Why are people even debating philosophy vs technocracy? Why should someone have to choose one over the other? How do people get dragged into such nonsense? Here a new subject for you: tomatoes vs rainbows. Go.
Economics and Climatology are very analogous in terms of what they do - gathering tons of data, running analyses on it, and projecting things out into the future, and both are essentially "empirical studies of the world about us" (i.e. a sort of base level of science, though with the testing, replication and confirmation bits left out), but we consider one to be a social science and another to be hard science.
Well, economics is, especially in its present state, largely influenced by individuals, who can be a lot harder to predict than wind currents. You may identify trends, constants and correlations, but mostly in hindsight. Accurate predictions are as scarce as in cartomancy and useful controlled experiments are hard to imagine. While Climatology shares some of those characteristics, I think we have a much higher chance of predicting a storm than the stock market. Unless tons of people start walking around with nuclear powered, oversized fans. If you catch my drift.
Nor do we have the cheap labor required to make it cost-effective.
Neither would have Brazil if they mined overseas/bought cheaply as the US does. As the biggest energy consumers of the world, of course your economy would revolve around oil. Therefore, you have greatly developed infrastructure and what we'll call "international relations" as to obtain oil cheaply. In such a scenario, ethanol can obviously hardly compete because it is a newcomer and a great deal of effort would have to be put in its implementation for it to become economically viable, but as it is not the case right now, it is dismissed as unfeasible. Brazil is an interesting case study because they extract their own petrol and plant their own sugarcane - so roughly the same labor costs per capita apply, regardless of how cheap they are -, the latter being usually more advantageous at the pump.
"As long as you're translation", I said. Might as well add that, with cubicles that small, you are on the way to destruction. You have no chance to survive make your time.
Yeah, the problem lies in that truly good people will reason that good and bad are words so relative, so overused, so morally charged due to such overuse, so prone to demagoguery and political crowd control for being so morally charged, and so meaningless due to the fact that, for all those reasons, every bad guy ever flew a flag of what was perceived as goodness by either him or his supporters, that they will simply avoid trying to dominate what they perceive as evil, since such perception may actually be misguided. Therefore the less ethically concerned is almost always louder.
I found myself asking the same thing, as this is usually a place for, if not significantly more civilized, at least more enlightened conversation than what passes for discussion in the majority of the web (feel free to try and talk politics via Youtube comments if you disagree). Maybe some people actually depend on and/or trust the establishment or its idealization, thus perceiving an upsetter as someone who is either fucking up with a good thing or fucking up with a problematic thing that should entice nothing but support and a collective effort in order to improve.
Yeah, so he's saying it's a religious issue, not political. I don't know, but I don't think we should take what most people say - terrorists especially - at face value. They have people to rally, too. Bin Laden's just a demagogue campaigning and gathering support, therefore he paints his crusade as a... well, a crusade, with holy goals, when in fact it's more like a... well, a crusade, in that it was very profitable for the church. Oh.
In reality, what difference is there between Communism and Fascism? Does it make a difference whether a small elite group rules the state which rules commerce, or whether a small elite group rules commerce which rules the state?
Not that I don't see your point, but as long as you're going there, you might as well throw in Capitalism and the kitchen sink as well. Communism is mainly an economic stance, while fascism is... well, hard to define in few words, but it's political in its core. It doesn't help that all communist governments up until now have been fascist (with the state owning of taking the place of big corporations), but there's an enormous difference in the meaning of those words. And neither of them usually advocate for or commit genocide, it just so happened that the few ones that got to power did.
Well, individuals have moral values. You have yours, I have mine and, probably for both of us, the best course of action would be, when possible, to respect each other's values. Corporations, though, are amoral. They are about the bottom line, usually meaning profits. There's no one, no feelings to respect. Do not trace analogies that equate people and businesses like that, it's misleading.
Couldn't those scientists just have adopted, if they wanted them so badly? Mice prodution is already high enough - now the issue should be distribution. Think of the baby mice!
I don't think the question you present is fair, since there's a vast ideological difference between public and private business. Theorically, at least, a government should never keep secrets from its citizens, as you need all the information you can get to cast an informed vote. For democracy to work the way it was intended, a government has to be completely open and people have to not be morons. We are currently failing both those requirements.
Corporations are different in that they are not really accountable to us, but to the government. Which is then accountable to us, so perhaps there is an argument to be made for opening the private sector's communication there. Given how much money and how much power big companies have, I wonder if we wouldn't all benefit of that as a society. Particularly, I'd very much like to see the correspondence of Monsanto's executives, for instance.
It's a moot point, however. Companies and governments will always find a way to keep secrets, because that's less of a hassle for them. It's like taking sick days off and not having to somehow get a proof to your employer that you were really sick. And what corporation, public or not, doesn't want that kind of freedom?
Wanting and needing, however, are very different things. Ask Jagger.
Those documents are actually pretty interesting and you should be able to peek into the minds of your theoretically subordinate rulers. Plus there's a bit of shady or even borderline criminal activities being suggested, and I believe that to be of public interest. Yes, it embarasses the government, but rightly so. Maybe it shouldn't have leaked to other countries. That's somewhat more debatable, but of course it's a moot point as, once in the internet, there's no way to restrict it. And even if citizens other than the US' should not be reading those documents, I still believe publishing them to be way less evil than hiding them.
Machine load doesn't really matter here. It tends to get unresponsive especially with CSS-heavy pages. By the way, Chrome 8.0.552.215 allows copy+paste. Really, it does. Really, it does. Really, it does. Really, it does.
It's about being faster, not necessarily more efficient. The OP's got a point. JS benchmarks seem to be trumping memory usage and whatnot in importance.
Slashdot Mirror
'Real' medicine is considered real only if it works _considerably_ better than the placebo sugar pill
Must be really easy to pass a drug that fights diabetes*, then.
*diabeetus
Why are people even debating philosophy vs technocracy? Why should someone have to choose one over the other? How do people get dragged into such nonsense? Here a new subject for you: tomatoes vs rainbows. Go.
Economics and Climatology are very analogous in terms of what they do - gathering tons of data, running analyses on it, and projecting things out into the future, and both are essentially "empirical studies of the world about us" (i.e. a sort of base level of science, though with the testing, replication and confirmation bits left out), but we consider one to be a social science and another to be hard science.
Well, economics is, especially in its present state, largely influenced by individuals, who can be a lot harder to predict than wind currents. You may identify trends, constants and correlations, but mostly in hindsight. Accurate predictions are as scarce as in cartomancy and useful controlled experiments are hard to imagine. While Climatology shares some of those characteristics, I think we have a much higher chance of predicting a storm than the stock market. Unless tons of people start walking around with nuclear powered, oversized fans. If you catch my drift.
Editing? On my ./?
Dude, the rainforest is equatorial, and Brazil's sugarcane is mostly grown around the tropic of capricorn. You're off by almost two thousand miles.
Actually the higher the compression, the more efficient the 4-stroke cycle is.
Look: http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node26.html
Nor do we have the cheap labor required to make it cost-effective.
Neither would have Brazil if they mined overseas/bought cheaply as the US does. As the biggest energy consumers of the world, of course your economy would revolve around oil. Therefore, you have greatly developed infrastructure and what we'll call "international relations" as to obtain oil cheaply. In such a scenario, ethanol can obviously hardly compete because it is a newcomer and a great deal of effort would have to be put in its implementation for it to become economically viable, but as it is not the case right now, it is dismissed as unfeasible. Brazil is an interesting case study because they extract their own petrol and plant their own sugarcane - so roughly the same labor costs per capita apply, regardless of how cheap they are -, the latter being usually more advantageous at the pump.
Bunking is good, but get this: workers with magnetic shoes, walking on metal ceilings. And magnetic pants to sit on steel chairs. Much cooler.
"As long as you're translation", I said. Might as well add that, with cubicles that small, you are on the way to destruction. You have no chance to survive make your time.
As long as you're translation, you might as well say it's measured in cm.
That'd be me. In my defense, I have access to both Wikipedia and TvTropes.
Yeah, the problem lies in that truly good people will reason that good and bad are words so relative, so overused, so morally charged due to such overuse, so prone to demagoguery and political crowd control for being so morally charged, and so meaningless due to the fact that, for all those reasons, every bad guy ever flew a flag of what was perceived as goodness by either him or his supporters, that they will simply avoid trying to dominate what they perceive as evil, since such perception may actually be misguided. Therefore the less ethically concerned is almost always louder.
I found myself asking the same thing, as this is usually a place for, if not significantly more civilized, at least more enlightened conversation than what passes for discussion in the majority of the web (feel free to try and talk politics via Youtube comments if you disagree). Maybe some people actually depend on and/or trust the establishment or its idealization, thus perceiving an upsetter as someone who is either fucking up with a good thing or fucking up with a problematic thing that should entice nothing but support and a collective effort in order to improve.
Yeah, so he's saying it's a religious issue, not political. I don't know, but I don't think we should take what most people say - terrorists especially - at face value. They have people to rally, too. Bin Laden's just a demagogue campaigning and gathering support, therefore he paints his crusade as a... well, a crusade, with holy goals, when in fact it's more like a... well, a crusade, in that it was very profitable for the church. Oh.
Sweet news.
In reality, what difference is there between Communism and Fascism? Does it make a difference whether a small elite group rules the state which rules commerce, or whether a small elite group rules commerce which rules the state?
Not that I don't see your point, but as long as you're going there, you might as well throw in Capitalism and the kitchen sink as well. Communism is mainly an economic stance, while fascism is... well, hard to define in few words, but it's political in its core. It doesn't help that all communist governments up until now have been fascist (with the state owning of taking the place of big corporations), but there's an enormous difference in the meaning of those words. And neither of them usually advocate for or commit genocide, it just so happened that the few ones that got to power did.
Who's laws?
I don't think it's a person. Could be about 6 million, though, if you meant Laos.
Well, individuals have moral values. You have yours, I have mine and, probably for both of us, the best course of action would be, when possible, to respect each other's values. Corporations, though, are amoral. They are about the bottom line, usually meaning profits. There's no one, no feelings to respect. Do not trace analogies that equate people and businesses like that, it's misleading.
Couldn't those scientists just have adopted, if they wanted them so badly? Mice prodution is already high enough - now the issue should be distribution. Think of the baby mice!
I don't think the question you present is fair, since there's a vast ideological difference between public and private business. Theorically, at least, a government should never keep secrets from its citizens, as you need all the information you can get to cast an informed vote. For democracy to work the way it was intended, a government has to be completely open and people have to not be morons. We are currently failing both those requirements.
Corporations are different in that they are not really accountable to us, but to the government. Which is then accountable to us, so perhaps there is an argument to be made for opening the private sector's communication there. Given how much money and how much power big companies have, I wonder if we wouldn't all benefit of that as a society. Particularly, I'd very much like to see the correspondence of Monsanto's executives, for instance.
It's a moot point, however. Companies and governments will always find a way to keep secrets, because that's less of a hassle for them. It's like taking sick days off and not having to somehow get a proof to your employer that you were really sick. And what corporation, public or not, doesn't want that kind of freedom?
Wanting and needing, however, are very different things. Ask Jagger.
Yes, and locked up for that. Good riddance, I say. Sex is dangerous, and that's precisely why we have Playstations and D&D.
Those documents are actually pretty interesting and you should be able to peek into the minds of your theoretically subordinate rulers. Plus there's a bit of shady or even borderline criminal activities being suggested, and I believe that to be of public interest. Yes, it embarasses the government, but rightly so. Maybe it shouldn't have leaked to other countries. That's somewhat more debatable, but of course it's a moot point as, once in the internet, there's no way to restrict it. And even if citizens other than the US' should not be reading those documents, I still believe publishing them to be way less evil than hiding them.
Machine load doesn't really matter here. It tends to get unresponsive especially with CSS-heavy pages. By the way, Chrome 8.0.552.215 allows copy+paste. Really, it does. Really, it does. Really, it does. Really, it does.
And all those tablets, phones and flying cars will be running GNU Hurd.
It's about being faster, not necessarily more efficient. The OP's got a point. JS benchmarks seem to be trumping memory usage and whatnot in importance.