Do you have a link to either of those groups turning kids into suicide bombers? Specifically suicide bomber outside of the immediate threat of their nation?
no? didn't think so.
Because if it never happened before, it can never happen in the future, right?
Look, it's seem pretty obvious that this situation was handled very poorly. However, exempting certain groups from screening doesn't make much sense. Invasive pat-downs of toddlers make as much sense as letting everyone through without even a scan. In this case the obvious answer was to make the child go through the metal detector again.
This seems like a silly application for such research though.
Well, the clinical test of most scientific research probably doesn't align very closely with actual real world applications, drug trials being a notable exception. Here they have devised a simple method to test the accuracy of their brain-wave predicting process. It's hard to predict where this could be used in the real world, though some sort of information feedback system for high-stress/high reaction time situations could be possible. For example, the plane that crashed in upstate New York a few years ago crashed because the pilot did the opposite of what he should have done when stalling. Having a computer anticipate his action* and then give feedback** could have averted the disaster.
*Anticipating actions is a long way from anticipating an answer on a (multiple choice?) test. **Knowing the "right" answer in something as complicated as flying a plane in inclement whether is further still.
This research is giving us a better understanding of the most complex computer we know, and the most important organ in our body. This deeper understanding will pay off in ways we don't understand yet.
Well, there's the rub. Most of Warren Buffett's income is from investments, which are taxed at capital gains rates instead of income tax. Now, we COULD jack up the rates on investment income, but then you start squeezing the retirement savings of pretty much all of middle-class america who has a 401k or 403b - those are (will be) taxed as investment income when you start drawing down your retirement.
No, 401(k) income is taxed as regular income when you withdraw it (assuming you don't withdraw early in which case you pay additional penalties). But given that Cap Gain rates are lower than income tax rates (and likely will remain so for the foreseeable future), most people would welcome the scenario you suggest.
If you are really smart, and make less than ~$100k, you would put in the maximum you can into a Roth IRA so that you pay the income tax up front and get your withdrawals tax free - you get to avoid all taxes on any gains your Roth investments make over then next 10-40 years.
One percent of taxpayers reported almost 17% of all taxable income. But that same tiny group also kicked in 37% of all the taxes paid.
1% of the population is only paying 37% of the total income tax revenue collected by the government. Clearly they're parasites
The problem with your argument is that "taxable income" is defined as income subject to income tax. It does not include income from capital gains or investments. If you included that income into the total, you would find that the "income" break point to enter the top 1% is considerably higher than ~$350k, and that they "earn" considerably more than 17% of total income.
Also, a more appropriate measure for this resource inequality discussion is probably wealth, and the numbers for wealth inequality are much more skewed.
The Times had estimated the threshold for being in the top 1 percent in household income at about $380,000, 7.5 times median household income, using census data from 2008 through 2010. But for net worth, the 1 percent threshold for net worth in the Fed data was nearly $8.4 million, or 69 times the median household’s net holdings of $121,000.
perhaps you could even automate handling of FOIA requests for the automation of FOIA request requests, which in turn handles automation of FOIA requests for the automated grant handler...
A SharePoint workflow might be able to handle that.
Television, probably not... but I don't think there are really any laws that would prevent you from setting up a LAN for your community via just one connection, are there?
Probably not. Then again, legislatures have typically lagged 5-10 years behind technology.
Sure, that's how they'll pitch it at first. Pretty soon, you will have to buy a license which grants you a temporary right to turn on the engine. It will be more expensive for the 24/7 license, but if you only need to drive between 6am and 6pm you can get the "daylight" license.
The company is worth less today than it was yesterday, and Microsoft is worth more.
How do you figure? You must be reaching the conclusion that the future value of those patents exceed the present value of $1 billion for AOL. Microsoft reached a similar, but different conclusion that the future value of those patents exceeded the present value of $1 billion for Microsoft. They quoted exec even says that these 800 patents "complement" MS's existing patents, so it's quite possible that both companies are worth more after this transaction. Indeed, that is one of the key underpinnings of transactional economics which you don't seem to understand. Both companies freely entered into the agreement based on the belief that they are better off for it. Now, it's possible that the people who made the decisions are wrong (either through corruption or ineptitude), but I don't think that is likely. It's more likely that AOL realizes that it can put $1 billion to better use (e.g. by expanding it's content empire) than those patents.
I have. An emergency brake will slow you down and bring you to a stop safely.
Do modern emergency/parking brakes have anti-lock built in? I don't think so, but I'm not sure. I wouldn't argue that an emergency brake will slow and stop you safely, but I agree that lacking your normal brakes, something is better than nothing.
Still, I wonder how long it will take car manufacturers to adopt the pricing strategies of game and other software companies.
Walk off the lot for $20k. Oh, you want navigation and back up cameras? That's another $1500. Oh, you want updated maps? $100 per year. The auto transmission control upgrade that will improve your fuel efficiency? $25. Oh, and we'll be releasing a new one every quarter. ABS upgrade? $5/month to stay current. Etc. etc.
I don't think so. Cake slicing problems (aka dividing fairly) have nothing to do with efficiency (aka allocating according to preferences). One has a global utility function, and the other has multiple individual utility functions.
Are you saying that "allocating according to preferences" uses a global utility function? Because the whole point of the cake cutting problem is that each participant has different utility functions.
In response to the person above who said this had already been solved, the asynchronous solution is the the new piece I believe.
Seriously? You don't have a weather app on your mobile device? Or a bookmark to weather.com on your computer? You'd rather wait until some unspecified 3 minute segment of a 30 min broadcast that is filled with ads to get your weather report? I know the weather girls are usually hot, but if you're getting the internet already....
Don't get me wrong I still get the occasional stutter (much worse on my PS3) but overall I'm lovin' it.
What kind of bandwidth do you guys have? I watch my Netflix content through Wii, Roku, PS3 and a Sony IPTV. The only times I get significant stutters or repeated caching screens is either when we are trying to watch on multiple screens (in which case it will usually just give a network failure), or between 9 and 11 at night (in which case I suspect my ISP of throttling). I have basic Time Warner broadband, so ~5-7 Mbps.
There isn't a single hard drive that ABSOLUTELY CANNOT contain child pornography; they are all physically capable of containing the assorted 0s and 1s.
All my computers are full of CP. It's just that the bits are in the wrong order.
And so could Google. Viacom's market capitalisation is $27B, with a turnover of about $15B. Google currently has about $30B in liquid assets. If Google, Apple, and a few other companies got together they could easily provide $10-20B to a fund that would finance freely redistributable films.
Why would they do this? What's the business model? How are they going to make back their money? You don't expect them to simply throw $10-20B out the window, do you?
I'm honestly surprised that NetFlix, Hulu, Amazon, etc haven't picked up the concept and put together an exclusive show for their platform
Netflix has. They financed "Lillyhammer" starring Steven Van Zandt (from Sopranos). He play a (surprise) mafioso who goes into witness protection and relocates to Lillyhammer, Norway. I watched the first episode. Not too bad, but it's been a couple weeks and I haven't gone back for more, so it's clear that it's not near the top of my list.
"Serving poor people is not an excuse for failing to upgrade your technology".
Yes it is an excuse when you fail to actually think about what you are talking about, and put a huge extra burden on the poor because of your rather stupid assumptions.
If we can afford to give poor students free breakfast and/or lunch, we can certainly afford to give them free internet access. Say a meal costs $0.50 per student, and there are 2 students per (poor) household. Total cost for free lunch is $20 per month. You can get internet access for that, especially with the backing of the government as the purchaser.
We shouldn't disregard potential solutions or improvements simply because there are (legitimate) obstacles. Instead we should look for ways to overcome those obstacles.
If you have 2 systems, then you're doubling the workload of the teachers since now they have to manage notices using 2 systems. I don't know where you go to school, but in many public schools, there are more than just a "few" students who either can't afford home internet, or whose parents are not computer literate.
According to this site, 77% of the US had internet access in 2010. It's hard to say how that translates to school kids, but a significant part of that 23% without access is probably the elderly. A lot of poor parents are illiterate (not nearly 23%, but there are some, especially among non-native speakers), yet we expect them to read the written missives from parents.
I get the argument that transitioning to an electronic based reporting and communication system is difficult with out near 100% uptake on the part of the users (read: parents), but it's something that definitely needs to be done. If the obstruction is lack of access, then we should be devoting resources to ensuring that the poor can get affordable or free access. If we can give free breakfast/lunch to poor kids, we should give them free internet. It would arguably do as much as better nutrition to help their education.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have a link to either of those groups turning kids into suicide bombers?
Specifically suicide bomber outside of the immediate threat of their nation?
no? didn't think so.
Because if it never happened before, it can never happen in the future, right?
Look, it's seem pretty obvious that this situation was handled very poorly. However, exempting certain groups from screening doesn't make much sense. Invasive pat-downs of toddlers make as much sense as letting everyone through without even a scan. In this case the obvious answer was to make the child go through the metal detector again.
This seems like a silly application for such research though.
Well, the clinical test of most scientific research probably doesn't align very closely with actual real world applications, drug trials being a notable exception. Here they have devised a simple method to test the accuracy of their brain-wave predicting process. It's hard to predict where this could be used in the real world, though some sort of information feedback system for high-stress/high reaction time situations could be possible. For example, the plane that crashed in upstate New York a few years ago crashed because the pilot did the opposite of what he should have done when stalling. Having a computer anticipate his action* and then give feedback** could have averted the disaster.
*Anticipating actions is a long way from anticipating an answer on a (multiple choice?) test.
**Knowing the "right" answer in something as complicated as flying a plane in inclement whether is further still.
This research is giving us a better understanding of the most complex computer we know, and the most important organ in our body. This deeper understanding will pay off in ways we don't understand yet.
A test in which you score 100% or 0% is worthless.
Well, there's the rub. Most of Warren Buffett's income is from investments, which are taxed at capital gains rates instead of income tax. Now, we COULD jack up the rates on investment income, but then you start squeezing the retirement savings of pretty much all of middle-class america who has a 401k or 403b - those are (will be) taxed as investment income when you start drawing down your retirement.
No, 401(k) income is taxed as regular income when you withdraw it (assuming you don't withdraw early in which case you pay additional penalties). But given that Cap Gain rates are lower than income tax rates (and likely will remain so for the foreseeable future), most people would welcome the scenario you suggest.
If you are really smart, and make less than ~$100k, you would put in the maximum you can into a Roth IRA so that you pay the income tax up front and get your withdrawals tax free - you get to avoid all taxes on any gains your Roth investments make over then next 10-40 years.
One percent of taxpayers reported almost 17% of all taxable income. But that same tiny group also kicked in 37% of all the taxes paid.
1% of the population is only paying 37% of the total income tax revenue collected by the government. Clearly they're parasites
The problem with your argument is that "taxable income" is defined as income subject to income tax. It does not include income from capital gains or investments. If you included that income into the total, you would find that the "income" break point to enter the top 1% is considerably higher than ~$350k, and that they "earn" considerably more than 17% of total income.
Also, a more appropriate measure for this resource inequality discussion is probably wealth, and the numbers for wealth inequality are much more skewed.
The Times had estimated the threshold for being in the top 1 percent in household income at about $380,000, 7.5 times median household income, using census data from 2008 through 2010. But for net worth, the 1 percent threshold for net worth in the Fed data was nearly $8.4 million, or 69 times the median household’s net holdings of $121,000.
perhaps you could even automate handling of FOIA requests for the automation of FOIA request requests, which in turn handles automation of FOIA requests for the automated grant handler...
A SharePoint workflow might be able to handle that.
The cloud is a bubble
The cloud isn't so much a bubble as a collection of millions of tiny bubbles, all jostling around.
Television, probably not... but I don't think there are really any laws that would prevent you from setting up a LAN for your community via just one connection, are there?
Probably not. Then again, legislatures have typically lagged 5-10 years behind technology.
Sure, that's how they'll pitch it at first. Pretty soon, you will have to buy a license which grants you a temporary right to turn on the engine. It will be more expensive for the 24/7 license, but if you only need to drive between 6am and 6pm you can get the "daylight" license.
The company is worth less today than it was yesterday, and Microsoft is worth more.
How do you figure? You must be reaching the conclusion that the future value of those patents exceed the present value of $1 billion for AOL. Microsoft reached a similar, but different conclusion that the future value of those patents exceeded the present value of $1 billion for Microsoft. They quoted exec even says that these 800 patents "complement" MS's existing patents, so it's quite possible that both companies are worth more after this transaction. Indeed, that is one of the key underpinnings of transactional economics which you don't seem to understand. Both companies freely entered into the agreement based on the belief that they are better off for it. Now, it's possible that the people who made the decisions are wrong (either through corruption or ineptitude), but I don't think that is likely. It's more likely that AOL realizes that it can put $1 billion to better use (e.g. by expanding it's content empire) than those patents.
I have. An emergency brake will slow you down and bring you to a stop safely.
Do modern emergency/parking brakes have anti-lock built in? I don't think so, but I'm not sure. I wouldn't argue that an emergency brake will slow and stop you safely, but I agree that lacking your normal brakes, something is better than nothing.
Still, I wonder how long it will take car manufacturers to adopt the pricing strategies of game and other software companies.
Walk off the lot for $20k. Oh, you want navigation and back up cameras? That's another $1500. Oh, you want updated maps? $100 per year. The auto transmission control upgrade that will improve your fuel efficiency? $25. Oh, and we'll be releasing a new one every quarter. ABS upgrade? $5/month to stay current. Etc. etc.
I don't think so. Cake slicing problems (aka dividing fairly) have nothing to do with efficiency (aka allocating according to preferences). One has a global utility function, and the other has multiple individual utility functions.
Are you saying that "allocating according to preferences" uses a global utility function? Because the whole point of the cake cutting problem is that each participant has different utility functions.
In response to the person above who said this had already been solved, the asynchronous solution is the the new piece I believe.
Censorship is telling a man that he can't eat a steak because a baby can't chew it.
Chew dat.
weather being most important, its all good.
Seriously? You don't have a weather app on your mobile device? Or a bookmark to weather.com on your computer? You'd rather wait until some unspecified 3 minute segment of a 30 min broadcast that is filled with ads to get your weather report? I know the weather girls are usually hot, but if you're getting the internet already....
But only one title to fill it. ;)
Don't get me wrong I still get the occasional stutter (much worse on my PS3) but overall I'm lovin' it.
What kind of bandwidth do you guys have? I watch my Netflix content through Wii, Roku, PS3 and a Sony IPTV. The only times I get significant stutters or repeated caching screens is either when we are trying to watch on multiple screens (in which case it will usually just give a network failure), or between 9 and 11 at night (in which case I suspect my ISP of throttling). I have basic Time Warner broadband, so ~5-7 Mbps.
It showed up in the New Releases section (on my Roku) which I peruse once a week or so. They don't make a deal about it being Netflix-financed though.
There isn't a single hard drive that ABSOLUTELY CANNOT contain child pornography; they are all physically capable of containing the assorted 0s and 1s.
All my computers are full of CP. It's just that the bits are in the wrong order.
I'm sure I can lose a file even with multiple backups.
You're doing it wrong.
And so could Google. Viacom's market capitalisation is $27B, with a turnover of about $15B. Google currently has about $30B in liquid assets. If Google, Apple, and a few other companies got together they could easily provide $10-20B to a fund that would finance freely redistributable films.
Why would they do this? What's the business model? How are they going to make back their money? You don't expect them to simply throw $10-20B out the window, do you?
I'm honestly surprised that NetFlix, Hulu, Amazon, etc haven't picked up the concept and put together an exclusive show for their platform
Netflix has. They financed "Lillyhammer" starring Steven Van Zandt (from Sopranos). He play a (surprise) mafioso who goes into witness protection and relocates to Lillyhammer, Norway. I watched the first episode. Not too bad, but it's been a couple weeks and I haven't gone back for more, so it's clear that it's not near the top of my list.
A deadly weapon, yes, but then who is going to jaywalk with a revolver up his ass?
Someone who wants to smuggle a weapon into jail.
"Serving poor people is not an excuse for failing to upgrade your technology".
Yes it is an excuse when you fail to actually think about what you are talking about, and put a huge extra burden on the poor because of your rather stupid assumptions.
If we can afford to give poor students free breakfast and/or lunch, we can certainly afford to give them free internet access. Say a meal costs $0.50 per student, and there are 2 students per (poor) household. Total cost for free lunch is $20 per month. You can get internet access for that, especially with the backing of the government as the purchaser.
We shouldn't disregard potential solutions or improvements simply because there are (legitimate) obstacles. Instead we should look for ways to overcome those obstacles.
If you have 2 systems, then you're doubling the workload of the teachers since now they have to manage notices using 2 systems. I don't know where you go to school, but in many public schools, there are more than just a "few" students who either can't afford home internet, or whose parents are not computer literate.
According to this site, 77% of the US had internet access in 2010. It's hard to say how that translates to school kids, but a significant part of that 23% without access is probably the elderly. A lot of poor parents are illiterate (not nearly 23%, but there are some, especially among non-native speakers), yet we expect them to read the written missives from parents.
I get the argument that transitioning to an electronic based reporting and communication system is difficult with out near 100% uptake on the part of the users (read: parents), but it's something that definitely needs to be done. If the obstruction is lack of access, then we should be devoting resources to ensuring that the poor can get affordable or free access. If we can give free breakfast/lunch to poor kids, we should give them free internet. It would arguably do as much as better nutrition to help their education.