Communism to work relies on an idealized version of humans, one that is not lazy or greedy.
And pure capitalism (the analog of communism) requires, among other things, perfect information, thus relying on humans who don't lie, cheat, or steal.
Honestly, anyone who believes pure capitalism is any less ideal than pure communism is either poorly educated, or has been wholly blinded by anti-communist rhetoric.
Of course, one might point out that communism, as originally envisioned, has *never* been implemented. Rather, dictatorships have wrapped themselves in the mantle of Marx, in the hope of gaining some level of credibility.
Otherwise I would appreciate pointers to an approriate paper.
Why don't we start off with you providing references for your claim that "string theory does NOT incorporate perfectly all observations that can be explained by" the SM and GR?
Relicensing the Linux kernel quite possible, if they want to.
Oh, sure, it's quite possible, if they 'adopt the "or any later version" policy from now on, get relicensing permission from as many copyright holders as possible'. What the idiot blogger fails to point out is that getting relicensing permission from all the copyright holders is a truly *monumental*, possibly insurmountable, task. First, it assumes you can track down all the contributors, which may very well be impossible, and second, it assumes that once contacted, the developers will agree to the move.
Really? I've had a T61 for the last few months which I have toted around in a backpack, in the paniers on my bike, on airplanes, etc, and I haven't had a single problem with it yet. Are there pre-failure warnings I should be keeping an eye out for?
Incidentally, I do run Linux on it, so the active hard disk protection doesn't operate (AFAIK), but... so it goes.
And (in Canada) my father in law had to suffer a life threatening brain tumour for 3 months that the doctors said should have already killed him when they discovered it.
And this is a failing in the healthcare system, as opposed to a diagnostic failure, how? Further, I challenge you to demonstrate how the same thing couldn't have happened elsewhere.
My dad had a heart attack last year and was "lucky" they had a cardiologist on staff that night, because they normally didn't due to budget constraints.
Funny, where I live, I've never heard of such a thing. Of course, given that healthcare is run by the provinces, things tend to vary from place to place.
Yeah, I spent a lot of time in my youth playing TFC (well, TF on the Quake engine, but...). Truly a *great* game, and there was a very strong element of team play necessary if you wanted to succeed.
I disagree. Take an extreme example: Brainfuck. Yeah, sure, you might adapt to the way the language is structured, but the very nature of it's syntax makes it difficult for a human to understand. I would argue the same is true of a language like Lisp. In my experience, the human brain has a difficult time doing things like paren matching, tracking nesting levels, etc, not because of lack of familiarity, but because it's simply a difficult task. This is why we make sure to use careful code formatting and indentation, etc, and why we've added features such as paren matching to our editors. These things add hints which make the brain's job easier. Thus, I would contend Lisp, as a language, is *not* well designed for a *human* to easily parse and comprehend.
At least, that's been my experience. Then again, maybe it's just my brain that's particularly poor at paren matching.:)
Actually, as has been said elsewhere, the big problem with entanglement is you can't use it to send information *at all*. It's a neat effect, to be sure, but it's literally impossible to create a communication device with it.
I can't think of a better way to basically stop all software development than to hold developers criminally responsible for bugs in their programming.
It's an interesting idea, but it wouldn't do a damn thing to stop something like Storm, which is, in fact, a trojan, and requires silly users to run it.
Well, if the CPU virtualization is imperfect, it may be possible to detect either anomalies in the emulation, or by monitoring things like CPU cycle counters. And even if the CPU is emulated perfectly, you can also check for things like known bugs in peripherals, etc, which may not have been correctly emulated.
Umm, no offense, but if your brain has to actively adapt to the language syntax, I wouldn't call it easy-to-understand.:) Further, while your mind may be able to conceptualize the program more easily as time goes by, you still need an editor to help match braces, particularly if you're trying to read code you haven't written.
Of course, to be fair, Lisp can be made easier to read with proper formatting. But to claim it's the end-all and be-all of FP syntax is, I think, a little silly (personally, I prefer the Haskell/ML pattern matching approach... although, Haskell's tendency to provide multiple ways of expressing the exact same things can be a little irritating).
Wait... you *were* joking, right? I mean, sure, s-expressions are clean and consistent, which has it's merits, but easy-to-understand necessarily implies easy-to-read, and s-expressions aren't. Hell, you need a decent, paren-matching editor just to *write* the code, let alone read it...
Another thing you should perhaps be alarmed about is that its legal for a person on Phenobarb to drive.
It shouldn't be. The laws where I live allow the cops to arrest anyone they perceive as driving under the influence of an intoxicant (drugs, alcohol, etc).
If the issue is minimizing danger on the road then we should address the real issues at hand.
So, what, you're claiming phenobarbitol causes more accidents than alcohol? Do you have numbers to back that up, or are you just making shit up as you go along?
Instead we create a scapegoat.
Main Entry: scapegoat Pronunciation: 'skAp-"gOt Function: noun Etymology: scape; intended as translation of Hebrew 'azAzEl (probably name of a demon), as if 'Ez 'OzEl goat that departs--Leviticus 16:8(Authorized Version)... 2 a : one that bears the blame for others b : one that is the object of irrational hostility
So, how, precisely, is the act of drunk driving being held up as a scapegoat? Are you telling me the fears of drunk driving are irrational or unfounded? Seriously?
The issue is simply that people who should not be allowed to drive are issued driver's licenses without question.
Right. So fix the fucking process. That doesn't make drunk driving okay. It means you should be encouraging the state to re-evaluate the process by which it grants drivers licenses, because there's clearly other problems that *also* should be dealt with.
It is very clear that jurisdictions cannot agree on the limit and furthermore individual variations mean that many who are deemed to be intoxicated in fact are not intoxicated.
Yeah, welcome to the real world, where we have to draw arbitrary lines in order to draft sane laws.
Finally you missed the fact of the matter that my wife should not have had a driver's license because she was totally disabled.
Oh no, I got the point. Apparently, you didn't, though. See, the fact your wife got a drivers license is a *non-sequitor*. It doesn't change the fact that drunks shouldn't be allowed to drive. It just means your wife shouldn't have been, either.
So... let me get this straight. Your argument is that, because other dangerous people are allowed to drive, we should tolerate drunk driving? Are you fucking serious? Christ, why bother licensing people at all, then? Why don't I just let my neighbour's four year old kid drive my car? I mean, he's probably as dangerous behind the wheel as your wife, right?
Wow, you really don't fucking understand, do you? The blood alcohol limits aren't set because they define people who are shitfaced drunk. They're set because they define people who are sufficiently impaired to pose a danger to themselves or, more importantly, to others. Then again, it's apparent you're too fucking stupid to realize that the fact if you're "[talking] a little too much", it probably means you're sufficiently cognitively impaired such that your reaction time, attention, etc, are impacted, making you dangerous behind the wheel.
Well, unless you count the phrase "In God We Trust" on the US dollar bill. Or the fact that, throughout government, people take oaths on the Christian bible. Or the fact that the phrase "On Nation, Under God" exists in the Pledge of Allegiance (though, thankfully, for the most part, people are no longer being *forced* to recite it). Or...
But yeah, you're right, there's no officially recognized religion(s) in the US. None at all.
Westerners like rice more chewy, so for the same rice, it is put into a big pot of hot water and the rice is cooked like sphagetti.
Ugh, only if the westerner has no taste. Hell, many people I know own rice cookers, because they prefer a nice, soft, sticky rice (myself included). 'course, these days, most of the rice I eat is basmati (wickedly easy to make, tastes awesome, and it's whole grain).
Slashdot Mirror
Communism to work relies on an idealized version of humans, one that is not lazy or greedy.
And pure capitalism (the analog of communism) requires, among other things, perfect information, thus relying on humans who don't lie, cheat, or steal.
Honestly, anyone who believes pure capitalism is any less ideal than pure communism is either poorly educated, or has been wholly blinded by anti-communist rhetoric.
Of course, one might point out that communism, as originally envisioned, has *never* been implemented. Rather, dictatorships have wrapped themselves in the mantle of Marx, in the hope of gaining some level of credibility.
Otherwise I would appreciate pointers to an approriate paper.
Why don't we start off with you providing references for your claim that "string theory does NOT incorporate perfectly all observations that can be explained by" the SM and GR?
Relicensing the Linux kernel quite possible, if they want to.
Oh, sure, it's quite possible, if they 'adopt the "or any later version" policy from now on, get relicensing permission from as many copyright holders as possible'. What the idiot blogger fails to point out is that getting relicensing permission from all the copyright holders is a truly *monumental*, possibly insurmountable, task. First, it assumes you can track down all the contributors, which may very well be impossible, and second, it assumes that once contacted, the developers will agree to the move.
But, yeah, other than that, it's easy peasy!
Really? I've had a T61 for the last few months which I have toted around in a backpack, in the paniers on my bike, on airplanes, etc, and I haven't had a single problem with it yet. Are there pre-failure warnings I should be keeping an eye out for?
Incidentally, I do run Linux on it, so the active hard disk protection doesn't operate (AFAIK), but... so it goes.
And (in Canada) my father in law had to suffer a life threatening brain tumour for 3 months that the doctors said should have already killed him when they discovered it.
And this is a failing in the healthcare system, as opposed to a diagnostic failure, how? Further, I challenge you to demonstrate how the same thing couldn't have happened elsewhere.
My dad had a heart attack last year and was "lucky" they had a cardiologist on staff that night, because they normally didn't due to budget constraints.
Funny, where I live, I've never heard of such a thing. Of course, given that healthcare is run by the provinces, things tend to vary from place to place.
Ah, sorry, parent, not GP. My mistake.
BTW, for any non-Canadian readers, please keep in mind the GP is full of shit.
Or just run openssh with the -D option, which sets up a dynamic proxy that conforms to the SOCKS protocol, and then just point your browser at it.
Assuming, of course, you had access to openssh.
Yeah, I spent a lot of time in my youth playing TFC (well, TF on the Quake engine, but...). Truly a *great* game, and there was a very strong element of team play necessary if you wanted to succeed.
Yeah, and aspirin triggers liver failure in those already predisposed to the condition.
Your point?
I disagree. Take an extreme example: Brainfuck. Yeah, sure, you might adapt to the way the language is structured, but the very nature of it's syntax makes it difficult for a human to understand. I would argue the same is true of a language like Lisp. In my experience, the human brain has a difficult time doing things like paren matching, tracking nesting levels, etc, not because of lack of familiarity, but because it's simply a difficult task. This is why we make sure to use careful code formatting and indentation, etc, and why we've added features such as paren matching to our editors. These things add hints which make the brain's job easier. Thus, I would contend Lisp, as a language, is *not* well designed for a *human* to easily parse and comprehend.
:)
At least, that's been my experience. Then again, maybe it's just my brain that's particularly poor at paren matching.
Actually, as has been said elsewhere, the big problem with entanglement is you can't use it to send information *at all*. It's a neat effect, to be sure, but it's literally impossible to create a communication device with it.
I can't think of a better way to basically stop all software development than to hold developers criminally responsible for bugs in their programming.
It's an interesting idea, but it wouldn't do a damn thing to stop something like Storm, which is, in fact, a trojan, and requires silly users to run it.
Well, if the CPU virtualization is imperfect, it may be possible to detect either anomalies in the emulation, or by monitoring things like CPU cycle counters. And even if the CPU is emulated perfectly, you can also check for things like known bugs in peripherals, etc, which may not have been correctly emulated.
OHNOES! The richest people are being heavily taxed! Ye gods, no! The humanity of it all! What ever will he do???
Umm, no offense, but if your brain has to actively adapt to the language syntax, I wouldn't call it easy-to-understand. :) Further, while your mind may be able to conceptualize the program more easily as time goes by, you still need an editor to help match braces, particularly if you're trying to read code you haven't written.
Of course, to be fair, Lisp can be made easier to read with proper formatting. But to claim it's the end-all and be-all of FP syntax is, I think, a little silly (personally, I prefer the Haskell/ML pattern matching approach... although, Haskell's tendency to provide multiple ways of expressing the exact same things can be a little irritating).
If you want your obscure research paper to receive mainstream media coverage and net you loads of grant money,
Yeah, because, as we all know, organizations dole out grant money based solely on the headlines they see scrolling by on the CNN ticker...
the clean, easy-to-understand syntax of LISP?
ROFL! Oh god... man... that's good. Whew!
Wait... you *were* joking, right? I mean, sure, s-expressions are clean and consistent, which has it's merits, but easy-to-understand necessarily implies easy-to-read, and s-expressions aren't. Hell, you need a decent, paren-matching editor just to *write* the code, let alone read it...
Another thing you should perhaps be alarmed about is that its legal for a person on Phenobarb to drive.
...
It shouldn't be. The laws where I live allow the cops to arrest anyone they perceive as driving under the influence of an intoxicant (drugs, alcohol, etc).
If the issue is minimizing danger on the road then we should address the real issues at hand.
So, what, you're claiming phenobarbitol causes more accidents than alcohol? Do you have numbers to back that up, or are you just making shit up as you go along?
Instead we create a scapegoat.
Main Entry: scapegoat
Pronunciation: 'skAp-"gOt
Function: noun
Etymology: scape; intended as translation of Hebrew 'azAzEl (probably name of a demon), as if 'Ez 'OzEl goat that departs--Leviticus 16:8(Authorized Version)
2 a : one that bears the blame for others b : one that is the object of irrational hostility
So, how, precisely, is the act of drunk driving being held up as a scapegoat? Are you telling me the fears of drunk driving are irrational or unfounded? Seriously?
The issue is simply that people who should not be allowed to drive are issued driver's licenses without question.
Right. So fix the fucking process. That doesn't make drunk driving okay. It means you should be encouraging the state to re-evaluate the process by which it grants drivers licenses, because there's clearly other problems that *also* should be dealt with.
It is very clear that jurisdictions cannot agree on the limit and furthermore individual variations mean that many who are deemed to be intoxicated in fact are not intoxicated.
Yeah, welcome to the real world, where we have to draw arbitrary lines in order to draft sane laws.
Finally you missed the fact of the matter that my wife should not have had a driver's license because she was totally disabled.
Oh no, I got the point. Apparently, you didn't, though. See, the fact your wife got a drivers license is a *non-sequitor*. It doesn't change the fact that drunks shouldn't be allowed to drive. It just means your wife shouldn't have been, either.
Good job having no idea what you're talking about.
Good job posing a coherent counterargument. Apparently your degree in "religious studies" didn't include a course in debating techniques.
So... let me get this straight. Your argument is that, because other dangerous people are allowed to drive, we should tolerate drunk driving? Are you fucking serious? Christ, why bother licensing people at all, then? Why don't I just let my neighbour's four year old kid drive my car? I mean, he's probably as dangerous behind the wheel as your wife, right?
Wow, you really don't fucking understand, do you? The blood alcohol limits aren't set because they define people who are shitfaced drunk. They're set because they define people who are sufficiently impaired to pose a danger to themselves or, more importantly, to others. Then again, it's apparent you're too fucking stupid to realize that the fact if you're "[talking] a little too much", it probably means you're sufficiently cognitively impaired such that your reaction time, attention, etc, are impacted, making you dangerous behind the wheel.
Well, unless you count the phrase "In God We Trust" on the US dollar bill. Or the fact that, throughout government, people take oaths on the Christian bible. Or the fact that the phrase "On Nation, Under God" exists in the Pledge of Allegiance (though, thankfully, for the most part, people are no longer being *forced* to recite it). Or...
But yeah, you're right, there's no officially recognized religion(s) in the US. None at all.
Westerners like rice more chewy, so for the same rice, it is put into a big pot of hot water and the rice is cooked like sphagetti.
Ugh, only if the westerner has no taste. Hell, many people I know own rice cookers, because they prefer a nice, soft, sticky rice (myself included). 'course, these days, most of the rice I eat is basmati (wickedly easy to make, tastes awesome, and it's whole grain).