I use the Chess example all the time. Arguing for popular vote is like arguing that the person with the most pieces on the board should win a game of chess. That's not how the game is played. And people who keep arguing about it don't know anything useful on the topic. It is just sour grapes.
I'd say "checkmate", but the idiots will keep arguing about a game nobody was playing.
Hey look, an idiot who plays chess, thinking he won, because he had more pieces on the board. Unaware that Check Mate doesn't require much in the way of pieces on the board.
Keep arguing from stupidity and you'll keep losing.
Additionally, you can get a 15, 20, 25 year mortgage, and pay extra every month, without penalty, which goes to principle and gets you out quicker.
People aren't using it, because for the most part, Mortgages tend to be "cheap money", with interest deductible on taxes, and interest much lower than most other types of loans. I would suggest to you, that if you have ANY debt at all, converting it into a Mortgage and stop over extending yourself. It is a great way to "force savings".
Many people can't afford the lifestyle they've chosen. All those $5 Lattes add up to real money.
Erwin: Greetings and salutations. Welcome to the emergency line of the San Angeles Police Department. If you'd prefer an automated response, press 1 now.
No. You obviously can't comprehend the statement you quoted. I clearly indicated that I don't trust them, and/but I made no reference to Trump's truthiness. That kind of cognitive dissonance is why people like you come off as idiots when it is pointed out. You should try thinking in non-binary.
That is a bit of news from the time it happened, not a few days ago, after they needed to show they did have access to the server.
Washington (CNN)The Democratic National Committee "rebuffed" a request from the FBI to examine its computer services after it was allegedly hacked by Russia during the 2016 election, a senior law enforcement official told CNN Thursday.
SO, which story do you actually believe? The one where they rebuffed attempts to inspect the server, or the one that they're using now, that they had the servers the whole time?
Personally, if you believe ANYTHING coming from the "Intel Community" either way you're an idiot. They lie. They lie straight faced in front of congress about all sorts of things, spying on Americans to there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This isn't a "Right vs Left" issue, because both sides have been on both sides of hating and defending the "intel community"
And until people grow up, and see that, we're never going to get anywhere. So, please stop with the re-written history, it is embarrassing .
You are correct. Did you vote for the people that created the drug laws? My guess, that unless you're much older than I am, you didn't. I surely didn't vote, the beginnings of those drug laws predates my birth, and I'm an old greybeard that I used to make fun of.
I used to smoke weed.. a lot. I don't smoke now. My views haven't changed because of my personal choice. They have only solidified. Crimes should be relegated to actual harm to others. Murder, theft, robbery, rape... All easily fall into this gap. The most utilitarian purpose of government is to SECURE the rights of the citizenry, not control them.
No. That's NOT what I am saying. I'm saying that just because something is illegal doesn't make it "wrong". Is selling Lemonade on the corner wrong? We did that a lot when I was a kid 50 years ago. Yet that is illegal enough that police are called (code enforcement) and it is stopped.
Or how about Immigration?
Or how about alcohol?
Or how about smoking?
Or how about Prostitution?
Or.....
I'm arguing for a libertarian viewpoint, which is apart from the current Nanny State proponents of protecting everyone from everything, including providing "safe spaces" for people easily offended.
People selling things that aren’t allowed to be sold are criminals.
I would suggest to you that your view is simplistic to say the least, and doesn't reflect reality. There are plenty of things that are now illegal, that once were legal. And things that were once illegal that are currently legal, and a few things that were once legal, then made illegal, but are legal again. Alcohol is a great example.
Drinking alcohol doesn't make one a criminal either before, during or after prohibition. Just because there is a law doesn't mean it is a good one. And thus, we have the ability to judge not only the facts of a case, but also the law (jury nullification). This is the last refuge of liberty.
I'm pretty sure that just because you're outraged doesn't mean there is a law against doing something. In fact, I would suggest that you fall into the stupid category of thinking your emotions are all that are required for something to be "legal" or "illegal". Thankfully for you, emotions don't count, otherwise I WOULD BE OUTRAGED BY YOU AND YOU SHOULD BE ARRESTED AND SENT TO JAIL AND ALONG WITH EVERY OTHER AC ON SLASHDOT!!!!!!
There are quite a number of ways to measure efficiency, and you're only focusing on one.
1) Given the Rules, this is efficient. The rules may be dumb, but that doesn't negate them. 2) Price stability is another form of efficiency. Given #1) this helps provide efficient pricing model. 3) I'm sure there is a great deal of pressure for more runways, but I am equally sure there are all sorts of rules and pressure preventing additional runways from being built. Likewise, Additional Alternate Airports are not likely due to competing needs and limited (finite) resources.
The more rules and regulations there are, the greater the likelihood of inefficiencies in the micro-economic system. The question we rarely ask ourselves as we draft rules and regulations should attempt to quantify the values of those rules and regulations; "Is it worth it"
I'll give a quick example of a question I would like to ask: "Would you (John/Joan Q Public) be willing to forgo TSA Grope N Feel / Naked Scan inspections, if instead the TSA Ticket Fees were cut in half, the remainder going into an "insurance" fund to pay out upon a fatal air traffic accident or terrorist event?"
Google are supposed to provide shit services that nobody wants to use so their competitors can prosper?
This is, after all, the socialist model. Punish success, reward failure. Tax everyone (this is nothing more than a "success tax") and ignore the other gorilla in the room.
It does rarely happen. Another reason why someone would want to motion to NOT drop charges is for the purposes of double jeopardy; prevent them from potentially charging the defendant again at a later time. If you are acquitted, they can't charge you with the same crime ever again.
Another possible reason is to force the government to show its hand before it wants to, or in the case of a "show indictment" where the government had no intention of bringing someone to trial, but charges them anyway to show "See, we're doing something" (charging Russians for hacking).
essentials for life (food, clean water, shelter, education, health care)
Essentials for life. You list a few. And yet, inside your list is something NOT essential for life Health Care, and one that is entirely free (Education) if you don't demand others work for free.
The moment you conscript (yes) a doctor or teacher, and Require society to pay them a set wage, you'll find that they become in short supply, especially when considering the rest of the market is more or less open and free. Nobody goes through ten years of prescribed education to be told they can only charge so much for their services, and are otherwise required to give said services away.
THE moment you do all of that (and all the bits I haven't actually mentioned) you're violating the most basic tenant of human rights, the right to self determination (slavery, indentured servitude, serf) to the mob that rules.
The best example: you'll end up supporting Bernie Sanders in your commune who does no work(he was kicked out for not working, hasn't worked since). Socialism invariably fails in time for a variety of reasons, and faster or slower depending on the ability to add features people want into the list of "Essentials for life": Internet, Phone, Transportation, sex, drugs and rock n roll.
While I am sure we can agree in concept that people ought not go hungry, homeless etc, the details of the solution I'm sure we wouldn't. The moment the government threatens me to comply in order to provide someone with something he does not need to survive another day, is one that we ought to oblige with more than "because feelings". Forced compassion isn't compassionate.
The problem is, programs fail, and there are those that will always cry out "not fair" while demanding expanded "sustenance", the sweat of someone else's labor. And eventually it will fail to the point of people actually starving.
Yes, there should be food enough, water aplenty and shelter to wait out the storm. Those happen to be in short supply in failed socialist economies that are holding onto their failed ideals while people actually starve. Nobody in any capitalistic society dies of hunger, as there is always someone able and willing to volunteer their time and resources without government threats to do so. And they tend to be way more compassionate than those demanding society at the threat of government guns.
I wouldn't call fly through cgi to be AR, and those have been available for a while (in 2D space). 3D version is more immersive, but only incrementally so.
MY vision of AR is something like walking live through a building and seeing everyone's name over their head, and where their offices are and stuff like that. Or perhaps using the 3D space to demonstrate a design change over the top of the current space (live walk through). Or perhaps directions (Waze like) through an airport from gate to gate, with time indicators showing you updated boarding info....
I can imagine a large number of AR cases, but is it worth a $300 headset and the technical headaches associated?
I'm one of those people who don't see a good use case for AR stuff, unless it completes 75 points from the following Killer App options.
50 points Porn 25 Points Business 15 Points Gaming 10 Points Education/Training 25 Points (Unknown Use Case 1) 15 Points (Unknown Use Case 2) 10 Points (Unknown Use Case 3) 50 + Points (Technological Breakthrough making it much much cheaper and significantly better than current tech)
The killer would be Porn and just about any other combination, and probably wouldn't require a Killer App in any other category, just moderate usefulness. I could foresee a number of scenarios where Porn doesn't even have a Killer App, its just that would be the easiest way to success. Also, keep in mind that a number of these have crossover potential. A good use case for Education/Training would bleed over to Business, and probably Unknown Use Cases. Speaking of Unknown Use Cases, those are exactly what they say, use cases we never dreamed of before someone else came up with a "killer app". There are three, first one always gets 25 Points, and second 15, and third 10.
The last one is something that I think could be where the actual use case takes over. For example, if someone figures out how to have an inexpensive brain implantable AR tech it would break this wide open.
BUT.... Until those conditions apply, it is just Tech searching for a problem to solve.
I've been in IT for 40 years, and yes, you're right. Its always been this way, it always will be. But there is a business decision reasoning for a lot of it. Let me break it down for you into three basic categories.
1) Bleeding edge. Hopping on every new tech that rolls around hoping to catch the top of the first wave. Most of which will die and go away and barely be remembered. The business case for this is agility. The down side is very rarely works out as intended or even tangentially. (Think BlockChain)
2) Mainstream. Slightly behind Bleeding edge by a couple years. Most of the rough edges have been worn off, and there is enough data to show the tech is actually useful. The business case for this approach is waiting for others to show it will pan out decreases risk. The downside is you might be behind competitors who are in Group 1. (Think: Cloud)
3) Trailing Edge. Finally on the bandwagon, long after it is established. The business case for this is long term stability and minimal risk. The downside is obvious as competitors have long since adopted tech and has made effective use of it, and the risk of obsolescence as you adopt tech. (Wireless G)
Unless you're in Group 1, everything you look at will seem like "outdated tech" to some degree.
Current tech is only related to tech from 20-30 years ago if you view tech as waves of use. If you don't understand what you're looking at, its because you're focusing on what the tech is doing, not its life-cycle. Not saying that is bad, it is just a different perspective (which may work fine). The point being, if you're in the industry long enough, you see technological life-cycles everywhere.
What we need is for Government to stop deciding what "health care system" ought to look and be like. Because what works for you, may not work for me, and visa versa. Government can't provide flexibility that individuals want. But then again, the "one size fits all" approach is exactly what the idiots who love and crave for Government Controls think is appropriate because it is "fair" (it isn't fair, it isn't even close to being fair).
My proposal for health care would give the greatest flexibility to the greatest number of people. It isn't completely fair, because that is impossible. There is no such thing as "fair" (because it is 100% subjective)
Real Life is often better than movies. I've been amazed at how many times a day I mutter, "I couldn't make this shit up, and nobody would believe me if I did".
If you're not paranoid, you're not paying attention.
Just because one is paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get us.
And yet, the Political Left is based on the greatest boogie men conspiracies, and yet nobody calls it that "Because it is real" (Racism, Sexism, Homophobia etc etc etc). FYI, I don't deny these things exist, I deny their power at the Federal, State, and the "System" levels.
Slashdot Mirror
I use the Chess example all the time. Arguing for popular vote is like arguing that the person with the most pieces on the board should win a game of chess. That's not how the game is played. And people who keep arguing about it don't know anything useful on the topic. It is just sour grapes.
I'd say "checkmate", but the idiots will keep arguing about a game nobody was playing.
Hey look, an idiot who plays chess, thinking he won, because he had more pieces on the board. Unaware that Check Mate doesn't require much in the way of pieces on the board.
Keep arguing from stupidity and you'll keep losing.
You can get a Ten Year Fixed Mortgage.
Additionally, you can get a 15, 20, 25 year mortgage, and pay extra every month, without penalty, which goes to principle and gets you out quicker.
People aren't using it, because for the most part, Mortgages tend to be "cheap money", with interest deductible on taxes, and interest much lower than most other types of loans. I would suggest to you, that if you have ANY debt at all, converting it into a Mortgage and stop over extending yourself. It is a great way to "force savings".
Many people can't afford the lifestyle they've chosen. All those $5 Lattes add up to real money.
I already live here. Its awesome!
Erwin: Greetings and salutations. Welcome to the emergency line of the San Angeles Police Department. If you'd prefer an automated response, press 1 now.
-From Demolition Man.
I would suggest, that if you're adverse to failure to the point of never really trying something difficult, you're already failing.
There are a lot of things that teach us, but failure is one of the greatest teachers of all.
Or as my dad used to say (probably stolen from elsewhere), "If you aren't failing, you're not trying hard enough"
Da, My Russian is a bit rusty. Though I got my Russian Troll money! Go Putin! Yay! You should sign up, it pays really well!
No. You obviously can't comprehend the statement you quoted. I clearly indicated that I don't trust them, and/but I made no reference to Trump's truthiness. That kind of cognitive dissonance is why people like you come off as idiots when it is pointed out. You should try thinking in non-binary.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05...
That is a bit of news from the time it happened, not a few days ago, after they needed to show they did have access to the server.
Washington (CNN)The Democratic National Committee "rebuffed" a request from the FBI to examine its computer services after it was allegedly hacked by Russia during the 2016 election, a senior law enforcement official told CNN Thursday.
SO, which story do you actually believe? The one where they rebuffed attempts to inspect the server, or the one that they're using now, that they had the servers the whole time?
Personally, if you believe ANYTHING coming from the "Intel Community" either way you're an idiot. They lie. They lie straight faced in front of congress about all sorts of things, spying on Americans to there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This isn't a "Right vs Left" issue, because both sides have been on both sides of hating and defending the "intel community"
And until people grow up, and see that, we're never going to get anywhere. So, please stop with the re-written history, it is embarrassing .
You are correct. Did you vote for the people that created the drug laws? My guess, that unless you're much older than I am, you didn't. I surely didn't vote, the beginnings of those drug laws predates my birth, and I'm an old greybeard that I used to make fun of.
I used to smoke weed .. a lot. I don't smoke now. My views haven't changed because of my personal choice. They have only solidified. Crimes should be relegated to actual harm to others. Murder, theft, robbery, rape ... All easily fall into this gap. The most utilitarian purpose of government is to SECURE the rights of the citizenry, not control them.
True Liberty is messy.
No. That's NOT what I am saying. I'm saying that just because something is illegal doesn't make it "wrong". Is selling Lemonade on the corner wrong? We did that a lot when I was a kid 50 years ago. Yet that is illegal enough that police are called (code enforcement) and it is stopped.
Or how about Immigration?
Or how about alcohol?
Or how about smoking?
Or how about Prostitution?
Or .....
I'm arguing for a libertarian viewpoint, which is apart from the current Nanny State proponents of protecting everyone from everything, including providing "safe spaces" for people easily offended.
People selling things that aren’t allowed to be sold are criminals.
I would suggest to you that your view is simplistic to say the least, and doesn't reflect reality. There are plenty of things that are now illegal, that once were legal. And things that were once illegal that are currently legal, and a few things that were once legal, then made illegal, but are legal again. Alcohol is a great example.
Drinking alcohol doesn't make one a criminal either before, during or after prohibition. Just because there is a law doesn't mean it is a good one. And thus, we have the ability to judge not only the facts of a case, but also the law (jury nullification). This is the last refuge of liberty.
I'm pretty sure that just because you're outraged doesn't mean there is a law against doing something. In fact, I would suggest that you fall into the stupid category of thinking your emotions are all that are required for something to be "legal" or "illegal". Thankfully for you, emotions don't count, otherwise I WOULD BE OUTRAGED BY YOU AND YOU SHOULD BE ARRESTED AND SENT TO JAIL AND ALONG WITH EVERY OTHER AC ON SLASHDOT!!!!!!
You're welcome.
There are quite a number of ways to measure efficiency, and you're only focusing on one.
1) Given the Rules, this is efficient. The rules may be dumb, but that doesn't negate them.
2) Price stability is another form of efficiency. Given #1) this helps provide efficient pricing model.
3) I'm sure there is a great deal of pressure for more runways, but I am equally sure there are all sorts of rules and pressure preventing additional runways from being built. Likewise, Additional Alternate Airports are not likely due to competing needs and limited (finite) resources.
The more rules and regulations there are, the greater the likelihood of inefficiencies in the micro-economic system. The question we rarely ask ourselves as we draft rules and regulations should attempt to quantify the values of those rules and regulations; "Is it worth it"
I'll give a quick example of a question I would like to ask: "Would you (John/Joan Q Public) be willing to forgo TSA Grope N Feel / Naked Scan inspections, if instead the TSA Ticket Fees were cut in half, the remainder going into an "insurance" fund to pay out upon a fatal air traffic accident or terrorist event?"
Google are supposed to provide shit services that nobody wants to use so their competitors can prosper?
This is, after all, the socialist model. Punish success, reward failure. Tax everyone (this is nothing more than a "success tax") and ignore the other gorilla in the room.
It does rarely happen. Another reason why someone would want to motion to NOT drop charges is for the purposes of double jeopardy; prevent them from potentially charging the defendant again at a later time. If you are acquitted, they can't charge you with the same crime ever again.
Another possible reason is to force the government to show its hand before it wants to, or in the case of a "show indictment" where the government had no intention of bringing someone to trial, but charges them anyway to show "See, we're doing something" (charging Russians for hacking).
essentials for life (food, clean water, shelter, education, health care)
Essentials for life. You list a few. And yet, inside your list is something NOT essential for life Health Care, and one that is entirely free (Education) if you don't demand others work for free.
The moment you conscript (yes) a doctor or teacher, and Require society to pay them a set wage, you'll find that they become in short supply, especially when considering the rest of the market is more or less open and free. Nobody goes through ten years of prescribed education to be told they can only charge so much for their services, and are otherwise required to give said services away.
THE moment you do all of that (and all the bits I haven't actually mentioned) you're violating the most basic tenant of human rights, the right to self determination (slavery, indentured servitude, serf) to the mob that rules.
The best example: you'll end up supporting Bernie Sanders in your commune who does no work(he was kicked out for not working, hasn't worked since). Socialism invariably fails in time for a variety of reasons, and faster or slower depending on the ability to add features people want into the list of "Essentials for life": Internet, Phone, Transportation, sex, drugs and rock n roll.
While I am sure we can agree in concept that people ought not go hungry, homeless etc, the details of the solution I'm sure we wouldn't. The moment the government threatens me to comply in order to provide someone with something he does not need to survive another day, is one that we ought to oblige with more than "because feelings". Forced compassion isn't compassionate.
The problem is, programs fail, and there are those that will always cry out "not fair" while demanding expanded "sustenance", the sweat of someone else's labor. And eventually it will fail to the point of people actually starving.
Yes, there should be food enough, water aplenty and shelter to wait out the storm. Those happen to be in short supply in failed socialist economies that are holding onto their failed ideals while people actually starve. Nobody in any capitalistic society dies of hunger, as there is always someone able and willing to volunteer their time and resources without government threats to do so. And they tend to be way more compassionate than those demanding society at the threat of government guns.
I wouldn't call fly through cgi to be AR, and those have been available for a while (in 2D space). 3D version is more immersive, but only incrementally so.
MY vision of AR is something like walking live through a building and seeing everyone's name over their head, and where their offices are and stuff like that. Or perhaps using the 3D space to demonstrate a design change over the top of the current space (live walk through). Or perhaps directions (Waze like) through an airport from gate to gate, with time indicators showing you updated boarding info....
I can imagine a large number of AR cases, but is it worth a $300 headset and the technical headaches associated?
Bobby Tables is all grown up!
I'm one of those people who don't see a good use case for AR stuff, unless it completes 75 points from the following Killer App options.
50 points Porn
25 Points Business
15 Points Gaming
10 Points Education/Training
25 Points (Unknown Use Case 1)
15 Points (Unknown Use Case 2)
10 Points (Unknown Use Case 3)
50 + Points (Technological Breakthrough making it much much cheaper and significantly better than current tech)
The killer would be Porn and just about any other combination, and probably wouldn't require a Killer App in any other category, just moderate usefulness. I could foresee a number of scenarios where Porn doesn't even have a Killer App, its just that would be the easiest way to success. Also, keep in mind that a number of these have crossover potential. A good use case for Education/Training would bleed over to Business, and probably Unknown Use Cases. Speaking of Unknown Use Cases, those are exactly what they say, use cases we never dreamed of before someone else came up with a "killer app". There are three, first one always gets 25 Points, and second 15, and third 10.
The last one is something that I think could be where the actual use case takes over. For example, if someone figures out how to have an inexpensive brain implantable AR tech it would break this wide open.
BUT .... Until those conditions apply, it is just Tech searching for a problem to solve.
I've been in IT for 40 years, and yes, you're right. Its always been this way, it always will be. But there is a business decision reasoning for a lot of it. Let me break it down for you into three basic categories.
1) Bleeding edge. Hopping on every new tech that rolls around hoping to catch the top of the first wave. Most of which will die and go away and barely be remembered. The business case for this is agility. The down side is very rarely works out as intended or even tangentially. (Think BlockChain)
2) Mainstream. Slightly behind Bleeding edge by a couple years. Most of the rough edges have been worn off, and there is enough data to show the tech is actually useful. The business case for this approach is waiting for others to show it will pan out decreases risk. The downside is you might be behind competitors who are in Group 1. (Think: Cloud)
3) Trailing Edge. Finally on the bandwagon, long after it is established. The business case for this is long term stability and minimal risk. The downside is obvious as competitors have long since adopted tech and has made effective use of it, and the risk of obsolescence as you adopt tech. (Wireless G)
Unless you're in Group 1, everything you look at will seem like "outdated tech" to some degree.
Current tech is only related to tech from 20-30 years ago if you view tech as waves of use. If you don't understand what you're looking at, its because you're focusing on what the tech is doing, not its life-cycle. Not saying that is bad, it is just a different perspective (which may work fine). The point being, if you're in the industry long enough, you see technological life-cycles everywhere.
What we need is for Government to stop deciding what "health care system" ought to look and be like. Because what works for you, may not work for me, and visa versa. Government can't provide flexibility that individuals want. But then again, the "one size fits all" approach is exactly what the idiots who love and crave for Government Controls think is appropriate because it is "fair" (it isn't fair, it isn't even close to being fair).
My proposal for health care would give the greatest flexibility to the greatest number of people. It isn't completely fair, because that is impossible. There is no such thing as "fair" (because it is 100% subjective)
Real Life is often better than movies. I've been amazed at how many times a day I mutter, "I couldn't make this shit up, and nobody would believe me if I did".
It is all about how you look at things.
Whether this is due to staggering incompetence and stupidity, or just a malicious intent
Any sufficient level of incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
If you're not paranoid, you're not paying attention.
Just because one is paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get us.
And yet, the Political Left is based on the greatest boogie men conspiracies, and yet nobody calls it that "Because it is real" (Racism, Sexism, Homophobia etc etc etc). FYI, I don't deny these things exist, I deny their power at the Federal, State, and the "System" levels.