profit and the non-profit's vested interest in continued donation. They both mean money in the pockets of people doling out the research funding and money in the pockets of people doing the research.
That is why I titled the post "Timing". Just as you are about to pull together the two hour presentation the cloud goes down. You now have ten hours to pull it together. Even with off line backups there are several issues.
1. Who has the most recent file? 2. How many updates have been lost and need to be re-done. 3. How do we get this presentation package together without email?
If everyone has to keep backup copies of every part of a major presentation just in case the cloud goes down then why use the cloud? If one uses a corporate system where backups are automatic one has control over restoring those backups. Critical information can be restored quickly. You don't want to be the the person telling the CEO of a major company "Sorry but we will have to re-schedule the presentation; the cloud is down". It is a good possibility the reply would be "Sorry but we'll go with company B; they seem more reliable". Whether it is a million dollar contract or thousands of dollars it is an issue of control.
Why is 99.9% the minimum acceptable for a server provider but 95% is acceptable for the cloud? The 50% refund is irrelevant. It just means that Microsoft will not loose too much money if they screw up. How many CTOs to you think would retain their jobs if their servers ran under these parameters?
We apologize that the recent outage has caused you to lose the multi-million dollar contract. Here is a check for $2000 to compensate for the down time.
Should the sheath get wet due to rain or condensation it will be conductive. Also the conductor of power cables have a sheath of non-conductive material just like fibre optics.
Is the weight of the equipment required to convert laser light into electricity less than the difference between the weight of a ferrous conductor vs fibre optics. If the conductors were aluminum they may even weigh the same.
I think it strange that research done by ethical people funded by organizations with one vested interest is deemed suspect while research done by ethical people funded by organizations with other vested interests is not.
The environmental community is not without funding issues. They have to cater to their contributors to continue to receive funding. An organization that gathers funding under the auspices that global warming is caused by human activity that published research contrary to that position will not continue to get funding. It is possible that the research is tainted in the same way and for the same reasons as research funded by oil companies.
Even Government funded research funding is not above suspicion. If the research does not agree with the position of the government will the funding continue?
Anywhere that money changes hand the desires of the one giving the money influences the outcome. The only solution I see is to have an independent body that takes money from all contributors and distributes it to researchers. That way researchers are not funded by one side or the other.
This just shows how little you know about the things that you use. Look at you computer. It is made by a multinational using parts made by other multinationals. It is communicating with this site through nation wide ISPs and backbone providers.
Food transport is another issue. How many trucks come Australia, Brazil or Hawaii? Also, trains carry much of the food used in the US. Trucking companies will also have an issue if laws change at every jurisdiction border.
Having everything locally made would be nice but impracticable. How many cotton farms would survive in Michigan? Cotton has to get there somehow and usually by train. Vehicle manufacturing is another issue. There are a few large plants that produce vehicles in the US as economy of scale allows lower prices. They already comply with 50 different laws; complying with thousands is impractical.
Nationalizing is no solution if the national company still has to comply with local laws. Nationalizing, especially oil companies, is a non starter. There is too much private investment in those companies and nationalization has the stigma of "communism".
Attempting to make everything locally would not cause prices to "be a bit higher", it would cause prices to double or triple. That is not economically viable. The reason we can have large cities is the transport system that supplies them. That includes trucks, trains, ships and airplanes. These companies have to deal with multiple jurisdictions already. Allowing local governments to make laws dealing with them is unworkable.
First a couple of points. Most speed laws have a clause about weather conditions and causing a hindrance to traffic. These are very few and cognitively manageable parameters.
The social interactions are much more complex. I was thinking about this last night and came up with an analogy. A neurotypical person in social interactions is like driving down a highway with speed signs at reasonable places; the rest of the clues come from intuition. For a person with Asperger's it is more like driving down a road with traffic signs every 20 feet, some in English, some in other languages, some with time of day parameters, some with different meaning depending on the orientation of the sign. Even driving the same highway over and over again is no help because the signs change at random intervals. We miss signs and misinterpret signs because it is physically impossible to think that fast. Where a neurotypical person just does what feels right someone with Asperger's has to think about it.
The point is that there is no social norm for social interaction as it changes based on the mood of everyone in the interaction. What was expected 5 minutes ago may not be what is accepted now but may be expected 5 minutes from now. When one has to cognitively think about every parameter of a social interaction it is very tiring and frustrating.
You make a point about "common agreement". There is no common agreement when it comes to social interaction. Different people are treated differently at different times based on the mood of the people in the interaction. For example if one is calm one would react to a joke much differently that if one is stressed. If someone with Asperger's can not pick up on the stress level of another person then a joke may have drastic consequences. There is no social norm saying that the joke is acceptable or not as it changes.
A good example is Dr Reid on Criminal Minds. Early in the series he would ramble on about interesting but irrelevant facts. Some times his ramblings helped; sometimes they didn't. Recently he has been able to recognize Hotchner's look when he starts rambling. He still isn't perfect because he starts and has to say "that's not relevant" before he stops. After years of interaction Reid has been able to pick out that one important sign from that one person.. Try doing that kind of learning when you interact with different people every day.
To take this conversation back to the original topic; Asperger's is not a cognitive issue, it is an intuitive issue. Try going into every social interaction and ask yourself why you react the way you do and why other people react the way they do. Try doing that while carrying on a conversation.
Cost per watt is an easily manipulated number. I most cases I bet it is based on optimal production and measured at the panel. I doubt very much it takes into account any of the following; Cost and power loss of equipment to convert from DC to AC Maintenance cost of panels and conversion equipment. Decreased output due to window facing, time of day, time of year and atmospheric conditions.
The issue is that the law is a static rule. It doesn't say that if you are in a hurry you can speed. It doesn't say that if you are upset you can speed. It doesn't say that on a blue moon the speed limit is now 40. It does not say that if you are beautiful you can speed. Social situations change like that. Laws are written down, codified and do not change very often. If I choose to speed it is a cognitive choice not a guess what the speed limit is as determined by the current circumstances. There is a huge difference between I know what the speed limit is but chose to break it and what the hell is the speed limit based on factors that I am blind to.
Sorry buy you seem to know very little about how Asperger's Syndrome works. I have moderate Asperger's and have difficulty interacting with people. The issue is not that I do not understand what is right or wrong, as in a law, but what is expected in social situations. In fact Aspergers has made me more of a rules lawyer than the average person. Laws are very black and white; it is very clear what is right or wrong and I have no problem discerning that. The widely known law against DoS attacks is not an issue for people with Asperger's.
In social situations there are no laws. Different things happen in different situations governed by clues that I do not pick up on. What is socially acceptable one minute is not acceptable the next. This kind of chaos, which a neurotypical person can handle, is frustrating and confusing to me.
Aspregers is not a cognitive issue; it is a intuitive issue. We think about everything and have very good analytical, problem solving skills. That is why most people with Aspergers are very intelligent. To us every social interaction is a thought process. We have to think about everything as we have little or no "gut feeling" on what to do. Where most people intuitively know what to do and how to act, people with Aspergers must think about it and make a decision. We compare the current situation with past situations and try to find the best fit. Sometimes we are right and sometimes we are wrong. Think about trying to keep track of someone's tone, posture, facial expressions, inflection, choice of words, etc to figure out what is going on. Now multiply that by the number of people in a social situation. This is a very tiring and frustrating experience for us so we sometimes avoid social contact. Another aspect of this is that we always seem to be behind conversations because we had to think about what to say and rehearse how to say it.
It is not that people with Aspergers do not have the cognitive mechanism to delineate right from wrong but that we do not have the intuitive mechanism to deal with the changing social aspects of life.
But what, specifically, do you find wrong with pushing the particular law described in TFA to municipal level?
The specific instance is beside the point (I am in fact for net neutrality).The issue is that currently the Federal Government regulates ISPs and not local governments. If you want to change that then lobby your elected state and federal representatives to change that. Otherwise stay out of regulations that are not within a local government's area of responsibility.
Your example of your state making it illegal for local governments weapons beyond what state law restricts seems to be the same as the federal law making it illegal for local government to regulate beyond what the FCC stipulates. You point out that the State sometimes allows local governments to regulate. The Federal Government has not done that. Why shouldn't a local government just ignore the state and make firearms regulations? How is that different from a local government ignoring the FCC and making ISP regulations?
By the way Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 of the US Constitution, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause, allows the Federal Government to regulate Interstate commerce. Considering that the internet crosses state line it falls under that clause. I do believe that the Constitution was voted on by representatives of the people.
There already is a structure for municipalities to get their issues heard at higher levels of government. For example, in California there is the League of California Cities, http://www.cacities.org/index.jsp, which lobbies the state to change laws on behalf of communities in the state. On the state to federal level there is the National Governors Association, http://www.nga.org./ They advocate states issues to the national level.
If enough local governments advocated to their state leagues and enough Governors advocated to the Governors Association things would change. Trying to create change by local revolt outside the established channels has little hope of working. All that will happen is the jurisdiction that has the right to make the laws will just void the local laws. Sorry but few people are not going to protest in the streets over net neutrality.
Are you seriously arguing that democracy (and make no mistake: local government is what makes democracy actually work) should be curtailed because it makes life harder for big business? You have some rather strange priorities, in my opinion.
Democracy on a local level sometimes causes NIMBY issues. I noticed that you did not make any note of the state laws that were cited in my post. A state banning importing of milk from another state? A state requiring only one label on apples? If you want to belong to a country you need to do what's best for the country and not necessarily just for your locality.
As for big business being bad, millions of people would not be alive if not for big business. How do you think you get most of your food, clothing and energy? It is produced by big business. It is not just making life "harder for big business" it would make life impossible for big business. How can any company ensure that they comply with thousands of different statutes? For example a car manufacturer. Would you want every county and municipality to be able to make emission standards? That is a state preview. Could any car company be sure they comply with thousand of different standards, 50 is hard enough? Do you think it possible for each municipality to manufacture it's own vehicles? Big business does that because it is the only feasible way. Companies employ people all across the country. Without these companies these people would not be employed.
This assumes that it is possible or desirable to have a single law that's good enough for everyone. In practice, it often isn't. Pushing these things down on local level lets minorities (on federal level) decide what's best for them without having their preferences being overridden by the majority for no good reason.
I like to point out that you state it isn't possible or desirable to have one law that is good enough for everyone. And you are correct. That is why some issues are Federal, some are State, some are county and some are municipal. Conversely from your original statement there are at least some issues where one law is good enough for all. To push everything down to the municipal level is going too far.
Isn't the ability for companies to do business through and across jurisdictions a good reason? Should a local government be allowed to void state and federal taxes? It would be great for the locality but the state and feds need that money to operate. Should a local government be able to ban hazardous chemical shipment through their jurisdictions? It would make the roads safer but interrupt interstate shipments. Sometimes local concerns must be put aside for the greater good.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet the "85 percent of those employees [who] see no purpose in the presentations" are the same people who would be griping if those presentations did not exist. "No one tells me anything. I don't understand why the company does what it does. I do not know the direction this company is going. I do not feel part of this company." Yes there are presentations that are meaningless to some people but if everyone is not invited then the following gripes occur; "Why did they get invited and not me? Am I not important enough? What are they trying to hide from me?"
Yes, there are bad presentations. They will be bad if they use PP or a white board. It is the presenter not the software. As for PP allowing you to do bad things; HTML allows red flashing text on a pink background. Is HTML bad?
The alternative is someone standing at the front waving their hands and writing on a whiteboard or flip chart wasting time while they refer to their notes. Personally I prefer PP.
The insistence that and restriction on speech is dogma.
1. If an untrue statement about a candidate is released close to voting time there is no time to gather factual information to refute the claim. Sorry but "I didn't do it" is not sufficient. Anyone voting on that information can not retract their vote when the truth comes out.
2. I just noticed your handle IgnoramosMaxumis which translated to Big Idiot. On that note I will consider the source of the dogmatic replies and act accordingly.
Battlefield situation.
How do you point at UAV that is behind a building or hill?
How do you point at a UAV without exposing yourself to enemy fire be it direct or indirect?
How do you get the required area for kintect to work when you are hunkered down in a building, hiding behind a wall or driving in an armoured vehicle?
How do you get the power requirements for Kinect?
How do you see something that small to point at it a quarter of a mile away?
How does the system know you are giving it a real command and not just scratching your nose?
I am not saying that a joystick is the best solution. I am saying this is not the solution. Sorry but pointing at an object far away is not very precise at all. Cute toy but not practical.
Sorry but a restriction for a few hours for the greater good is not censorship it is common sense.
And Australia
Under Schedule 2 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, which is administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), election advertising in the electronic media is subject to a 'blackout' from midnight on the Wednesday before polling day to the end of polling on the Saturday. This three-day blackout effectively provides a "cooling off" period in the lead up to polling day, during which political parties, candidates and others are no longer able to purchase time on television and radio to broadcast political advertising.
How about Australia
Under Schedule 2 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, which is administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), election advertising in the electronic media is subject to a 'blackout' from midnight on the Wednesday before polling day to the end of polling on the Saturday. This three-day blackout effectively provides a "cooling off" period in the lead up to polling day, during which political parties, candidates and others are no longer able to purchase time on television and radio to broadcast political advertising.
All last minute campaigning is illegal. Here is the relevant section from Thailand's Electoral law http://www.elections-lebanon.org/elections/docs_6_G_8_1_14.aspx [elections-lebanon.org]
"Section 48. No person shall make an election campaign by any means, whether it may be favorable or disfavorable to any candidate or political party, from 6:00 pm of the day before the election day to the end of the election day."
They don't campaign in public anyway because it is against the law. It is a cooling off period for all campaigning. Here is the relevant section from Thailand's Electoral law http://www.elections-lebanon.org/elections/docs_6_G_8_1_14.aspx
"Section 48. No person shall make an election campaign by any means, whether it may be favorable or disfavorable to any candidate or political party, from 6:00 pm of the day before the election day to the end of the election day."
This ban on campaigning is nothing new. All that is happening is the things one can not do on the street, on TV, in newspapers, etc. can not be done on social media during the time specified. It is a ban on all campaigning not just social media as the article implies. I am for this "cooling off" period. Important decisions should not be made at the last minute based on information that can note be refuted by the target.
The issue isn't Westerners changing their vote it is westerners not voting at all. Why vote if the outcome of the elections are already known? At least allow those of us on the west coast the illusion that we have a say in Ottawa. Publishing results in one province before the polls are closed in another is bad form.
Sure it works within 20 feet in a very controlled environment; so what?
Most UAVs are much more usefull out of sight of the "pilot" and need much finer control than gestures can provide. Another issue is the space required to use gestures to control the UAV. Yeah, someone is going to set up a connects, stand 5 feet away and dance to control a UAV. That's not obvious. Great for game not so great for real life.
Cool but useless
Most climate research is not experimentation it is analysis of records of temperature and CO2 content. Any analysis can be skewed by the preconceptions of the observer. What data is included in the study? What data is excluded? How is data averaged? There is an old saying "lies, damn lies and statistics".
The flaw in that is that CO2 may be only one of many factors that increase global temperature. Others could be solar activity, volcanic dust in the atmosphere.
Even if it can be shown that there is raised CO2 levels is all that caused by human activity. Could it be caused by volcanic activity, or natural combustion like forest fires?
Could it be a natural long term cycle the earth goes through? It seems there has been ice ages and subsequent warming in the past. How do we know this isn't happening again?
The point is that correlation is not causation. By concentrating on one theory to the exclusion of others makes the research suspect.
First ethics is extremely important. Research can and has been faked by unethical people all over the world and not just by people funded by corporations. Unethical researchers can produce research that appears high quality buy is flawed.
As for vested interests, how are these two scenarios different? A researcher who is told by a corporation to produce papers agreeing with their position or funding is removed. A researcher who is told by a non-profit to produce papers agreeing with their position or funding is removed. I see no difference between the corporate vested interest in profit and the non-profit's vested interest in continued donation. They both mean money in the pockets of people doling out the research funding and money in the pockets of people doing the research.
That is why I titled the post "Timing". Just as you are about to pull together the two hour presentation the cloud goes down. You now have ten hours to pull it together. Even with off line backups there are several issues.
1. Who has the most recent file?
2. How many updates have been lost and need to be re-done.
3. How do we get this presentation package together without email?
If everyone has to keep backup copies of every part of a major presentation just in case the cloud goes down then why use the cloud? If one uses a corporate system where backups are automatic one has control over restoring those backups. Critical information can be restored quickly. You don't want to be the the person telling the CEO of a major company "Sorry but we will have to re-schedule the presentation; the cloud is down". It is a good possibility the reply would be "Sorry but we'll go with company B; they seem more reliable". Whether it is a million dollar contract or thousands of dollars it is an issue of control.
Why is 99.9% the minimum acceptable for a server provider but 95% is acceptable for the cloud? The 50% refund is irrelevant. It just means that Microsoft will not loose too much money if they screw up. How many CTOs to you think would retain their jobs if their servers ran under these parameters?
Dear Valued Customer;
We apologize that the recent outage has caused you to lose the multi-million dollar contract. Here is a check for $2000 to compensate for the down time.
Sincerely,
Microsoft
Should the sheath get wet due to rain or condensation it will be conductive. Also the conductor of power cables have a sheath of non-conductive material just like fibre optics.
Is the weight of the equipment required to convert laser light into electricity less than the difference between the weight of a ferrous conductor vs fibre optics. If the conductors were aluminum they may even weigh the same.
I think it strange that research done by ethical people funded by organizations with one vested interest is deemed suspect while research done by ethical people funded by organizations with other vested interests is not.
The environmental community is not without funding issues. They have to cater to their contributors to continue to receive funding. An organization that gathers funding under the auspices that global warming is caused by human activity that published research contrary to that position will not continue to get funding. It is possible that the research is tainted in the same way and for the same reasons as research funded by oil companies.
Even Government funded research funding is not above suspicion. If the research does not agree with the position of the government will the funding continue?
Anywhere that money changes hand the desires of the one giving the money influences the outcome. The only solution I see is to have an independent body that takes money from all contributors and distributes it to researchers. That way researchers are not funded by one side or the other.
This just shows how little you know about the things that you use. Look at you computer. It is made by a multinational using parts made by other multinationals. It is communicating with this site through nation wide ISPs and backbone providers.
Food transport is another issue. How many trucks come Australia, Brazil or Hawaii? Also, trains carry much of the food used in the US. Trucking companies will also have an issue if laws change at every jurisdiction border.
Having everything locally made would be nice but impracticable. How many cotton farms would survive in Michigan? Cotton has to get there somehow and usually by train. Vehicle manufacturing is another issue. There are a few large plants that produce vehicles in the US as economy of scale allows lower prices. They already comply with 50 different laws; complying with thousands is impractical.
Nationalizing is no solution if the national company still has to comply with local laws. Nationalizing, especially oil companies, is a non starter. There is too much private investment in those companies and nationalization has the stigma of "communism".
Attempting to make everything locally would not cause prices to "be a bit higher", it would cause prices to double or triple. That is not economically viable. The reason we can have large cities is the transport system that supplies them. That includes trucks, trains, ships and airplanes. These companies have to deal with multiple jurisdictions already. Allowing local governments to make laws dealing with them is unworkable.
First a couple of points. Most speed laws have a clause about weather conditions and causing a hindrance to traffic. These are very few and cognitively manageable parameters.
The social interactions are much more complex. I was thinking about this last night and came up with an analogy. A neurotypical person in social interactions is like driving down a highway with speed signs at reasonable places; the rest of the clues come from intuition. For a person with Asperger's it is more like driving down a road with traffic signs every 20 feet, some in English, some in other languages, some with time of day parameters, some with different meaning depending on the orientation of the sign. Even driving the same highway over and over again is no help because the signs change at random intervals. We miss signs and misinterpret signs because it is physically impossible to think that fast. Where a neurotypical person just does what feels right someone with Asperger's has to think about it.
The point is that there is no social norm for social interaction as it changes based on the mood of everyone in the interaction. What was expected 5 minutes ago may not be what is accepted now but may be expected 5 minutes from now. When one has to cognitively think about every parameter of a social interaction it is very tiring and frustrating.
You make a point about "common agreement". There is no common agreement when it comes to social interaction. Different people are treated differently at different times based on the mood of the people in the interaction. For example if one is calm one would react to a joke much differently that if one is stressed. If someone with Asperger's can not pick up on the stress level of another person then a joke may have drastic consequences. There is no social norm saying that the joke is acceptable or not as it changes.
A good example is Dr Reid on Criminal Minds. Early in the series he would ramble on about interesting but irrelevant facts. Some times his ramblings helped; sometimes they didn't. Recently he has been able to recognize Hotchner's look when he starts rambling. He still isn't perfect because he starts and has to say "that's not relevant" before he stops. After years of interaction Reid has been able to pick out that one important sign from that one person.. Try doing that kind of learning when you interact with different people every day.
To take this conversation back to the original topic; Asperger's is not a cognitive issue, it is an intuitive issue. Try going into every social interaction and ask yourself why you react the way you do and why other people react the way they do. Try doing that while carrying on a conversation.
Cost per watt is an easily manipulated number. I most cases I bet it is based on optimal production and measured at the panel. I doubt very much it takes into account any of the following;
Cost and power loss of equipment to convert from DC to AC
Maintenance cost of panels and conversion equipment.
Decreased output due to window facing, time of day, time of year and atmospheric conditions.
The issue is that the law is a static rule. It doesn't say that if you are in a hurry you can speed. It doesn't say that if you are upset you can speed. It doesn't say that on a blue moon the speed limit is now 40. It does not say that if you are beautiful you can speed. Social situations change like that. Laws are written down, codified and do not change very often. If I choose to speed it is a cognitive choice not a guess what the speed limit is as determined by the current circumstances. There is a huge difference between I know what the speed limit is but chose to break it and what the hell is the speed limit based on factors that I am blind to.
Sorry buy you seem to know very little about how Asperger's Syndrome works. I have moderate Asperger's and have difficulty interacting with people. The issue is not that I do not understand what is right or wrong, as in a law, but what is expected in social situations. In fact Aspergers has made me more of a rules lawyer than the average person. Laws are very black and white; it is very clear what is right or wrong and I have no problem discerning that. The widely known law against DoS attacks is not an issue for people with Asperger's.
In social situations there are no laws. Different things happen in different situations governed by clues that I do not pick up on. What is socially acceptable one minute is not acceptable the next. This kind of chaos, which a neurotypical person can handle, is frustrating and confusing to me.
Aspregers is not a cognitive issue; it is a intuitive issue. We think about everything and have very good analytical, problem solving skills. That is why most people with Aspergers are very intelligent. To us every social interaction is a thought process. We have to think about everything as we have little or no "gut feeling" on what to do. Where most people intuitively know what to do and how to act, people with Aspergers must think about it and make a decision. We compare the current situation with past situations and try to find the best fit. Sometimes we are right and sometimes we are wrong. Think about trying to keep track of someone's tone, posture, facial expressions, inflection, choice of words, etc to figure out what is going on. Now multiply that by the number of people in a social situation. This is a very tiring and frustrating experience for us so we sometimes avoid social contact. Another aspect of this is that we always seem to be behind conversations because we had to think about what to say and rehearse how to say it.
It is not that people with Aspergers do not have the cognitive mechanism to delineate right from wrong but that we do not have the intuitive mechanism to deal with the changing social aspects of life.
But what, specifically, do you find wrong with pushing the particular law described in TFA to municipal level?
The specific instance is beside the point (I am in fact for net neutrality).The issue is that currently the Federal Government regulates ISPs and not local governments. If you want to change that then lobby your elected state and federal representatives to change that. Otherwise stay out of regulations that are not within a local government's area of responsibility.
Your example of your state making it illegal for local governments weapons beyond what state law restricts seems to be the same as the federal law making it illegal for local government to regulate beyond what the FCC stipulates. You point out that the State sometimes allows local governments to regulate. The Federal Government has not done that. Why shouldn't a local government just ignore the state and make firearms regulations? How is that different from a local government ignoring the FCC and making ISP regulations?
By the way Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 of the US Constitution, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause, allows the Federal Government to regulate Interstate commerce. Considering that the internet crosses state line it falls under that clause. I do believe that the Constitution was voted on by representatives of the people.
There already is a structure for municipalities to get their issues heard at higher levels of government. For example, in California there is the League of California Cities, http://www.cacities.org/index.jsp, which lobbies the state to change laws on behalf of communities in the state. On the state to federal level there is the National Governors Association, http://www.nga.org./ They advocate states issues to the national level.
If enough local governments advocated to their state leagues and enough Governors advocated to the Governors Association things would change. Trying to create change by local revolt outside the established channels has little hope of working. All that will happen is the jurisdiction that has the right to make the laws will just void the local laws. Sorry but few people are not going to protest in the streets over net neutrality.
Are you seriously arguing that democracy (and make no mistake: local government is what makes democracy actually work) should be curtailed because it makes life harder for big business? You have some rather strange priorities, in my opinion.
Democracy on a local level sometimes causes NIMBY issues. I noticed that you did not make any note of the state laws that were cited in my post. A state banning importing of milk from another state? A state requiring only one label on apples? If you want to belong to a country you need to do what's best for the country and not necessarily just for your locality.
As for big business being bad, millions of people would not be alive if not for big business. How do you think you get most of your food, clothing and energy? It is produced by big business. It is not just making life "harder for big business" it would make life impossible for big business. How can any company ensure that they comply with thousands of different statutes? For example a car manufacturer. Would you want every county and municipality to be able to make emission standards? That is a state preview. Could any car company be sure they comply with thousand of different standards, 50 is hard enough? Do you think it possible for each municipality to manufacture it's own vehicles? Big business does that because it is the only feasible way. Companies employ people all across the country. Without these companies these people would not be employed.
This assumes that it is possible or desirable to have a single law that's good enough for everyone. In practice, it often isn't. Pushing these things down on local level lets minorities (on federal level) decide what's best for them without having their preferences being overridden by the majority for no good reason.
I like to point out that you state it isn't possible or desirable to have one law that is good enough for everyone. And you are correct. That is why some issues are Federal, some are State, some are county and some are municipal. Conversely from your original statement there are at least some issues where one law is good enough for all. To push everything down to the municipal level is going too far.
Isn't the ability for companies to do business through and across jurisdictions a good reason? Should a local government be allowed to void state and federal taxes? It would be great for the locality but the state and feds need that money to operate. Should a local government be able to ban hazardous chemical shipment through their jurisdictions? It would make the roads safer but interrupt interstate shipments. Sometimes local concerns must be put aside for the greater good.
How do you expect your food, clothing and energy to get to you without nation wide companies? Not all companies can or should be local.
Gotta love the hypocrisy of people who hate big companies yet consume their products on a daily basis.