If a license would make people more accountable and change their habits then we wouldn't need such large penalties for things like drinking and driving, not stopping for a school bus when it's flashing lights are on, or using a cell phone while driving. Ontario just increased the fine for the last one because people were still doing it. They were driving while using a cell phone when there was no fine, when there was a fine, and now when the fine has been increased. But according to your theory most of these people shouldn't be doing it because their licensed.
A few months back I saw a guy waiting at a red light. He wanted to turn right but he was behind a car that was going straight. Well, he got tired of waiting and drove up on the sidewalk and made his right turn. There weren't any pedestrians there so it was "safe" for him to do it. I think the only reason we see so many idiots on bikes and not on cars is that it's a lot easier to be an idiot on a bike.
They can still write up their papers on the computer at home and then use a USB drive to take it to school where they would do research, submit it electronically, or print it.
Maybe the US should just consider picking someone at random. Just write a program that takes all adults that meet the criteria for president (age, born in the US, etc) and select one. Can't be worse than what's going on now. And as a added bonus US carbon emissions will plummet since there won't be all of the campaigning.
A license wouldn't solve the problem. People are idiots on bikes because they can be idiots on bikes. There are little perceived consequences for not following the rules of the road so they don't follow them. You see this with cars too. Almost everybody goes 5 to 10 above the speed limit because almost nobody gets a ticket for doing so. There are some places where most people do rolling stops at the stop signs instead of proper stops.
There's already a mechanism to stop people for ignoring the rules. The same one that would be used if there was a license. The police. Bikes have to follow the rules of the road and if they don't then they get tickets. And I've heard of them getting tickets in my city. But it's just like the bad drivers, the police can't be everywhere and people wouldn't want to pay for enough people so that they would have enough time to hand out traffic tickets.
I was talking to someone who went to download a weather app for her Android phone and she was reading the terms before the download began. It wanted access to her photos so she didn't download it. Why the hell does a weather app need access to your photos? It didn't mention anything about using them as a background. I can't remember what one it was but it was one of the major weather apps.
By that logic there should be no bad car drivers on the road since every driver has a license. Most adult cyclists, at least in my city, have a drivers license and so they already know the rules for how they should behave but many are still idiots when they hop on the bike. The rules for bicycles are all included as part of the drivers handbook one studies in order to write the test for their license.
When I was in grade two or three they had bike safety lessons. I don't know if they still have them but they should.
Maybe it's because people are really bad at caring (wrong word but the right one is escaping me at the moment) for the consequences in the future. You see it when a person needs to lose weight or stop smoking in order to prevent bad health in the future, being unable to put money aside for a rainy day, or even in those tests that they give kids where they can have one candy now but two if they wait 20 minutes. We seem to be programmed to want the immediate satisfaction of a smoke, buying something, or a candy despite something better for us in the future.
So with climate change we feel we are being asked to make sacrifices, and sometimes there are, for benefits that might not even be in our lifetime or may not even happen to our area of the planet. Why should I drive less so that the ice in the Arctic doesn't melt in 35 years and flood some island half way around the world? If someone has a hard time stopping to buy their lunches in order to save for a new TV then it's going to be really hard for them to be motivated to drive less. (Not that I'm saying that's how you have to save the environment but that is how a lot of people think you have to.)
Great but the artists are still worse off than what they are under the current situation. I don't like how the big media companies are using the system and don't think that copyright should be as long as it is. I'd like to see it something like 20 years from date of publication. It would give the creator plenty of time to realize revenue from it while letting society benefit from it later on. The system worked fairly well until the lawmakers started jacking up the number of years to obscene levels.
And what happens when someone has to keep, or lower, the value of their work because they can't pay the taxes on it? Others will come in and buy the rights and profit from their efforts. Imagine an advertisement agency buying the rights to a song because it's cheaper than paying the royalties. Not only would they then not have to pay to use the song they would get paid if the song got popular. How exactly is that better than the current system? This may be fine for the more established musicians (authors, photographers, etc) but to those starting out or struggling to make a living doing the thing that they love it's going to hurt them.
Once it comes to human testing there are three stages. The first is with healthy people and they are given the medication in various doses to ensure that it isn't dangerous (or at least cause problems greater than what they expect). The second stage tests how effective the medication is. This is done in patients with the disease/ailment and in this stage they fine tune the dosages. The third stage is the one in which it compares the new medication with the best existing treatments, if possible, and a placebo treatment. If a drug or treatment offers little to no benefit then it won't be approved. However, the definition of providing benefit does seem to be pretty loose sometimes.
This may help in a private school where they have selected great, motivated teachers and all of the students are driven. They were going to do well without this tool anyways.
It's not going to make a difference in the classroom with an unmotivated teacher, the kids are doing their time, and the goal is to get the students to pass the standardized tests so that the school can get it's funding for another year. A lot of problems with education are societal and creating a dashboard doesn't deal with those. You need to create safe environments for the children with a parent/guardian who can provide the necessities without working three jobs. Then get teachers who are motivated, well trained, and well equipped. Then worry about stuff like this.
The buying sounds terrible. How is someone supposed to value a song not knowing what's going to happen to it in the future? When a band starts out they don't know what their breakout song will be or even if they will have one. If you look at the popularity of tracks on the albums at iTumes there's usually only one or two that are popular. A band isn't going to know which ones those are going to be ahead of time. And even if they could they couldn't predict how much they would sell. Then there's the completely unpredictable stuff such as getting your song on a major hit show a couple of years after the album was released so that the song gets a ton of exposure or it's selected for an ad campaign.
A band starting out can't afford to value every song as if it's going to be a viral hit. And under that system someone else would just come along, buy the rights to the song once it got popular, and profit while the person who did all the work got very little with no ongoing royalties. It makes the current system look good.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation had a radio show (Background Briefing) that covered this exact topic. Very good program. http://www.abc.net.au/radionat...
How would you value a song? Would all songs be valued at the same rate? Would I have to pay property tax if I created a song on my own but never released it? How about if I just recorded it and gave it to family and friends? Or gave it away free on the Internet? (I'm thinking the equivalent of open source software.)
Alberta just put the royalties into general revenue and spent it. Now that the price of oil has collapsed they are facing a huge budget deficit and have nothing to show for it. (Well, some infrastructure may have been built that wouldn't have.)
Norway placed high royalties on their oil and invested it. I think their fund is the largest sovereign fund in the world. There is a budgetary rule that only 4% of the value of the fund could be taken out in a year to be used in their budget. So far the fund has always grown by more than 4% each year so it looks good for them.
The outright dismissals are most likely coming from the more experienced developers who have seen this promise at least once before during their career. Every so often someone, or a group, comes along with this silver bullet that promises to change how industry is going to work. It almost never does and it certainly won't overnight. If your manager comes in and says that a product or process will solve all the groups problems with development then your BS detector should be going off full tilt. There are no silver bullets. There are tools that can help your process. Nothing can fix everything.
As to this somehow writing the code as a byproduct. The best developers tend to be lazy. If there's something that they do repeatedly then they will find a way to automate it (even if it takes longer to do than the task itself). So if there was a way to generate code automatically or to create a language that would express what we want the computer to do more naturally then someone would probably have done it already as there would be a lot of money or fame for doing so.
The article talks about changing all the south facing windows in the office towers. It sounds great but in the city there's usually another tall building across the street blocking the sun so there's not much point in changing all of the windows. Maybe the ones near the top that does get the sun. I could see it being of more use in less dense areas but not in city centers.
Also nuclear power doesn't allow you to respond to fluctuating power demand. It's great for base load power requirements where you can set the output at a specific level and leave it running. But you can't just dial back the output by 10% or throttle it up by 5% with 5 minutes notice. For that type of flexibility you need hydroelectric (dams) or natural gas.
I've heard about this project a few times now and one of the big advantages about it being in the shelters is that they provide a constant temperature year round. There is actually quite a bit of money spent with a greenhouse to keep the temperature regulated.
And if you were just to plant gardens on rooftops then you are at the mercy of the weather and you can't grow during the winter, unless you install greenhouses. That is, of course, the building can take the weight of the gardens in the first place.
Why don't you crawl out from under that rock and actually try meeting some people?
The vast majority of people who practice the Islamic faith are good, honest, and peaceful. How about if I were to judge all Christians on the actions of the Antibalaka or the KKK?
Slashdot Mirror
If a license would make people more accountable and change their habits then we wouldn't need such large penalties for things like drinking and driving, not stopping for a school bus when it's flashing lights are on, or using a cell phone while driving. Ontario just increased the fine for the last one because people were still doing it. They were driving while using a cell phone when there was no fine, when there was a fine, and now when the fine has been increased. But according to your theory most of these people shouldn't be doing it because their licensed.
A few months back I saw a guy waiting at a red light. He wanted to turn right but he was behind a car that was going straight. Well, he got tired of waiting and drove up on the sidewalk and made his right turn. There weren't any pedestrians there so it was "safe" for him to do it. I think the only reason we see so many idiots on bikes and not on cars is that it's a lot easier to be an idiot on a bike.
See if anyone is giving away computers or selling them cheap on there. Or Kijiji (but that's more popular in Canada than the US).
They can still write up their papers on the computer at home and then use a USB drive to take it to school where they would do research, submit it electronically, or print it.
Maybe the US should just consider picking someone at random. Just write a program that takes all adults that meet the criteria for president (age, born in the US, etc) and select one. Can't be worse than what's going on now. And as a added bonus US carbon emissions will plummet since there won't be all of the campaigning.
A license wouldn't solve the problem. People are idiots on bikes because they can be idiots on bikes. There are little perceived consequences for not following the rules of the road so they don't follow them. You see this with cars too. Almost everybody goes 5 to 10 above the speed limit because almost nobody gets a ticket for doing so. There are some places where most people do rolling stops at the stop signs instead of proper stops.
There's already a mechanism to stop people for ignoring the rules. The same one that would be used if there was a license. The police. Bikes have to follow the rules of the road and if they don't then they get tickets. And I've heard of them getting tickets in my city. But it's just like the bad drivers, the police can't be everywhere and people wouldn't want to pay for enough people so that they would have enough time to hand out traffic tickets.
I was talking to someone who went to download a weather app for her Android phone and she was reading the terms before the download began. It wanted access to her photos so she didn't download it. Why the hell does a weather app need access to your photos? It didn't mention anything about using them as a background. I can't remember what one it was but it was one of the major weather apps.
By that logic there should be no bad car drivers on the road since every driver has a license. Most adult cyclists, at least in my city, have a drivers license and so they already know the rules for how they should behave but many are still idiots when they hop on the bike. The rules for bicycles are all included as part of the drivers handbook one studies in order to write the test for their license.
When I was in grade two or three they had bike safety lessons. I don't know if they still have them but they should.
Maybe it's because people are really bad at caring (wrong word but the right one is escaping me at the moment) for the consequences in the future. You see it when a person needs to lose weight or stop smoking in order to prevent bad health in the future, being unable to put money aside for a rainy day, or even in those tests that they give kids where they can have one candy now but two if they wait 20 minutes. We seem to be programmed to want the immediate satisfaction of a smoke, buying something, or a candy despite something better for us in the future.
So with climate change we feel we are being asked to make sacrifices, and sometimes there are, for benefits that might not even be in our lifetime or may not even happen to our area of the planet. Why should I drive less so that the ice in the Arctic doesn't melt in 35 years and flood some island half way around the world? If someone has a hard time stopping to buy their lunches in order to save for a new TV then it's going to be really hard for them to be motivated to drive less. (Not that I'm saying that's how you have to save the environment but that is how a lot of people think you have to.)
Great but the artists are still worse off than what they are under the current situation. I don't like how the big media companies are using the system and don't think that copyright should be as long as it is. I'd like to see it something like 20 years from date of publication. It would give the creator plenty of time to realize revenue from it while letting society benefit from it later on. The system worked fairly well until the lawmakers started jacking up the number of years to obscene levels.
And what happens when someone has to keep, or lower, the value of their work because they can't pay the taxes on it? Others will come in and buy the rights and profit from their efforts. Imagine an advertisement agency buying the rights to a song because it's cheaper than paying the royalties. Not only would they then not have to pay to use the song they would get paid if the song got popular. How exactly is that better than the current system? This may be fine for the more established musicians (authors, photographers, etc) but to those starting out or struggling to make a living doing the thing that they love it's going to hurt them.
Once it comes to human testing there are three stages. The first is with healthy people and they are given the medication in various doses to ensure that it isn't dangerous (or at least cause problems greater than what they expect). The second stage tests how effective the medication is. This is done in patients with the disease/ailment and in this stage they fine tune the dosages. The third stage is the one in which it compares the new medication with the best existing treatments, if possible, and a placebo treatment. If a drug or treatment offers little to no benefit then it won't be approved. However, the definition of providing benefit does seem to be pretty loose sometimes.
This may help in a private school where they have selected great, motivated teachers and all of the students are driven. They were going to do well without this tool anyways.
It's not going to make a difference in the classroom with an unmotivated teacher, the kids are doing their time, and the goal is to get the students to pass the standardized tests so that the school can get it's funding for another year. A lot of problems with education are societal and creating a dashboard doesn't deal with those. You need to create safe environments for the children with a parent/guardian who can provide the necessities without working three jobs. Then get teachers who are motivated, well trained, and well equipped. Then worry about stuff like this.
The buying sounds terrible. How is someone supposed to value a song not knowing what's going to happen to it in the future? When a band starts out they don't know what their breakout song will be or even if they will have one. If you look at the popularity of tracks on the albums at iTumes there's usually only one or two that are popular. A band isn't going to know which ones those are going to be ahead of time. And even if they could they couldn't predict how much they would sell. Then there's the completely unpredictable stuff such as getting your song on a major hit show a couple of years after the album was released so that the song gets a ton of exposure or it's selected for an ad campaign.
A band starting out can't afford to value every song as if it's going to be a viral hit. And under that system someone else would just come along, buy the rights to the song once it got popular, and profit while the person who did all the work got very little with no ongoing royalties. It makes the current system look good.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation had a radio show (Background Briefing) that covered this exact topic. Very good program. http://www.abc.net.au/radionat...
How would you value a song? Would all songs be valued at the same rate? Would I have to pay property tax if I created a song on my own but never released it? How about if I just recorded it and gave it to family and friends? Or gave it away free on the Internet? (I'm thinking the equivalent of open source software.)
Alberta just put the royalties into general revenue and spent it. Now that the price of oil has collapsed they are facing a huge budget deficit and have nothing to show for it. (Well, some infrastructure may have been built that wouldn't have.)
Norway placed high royalties on their oil and invested it. I think their fund is the largest sovereign fund in the world. There is a budgetary rule that only 4% of the value of the fund could be taken out in a year to be used in their budget. So far the fund has always grown by more than 4% each year so it looks good for them.
The outright dismissals are most likely coming from the more experienced developers who have seen this promise at least once before during their career. Every so often someone, or a group, comes along with this silver bullet that promises to change how industry is going to work. It almost never does and it certainly won't overnight. If your manager comes in and says that a product or process will solve all the groups problems with development then your BS detector should be going off full tilt. There are no silver bullets. There are tools that can help your process. Nothing can fix everything.
As to this somehow writing the code as a byproduct. The best developers tend to be lazy. If there's something that they do repeatedly then they will find a way to automate it (even if it takes longer to do than the task itself). So if there was a way to generate code automatically or to create a language that would express what we want the computer to do more naturally then someone would probably have done it already as there would be a lot of money or fame for doing so.
The article talks about changing all the south facing windows in the office towers. It sounds great but in the city there's usually another tall building across the street blocking the sun so there's not much point in changing all of the windows. Maybe the ones near the top that does get the sun. I could see it being of more use in less dense areas but not in city centers.
It's like Teflon which nothing sticks to it yet somehow manages to stick onto the pan. The same scientists made this stuff.
Also nuclear power doesn't allow you to respond to fluctuating power demand. It's great for base load power requirements where you can set the output at a specific level and leave it running. But you can't just dial back the output by 10% or throttle it up by 5% with 5 minutes notice. For that type of flexibility you need hydroelectric (dams) or natural gas.
If it would get flooded by a sea level rise then it would probably also get flooded by storm surges and some tides which would make it a flood plain.
I've heard about this project a few times now and one of the big advantages about it being in the shelters is that they provide a constant temperature year round. There is actually quite a bit of money spent with a greenhouse to keep the temperature regulated.
And if you were just to plant gardens on rooftops then you are at the mercy of the weather and you can't grow during the winter, unless you install greenhouses. That is, of course, the building can take the weight of the gardens in the first place.
Why don't you crawl out from under that rock and actually try meeting some people?
The vast majority of people who practice the Islamic faith are good, honest, and peaceful. How about if I were to judge all Christians on the actions of the Antibalaka or the KKK?
I carbon dated that book and found it was written before Josh McDowell was born.
We'll all be walking around with one in our smartphones.