I think you underestimate the governments ability to re-write history, Watch the "Oliver Stones untold history of the united states", Ok this also probably biased, like anything. But it shows just how much of a spin the government can put on events.
The main difference is that government and big business are kind of the same thing since big business funds the government, so in effect big business is the government. So yes the have a lot of control over media, if not absolute control strong enough to have a significant impact to it for the vast majority of people. So effectively the government has the ability to rewrite history.
Also I see the irony of stating they have significant control of media and then mentioning a series that goes against them in the media. But how many people as a percentage of the population will actually read slash dot? How much influence in the media does an ordinary person have per person compared to the government.
Ok so there could have been share by backs and other stuff I am not aware of so I will assume you a right and he did put 40 billion dollars of values on since Jan 2000
so the company must have been worth 187.4 billion so that is an average rate of increase per year of 1.5% I can get more than that in in the bank in an on call account. From these figures (maybe wrong of course) he has clearly done an outstanding job.
Clearly such a skill level he has a well deserved 15.2 billion personal wealth (wikipedia).
No they thought they might fall off the end of the world. Anyway you are right they will most certainly die (relatively quickly) but I am sure many previous explorers had a high change of death.
But in the end, if we ever want to expand to other planets some people are going to have to take incredibly risky step of being the first people to go.
Can we wait until we have better technology, yes, but at some point we will go (or at least I believe so).
Their deaths will provide invaluable knowledge about next time, in a much quicker fashion than laboratory tests, and simulations.
Think of it this way people climb deadly mountains http://gearjunkie.com/worlds-10-most-dangerous-mountains the worst has 41% death rate and what for? Someone has already climbed it, you aren't going to live there. At least with going to Mars are knowledge of colonizing planets will be increased, and if they will be famous for a very long time.
The inventor of the drug, could be the only one that was able to state that they developed the drug. Most people have a sense of fairness and will pay extra to reward the discover of the drug. Not to the point where they go bankrupt or die because they can't afford the drug, but in that case they person making the drug would not get there money anyway.
If you don't believe me that reputation can make money for the drug industry simply go down to the chemist and look and the difference in price between Panadol and generic paracetamol (same thing, 3 times the price).
I find it amazing that people believe that the only way to develop drugs for large drug companies to develop them? No matter how big the company is, to say that the rest of the people in world are unlikely contribute more than them seems the height of arrogance.
Also a public company structure seems like the worst possible way of developing drugs. Public companies by their very nature must optimize for profit, (otherwise they are not doing their job) therefore it is never in their interest to cheaply an effectively cure a disease, it is much better the bottom line to keep the person alive while charging them an ongoing fee for living, until they run out of money and die.
Slightly of topic, but since you mentioned Wolverine.
I think death (old age) is a useful trait to have (most species have it, from a evolution stand point). It allows for change as new generations come in. If you never died there would be no intensive for reproduction, your offspring would simply consume your resources.
You are possibly right, you could also a reward system like stack overflow, a ranking system might be enough for people to invest their time.
All you need is a lot of people to invest a bit of time, rather than a few to invest a lot as a salary. $10/hr maybe more than minimum wage but the skill level required to read, understand and invalidate a patient may require people that can get paid more than minimum wage.
Reuse, and breaking a problem in simpler logical blocks are both valid reasons to use functions, the latter helps in understandability and limits scope since you can more clearly determine what the inputs and outputs , and intent of a function is (as long as you name it right). You can also read the main function easier. ... int id = findIndex(name,table); ...
reads much easier than: ... int id = -1; for (int i = 0; i < table.size; i++) {
if (strcmp(name,table.data[i].name) == 0) {
id = i;
break;
} }
I don't care what degree he has, but I saw no empirical evidence the article at all, just assumptions no patients being bad, too may/strong being bad, and an graph that he put a random dot on based on his opinion.
Don't get me wrong he may be right, in fact I think he probably is. He might even have evidence that is not mentioned in the article, but without evidence, it is just an unsupported hypothesis that anybody can make.
Also I am also willing believe that all patents harm innovation as well, again that hypothesis needs proof too.
The proof is hard, I haven't even heard of a way to measure innovation that is not something so blatantly biased as number of patients filed.
Car ownership does have risks, cost, and is probably not the most efficient means but people aren't logical when it comes to spending. Example unless you NEED a car to make money you should not be borrowing to buy it, it is an asset the depreciates quickly, wait you will be the same car in a years time (It will be a year older) cheaper and you won't be paying interest, and insurance for that period.
In a lot of situations owning a car is not a logical financial proposition, especially if you have buses or trains in your area. But people still buy them because we are not logical. For that reason I don't think self driving collectively owned cars are likely to replace normal cars any time soon. Yes they my in large cities where people can't find a space to park so they no choice (aka replace taxis) .
The most likely scenario is that people will buy their own self driving car, an use it to: A) Drop them off and then drive back to find a car park, B) Drive them around when they are too drunk to drive themselves.
There are many things in this world that we could share, that would save resources but we simply don't. E.g. lawn mowers, barbeques, tools, small cooking appliances, printers, wi-fi with your neighbors,.... We could car pool, its been around for ages and would save most people a lot of money, but what proportion of the populations actually does that?
Firstly I wouldn't have have even considered this a conspiracy theory. Fake moon landing, a weapon that causes earthquakes, are possibly true but highly unlikely. The question of is the government collecting all the information it can on us, the answer was clearly of course it is (at least highly likely), wouldn't you if you could.
But I agree with you, the problem is how will this information used in the future. I don't think anybody really wakes up and says what evil will I do today, they will use this information because they think it is the best for the country.
It will go something like this: Group X will ruin the country if they get into power, they must be stopped, by any means at our disposal. Oh look at all this handy information available to us. You wouldn't want the Communist, Terrorist, or (insert favorite Evil group here) to win would you. Think of the children.
If you think this is a conspiracy theory you are wrong, just look at the world around you, do you think that China, Russia, Afghanistan, Iran wouldn't do this to their citizen. Of course they would, what makes you think that the country you live in the leaders are any better, apart from your own basis, and the media you are exposed too. Even if you think that, what makes you think that future powers that have access to this information won't. It is likely that this will happen.
It has happened before, and will happen again just much more efficiently next time. The people have to stop it as soon as possible, before it is too late.
The people who shouldn't have the privacy are the ones that are ruling the country, But they are the people that seem to have the most laws protecting their privacy. Of course the reason is for national security. It is true that secrecy is needed to run a country, but it never needs to be forever, they should be monitored and the data should be released when it no longer becomes necessary to keep it secret. (Protecting a career does not count)
Obfuscation, shouldn't have a place in security not just because your code doesn't rely on it (this inevitably leads to laziness). Which it shouldn't, It also should have a place since it means that the person has to trust the person who writes the code. Of course since most code you run is not examined by the user (but hopefully examined by someone independent), but having your code visible provides an extra level of trust.
I got the reference, that why I said they where trying to be funny, but my answer is true, if I could download a car, I would have no moral issues with doing it.
I believe Super markets also sell shelf locations to suppliers, people have a tendency not to look up or down, eye level product placement is premium real estate and large shops sell it. Those displays are probably not free either.
As a side note I think this may be a model for more shops as internet shops are cheaper, the value of physical store may be their ability to "advertise" certain products, which they may be able to charge the manufacture for.
Its clear that Voyager they could not communicate with earth (:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunters_%28Star_Trek:_Voyager%29) is an episode where they found communications array and where finally able get letters from home. So previously they couldn't transfer a letter from home however they the computer could access the all the knowledge in the universe.
Anyway this is fiction so it doesn't have to make sense.
I don't think it is hard to say. If rape is worse the solution is easy just kill the victim. They wouldn't have to do the trial, face the the attacker etc.
Yes some people commit suicide because they have been raped, but some people also do it because the loose their job. In a logical sense I don't see why rape is any different from any other assault where you now may constantly worry about your safety.
Don't get me wrong I think being raped would be very bad, I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but I don't see why it is worse than being severely beaten (baring having a child as a result), both would leave me emotionally scared.
I think a large part of the stigma of rape, is societal, anything that involves sex in today's society is suddenly much worse, don't know why?
I have never been raped, but I assume we don't have any body who has been killed to give us a victim comparison.
Think about it, who are the people you hate the most, they are the ones that you loved and have hurt you. People you who you don't care about and never did are rarely people you end up hating.
In particular sense indifference can be thought of as the opposite of both. I.e. strong emotion vs weak emotion. You can of course think of it as positive vs negative emotion, its a matter of perspective.
On a side point I think it is best to let hate go, it tends to hurt you much more than the person you hate, you end up using your emotional energy on someone that should not be important at all.
Yes you may get a IE6 exploit, but there are usually workarounds e.g don't use it to browse the web, install Firefox and use that. Upgrading software may not be just expensive it can be very expensive and risky. A cost risk analysis has to be done (which I assume they do). I could be like replacing your fridge very 2 years because it reduces the risk it might break down, and you would loose your food.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you underestimate the governments ability to re-write history, Watch the "Oliver Stones untold history of the united states", Ok this also probably biased, like anything. But it shows just how much of a spin the government can put on events.
The main difference is that government and big business are kind of the same thing since big business funds the government, so in effect big business is the government. So yes the have a lot of control over media, if not absolute control strong enough to have a significant impact to it for the vast majority of people. So effectively the government has the ability to rewrite history.
Also I see the irony of stating they have significant control of media and then mentioning a series that goes against them in the media. But how many people as a percentage of the population will actually read slash dot? How much influence in the media does an ordinary person have per person compared to the government.
Unless you consider the entire political system a way to fool the people into they actually have a say.
I don't know where you got your numbers from. but from http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Microsoft_(MSFT)/Data/Market_Capitalization/1999/Q4
when Ballmer took over in Jan 2000 at that point the market capitalization of microsoft was 407 billion it is currently 227.4 billion,
Ok so there could have been share by backs and other stuff I am not aware of so I will assume you a right and he did put 40 billion dollars of values on since Jan 2000
so the company must have been worth 187.4 billion so that is an average rate of increase per year of 1.5% I can get more than that in in the bank in an on call account. From these figures (maybe wrong of course) he has clearly done an outstanding job.
Clearly such a skill level he has a well deserved 15.2 billion personal wealth (wikipedia).
No they thought they might fall off the end of the world. Anyway you are right they will most certainly die (relatively quickly) but I am sure many previous explorers had a high change of death.
But in the end, if we ever want to expand to other planets some people are going to have to take incredibly risky step of being the first people to go.
Can we wait until we have better technology, yes, but at some point we will go (or at least I believe so).
Their deaths will provide invaluable knowledge about next time, in a much quicker fashion than laboratory tests, and simulations.
Think of it this way people climb deadly mountains http://gearjunkie.com/worlds-10-most-dangerous-mountains the worst has 41% death rate and what for? Someone has already climbed it, you aren't going to live there. At least with going to Mars are knowledge of colonizing planets will be increased, and if they will be famous for a very long time.
The inventor of the drug, could be the only one that was able to state that they developed the drug. Most people have a sense of fairness and will pay extra to reward the discover of the drug. Not to the point where they go bankrupt or die because they can't afford the drug, but in that case they person making the drug would not get there money anyway.
If you don't believe me that reputation can make money for the drug industry simply go down to the chemist and look and the difference in price between Panadol and generic paracetamol (same thing, 3 times the price).
I find it amazing that people believe that the only way to develop drugs for large drug companies to develop them? No matter how big the company is, to say that the rest of the people in world are unlikely contribute more than them seems the height of arrogance.
Also a public company structure seems like the worst possible way of developing drugs. Public companies by their very nature must optimize for profit, (otherwise they are not doing their job) therefore it is never in their interest to cheaply an effectively cure a disease, it is much better the bottom line to keep the person alive while charging them an ongoing fee for living, until they run out of money and die.
It says it is "designed and assembled in the US."
to me that means Designed in US, built in China, they put the case lid on in the US.
May be I am a bit cynical?
Slightly of topic, but since you mentioned Wolverine.
I think death (old age) is a useful trait to have (most species have it, from a evolution stand point). It allows for change as new generations come in. If you never died there would be no intensive for reproduction, your offspring would simply consume your resources.
You are possibly right, you could also a reward system like stack overflow, a ranking system might be enough for people to invest their time.
All you need is a lot of people to invest a bit of time, rather than a few to invest a lot as a salary. $10/hr maybe more than minimum wage but the skill level required to read, understand and invalidate a patient may require people that can get paid more than minimum wage.
Reuse, and breaking a problem in simpler logical blocks are both valid reasons to use functions, the latter helps in understandability and limits scope since you can more clearly determine what the inputs and outputs , and intent of a function is (as long as you name it right). You can also read the main function easier.
...
...
...
int id = findIndex(name,table);
reads much easier than:
int id = -1;
for (int i = 0; i < table.size; i++) {
if (strcmp(name,table.data[i].name) == 0) {
id = i;
break;
}
}
I would be impressed if you could solo row a 89 ton ship any significant distance. I am sure it was a different vessel that he rowed.
I don't care what degree he has, but I saw no empirical evidence the article at all, just assumptions no patients being bad, too may/strong being bad, and an graph that he put a random dot on based on his opinion.
Don't get me wrong he may be right, in fact I think he probably is. He might even have evidence that is not mentioned in the article, but without evidence, it is just an unsupported hypothesis that anybody can make.
Also I am also willing believe that all patents harm innovation as well, again that hypothesis needs proof too.
The proof is hard, I haven't even heard of a way to measure innovation that is not something so blatantly biased as number of patients filed.
Of course, if people don't pay their parking tickets, It could mean the end of society as we know it, people just parking anywhere.
In fact people who simply depict illegal parking should, taken away, they are encouraging it.
They will take the data anyway, all in the public interest of course. They just won't tell you, until it is leaked.
Car ownership does have risks, cost, and is probably not the most efficient means but people aren't logical when it comes to spending. Example unless you NEED a car to make money you should not be borrowing to buy it, it is an asset the depreciates quickly, wait you will be the same car in a years time (It will be a year older) cheaper and you won't be paying interest, and insurance for that period.
In a lot of situations owning a car is not a logical financial proposition, especially if you have buses or trains in your area. But people still buy them because we are not logical. For that reason I don't think self driving collectively owned cars are likely to replace normal cars any time soon. Yes they my in large cities where people can't find a space to park so they no choice (aka replace taxis) .
The most likely scenario is that people will buy their own self driving car, an use it to:
A) Drop them off and then drive back to find a car park,
B) Drive them around when they are too drunk to drive themselves.
There are many things in this world that we could share, that would save resources but we simply don't. E.g. lawn mowers, barbeques, tools, small cooking appliances, printers, wi-fi with your neighbors, .... We could car pool, its been around for ages and would save most people a lot of money, but what proportion of the populations actually does that?
I practice you get your choice of two parties that neither of which represent your opinions on most issues.
Of course you could form your own party, but now it will be even easier for them to censor out your "pornographic" ideas.
Firstly I wouldn't have have even considered this a conspiracy theory. Fake moon landing, a weapon that causes earthquakes, are possibly true but highly unlikely. The question of is the government collecting all the information it can on us, the answer was clearly of course it is (at least highly likely), wouldn't you if you could.
But I agree with you, the problem is how will this information used in the future. I don't think anybody really wakes up and says what evil will I do today, they will use this information because they think it is the best for the country.
It will go something like this:
Group X will ruin the country if they get into power, they must be stopped, by any means at our disposal. Oh look at all this handy information available to us. You wouldn't want the Communist, Terrorist, or (insert favorite Evil group here) to win would you. Think of the children.
If you think this is a conspiracy theory you are wrong, just look at the world around you, do you think that China, Russia, Afghanistan, Iran wouldn't do this to their citizen. Of course they would, what makes you think that the country you live in the leaders are any better, apart from your own basis, and the media you are exposed too. Even if you think that, what makes you think that future powers that have access to this information won't. It is likely that this will happen.
It has happened before, and will happen again just much more efficiently next time. The people have to stop it as soon as possible, before it is too late.
The people who shouldn't have the privacy are the ones that are ruling the country, But they are the people that seem to have the most laws protecting their privacy. Of course the reason is for national security. It is true that secrecy is needed to run a country, but it never needs to be forever, they should be monitored and the data should be released when it no longer becomes necessary to keep it secret. (Protecting a career does not count)
Obfuscation, shouldn't have a place in security not just because your code doesn't rely on it (this inevitably leads to laziness). Which it shouldn't, It also should have a place since it means that the person has to trust the person who writes the code. Of course since most code you run is not examined by the user (but hopefully examined by someone independent), but having your code visible provides an extra level of trust.
I got the reference, that why I said they where trying to be funny, but my answer is true, if I could download a car, I would have no moral issues with doing it.
I a heartbeat, Parent probably trying to funny though.
I believe Super markets also sell shelf locations to suppliers, people have a tendency not to look up or down, eye level product placement is premium real estate and large shops sell it. Those displays are probably not free either.
As a side note I think this may be a model for more shops as internet shops are cheaper, the value of physical store may be their ability to "advertise" certain products, which they may be able to charge the manufacture for.
Its clear that Voyager they could not communicate with earth (:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunters_%28Star_Trek:_Voyager%29) is an episode where they found communications array and where finally able get letters from home. So previously they couldn't transfer a letter from home however they the computer could access the all the knowledge in the universe.
Anyway this is fiction so it doesn't have to make sense.
I don't think it is hard to say. If rape is worse the solution is easy just kill the victim. They wouldn't have to do the trial, face the the attacker etc.
Yes some people commit suicide because they have been raped, but some people also do it because the loose their job. In a logical sense I don't see why rape is any different from any other assault where you now may constantly worry about your safety.
Don't get me wrong I think being raped would be very bad, I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but I don't see why it is worse than being severely beaten (baring having a child as a result), both would leave me emotionally scared.
I think a large part of the stigma of rape, is societal, anything that involves sex in today's society is suddenly much worse, don't know why?
I have never been raped, but I assume we don't have any body who has been killed to give us a victim comparison.
It is a fairly accurate analogy, they are very similar emotions biologically:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-prove-it-really-is-a-thin-line-between-love-and-hate-976901.html
Think about it, who are the people you hate the most, they are the ones that you loved and have hurt you. People you who you don't care about and never did are rarely people you end up hating.
In particular sense indifference can be thought of as the opposite of both. I.e. strong emotion vs weak emotion. You can of course think of it as positive vs negative emotion, its a matter of perspective.
On a side point I think it is best to let hate go, it tends to hurt you much more than the person you hate, you end up using your emotional energy on someone that should not be important at all.
Its only broke if it is required to run on the other browser and that is a business decision
Yes you may get a IE6 exploit, but there are usually workarounds e.g don't use it to browse the web, install Firefox and use that. Upgrading software may not be just expensive it can be very expensive and risky. A cost risk analysis has to be done (which I assume they do). I could be like replacing your fridge very 2 years because it reduces the risk it might break down, and you would loose your food.