I would not agree that correcting clear defects is okay, because I don't think we know what exactly a defect is. These "defects" may in fact lead to a competitive advantage, in some instances, we don't really know. If we somehow eliminate all defects then we may also be reducing our ability to evolve.
Think about Steven Hawkings, maybe because he was confined to a wheel chair and locked inside his mind made him contemplate the universe more. I can't remember who, but I heard about some blind person who could think in 4D. Both of these things probably would have been considered clear defects.
Nonsense, once you give your phone to someone to repair they could install any number rootkits, or hardware extras on the phone, replacing the fingerprint reader or not. When you give any hardware to a manufacture you are implicitly trusting them. In fact you are trusting the shop that sells you the phone as well. I am sure if you went to enough effort you could replace the security sticker.
Anyway why would I trust an apple approved repairer, more than anyone else all it takes is one individual doing the repairs to be corrupt.
The could easily say you require a pin instead. Or give you a warning that it maybe compromised.
This is removing competition for repair, with the excuse of security.
I am sure that there are apps that use crowd sourcing to avoid police checkpoints already.
But just wait till the state,forces service providers to install a back door that can use this app to track down trouble makers, and hold them without trial for the good of the country. No country would do that right? Oh wait they do.
I don't think it will be that hard, people climb mountains with an extremely high rate of death:
the Annapurna peaks are among the world's most dangerous mountains to climb, although in more recent history, using figures from only 1990 and after, Kangchenjunga has a higher fatality rate. By March 2012, there had been 191 summit ascents of Annapurna I, and 61 climbing fatalities on the mountain.
That is a 31% chance of death. These people must have been extremely fit (or just stupid I suppose). Being the first person on Mars would make you extremely famous, how many people know anyone has climbed Annapurna. 4,227 people applied for mars one, that was some company that has no track record of sending anyone into space. If NASA asked for applicants I am sure it would be orders of magnitude more.
There are 7 billion people in the world if need say 40 then you only need 0.00000057% of people to meet the requirements.
I think you are right that life is quite good in the US and most 1st world countries historically speaking. I do however think that these discussions are focused on ways to improve things. They often leave out part: "wow how lucky am I to live such a privileged life but here is how we can make it better". I also believe the grandparent is right, the US has a health and social welfare system that could do with improvement. It seems unregulated capitalism may not be a good thing. Do not get me wrong capitalism as good points, but it also has bad and those have to be mitigated. I don't actually think what the US has is real capitalism, if it did the banks would have just been left to fail.
The first thing I think the US needs to fix is its political donations system, and lobbying, it just seems like legalized corruption. The other things may follow.
Modded to 4, for encouraging someone to commit suicide is just wrong. I know it Rei doesn't actually expect this to happen, but shouldn't even be done in jest.
Some women I have worked where good some bad, some average, the best have been men, but is probably be due to the large sample of men and small sample of women.
Sales tax can mean Russian consumers may buy computers made in Russia (if there are any) but this may also encourage Russian firm to manufacture computers.
The report does mention quote another study that imply less collisions:
A study conducted by Wiltshire County Council between 1997 and 2003 found that not reinstating the centre lines on a number of resurfacing sites led to a reduction in injury collisions and traffic speeds. This built on referenced research by TRL which concluded that there are safety benefits to be gained by removing centre lines in 30 mph zones
But it also says because of the new surface better skid resistance it may not be able to determine the cause of the collision reduction.
I think the study focus far to much on speed reduction and not enough on accidents. By that I mean none of the statistics in this report are for changes in accidents. Who cares if people go 100 mph if nobody gets hurt. Yes there is a strong link between speed and injury, the issue in question is how not having a center line and reduced speed interact with each other to lower accidents.
You can have a road with a sheer cliff on one side, and that will probably reduce speed as well, it does not however mean less people will die.
I think you also have to take in the account that there may be temporary effects of the change, when you change the road layout people will naturally become more cautious, but as time goes by they will get used to it and increase there speed again.
Tell that to the people post for free on facebook, twitter, or youtube, update wikipedia (I know some get paid but most do it for free), the content creators. The ad revenue goes to funding the people who serve the content not the creators, servers are not free to maintain.
I find that the internet is now full of more irrelevant junk than it was, however might be because there is of my field of interest.
It is possible, you could set up some sort of proxy network, (this maybe how TOR works not sure) each intermediary does not tell where the packet came from. All you would need one good proxy on your path and the site would not know where the request came from.
I agree women aren't precious snowflakes, and I don't believe they ever where. My mother (born in the 50s) was clearly the dominant person out of her and my father. I believe that it is really up to the individual personalities, in the relationship.
The problem now is that seems that society seems to need to protect women from any offense. People getting offended by women on the street getting called beautiful. In Germany when refugees made sexual comments to women on the street, it was called sexual assault. They are just words, toughen up. Even if someone pinches your bottom, your life is not profoundly changed, you had an unpleasant experience for about 2 seconds. Pushing for it to be considered rape if a woman gets drunk and sleeps with someone she wouldn't normally. They chose to get drunk, they should have known that drinking lowers your inhibitions, they are an adult take the consequences of your actions.
Don't get me wrong, I think above things are rude, inconsiderate, and the person doing them is being a bit of a jerk. But they should not be the source of public outrage, or legal action.
A pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
Generally in nature the sheep (prey) out number the wolves (predators) by a large number. This a necessity since you need a large population of sheep to support a few wolves. This the same with society most people need to work and produce stuff, for criminals to succeed, you can't have a society where everyone steals from everyone else and makes nothing, there would be nothing to steal.
The problem with a pure democracy is that we have millions of uninformed sheep that simply follow, voting, it is not efficient for everyone to be informed either, they have to get on with their jobs. That is why we have specialization.
To me the purpose of voting is not necessarily to reflect the will of the people, in most cases most people are not that aware of most the issues involved, anyway. Think about it, you base your vote on very little, If you are well informed, and not influenced by looks, or background, the best you can do base you opinions on speeches written by someone else, and advertisement done by some marketing company. Once you vote a politician in, they are free to break promises that they have made. Sure they may not get elected net time, but they are free to do what they want for 1 term. You usually only get to choose between a few people.
To me the purpose of democracy is to reign in the power of politicians, Yes they may get to do want they want but it is only for one term, and there is a possibility (however unlikely) that the next government will punish them.
An intelligent, benevolent dictator might be the most effective leadership model, someone who does their best for the country even if it maybe unpopular. The problem ensuring that dictator is and stays benevolent.
I was quoted one price before and then presented with a bill for 5 times that later.
In that case only pay the original quote. I don't know about America, but for any contract in NZ there needs to be "a meeting of minds", that means both parties have to be aware of there obligations at the time contract was made. When you went in for the operation you where under the impression that it would cost "x" and it costs "5x" then you are under no obligation to pay. That is if you got a "quote" not an "estimate", but even then they should give you a cost per hour etc.
Of course if the quote is in writing you have a much better chance of winning.
Actually Americans as a proportion of there GDP spend more on health (2013 17.1%) than any other country exception of Tuvalu (19.7%) and America is one of richest countries in the world, per person it only it spends more any other country than except Switzerland and Norway (they obviously have a higher GDP per capita) yet Americans life expectancy is ranked 34th, Norway 9th, Switzerland 2nd. Clearly Americans are spending just more to get a worse health care. So who is squandering their money? Insurance companies by definition take their cut, of health care spending, it is in there interest to keep health care cost high so that they can sell insurance in the first place.
These are not extreme cases at all, these are normal cases, people get sick, mostly through no predictable fault of their own. Yes people could save and plan for something happening, but with 11 out of 12 cancer drugs costing more than $100,000 per year (http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/health/medical-costs/how-much-does-chemotherapy-cost/). The cost of a heart bypass surgery (which is not uncommon surgery) is $70,000-$200,000 without insurance, the main contributing factor to heart disease is genetics. Even the most fugal saver on an average income would probably be ruined by these expenses. This is not the cost of a luxury goods, unless you mean a Ferrari, and staying alive is not a luxury, it is by definition a necessity.
Providing health care to the poor, benefits everyone, rich included. Having a population with lots of unhealthy people can infect the rich as well, a virus does not look at the size of your bank balance before infecting you.
You are dreaming, if make they make any significant loses because of a bug, they will not just go to the government and say look this will ruin the economy, you HAVE to fix this, and the government won't do it.
You really think you can defend yourself against case from, one of these corporations, you will be bankrupt before even see a court, A class action suit wouldn't apply since it would be them initiating the case.
Slashdot Mirror
The do show up it is just that they are not that great and we demand more of them as well.
The following article has a graph of battery energy over time, it is definitely increase.
http://theenergycollective.com...
I would not agree that correcting clear defects is okay, because I don't think we know what exactly a defect is. These "defects" may in fact lead to a competitive advantage, in some instances, we don't really know. If we somehow eliminate all defects then we may also be reducing our ability to evolve.
Think about Steven Hawkings, maybe because he was confined to a wheel chair and locked inside his mind made him contemplate the universe more. I can't remember who, but I heard about some blind person who could think in 4D. Both of these things probably would have been considered clear defects.
A lot of evolution is trial and error.
Or
3. Use the same evolutionary process to adapt to living other places in the universe, as we used here.
This may include 1, or 2. Another species may supersede us anyway. We may die out if we can't evolve to reach the stars.
Nonsense, once you give your phone to someone to repair they could install any number rootkits, or hardware extras on the phone, replacing the fingerprint reader or not. When you give any hardware to a manufacture you are implicitly trusting them. In fact you are trusting the shop that sells you the phone as well. I am sure if you went to enough effort you could replace the security sticker.
Anyway why would I trust an apple approved repairer, more than anyone else all it takes is one individual doing the repairs to be corrupt.
The could easily say you require a pin instead. Or give you a warning that it maybe compromised.
This is removing competition for repair, with the excuse of security.
I am sure that there are apps that use crowd sourcing to avoid police checkpoints already.
But just wait till the state,forces service providers to install a back door that can use this app to track down trouble makers, and hold them without trial for the good of the country. No country would do that right? Oh wait they do.
I don't think it will be that hard, people climb mountains with an extremely high rate of death:
the Annapurna peaks are among the world's most dangerous mountains to climb, although in more recent history, using figures from only 1990 and after, Kangchenjunga has a higher fatality rate. By March 2012, there had been 191 summit ascents of Annapurna I, and 61 climbing fatalities on the mountain.
That is a 31% chance of death. These people must have been extremely fit (or just stupid I suppose). Being the first person on Mars would make you extremely famous, how many people know anyone has climbed Annapurna. 4,227 people applied for mars one, that was some company that has no track record of sending anyone into space. If NASA asked for applicants I am sure it would be orders of magnitude more.
There are 7 billion people in the world if need say 40 then you only need 0.00000057% of people to meet the requirements.
Although this is bad I would be more concerned with that internet connected recording device your pocket, that you install random software on.
I think you are right that life is quite good in the US and most 1st world countries historically speaking. I do however think that these discussions are focused on ways to improve things. They often leave out part: "wow how lucky am I to live such a privileged life but here is how we can make it better". I also believe the grandparent is right, the US has a health and social welfare system that could do with improvement. It seems unregulated capitalism may not be a good thing. Do not get me wrong capitalism as good points, but it also has bad and those have to be mitigated. I don't actually think what the US has is real capitalism, if it did the banks would have just been left to fail.
The first thing I think the US needs to fix is its political donations system, and lobbying, it just seems like legalized corruption. The other things may follow.
Modded to 4, for encouraging someone to commit suicide is just wrong. I know it Rei doesn't actually expect this to happen, but shouldn't even be done in jest.
Some women I have worked where good some bad, some average, the best have been men, but is probably be due to the large sample of men and small sample of women.
Sales tax can mean Russian consumers may buy computers made in Russia (if there are any) but this may also encourage Russian firm to manufacture computers.
The problem is that 3% that make it though are not likely to be secure, or even useful consumers don't pick based on that they pick based on hype.
There is a frustration the average consumer is not even aware that they are introducing a security risk, for minimal amount of gain.
But, but, but, if they have done nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide.
Oh wait that is a nonsense statement.
The report does mention quote another study that imply less collisions:
A study conducted by Wiltshire County Council between 1997 and 2003 found that not reinstating the centre lines on a number of resurfacing sites led to a reduction in injury collisions and traffic speeds. This built on referenced research by TRL which concluded that there are safety benefits to be gained by removing centre lines in 30 mph zones
But it also says because of the new surface better skid resistance it may not be able to determine the cause of the collision reduction.
I think the study focus far to much on speed reduction and not enough on accidents. By that I mean none of the statistics in this report are for changes in accidents. Who cares if people go 100 mph if nobody gets hurt. Yes there is a strong link between speed and injury, the issue in question is how not having a center line and reduced speed interact with each other to lower accidents.
You can have a road with a sheer cliff on one side, and that will probably reduce speed as well, it does not however mean less people will die.
I think you also have to take in the account that there may be temporary effects of the change, when you change the road layout people will naturally become more cautious, but as time goes by they will get used to it and increase there speed again.
Tell that to the people post for free on facebook, twitter, or youtube, update wikipedia (I know some get paid but most do it for free), the content creators. The ad revenue goes to funding the people who serve the content not the creators, servers are not free to maintain.
I find that the internet is now full of more irrelevant junk than it was, however might be because there is of my field of interest.
It is possible, you could set up some sort of proxy network, (this maybe how TOR works not sure) each intermediary does not tell where the packet came from. All you would need one good proxy on your path and the site would not know where the request came from.
depends on perspective, it could be considered anti male performing genetic experiments on only males.
SMASH THE MATRIARCHY 8-).
I agree women aren't precious snowflakes, and I don't believe they ever where. My mother (born in the 50s) was clearly the dominant person out of her and my father. I believe that it is really up to the individual personalities, in the relationship.
The problem now is that seems that society seems to need to protect women from any offense. People getting offended by women on the street getting called beautiful. In Germany when refugees made sexual comments to women on the street, it was called sexual assault. They are just words, toughen up. Even if someone pinches your bottom, your life is not profoundly changed, you had an unpleasant experience for about 2 seconds. Pushing for it to be considered rape if a woman gets drunk and sleeps with someone she wouldn't normally. They chose to get drunk, they should have known that drinking lowers your inhibitions, they are an adult take the consequences of your actions.
Don't get me wrong, I think above things are rude, inconsiderate, and the person doing them is being a bit of a jerk. But they should not be the source of public outrage, or legal action.
I don't cheat, or even play, but some people I know who do, and write there own hacks, developing hack is more interesting than the game.
A pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
Generally in nature the sheep (prey) out number the wolves (predators) by a large number. This a necessity since you need a large population of sheep to support a few wolves. This the same with society most people need to work and produce stuff, for criminals to succeed, you can't have a society where everyone steals from everyone else and makes nothing, there would be nothing to steal.
The problem with a pure democracy is that we have millions of uninformed sheep that simply follow, voting, it is not efficient for everyone to be informed either, they have to get on with their jobs. That is why we have specialization.
To me the purpose of voting is not necessarily to reflect the will of the people, in most cases most people are not that aware of most the issues involved, anyway. Think about it, you base your vote on very little, If you are well informed, and not influenced by looks, or background, the best you can do base you opinions on speeches written by someone else, and advertisement done by some marketing company. Once you vote a politician in, they are free to break promises that they have made. Sure they may not get elected net time, but they are free to do what they want for 1 term. You usually only get to choose between a few people.
To me the purpose of democracy is to reign in the power of politicians, Yes they may get to do want they want but it is only for one term, and there is a possibility (however unlikely) that the next government will punish them.
An intelligent, benevolent dictator might be the most effective leadership model, someone who does their best for the country even if it maybe unpopular. The problem ensuring that dictator is and stays benevolent.
I was quoted one price before and then presented with a bill for 5 times that later.
In that case only pay the original quote. I don't know about America, but for any contract in NZ there needs to be "a meeting of minds", that means both parties have to be aware of there obligations at the time contract was made. When you went in for the operation you where under the impression that it would cost "x" and it costs "5x" then you are under no obligation to pay. That is if you got a "quote" not an "estimate", but even then they should give you a cost per hour etc.
Of course if the quote is in writing you have a much better chance of winning.
Note I am not a lawyer.
Here is an article on American contract law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Like requiring a politicians to implement a decent health care system.
Anyway, that would be society's as a whole fault wouldn't it? So society as a whole should pay for it.
Actually Americans as a proportion of there GDP spend more on health (2013 17.1%) than any other country exception of Tuvalu (19.7%) and America is one of richest countries in the world, per person it only it spends more any other country than except Switzerland and Norway (they obviously have a higher GDP per capita) yet Americans life expectancy is ranked 34th, Norway 9th, Switzerland 2nd. Clearly Americans are spending just more to get a worse health care. So who is squandering their money? Insurance companies by definition take their cut, of health care spending, it is in there interest to keep health care cost high so that they can sell insurance in the first place.
Ref: http://data.worldbank.org/indi... , http://data.worldbank.org/indi... , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
These are not extreme cases at all, these are normal cases, people get sick, mostly through no predictable fault of their own. Yes people could save and plan for something happening, but with 11 out of 12 cancer drugs costing more than $100,000 per year (http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/health/medical-costs/how-much-does-chemotherapy-cost/). The cost of a heart bypass surgery (which is not uncommon surgery) is $70,000-$200,000 without insurance, the main contributing factor to heart disease is genetics. Even the most fugal saver on an average income would probably be ruined by these expenses. This is not the cost of a luxury goods, unless you mean a Ferrari, and staying alive is not a luxury, it is by definition a necessity.
Providing health care to the poor, benefits everyone, rich included. Having a population with lots of unhealthy people can infect the rich as well, a virus does not look at the size of your bank balance before infecting you.
You are dreaming, if make they make any significant loses because of a bug, they will not just go to the government and say look this will ruin the economy, you HAVE to fix this, and the government won't do it.
You really think you can defend yourself against case from, one of these corporations, you will be bankrupt before even see a court, A class action suit wouldn't apply since it would be them initiating the case.