All those things about home made short range seem to imply harder to shoot down.
Since more unpredictable flight path, less time to respond, therefore less flight path information, more change of no detection.
but given the definition of ballistic missile from wikipedia:
A ballistic missile is a missile that follows a sub-orbital ballistic flightpath with the objective of delivering one or more warheads to a predetermined target. The missile is only guided during the relatively brief initial powered phase of flight and its course is subsequently governed by the laws of orbital mechanics and ballistics. To date, ballistic missiles have been propelled during powered flight by chemical rocket engines of various types.
neither of them can change course to avoid the intercept.
I never got the proportionality argument when has a war been proportional? You go to war or not, if you have more fire power available you use it, saying the opposition has got bigger guns but not expecting them to use them is just silly. There are some weapons that should not be used (e.g Nukes) but Israel is not using any weapon like that.
The whole point is you want to be disproportionate, the more you can dominate the opposition the better for you. and possibly the less lives lost since hopefully you can afford luxuries like not killing civilians, and the sooner the war can be over.
If you want disproportionate response look at 9/11 some guys get into a plane and crash into a couple of buildings. USA invades a country.
Care needs to be taken when using global database searches to match DNA, otherwise even if you have only a slight chance of a false positive the chance finding someone who is a match is quite high, because your population is quite high.
You could always do an rsync between you and your friends/families computers. No where near $3000 even if you went an bought then SDD hard drives (buying friends may be more expensive), of course why would you do that anyway when you could use dropbox, $499 for 500GB, $795 for 1 TB (apparently free, or so I have heard for the first 30 GB if you sell your sole and advertise them on social media), ubuntu one, 5GB free (+ $29.99 for an extra 20GB) , iCloud, I am sure there are others.
I also think most people believe people should be rewarded for there invention, but the question is by how much, and what is a fair reward. I think it should be based more on effort expended as opposed what you can make by having exclusive access for X years. The problem is that 5 minute thought process can exclude people from using an idea for 20 years. There needs to be more proportionality between effort expended and possible reward
Why is it surprising that someone thought putting ads in a paid product was a good idea, it happens all the time.
1. By a DVD get non-skippable adds a the beginning. 2. Go to a movie and pay get ads 3. Get adds inside movies themselves (product placement). 4. Go to car dealer and have them stick there name on your car somewhere, here you are providing them with free adverstising. 5. My computer has an HP on it, yes some of that is branding so I know what computer it is but it is also advertising. I don't have pay TV put I think there where ads there too, just not as many.
Face it people will try and get as much revenue out of a product as they can, an putting ads in paid products is an option.
Just a side question why should the EULA need to mention anything about ads specifically anyway (tracking ads maybe), is it a violation of your rights be advertised to. I sure it already mentions getting stuff from the internet.
What bargain? Pay taxes yes, but paying some company a extra for a phone line which may or may not still work after disaster is a bit harsh.
You could as easily say no you can't share my food because you didn't stock up even if you had plenty. Someone using your phone line will not detract significantly from your survival so if you say no you are just being a prat.
The fact is now our communication systems are changing we should simply make them reliable in a disaster not stick some outmoded communication devise on every corner.
They should be paying tax on any money made, Sure you could say that they are the ones that pay income tax, sales tax etc since employees must be paid enough to live. But you could equally say that they pay no tax (as mentioned previously) as well since all cost are covered by the customer (at least if it is profitable).
I don't understand why it seems to be a moral right make money from anybody who makes money from you.
If I sell food that gives people indigestion, should I get a cut from the people who make antacids? or vice versa. Should coke get a cut of the weight loss industries profits?
It is like seeing two children fight, X was playing with my toy. You haven't used it in months, But its mine, its not fair.
Sure Google probably makes money of Google News but the newspapers benefit (they obviously believe this or they would de-list) so what if Google makes more or less money than you it is irrelevant, just get on with it.
If you think people don't click through to see the full article perhaps get your writers to write more seductive summaries.
I think that is what you would think, but I don't believe it is the case I think most plumbers and even inspectors don't know the codes that well.
I had some recent work on my house done (multiple inspections, plans approved etc, not very complicated work 2 bathrooms and removing a wall, all official). Every inspector told me different things, one inspector would say you had to do X when the other didn't mention it. I got another electrician to check the work and they said that the first was not up to code.
I don't blame the contractors, regulations change constantly, and are complicated to read. We need to make them simple an easy to follow, and easy for anybody to check that they are met.
But I agree plumbers aren't dumb they have their own field of expertise as we all do.
Or perhaps you've heard the saying about 75% of people think they're above average? I'm sure there's a real study behind that, somewhere, but it strikes a chord for all of us, either way.;)
I think that is called the optimism bias.
Anyway I think there are 3 levels broad levels of knowledge:
1. Think you no everything. 2. Think you know nothing (or very little) 3. Realise that everyone else know nothing as well.
Belief in God (or at least stating you believe e.g. Priests) doesn't seem to stop people doing bad things either. How does that even work in a religion where you can repent/confess and all your sins are forgiven.
Here is one way to logic not doing bad things without God, maybe not perfect. If you do bad things then you will think of yourself as a bad person, then will feel bad about yourself, that will make you unhappy, so don't do it. If you do good things then you will feel good about yourself and you will be happier. Kind self enforced karma. It seems to be true, there are studies that show doing nice things for others makes people happier than buying things for themselves. Ref http://www.livescience.com/2376-key-happiness-give-money.html. Another theory (no real proof) if you are nice you tend to think other people are nice (they may or may not be) but then you assume they aren't trying to be mean to you so you are happier.
In the end you can convince yourself of anything, if you try hard enough, God or no God it probably depends more on the person you are than the religious beliefs you hold.
Agreed, there may be other tricks that I am not aware of (not completely random reordering?), but the point was that "proper" English is not required to communicate clearly.
Clear and proper English is a necessity to proper communication!
Proper is not really necessary here is an example:
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, olny taht the frist and lsat ltteres are at the rghit pcleas. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by ilstef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
Manager: how long will that take. Me: let me think about that... Me: it took me X days. Works great if you can do it fast enough.
I did have a manger ask me for an estimate once, I came back with the result they said no that's too long, can you make it shorter. All-right then?
I think estimates are just a big waste of time, I can see why management want them, they need to plan, tell customers when products are ready,... but in programming at least there are always unknowns, and people just pad out estimates so they can finish on time, then they procrastinate, until it is almost due, and do not meet the time lines anyway. Think back to school, how may people did there assignments on the last day or two.
A task is going to take as long as it takes. Spending a long time on an estimate that is pretty much worthless seem like a waste of time.
With drug companies I am not convinced that they even require patients at least not as long as now.
True they do invest a lot of money, but I have faith in the free market, if there is a demand some will be there to supply it.
Here are the reasons against.
1. There is a premium that drug companies can charge even when the patient has expired, just go and compare the prices of Generic Paracetamol vs Panadol, trust is a very big factor in drugs and a large premium can be charged for it.
2. I am worried about the disincentives to developing new drug, until the last patent expires. If the motivator behind developing drugs is money then why would you enhance your drugs while you still posses the patent to the old one. I believe this happened when they last released the new version of the asthma inhaler was not released until the old one was about to expire.
3. Sometimes the manufacture cannot even keep up with demand. (SARs a while ago) however even then nobody produce it.
4. I think it is very dangerous to give a monopoly to a private company, they can an do let people die because they cannot afford a drug. If we must then it should be strictly controlled.
Firstly its 4% p.a. (still quite good) not 0.33% (from the grandparent) (maybe per month but interest rates are usually stated in p.a.) but renting a house is a bit different to a computer. You are not paying double the value of the house every couple of years. You have to balance that against the interest (or profit on investment) you would have earnt on the money, the interest rate you have to pay on the mortgage, maintenance, how much the value of the house will appreciate/depreciate.... Sometimes it does make financial sense to rent a house. Also shelter is a necessity, very rarely is a computer.
$10 per week on a $400 computer is 130% p.a. But to be fair a house usually has all of its value after 2 years, maybe more, and as a percentage of value administration may be a lot higher on computer. Renting out a 2 year old computer would be hard, but you can still use it, if you buy it.
From the computer renters point of view it does not make sense. From the point of person renting out the computer, it maybe not that excessive, if you include non-payment, fixed expenses, salaries etc, I would need more detail to say for certain.
I once saw a pay day loan advertise there interest at only 8% per week, yes they used the word only. If it was compounded weekly that's about 5370% per year (1.08^52)-1*100, even if it wasn't it's still 416% p.a
They are con artists that use peoples lack of knowledge to screw them over.
I have read a bit of the Quran, trying to get though it but so far its more like god will deal with the non-believers, not that its the job of Muslims to do it, like judgement day
I don't know that because you are not 100% sure there is no God, you have to call yourself agnostic, instead of atheist. It is about level of belief, I am not 100% certain I am writing this post. I am not certain about anything (nor do I believe anybody else is either) how could I be when my knowledge is so limited.
In life state what we strongly believe as certainty, but what I really mean is with all the information I have and the limited and flawed cognitive process available to me I a confident with a margin of error that I am correct (I could be wrong). But talking like that get very tedious very quickly.
It works the other way too, just because you have doubts about religion doesn't mean you don't believe in God. But whenever say I could be wrong, people say I am agnostic, no I am just aware that I do not posses all knowledge in the universe, just like everyone else.
It is healthy to understand everyone including yourself can be wrong. But we have to live our lives assuming we are right.
He could also escape to tomorrow as well, nothing is certain you have to go by what is most likely.
He got until he is "considered" safe to release, it is not the same sentence he will be released. If tomorrow they discover some "cure" then he is just as safe to release as any other person then why not. I am not for vengeance in the legal system what purpose does it serve? The best thing to do is realise that he is a pathetic little man that did a horrible thing and move on. Protect the public is important and that is exactly what the ruling is doing. Also as a deterrent well, I don't think there would be much you could do to deter him, it was likely the could have died, doing this. He believed what he was doing was the right thing to do.
As long as you don't consider the people assessing idiots, (which I think you do). He probably (baring some scientific discovery) will never be considered safe to release, so will never be released. That's what the experts said in the article and unless you have good knowledge of the Norwegian justice system, I will just have trust the articles experts not you.
The headline is just to get people to read the story and is intentionally deceptive.
The other thing is how does being brought up in a society that values life effect the amount of people that commit these crimes in the first place. I have just read some studies about deterrent effect of the death penalty (inconclusive) but they all seem to look at the immediate effect. So I have no scientific basis for my conclusion but I would expect living in a society that respects everyone's right to life would reduce murder in the long run. Yes you would always get exceptions but hopefully fewer of them.
he didn't get 21 year in prison, he got life quote from the articile:
"The five-judge panel in the Oslo district court convicted Breivik, 33, of terrorism and premeditated murder and ordered him imprisoned for a period between 10 and 21 years, the maximum allowed under Norwegian law. Such sentences can be extended as long as an inmate is considered too dangerous to be released, and legal experts say Breivik will almost certainly spend the rest of his life in prison."
Slashdot Mirror
All those things about home made short range seem to imply harder to shoot down.
Since more unpredictable flight path, less time to respond, therefore less flight path information, more change of no detection.
but given the definition of ballistic missile from wikipedia:
A ballistic missile is a missile that follows a sub-orbital ballistic flightpath with the objective of delivering one or more warheads to a predetermined target. The missile is only guided during the relatively brief initial powered phase of flight and its course is subsequently governed by the laws of orbital mechanics and ballistics. To date, ballistic missiles have been propelled during powered flight by chemical rocket engines of various types.
neither of them can change course to avoid the intercept.
I never got the proportionality argument when has a war been proportional? You go to war or not, if you have more fire power available you use it, saying the opposition has got bigger guns but not expecting them to use them is just silly. There are some weapons that should not be used (e.g Nukes) but Israel is not using any weapon like that.
The whole point is you want to be disproportionate, the more you can dominate the opposition the better for you. and possibly the less lives lost since hopefully you can afford luxuries like not killing civilians, and the sooner the war can be over.
If you want disproportionate response look at 9/11 some guys get into a plane and crash into a couple of buildings. USA invades a country.
Care needs to be taken when using global database searches to match DNA, otherwise even if you have only a slight chance of a false positive the chance finding someone who is a match is quite high, because your population is quite high.
see http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_donnelly_shows_how_stats_fool_juries.html (from 10 min) not specifically about DNA but the same principle. also
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/may/25/dna-database-false-positive
You could always do an rsync between you and your friends/families computers. No where near $3000 even if you went an bought then SDD hard drives (buying friends may be more expensive), of course why would you do that anyway when you could use dropbox, $499 for 500GB, $795 for 1 TB (apparently free, or so I have heard for the first 30 GB if you sell your sole and advertise them on social media), ubuntu one, 5GB free (+ $29.99 for an extra 20GB) , iCloud, I am sure there are others.
I also think most people believe people should be rewarded for there invention, but the question is by how much, and what is a fair reward. I think it should be based more on effort expended as opposed what you can make by having exclusive access for X years. The problem is that 5 minute thought process can exclude people from using an idea for 20 years. There needs to be more proportionality between effort expended and possible reward
Why is it surprising that someone thought putting ads in a paid product was a good idea, it happens all the time.
1. By a DVD get non-skippable adds a the beginning.
2. Go to a movie and pay get ads
3. Get adds inside movies themselves (product placement).
4. Go to car dealer and have them stick there name on your car somewhere, here you are providing them with free adverstising.
5. My computer has an HP on it, yes some of that is branding so I know what computer it is but it is also advertising.
I don't have pay TV put I think there where ads there too, just not as many.
Face it people will try and get as much revenue out of a product as they can, an putting ads in paid products is an option.
Just a side question why should the EULA need to mention anything about ads specifically anyway (tracking ads maybe), is it a violation of your rights be advertised to. I sure it already mentions getting stuff from the internet.
What bargain? Pay taxes yes, but paying some company a extra for a phone line which may or may not still work after disaster is a bit harsh.
You could as easily say no you can't share my food because you didn't stock up even if you had plenty. Someone using your phone line will not detract significantly from your survival so if you say no you are just being a prat.
The fact is now our communication systems are changing we should simply make them reliable in a disaster not stick some outmoded communication devise on every corner.
They should be paying tax on any money made, Sure you could say that they are the ones that pay income tax, sales tax etc since employees must be paid enough to live. But you could equally say that they pay no tax (as mentioned previously) as well since all cost are covered by the customer (at least if it is profitable).
I don't understand why it seems to be a moral right make money from anybody who makes money from you.
If I sell food that gives people indigestion, should I get a cut from the people who make antacids? or vice versa. Should coke get a cut of the weight loss industries profits?
It is like seeing two children fight,
X was playing with my toy.
You haven't used it in months,
But its mine, its not fair.
Sure Google probably makes money of Google News but the newspapers benefit (they obviously believe this or they would de-list) so what if Google makes more or less money than you it is irrelevant, just get on with it.
If you think people don't click through to see the full article perhaps get your writers to write more seductive summaries.
I think that is what you would think, but I don't believe it is the case I think most plumbers and even inspectors don't know the codes that well.
I had some recent work on my house done (multiple inspections, plans approved etc, not very complicated work 2 bathrooms and removing a wall, all official). Every inspector told me different things, one inspector would say you had to do X when the other didn't mention it. I got another electrician to check the work and they said that the first was not up to code.
I don't blame the contractors, regulations change constantly, and are complicated to read. We need to make them simple an easy to follow, and easy for anybody to check that they are met.
But I agree plumbers aren't dumb they have their own field of expertise as we all do.
Or perhaps you've heard the saying about 75% of people think they're above average? I'm sure there's a real study behind that, somewhere, but it strikes a chord for all of us, either way. ;)
I think that is called the optimism bias.
Anyway I think there are 3 levels broad levels of knowledge:
1. Think you no everything.
2. Think you know nothing (or very little)
3. Realise that everyone else know nothing as well.
A Class action should be raised against this clause! Seeking punitive damages for even putting something like this in a contract.
Belief in God (or at least stating you believe e.g. Priests) doesn't seem to stop people doing bad things either. How does that even work in a religion where you can repent/confess and all your sins are forgiven.
Here is one way to logic not doing bad things without God, maybe not perfect. If you do bad things then you will think of yourself as a bad person, then will feel bad about yourself, that will make you unhappy, so don't do it. If you do good things then you will feel good about yourself and you will be happier. Kind self enforced karma. It seems to be true, there are studies that show doing nice things for others makes people happier than buying things for themselves. Ref http://www.livescience.com/2376-key-happiness-give-money.html. Another theory (no real proof) if you are nice you tend to think other people are nice (they may or may not be) but then you assume they aren't trying to be mean to you so you are happier.
In the end you can convince yourself of anything, if you try hard enough, God or no God it probably depends more on the person you are than the religious beliefs you hold.
Agreed, there may be other tricks that I am not aware of (not completely random reordering?), but the point was that "proper" English is not required to communicate clearly.
Clear and proper English is a necessity to proper communication!
Proper is not really necessary here is an example:
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, olny taht the frist and lsat ltteres are at the rghit pcleas. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by ilstef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
Well my method is flawless.
Manager: how long will that take. ...
Me: let me think about that
Me: it took me X days. Works great if you can do it fast enough.
I did have a manger ask me for an estimate once, I came back with the result they said no that's too long, can you make it shorter. All-right then?
I think estimates are just a big waste of time, I can see why management want them, they need to plan, tell customers when products are ready, ...
but in programming at least there are always unknowns, and people just pad out estimates so they can finish on time, then they procrastinate, until it is almost due, and do not meet the time lines anyway. Think back to school, how may people did there assignments on the last day or two.
A task is going to take as long as it takes. Spending a long time on an estimate that is pretty much worthless seem like a waste of time.
With drug companies I am not convinced that they even require patients at least not as long as now.
True they do invest a lot of money, but I have faith in the free market, if there is a demand some will be there to supply it.
Here are the reasons against.
1. There is a premium that drug companies can charge even when the patient has expired, just go and compare the prices of Generic Paracetamol vs Panadol, trust is a very big factor in drugs and a large premium can be charged for it.
2. I am worried about the disincentives to developing new drug, until the last patent expires. If the motivator behind developing drugs is money then why would you enhance your drugs while you still posses the patent to the old one. I believe this happened when they last released the new version of the asthma inhaler was not released until the old one was about to expire.
3. Sometimes the manufacture cannot even keep up with demand. (SARs a while ago) however even then nobody produce it.
4. I think it is very dangerous to give a monopoly to a private company, they can an do let people die because they cannot afford a drug. If we must then it should be strictly controlled.
Firstly its 4% p.a. (still quite good) not 0.33% (from the grandparent) (maybe per month but interest rates are usually stated in p.a.) but renting a house is a bit different to a computer. You are not paying double the value of the house every couple of years. You have to balance that against the interest (or profit on investment) you would have earnt on the money, the interest rate you have to pay on the mortgage, maintenance, how much the value of the house will appreciate/depreciate .... Sometimes it does make financial sense to rent a house. Also shelter is a necessity, very rarely is a computer.
$10 per week on a $400 computer is 130% p.a. But to be fair a house usually has all of its value after 2 years, maybe more, and as a percentage of value administration may be a lot higher on computer. Renting out a 2 year old computer would be hard, but you can still use it, if you buy it.
From the computer renters point of view it does not make sense. From the point of person renting out the computer, it maybe not that excessive, if you include non-payment, fixed expenses, salaries etc, I would need more detail to say for certain.
I once saw a pay day loan advertise there interest at only 8% per week, yes they used the word only. If it was compounded weekly that's about 5370% per year (1.08^52)-1*100, even if it wasn't it's still 416% p.a
They are con artists that use peoples lack of knowledge to screw them over.
I have read a bit of the Quran, trying to get though it but so far its more like god will deal with the non-believers, not that its the job of Muslims to do it, like judgement day
I don't know that because you are not 100% sure there is no God, you have to call yourself agnostic, instead of atheist. It is about level of belief, I am not 100% certain I am writing this post. I am not certain about anything (nor do I believe anybody else is either) how could I be when my knowledge is so limited.
In life state what we strongly believe as certainty, but what I really mean is with all the information I have and the limited and flawed cognitive process available to me I a confident with a margin of error that I am correct (I could be wrong). But talking like that get very tedious very quickly.
It works the other way too, just because you have doubts about religion doesn't mean you don't believe in God. But whenever say I could be wrong, people say I am agnostic, no I am just aware that I do not posses all knowledge in the universe, just like everyone else.
It is healthy to understand everyone including yourself can be wrong. But we have to live our lives assuming we are right.
He could also escape to tomorrow as well, nothing is certain you have to go by what is most likely.
He got until he is "considered" safe to release, it is not the same sentence he will be released. If tomorrow they discover some "cure" then he is just as safe to release as any other person then why not. I am not for vengeance in the legal system what purpose does it serve? The best thing to do is realise that he is a pathetic little man that did a horrible thing and move on. Protect the public is important and that is exactly what the ruling is doing. Also as a deterrent well, I don't think there would be much you could do to deter him, it was likely the could have died, doing this. He believed what he was doing was the right thing to do.
As long as you don't consider the people assessing idiots, (which I think you do). He probably (baring some scientific discovery) will never be considered safe to release, so will never be released. That's what the experts said in the article and unless you have good knowledge of the Norwegian justice system, I will just have trust the articles experts not you.
The headline is just to get people to read the story and is intentionally deceptive.
The other thing is how does being brought up in a society that values life effect the amount of people that commit these crimes in the first place. I have just read some studies about deterrent effect of the death penalty (inconclusive) but they all seem to look at the immediate effect. So I have no scientific basis for my conclusion but I would expect living in a society that respects everyone's right to life would reduce murder in the long run. Yes you would always get exceptions but hopefully fewer of them.
he didn't get 21 year in prison, he got life quote from the articile:
"The five-judge panel in the Oslo district court convicted Breivik, 33, of terrorism and premeditated murder and ordered him imprisoned for a period between 10 and 21 years, the maximum allowed under Norwegian law. Such sentences can be extended as long as an inmate is considered too dangerous to be released, and legal experts say Breivik will almost certainly spend the rest of his life in prison."
That would be what I call bad testing, testing should mirror customer computers as much as possible missing the distribution system is just silly.