I'm glad to hear it, actually; I had an HP notebook that had a dimpled trackpad, and I wasn't sure if it was the dimples or the pad that was irritating my fingers, but even if I put something over it to keep my fingers from making contact, it still bothered me. It eventually got to the point that I really disliked the idea of using it, almost instinctively.
However, for me, it didn't start until many months after I started using it, so it's still possible it was just the dimples, or possibly that they increased my sensitivity after a while.
IANAL or constitutional scholar, but the FBI is I believe part of the executive branch, where the consitution and the first amendment in particular is aimed at the legislature: "Congress shall make no law"
It is the legislature's responsibility to reign in the executive (as well as the populace) by passing laws. it is not going to be stopped by laws that do not exist, and the First Amendment does not seem to be censuring, forbidding, or stipulating punishment for acts of the executive branch which amount to censorship.
Therefore, I believe, this isn't a constitutional matter unless the executive has been given guidelines in the form of laws that specifically allow it. If it is merely that it hasn't been restrained, it cannot possibly fall under the jurisdiction of that amendment. As you say, it is pretty clearly worded.
If you have a beef with particular laws that are dictating first amendment violations, mention them, and move to have them changed. THAT is what the judicial branch, and specifically the supreme court, is for.
I take the view that the universe is 4-dimensional, but only on a microscopic (or smaller) scale; an atom or molecule or even something smaller (quantum sized) might have a depth or "space" attached to it (which can be altered by manipulations/chemistry), but unless you can combine and expand these spaces with extremely small, precise mechanisms (cells), there is no way to make it workably large. Once you have a large cellular network, though, it may be possible.
So more or less, I theorize that we have no current way of detecting it, but it is there, and it can only exist because of biology. If I'm right, and we ever figure that fact out in any way that allows engineering, we will have learned something VERY interesting.
I don't claim to know enough actual physics to be able to back that up, though.
It would only be illegal to play a disc if the disc, not the player, had an attached license that you would be violating. Player licenses only means you can't sell or distribute a device that decodes it without one. If you were intrinsically capable of reading the disc with only the power of your MIND, player licenses wouldn't stop you. Of course, that would also make disc license infringement a little hard to detect.
That's not to say that they do or don't have licenses on every blu-ray disc, I don't know, I've never bought one. And of course, it's not really practical for everyone to roll their own solution to reading blu-rays, so that doesn't help, but again, the two aren't the same.
They wouldn't be publishing their collected works to twitter, they would probably be commenting on things other people say. For instance, if a news article is circulating--say on the P=NP--which they could intelligently (but concisely) comment on, they would, possibly linking to a blog post, or to a post/paper they already wrote a while ago, or to a post/paper they read a while ago from another informed source.
Being a source of information means more than being able to publish, it means being able to grasp a huge network of other people's ideas and sift through it.
I'm going to play devil's advocate, keep in mind it may not work.
I find when I look at people who are given a lot of power don't tend to view "misuses" of power the same way as people do when looking at it from the outside. A lot of different kinds of corruption can be born from, "What's the harm?" and it can be very easy to run away from the consequences and by doing so, lie to themselves.
In cases like that, when you are forced and/or given an excuse to stop lying to yourself, you actually learn a lot about yourself and your behavior that you may not have known, but which you should have. It's actually rather easy to 'misfile' things in your head such that you actually do know them, but they're not properly weighted or not connected to other facts, for (a made up) example, "I hired my cousin in place of a qualified applicant, as a favor." Okay, you hired your cousin--did you check to see that he was doing a good job? Did the company suffer because you didn't look into his behavior? Did the company actually need that qualified applicant? Was the qualified applicant already working there (internal promotion) and have they gotten the shit end of the stick because of it? Was the qualified applicant, perchance, someone you actually knew and respected and who hasn't talked to you since?
Once you stop hiding from your own closet and its skeletons, you may in fact get hit by the realization that you aren't nearly as clean as you thought you were. That's all I'm saying.
The vast majority of people find homosexuality objectionable - and the gays are demanding that we accept them as equals.
[Citation needed] on your demographics, first of all.
Second, I assume what you mean by demand is that they leave no room for refusal, that they are overbearing in their attempts to get you to acknowledge them. If they are being overbearing, or violent, then they are bad people, just as you, or any homophobe, would be wrong in being overbearing or violent to them. Moral issues must always and explicitly go both ways. If they are violent, they are a criminal; if you are, you are. Those who are not being a bad person in any way who are also homosexual (and they are out there; I'd suspect they're the majority) should not be lumped in with the criminals any more than all black people or all businessmen or all {FOREIGN NATIONAL}s should be assumed to be criminals.
Because it's not actually all that hard to identify criminals. There are some, scammers and the like, that are probably hard to track down, but when you come across someone who likes hurting people, you're going to have an inkling. If the cops in your area are understaffed, corrupt, or stupid, or the jails become nothing more than catch-and-release, then identifying criminals doesn't help, but it's not that hard to tell someone who actually is a decent human being from someone who isn't.
And because it's not all that hard to tell who the actual bad people are, let me say clearly and distinctly that we don't need people making up rules where if you break those rules "you are a bad person." There are bad people out there. You don't have to pretend. Go out there and go looking; you will find them. It's not hard to tell the difference. If you think gays are bad, go spend a week living with rapists or arsonists or something like that. Those sort of people are not a myth. You do not need to imply that "maybe that gay person is one of those mythical rapists I hear so much about" just because you don't see that side of life. Go find people that have actually been in those terrible situations, and understand through them that there are plenty of bad guys without making more by means of moral statute.
If regulation was all that was needed for something to be considered taking property of the government, every business that has any kind of federal restriction on it, like selling guns or alcohol, would be "taken" already.
Whenever the state does something that would be illegal for a citizen, they have to have a reason. Many of the things that police and other agencies do are "evil"--arrest and imprisonment is effectively kidnapping, execution is murder, seizing property (including money from fines and damages) is theft, etc--and so ideally they must justify that evil by showing that it is to prevent more evil things from happening in the future; otherwise, we wouldn't put up with it.
I would imagine that a lot of police and other agents (many of whom show up as 'corrupt' on most peoples' moral radars) forget that these actions are evil and consider it just another tool or part of the process of law enforcement. However, being arrested is to the suspect as bad as or worse than kidnapping, especially if they are, in fact, innocent. You are put in a terrifying situation, and if you say the wrong thing, even though you are innocent, you might (you fear) disappear for the rest of your life; the people involved make it clear that they don't care about you, but you're supposed to trust in their ability to dispense justice and ONLY justice; they have this kind of power over you but you have to trust the law to reign in their power and prevent them from doing truly evil things; etc.
So, though IANAL as well, I agree with the GP; as soon as they're kidnapping (even in effect), they should be under the same or more restrictions as when they're performing an arrest. If they try to sneak past that restriction on a technicality--and especially when that's for their own sakes and not for the suspect's--then they are showing that they can't be entrusted with the law per se. Because the law, and agents of the law, should be working to make less evil in this world; if they're doing evil things because they can get away with it rather than after deliberation, that's creating more evil, not less.
It cannot be inherently worse, because its value depends on the observer.
If you already know how to maintain a model T but not a modern car--or if you're using it as a museum piece, or for riding in parades--then the Civic is no replacement.
The keyword is 'inherent'; inherent qualities are not subjective, and subjective means 'subject to a process'. There are many processes you can use a chalkboard for more easily than a powerpoint, and if you base your teaching process around those thing--especially if that's because that's how you think and operate normally--then replacing them with technology isn't equal, much less superior. Even if you added a tablet for writing on powerpoints easily, you lack the surface space of a chalkboard to show many things side by side, which helps if, for example, you want to relate back half an hour later to something you wrote earlier.
Now, there are caveats--for example, there's technology to capture what you write on whiteboards and allow the students to receive it, possibly with voice data, which helps sick kids or etc. You could argue that that's inherently superior to a whiteboard, but only because it is a superset of whiteboards (and you could argue white and blackboards are equivalent, which isn't true, but close enough).
Specifically any new technology that removes old features in order to add new ones isn't "inherently" superior. It depends on which features are needed, which are used, and how good they are at each.
It's a tool; it cannot be inherently better. If any tool is misused, because the user doesn't know it, it's worse than a lesser tool used correctly.
If the teacher is better with tech, they should use tech. If the teacher isn't good at teaching either way, or is in any other way equal between the two, you might as well have them use tech. If you try to and force someone who's actually very good at teaching with a chalkboard, etc, to adapt themselves to technology, you will probably screw up their teaching style and their rhythm, and the students won't benefit.
And this IS about the students, so results matter more than what you intended to happen when you made the rules.
No, the way I read the headline, fossil fuels are providing a subsidy provide renewable energy for dwarves. I didn't realize they were incompatible with existing renewable energy, but I suppose high winds at windfarms, or large waves at wavefarms, might sweep them away more easily than full-sized people...
No, I can definitely say that common sense is not limited only to women... but I can't say I know if marriage causes men to lose the ability. I may have to take your word for that.
"No harm" can happen even when you heinously violate many safety precautions, because most safety precautions are there to prevent a "1 in X" event from happening. In theory, they're there to make certain that you won't endanger someone, including yourself, out of ignorance.
I believe what the GP is arguing against is "it's OK to ignore that one rule, nothing ever happens" people, who become sloppy and therefore dangerous. The submitter / editor was arguing for "if you know it's going to be safe, it's OK" exemptions from the law. Unfortunately, a cop that only meets you once or twice in your life is not going to know whether you broke the rule because you're sloppy, or if you saw that it was going to be OK and made a clean decision. The cop therefore has to choose between fining an innocent or possibly letting a dangerous driver go with no penalty.
The driver on the other hand, has to choose between putting the cop in that position and delaying his trip by what, 5 seconds? 10? Maybe a minute if the traffic is kinda bad?
Disclaimer: I do rolling stops sometimes, but only when I know the intersection pretty well. Doesn't help, but it is my reasoning.
I'm pretty sure Catch-42 is that you have to know The Question to get The Answer (unless you're Deep Thought), and you have to know The Answer to get The Question.
I think that they would do better to just combine it with platter technology, for the obvious reason, but also because SSDs and flash storage were never, ever meant for mass storage.
Mass storage is a drive, disk, or tape, which by itself contains only the data plus a little logic for overhead--head seeks, reads, and writes. However, flash memory is logic-intensive; every single bit of storage is part of a circuit. That's never going to scale to the same degree. With HDDs, you, what, make the controls a little finer, alter the chemistry of the disk a bit maybe, hell, I dunno. And I know that SSDs can be mass-fabbed, I get that. But you're dealing with logic circuits, and those have limitations that aren't just chemistry.
Eventually, yes, we'll get NVRAM-style storage (or similar) that is super-dense and CPUs (and other computer parts) that are small enough that together, the two can break all modern expectations of computing ability. However, I predict that mass storage will always outpace it. Logic circuits are always going to be more expensive than a little chemical science, physics, and some really clever engineering. So let them have their own worlds. Find a way to really really cleverly combine the two instead of trying to force one to win.
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortunes or take arms against a sea of photons and by opposing, evade them?
True, I haven't really put forth any argument that could really be called such, and if I'm wrong, well, then I'm wrong. But like I said, it's hard to put into words exactly what my objection is.
However, take energy into consideration once again. The only use for energy I can see in that system would necessarily be moving a particle from one universe into whichever universe it's supposed to enter next, based on either strict causality or quantum bullshit. However, because that universe physically existed beforehand, nothing has changed and merely some manner of essence has been transferred. However, energy--speaking in terms of traditional physics--is the potential to do work, and you couldn't convince me that energy means something meaningful in that way.
By all accounts, the universe seems to work on the iterative model, as I said. While you could (with a theoretical, infinite computer) model the past and future in a continuous stream and have it all there, as you would need for time travel, all the variables we're using for our physical models no longer make the smallest iota of sense anymore. If the future is already certain--or even just existent--in a physical sense, then what is inertia? There is no change to resist when two objects collide, because in the future they're already moving the other direction, which is already a physical truth.
In the end, I would argue that between the two, the iterative model is the one that should be assumed, as it is both more intuitive and has the fewest problems in theory, and an array-based universe model would be the one that has to prove itself. After all, there is no obvious physical phenomenon that shouts, "Time travel / the facilities for performing time travel already exist!" And, in contrast, the universe itself seems to iterate, destroying the past to create the new present, except as our biology and technology allow us to preserve memories--which if you ask me is a lousy hack.
But no, you're right, my argument previously isn't proof of it. It is an argument more in the philosophical sense that it should get people thinking, not in the logical sense that it has proven something.
It will never work, for exactly the reason you brought up--meta-time; that is to say, that more than one time period has to physically exist at any moment in meta-time, and you can "travel through time" by going between these physically-existent worlds. How do you travel through meta-time? Presumably, that's actual time in exactly the same sense as normal time, only it keeps track of what people do in this theoretical framework of moving from one physical, literal world to another copy of that physical, literal world which has existed since before you passed through it and will continue to exist after you pass through it.
I bet that made your head hurt, not merely because it's confusing, but because there's no way to explain what I'm trying to say properly. It's stupid.
Here's a fun statistic I love to throw around--planck time. Smallest unit of time the universe understands, in theory. If there was an update rate of the universe, it would be on planck time scale. It's on the order of 10^-44 seconds*. The universe is about 10 billion years old, or about 10^10.*
When explaining it to lay people, I say, "Take the age of the universe in years. Square it; take that number and square it again. There are more planck units of time in the time it takes to blink* than that number."
(* Wikipedia numbers)
Now take the age of the universe in planck time. Take the total amount of matter and energy in it, including dark matter, neutrinos, gravitons, photos, the works. Maybe even take the size of space itself to determine how big your coordinate variables are. Try to figure out how much data the universe would have to be storing in order to allow you to travel back in time to the beginning of the universe. Or hell--if the universe only let you travel back in time one human earth year, how much data would have to persistently exist? What sort of effect would all that energy and mass and data have on us--could it even possibly NOT affect us, especially if there are mechanisms at the quantum level that use it? And if the past and future already exist, what the hell does energy even mean? No, I say, fuck all that.
Me, personally, I assume that the universe is iterative, instead of keeping track of history and meta-time. That means that only one data set exists, and that data set itself changes every update tick. There's no time travel when you do that, no backup. If a particular particle or set of particles want to sit around in indeterminate states for a few bazillion planck-seconds, I don't give a rat's ass, because it's those particles, and not all of creation, that are fucking around with our heads. Hell, maybe the universe makes use of that to create spirituality or mind or other fuzzy concepts we don't quite have a grasp on physically yet, but it isn't the whole universe, and it's not going to affect the whole universe.
There is a difference between how things should be and how they are.
There is. There is also some measure of effort that must be put into all non-trivial improvements from "how they are" to "how they should be." And, as should be expected, putting forth that effort costs companies, and therefore they try to minimize it.
How much they minimize it--what perks they expect their employees to get compared to their workload, and to what degree the employees have a say about which bonuses and improvements are important to them--is an issue of how good your manager and/or business owner is. An excellent manager will make sure all the employees' needs are fulfilled, and only cut back on excesses in what the employees want. A bad manager will not make that distinction and force employees to choose between trying to find another job in this market, and putting up with not getting everything they need.
For a certain definition of, "having your arse handed to you"--the definition where it always happens and/or there's little to nothing you can do about it.
There are a bunch of games and a bunch of ways in which your enemy can completely outclass you--and if they completely outclass you, it won't be fun. Part of games is that they propose a challenge, and you rise to it; an enemy that you'll have to spend man-months practicing in order to overcome and who will loudly and publicly pwn you at every opportunity isn't all that much fun, but some people would consider it a challenge.
However, when just any old shmuck might be a mouse/keyboard user and gets a significant leg up on you just for that, that's not a challenge, and it's not fun, it's just an annoying boost to half or whatever of the population at random, no matter how noobish or douchebaggy.
I have to imagine that there are all kinds of people working on software and hardware upgrades all over medical science/engineering. Decreasing the risk to patients might be a nice reason to upgrade these scanners in particular, but you sorta sound like 'if it wasn't for the risk to the patients, this upgrade wouldn't be needed anytime soon.'
Engineers want to make better products, both to contribute and to make sales. Doctors want better products, both to decrease risk and to make their work easier and more successful. If there's a project that seems like it would contribute OR sell OR reduce risk OR make work easier, any of those might get it greenlighted. Things like this could easily do all of them, so it's hard to know what the motivation was, and honestly, it's kind of silly to go looking for the reason anyway, unless it turns out to be a scam.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad to hear it, actually; I had an HP notebook that had a dimpled trackpad, and I wasn't sure if it was the dimples or the pad that was irritating my fingers, but even if I put something over it to keep my fingers from making contact, it still bothered me. It eventually got to the point that I really disliked the idea of using it, almost instinctively.
However, for me, it didn't start until many months after I started using it, so it's still possible it was just the dimples, or possibly that they increased my sensitivity after a while.
First they'll have to think about the best way to add a braille interface to a fly.
I'm sure they'll have no trouble finding people willing to test a braille interface on their crotch.
I mean, just think of the pickup lines!
IANAL or constitutional scholar, but the FBI is I believe part of the executive branch, where the consitution and the first amendment in particular is aimed at the legislature: "Congress shall make no law"
It is the legislature's responsibility to reign in the executive (as well as the populace) by passing laws. it is not going to be stopped by laws that do not exist, and the First Amendment does not seem to be censuring, forbidding, or stipulating punishment for acts of the executive branch which amount to censorship.
Therefore, I believe, this isn't a constitutional matter unless the executive has been given guidelines in the form of laws that specifically allow it. If it is merely that it hasn't been restrained, it cannot possibly fall under the jurisdiction of that amendment. As you say, it is pretty clearly worded.
If you have a beef with particular laws that are dictating first amendment violations, mention them, and move to have them changed. THAT is what the judicial branch, and specifically the supreme court, is for.
I take the view that the universe is 4-dimensional, but only on a microscopic (or smaller) scale; an atom or molecule or even something smaller (quantum sized) might have a depth or "space" attached to it (which can be altered by manipulations/chemistry), but unless you can combine and expand these spaces with extremely small, precise mechanisms (cells), there is no way to make it workably large. Once you have a large cellular network, though, it may be possible.
So more or less, I theorize that we have no current way of detecting it, but it is there, and it can only exist because of biology. If I'm right, and we ever figure that fact out in any way that allows engineering, we will have learned something VERY interesting.
I don't claim to know enough actual physics to be able to back that up, though.
It would only be illegal to play a disc if the disc, not the player, had an attached license that you would be violating. Player licenses only means you can't sell or distribute a device that decodes it without one. If you were intrinsically capable of reading the disc with only the power of your MIND, player licenses wouldn't stop you. Of course, that would also make disc license infringement a little hard to detect.
That's not to say that they do or don't have licenses on every blu-ray disc, I don't know, I've never bought one. And of course, it's not really practical for everyone to roll their own solution to reading blu-rays, so that doesn't help, but again, the two aren't the same.
Wow, they must have been waiting at the crash site for a quite a while,
They wouldn't be publishing their collected works to twitter, they would probably be commenting on things other people say. For instance, if a news article is circulating--say on the P=NP--which they could intelligently (but concisely) comment on, they would, possibly linking to a blog post, or to a post/paper they already wrote a while ago, or to a post/paper they read a while ago from another informed source.
Being a source of information means more than being able to publish, it means being able to grasp a huge network of other people's ideas and sift through it.
I'm going to play devil's advocate, keep in mind it may not work.
I find when I look at people who are given a lot of power don't tend to view "misuses" of power the same way as people do when looking at it from the outside. A lot of different kinds of corruption can be born from, "What's the harm?" and it can be very easy to run away from the consequences and by doing so, lie to themselves.
In cases like that, when you are forced and/or given an excuse to stop lying to yourself, you actually learn a lot about yourself and your behavior that you may not have known, but which you should have. It's actually rather easy to 'misfile' things in your head such that you actually do know them, but they're not properly weighted or not connected to other facts, for (a made up) example, "I hired my cousin in place of a qualified applicant, as a favor." Okay, you hired your cousin--did you check to see that he was doing a good job? Did the company suffer because you didn't look into his behavior? Did the company actually need that qualified applicant? Was the qualified applicant already working there (internal promotion) and have they gotten the shit end of the stick because of it? Was the qualified applicant, perchance, someone you actually knew and respected and who hasn't talked to you since?
Once you stop hiding from your own closet and its skeletons, you may in fact get hit by the realization that you aren't nearly as clean as you thought you were. That's all I'm saying.
The vast majority of people find homosexuality objectionable - and the gays are demanding that we accept them as equals.
[Citation needed] on your demographics, first of all.
Second, I assume what you mean by demand is that they leave no room for refusal, that they are overbearing in their attempts to get you to acknowledge them. If they are being overbearing, or violent, then they are bad people, just as you, or any homophobe, would be wrong in being overbearing or violent to them. Moral issues must always and explicitly go both ways. If they are violent, they are a criminal; if you are, you are. Those who are not being a bad person in any way who are also homosexual (and they are out there; I'd suspect they're the majority) should not be lumped in with the criminals any more than all black people or all businessmen or all {FOREIGN NATIONAL}s should be assumed to be criminals.
Because it's not actually all that hard to identify criminals. There are some, scammers and the like, that are probably hard to track down, but when you come across someone who likes hurting people, you're going to have an inkling. If the cops in your area are understaffed, corrupt, or stupid, or the jails become nothing more than catch-and-release, then identifying criminals doesn't help, but it's not that hard to tell someone who actually is a decent human being from someone who isn't.
And because it's not all that hard to tell who the actual bad people are, let me say clearly and distinctly that we don't need people making up rules where if you break those rules "you are a bad person." There are bad people out there. You don't have to pretend. Go out there and go looking; you will find them. It's not hard to tell the difference. If you think gays are bad, go spend a week living with rapists or arsonists or something like that. Those sort of people are not a myth. You do not need to imply that "maybe that gay person is one of those mythical rapists I hear so much about" just because you don't see that side of life. Go find people that have actually been in those terrible situations, and understand through them that there are plenty of bad guys without making more by means of moral statute.
No propery is being taken.
If regulation was all that was needed for something to be considered taking property of the government, every business that has any kind of federal restriction on it, like selling guns or alcohol, would be "taken" already.
Seriously, the whole argument is a stretch.
Well see, here's the thing.
Whenever the state does something that would be illegal for a citizen, they have to have a reason. Many of the things that police and other agencies do are "evil"--arrest and imprisonment is effectively kidnapping, execution is murder, seizing property (including money from fines and damages) is theft, etc--and so ideally they must justify that evil by showing that it is to prevent more evil things from happening in the future; otherwise, we wouldn't put up with it.
I would imagine that a lot of police and other agents (many of whom show up as 'corrupt' on most peoples' moral radars) forget that these actions are evil and consider it just another tool or part of the process of law enforcement. However, being arrested is to the suspect as bad as or worse than kidnapping, especially if they are, in fact, innocent. You are put in a terrifying situation, and if you say the wrong thing, even though you are innocent, you might (you fear) disappear for the rest of your life; the people involved make it clear that they don't care about you, but you're supposed to trust in their ability to dispense justice and ONLY justice; they have this kind of power over you but you have to trust the law to reign in their power and prevent them from doing truly evil things; etc.
So, though IANAL as well, I agree with the GP; as soon as they're kidnapping (even in effect), they should be under the same or more restrictions as when they're performing an arrest. If they try to sneak past that restriction on a technicality--and especially when that's for their own sakes and not for the suspect's--then they are showing that they can't be entrusted with the law per se. Because the law, and agents of the law, should be working to make less evil in this world; if they're doing evil things because they can get away with it rather than after deliberation, that's creating more evil, not less.
It cannot be inherently worse, because its value depends on the observer.
If you already know how to maintain a model T but not a modern car--or if you're using it as a museum piece, or for riding in parades--then the Civic is no replacement.
The keyword is 'inherent'; inherent qualities are not subjective, and subjective means 'subject to a process'. There are many processes you can use a chalkboard for more easily than a powerpoint, and if you base your teaching process around those thing--especially if that's because that's how you think and operate normally--then replacing them with technology isn't equal, much less superior. Even if you added a tablet for writing on powerpoints easily, you lack the surface space of a chalkboard to show many things side by side, which helps if, for example, you want to relate back half an hour later to something you wrote earlier.
Now, there are caveats--for example, there's technology to capture what you write on whiteboards and allow the students to receive it, possibly with voice data, which helps sick kids or etc. You could argue that that's inherently superior to a whiteboard, but only because it is a superset of whiteboards (and you could argue white and blackboards are equivalent, which isn't true, but close enough).
Specifically any new technology that removes old features in order to add new ones isn't "inherently" superior. It depends on which features are needed, which are used, and how good they are at each.
It's a tool; it cannot be inherently better. If any tool is misused, because the user doesn't know it, it's worse than a lesser tool used correctly.
If the teacher is better with tech, they should use tech. If the teacher isn't good at teaching either way, or is in any other way equal between the two, you might as well have them use tech. If you try to and force someone who's actually very good at teaching with a chalkboard, etc, to adapt themselves to technology, you will probably screw up their teaching style and their rhythm, and the students won't benefit.
And this IS about the students, so results matter more than what you intended to happen when you made the rules.
No, the way I read the headline, fossil fuels are providing a subsidy provide renewable energy for dwarves. I didn't realize they were incompatible with existing renewable energy, but I suppose high winds at windfarms, or large waves at wavefarms, might sweep them away more easily than full-sized people...
You've either never been married or are a women.
No, I can definitely say that common sense is not limited only to women... but I can't say I know if marriage causes men to lose the ability. I may have to take your word for that.
"No harm" can happen even when you heinously violate many safety precautions, because most safety precautions are there to prevent a "1 in X" event from happening. In theory, they're there to make certain that you won't endanger someone, including yourself, out of ignorance.
I believe what the GP is arguing against is "it's OK to ignore that one rule, nothing ever happens" people, who become sloppy and therefore dangerous. The submitter / editor was arguing for "if you know it's going to be safe, it's OK" exemptions from the law. Unfortunately, a cop that only meets you once or twice in your life is not going to know whether you broke the rule because you're sloppy, or if you saw that it was going to be OK and made a clean decision. The cop therefore has to choose between fining an innocent or possibly letting a dangerous driver go with no penalty.
The driver on the other hand, has to choose between putting the cop in that position and delaying his trip by what, 5 seconds? 10? Maybe a minute if the traffic is kinda bad?
Disclaimer: I do rolling stops sometimes, but only when I know the intersection pretty well. Doesn't help, but it is my reasoning.
I'm pretty sure Catch-42 is that you have to know The Question to get The Answer (unless you're Deep Thought), and you have to know The Answer to get The Question.
I think that they would do better to just combine it with platter technology, for the obvious reason, but also because SSDs and flash storage were never, ever meant for mass storage.
Mass storage is a drive, disk, or tape, which by itself contains only the data plus a little logic for overhead--head seeks, reads, and writes. However, flash memory is logic-intensive; every single bit of storage is part of a circuit. That's never going to scale to the same degree. With HDDs, you, what, make the controls a little finer, alter the chemistry of the disk a bit maybe, hell, I dunno. And I know that SSDs can be mass-fabbed, I get that. But you're dealing with logic circuits, and those have limitations that aren't just chemistry.
Eventually, yes, we'll get NVRAM-style storage (or similar) that is super-dense and CPUs (and other computer parts) that are small enough that together, the two can break all modern expectations of computing ability. However, I predict that mass storage will always outpace it. Logic circuits are always going to be more expensive than a little chemical science, physics, and some really clever engineering. So let them have their own worlds. Find a way to really really cleverly combine the two instead of trying to force one to win.
Or not to shield, that is the question
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
the slings and arrows of outrageous fortunes
or take arms against a sea of photons
and by opposing, evade them?
True, I haven't really put forth any argument that could really be called such, and if I'm wrong, well, then I'm wrong. But like I said, it's hard to put into words exactly what my objection is.
However, take energy into consideration once again. The only use for energy I can see in that system would necessarily be moving a particle from one universe into whichever universe it's supposed to enter next, based on either strict causality or quantum bullshit. However, because that universe physically existed beforehand, nothing has changed and merely some manner of essence has been transferred. However, energy--speaking in terms of traditional physics--is the potential to do work, and you couldn't convince me that energy means something meaningful in that way.
By all accounts, the universe seems to work on the iterative model, as I said. While you could (with a theoretical, infinite computer) model the past and future in a continuous stream and have it all there, as you would need for time travel, all the variables we're using for our physical models no longer make the smallest iota of sense anymore. If the future is already certain--or even just existent--in a physical sense, then what is inertia? There is no change to resist when two objects collide, because in the future they're already moving the other direction, which is already a physical truth.
In the end, I would argue that between the two, the iterative model is the one that should be assumed, as it is both more intuitive and has the fewest problems in theory, and an array-based universe model would be the one that has to prove itself. After all, there is no obvious physical phenomenon that shouts, "Time travel / the facilities for performing time travel already exist!" And, in contrast, the universe itself seems to iterate, destroying the past to create the new present, except as our biology and technology allow us to preserve memories--which if you ask me is a lousy hack.
But no, you're right, my argument previously isn't proof of it. It is an argument more in the philosophical sense that it should get people thinking, not in the logical sense that it has proven something.
I hate time-travel.
It will never work, for exactly the reason you brought up--meta-time; that is to say, that more than one time period has to physically exist at any moment in meta-time, and you can "travel through time" by going between these physically-existent worlds. How do you travel through meta-time? Presumably, that's actual time in exactly the same sense as normal time, only it keeps track of what people do in this theoretical framework of moving from one physical, literal world to another copy of that physical, literal world which has existed since before you passed through it and will continue to exist after you pass through it.
I bet that made your head hurt, not merely because it's confusing, but because there's no way to explain what I'm trying to say properly. It's stupid.
Here's a fun statistic I love to throw around--planck time. Smallest unit of time the universe understands, in theory. If there was an update rate of the universe, it would be on planck time scale. It's on the order of 10^-44 seconds*. The universe is about 10 billion years old, or about 10^10.*
When explaining it to lay people, I say, "Take the age of the universe in years. Square it; take that number and square it again. There are more planck units of time in the time it takes to blink* than that number."
(* Wikipedia numbers)
Now take the age of the universe in planck time. Take the total amount of matter and energy in it, including dark matter, neutrinos, gravitons, photos, the works. Maybe even take the size of space itself to determine how big your coordinate variables are. Try to figure out how much data the universe would have to be storing in order to allow you to travel back in time to the beginning of the universe. Or hell--if the universe only let you travel back in time one human earth year, how much data would have to persistently exist? What sort of effect would all that energy and mass and data have on us--could it even possibly NOT affect us, especially if there are mechanisms at the quantum level that use it? And if the past and future already exist, what the hell does energy even mean? No, I say, fuck all that.
Me, personally, I assume that the universe is iterative, instead of keeping track of history and meta-time. That means that only one data set exists, and that data set itself changes every update tick. There's no time travel when you do that, no backup. If a particular particle or set of particles want to sit around in indeterminate states for a few bazillion planck-seconds, I don't give a rat's ass, because it's those particles, and not all of creation, that are fucking around with our heads. Hell, maybe the universe makes use of that to create spirituality or mind or other fuzzy concepts we don't quite have a grasp on physically yet, but it isn't the whole universe, and it's not going to affect the whole universe.
There is a difference between how things should be and how they are.
There is. There is also some measure of effort that must be put into all non-trivial improvements from "how they are" to "how they should be." And, as should be expected, putting forth that effort costs companies, and therefore they try to minimize it.
How much they minimize it--what perks they expect their employees to get compared to their workload, and to what degree the employees have a say about which bonuses and improvements are important to them--is an issue of how good your manager and/or business owner is. An excellent manager will make sure all the employees' needs are fulfilled, and only cut back on excesses in what the employees want. A bad manager will not make that distinction and force employees to choose between trying to find another job in this market, and putting up with not getting everything they need.
For a certain definition of, "having your arse handed to you"--the definition where it always happens and/or there's little to nothing you can do about it.
There are a bunch of games and a bunch of ways in which your enemy can completely outclass you--and if they completely outclass you, it won't be fun. Part of games is that they propose a challenge, and you rise to it; an enemy that you'll have to spend man-months practicing in order to overcome and who will loudly and publicly pwn you at every opportunity isn't all that much fun, but some people would consider it a challenge.
However, when just any old shmuck might be a mouse/keyboard user and gets a significant leg up on you just for that, that's not a challenge, and it's not fun, it's just an annoying boost to half or whatever of the population at random, no matter how noobish or douchebaggy.
I have to imagine that there are all kinds of people working on software and hardware upgrades all over medical science/engineering. Decreasing the risk to patients might be a nice reason to upgrade these scanners in particular, but you sorta sound like 'if it wasn't for the risk to the patients, this upgrade wouldn't be needed anytime soon.'
Engineers want to make better products, both to contribute and to make sales. Doctors want better products, both to decrease risk and to make their work easier and more successful. If there's a project that seems like it would contribute OR sell OR reduce risk OR make work easier, any of those might get it greenlighted. Things like this could easily do all of them, so it's hard to know what the motivation was, and honestly, it's kind of silly to go looking for the reason anyway, unless it turns out to be a scam.
When he's arrested, he'll say "The police Force was strong with this one."