In the U.S., it actually was in the 19th century. Quoted from Wikipedia:
A journey from Philadelphia to Charleston involved eight different gauges, which meant that passengers and freight had to change trains seven times.
It was the government (sic!) stepping in after the Civil War with the construction of the transcontinental railways which caused the different gauges to be harmonized to the U.S. gauge of 1448 mm, later to 1435 mm ("normal gauge").
There are even major languages which lead to very long words: Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft. (In the article is a link to an even longer word which is too long for slashcode to display, because the coders of slashcode never imagined that those words might be possible).
The problem are not the new files you create for your work. The problem are the hundreds and thousands of old files, binders, books, journals, research diaries, reports and data, that were never digitalized to begin with. They still occupy storage. And they go back centuries.
That's something I never understood in the U.S. justice system. It relies too much on testimony and confession and not so much on evidence. Humans err. Humans err the whole time. Wishful thinking, prejudices, wanting to have seen something that wasn't objectively to be seen, coerced testimonies and confessions cast so much doubt on them. But their words are taken as pure gold in court. Attorneys General refuse to withdraw their accusations, courts refuse to overturn convictions in light of new evidence just because there exists a confession or even just a testimony about the existance of a confession, whatever dubious the circumstances where during which it allegedly came about.
I actually doubt the 5 year rule. I am working on technology right now that was deployed 20 years ago (and is still running). I've colleagues who are in the field since 40 years (and about retire very soon). There are fields where 5 years is a really long time, but well honed UNIX skills build on 40 year old technology.
In the U.S., you have another factor contributing to the disparity: a large number of prison inmates, which are mainly male, especially in the sexually active age group. So you take a huge number of potential mates out of the dating pool for women, which then have to concentrate on less men or men of higher age.
They still are equal. Because the one girl has a very high promiscuity rate offsetting her peers being abstinent on average.
But in general, this is very unrealistic. Male persons tend more to the extremes than females, thus you will find a larger standard deviation of the promiscuity rate between males than females. Most women have comparatively similar promiscuity rates, while among men, you will find those with a very high number of sexual partners and those with no sexual partners at all.
Actually, your idea about promiscuity is completely different from the generally accepted term.
Wikipedia explains it thus: Promiscuity, in human sexual behaviour, is the practice of having casual sex frequently with different partners or of being indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners. So what you are talking about is "being sexually active", and not "being promiscious". And if we are talking about "being sexually active", girls, which reach puberty earlier than boys, also start earlier than boys.
If we look at your example from the point of view of the generally accepted idea of promiscuity, we calculate thus:
10 boys have in average sex with 5 girls each, giving a promiscuity rate of 5 sexual partners per boy.
5 girls have slept with all 10 boys, and 5 girls having no sex at all, giving an average of 5 sexual partners per girl.
As you see: Parity.
(In general, males normally tend to the extremes more than females, thus a more realistic example would probably have rather 5 boys being totally abstinent and 5 boys trying to score as often as possible, and nearly all girls being sexual active in your example.)
Yes, I am driving less than 10 years ago. But I was late to the party anyway, getting my license at age 27. Then I had a few years where I lived about 150 mls from my workplace, commuting home each weekend and living in a small rented appartment during the week. But since then, my travel has declined. I got a job where I was a technician with some customers being far away, getting a spike again in travel distances and travel rates, but this has declined since then again, me now working mainly remotely. If my relatives wouldn't live far away, my travel would be even less.
Why? Not the gas prices. Yes, they are high. But mainly it's because travel costs time and is burdensome. Travel to me was never about being on the road, but always about getting somewhere. And if I don't have to get somewhere, I simply don't travel. And yes, the next supermarket is across the street from my home.
Actually, girls and boys (at least heterosexual ones) have the same promiscuity rates. It has nothing to do with morals, but everything with pure mathematics. If a (heterosexual) boy wants to be promicious, he needs a girl to get on with. Wishing to be more promicious does not translate into actually being more promicious, if there is no opportunity.
Interestingly though, if you actually ask people about their promiscuity, male persons regularly state higher promiscuity than females. So at least one sex regularly lies about their promiscuity, as from a statistical point of view, the rates should be the same. Questionaries which put the question of sex as last question report less of a difference of the promiscuity rates between the sexes, and questionaries which don't ask for the sex at all yield the highest admitted promiscuity rates.
If that were true, you were not allowed to talk anyway, because if everything you say would have to be provable true, you had to shut up completely (read some Karl Popper for the reasoning). So how do you determine which speech is protected by the First Amendment, and which not?
The criterion that you are not allowed to knowingly tell outright lies seems reasonable to me. And when do you lie? When you know the thing you say is false. And exactly this is the criterion the court used here: Mrs. Cox didn't provably know that her statements were false, so her speech was protected by the First Amendment.
Actually, the IPCC models came out for a long time lower as observed (or the observations were close to the upper limit of the models). And even with the alleged pause of globally raising temperatures, we are still way into the predicted range of raising temperatures.
Actually, no. You weren't taught that birds use synchronous wing-flaps to minimize the drag. You were taught that the V-formation of birds saves energy. But until now it seems that while for planes with fixed wings, where the air flow around the wing of the plane in front is still laminary enough to provide lift, it wasn't clear how this works with birds, whose wings cause the air to become turbulent. Now it could be observed that the synchronous wing-flap with shifting the flapping half a cycle from bird to bird allows the birds to have the wing in laminary air flow for most of the time and thus still keep the lift while still saving energy.
Basicly the birds not only fly in formation, they even fly in lockstep.
Everyone of us is a freeloader. We use an alphabet we didn't invent, we use a language we didn't invent, we live in towns we didn't build, we live in states we didn't found, we are entitled rights we didn't fight for, we follow ethical principles we didn't think of ourselves etc.pp..
And why should the robots not think about cutting out the middle man and use their own work to accomplish their own goals, without sharing anything with humans?
Actually, they were whatever came in handy. Most of them were the children of priests or teachers. And they never cited their atheism as a motivation for the terrorist acts. So they were atheist terrorists in the same sense that they were suabian terrorists or blond terrorists.
I think you might get some problems with a resistor that big. Do a short calculation yourself, given that you might have to get rid of 550 MW of electrical energy.
He is still the less steaming pile of shit compared to the alternative: Quantum Romney, who holds a superposition of all possible political positions, until one starts to observe him closely, then he will collapse to a position according to the respective political convictions of the observer. I think the main problem with Barack Obama is that he is only interested in his social programs and does not really care about anything else, leaving it to the persons in the departements and then staunchly supporting them even if they totally screw up. (And he seems to like people who know how to handle a computer and mainly thinks they can do no wrong as long as they are working for him.)
Perhaps you missed the point, so I'll make it more clear.
While it would be really messed up to arrest someone for pointing out a problem, the key factor here is that HE WAS NOT ARRESTED.
See how that kinda changes the overall theme?
No, it doesn't. It was the decision of the police to not arrest him (good act of the police by the way). The Transportation Departement is still a dork for a) ignoring the bug report and b) acting silly when the information got aut.
Slashdot Mirror
A journey from Philadelphia to Charleston involved eight different gauges, which meant that passengers and freight had to change trains seven times.
It was the government (sic!) stepping in after the Civil War with the construction of the transcontinental railways which caused the different gauges to be harmonized to the U.S. gauge of 1448 mm, later to 1435 mm ("normal gauge").
There are even major languages which lead to very long words: Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft. (In the article is a link to an even longer word which is too long for slashcode to display, because the coders of slashcode never imagined that those words might be possible).
Bad laws don't need to be overly complex. Bad laws are just that: bad. You can have very simple laws which in general create a bad outcome.
The problem are not the new files you create for your work. The problem are the hundreds and thousands of old files, binders, books, journals, research diaries, reports and data, that were never digitalized to begin with. They still occupy storage. And they go back centuries.
That's something I never understood in the U.S. justice system. It relies too much on testimony and confession and not so much on evidence. Humans err. Humans err the whole time. Wishful thinking, prejudices, wanting to have seen something that wasn't objectively to be seen, coerced testimonies and confessions cast so much doubt on them. But their words are taken as pure gold in court. Attorneys General refuse to withdraw their accusations, courts refuse to overturn convictions in light of new evidence just because there exists a confession or even just a testimony about the existance of a confession, whatever dubious the circumstances where during which it allegedly came about.
No. Just working. There is absolutely no reason to upgrade, because it does the job it was built for.
I actually doubt the 5 year rule. I am working on technology right now that was deployed 20 years ago (and is still running). I've colleagues who are in the field since 40 years (and about retire very soon). There are fields where 5 years is a really long time, but well honed UNIX skills build on 40 year old technology.
But then you should also agree that smoking should lower your pension premium.
In the U.S., you have another factor contributing to the disparity: a large number of prison inmates, which are mainly male, especially in the sexually active age group. So you take a huge number of potential mates out of the dating pool for women, which then have to concentrate on less men or men of higher age.
But in general, this is very unrealistic. Male persons tend more to the extremes than females, thus you will find a larger standard deviation of the promiscuity rate between males than females. Most women have comparatively similar promiscuity rates, while among men, you will find those with a very high number of sexual partners and those with no sexual partners at all.
Wikipedia explains it thus: Promiscuity, in human sexual behaviour, is the practice of having casual sex frequently with different partners or of being indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners. So what you are talking about is "being sexually active", and not "being promiscious". And if we are talking about "being sexually active", girls, which reach puberty earlier than boys, also start earlier than boys.
If we look at your example from the point of view of the generally accepted idea of promiscuity, we calculate thus:
10 boys have in average sex with 5 girls each, giving a promiscuity rate of 5 sexual partners per boy. 5 girls have slept with all 10 boys, and 5 girls having no sex at all, giving an average of 5 sexual partners per girl.
As you see: Parity.
(In general, males normally tend to the extremes more than females, thus a more realistic example would probably have rather 5 boys being totally abstinent and 5 boys trying to score as often as possible, and nearly all girls being sexual active in your example.)
Why? Not the gas prices. Yes, they are high. But mainly it's because travel costs time and is burdensome. Travel to me was never about being on the road, but always about getting somewhere. And if I don't have to get somewhere, I simply don't travel. And yes, the next supermarket is across the street from my home.
Interestingly though, if you actually ask people about their promiscuity, male persons regularly state higher promiscuity than females. So at least one sex regularly lies about their promiscuity, as from a statistical point of view, the rates should be the same. Questionaries which put the question of sex as last question report less of a difference of the promiscuity rates between the sexes, and questionaries which don't ask for the sex at all yield the highest admitted promiscuity rates.
The criterion that you are not allowed to knowingly tell outright lies seems reasonable to me. And when do you lie? When you know the thing you say is false. And exactly this is the criterion the court used here: Mrs. Cox didn't provably know that her statements were false, so her speech was protected by the First Amendment.
Actually, the IPCC models came out for a long time lower as observed (or the observations were close to the upper limit of the models). And even with the alleged pause of globally raising temperatures, we are still way into the predicted range of raising temperatures.
Basicly the birds not only fly in formation, they even fly in lockstep.
Everyone of us is a freeloader. We use an alphabet we didn't invent, we use a language we didn't invent, we live in towns we didn't build, we live in states we didn't found, we are entitled rights we didn't fight for, we follow ethical principles we didn't think of ourselves etc.pp..
And why should the robots not think about cutting out the middle man and use their own work to accomplish their own goals, without sharing anything with humans?
Actually, they were whatever came in handy. Most of them were the children of priests or teachers. And they never cited their atheism as a motivation for the terrorist acts. So they were atheist terrorists in the same sense that they were suabian terrorists or blond terrorists.
Nelson Mandela was raised methodist and later visited an anglican school. So you were saying?
I think you might get some problems with a resistor that big. Do a short calculation yourself, given that you might have to get rid of 550 MW of electrical energy.
They are not running per se, they are not producing net energy. They just have to be kept running so they don't destroy themselves.
Most customers won't accept that. They want their previously negotiated and contracted prices, and be done.
He is still the less steaming pile of shit compared to the alternative: Quantum Romney, who holds a superposition of all possible political positions, until one starts to observe him closely, then he will collapse to a position according to the respective political convictions of the observer. I think the main problem with Barack Obama is that he is only interested in his social programs and does not really care about anything else, leaving it to the persons in the departements and then staunchly supporting them even if they totally screw up. (And he seems to like people who know how to handle a computer and mainly thinks they can do no wrong as long as they are working for him.)
Perhaps you missed the point, so I'll make it more clear. While it would be really messed up to arrest someone for pointing out a problem, the key factor here is that HE WAS NOT ARRESTED.
See how that kinda changes the overall theme?
No, it doesn't. It was the decision of the police to not arrest him (good act of the police by the way). The Transportation Departement is still a dork for a) ignoring the bug report and b) acting silly when the information got aut.