There doesn't have to be a good reason - the human body is littered with such "design faults". The thing is - once a solution works well enough it becomes difficult to evolve an even better solution which is far apart from the existing one. For example, one day you might have mutated offspring who is able to produce sperm at room temperature. What's his evolutionary advantage? Nothing because his balls are already out receiving sufficient cooling. And while that requires a huge step already, it would take another huge one, in which his offsprings balls don't drop. Only then a very slight evolutionary advantage would appear. The advantage would be even smaller since we usually don't like sexual partners who are looking "wierd" or defective, and we have already adapted our environment to protect our balls by wearing clothes.
Evolution doesn't give us the best possible solution, just one which was "good enough" at some point in time. As a result we have spines which hurt, wrists which break easily when we try to protect us from a fall, women who become infertile long before they would lose the strength to carry a child, etc.
It's more of a taboo to make fun of dead females. Same with domestic abuse and sexual violations. That's not owed to feminism btw - it was like that long before feminism has appeared, it just stuck around.
China will lash out with wounded national pride, as they seem wont to do.
China's "lashing out with wounded national pride" is actually typically limited to press releases, slightly delaying contracts, complaints to ambassadors. Very rarely does it actually impact political or economical relations. The Chinese government is well aware that for the time being it needs the West a lot more than the other way round.
There were many countries which were important at one point or another - Italy, Egypt, India... Past results are no indicator of future performance - maybe they will become a powerhouse in the near future that's a possibility. There not _yet_ a powerhouse, however - according to the CIA worldbook they rank at place 106 for GDP per head at just $6000/year. That's on the same level as Albania, way behind Columbia ($9200) and Cuba ($9500) just over a third of that of Poland ($17,400) about 1/5th of that of Taiwan (31,100) about an 1/8th of that of the US (47500). The average Chinese citizen is poor as dirt, on average China is a backwards and badly-run country. Certainly - their absolute GDP is huge (over half of that of the US) and that gives them the potential for huge growth. Theoretically. However they need to sustain their growth long enough to increase their GDP roughly fivefold before they reach the level of wealth which a developed country achieves. If we assume that they can sustain a 10% growth rate, that should still take around 17 years, discounting the fact that by that time everybody else will have increased their GDP as well. And 17 years of 10% growth is not a realistic assumption by a long stretch.
Sure it won't do to underestimate China, but it also doesn't make sense to accept their own sense of importance as fact.
They are not the only party to blame - from TFA: "With regard to the Kindle DX, it can read books aloud, but a blind person cannot independently select a book, start the read-aloud function, or navigate within the book, among other things," he added. "In other words, a blind student could only really use the device with the assistance of a sighted person." So currently the device is unsuitable for blind students - Amazon can address that part of the problem.
They are doing it, too - an update is planned for mid-2010 according to Amazon. The universities have agreed not to purchase, recommend or promote the Kindle until the update is in place.
They also have to measure risk - by operating in China they are more exposed to China accessing their trade secrets and internal databases. Another Chinese company could be formed which competes with Google (at least in the Chinese market) and essentially they end up having paid for that. Here is an article which outlines many of the risks manufacturers run when operating in China: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2009/12/27/2003461989
I don't think what China is doing is necessarily immoral - many countries have e.g. ignored others' patent and copyright claims as long as it was to their advantage. The US has done so as long as ignoring that was to their benefit - they only changed their tune once they became the innovators. By the same token: while this may not be a moral issue, it's still something companies need to take into account. If manufacturing in China is not to your company's benefit then you shouldn't do it, and to evaluate the risk you need to be aware that manufacturing in China has different implications than manufacturing in the Republic of Czech.
According to TFA the child porn angle was brought up via Terri Dowty of "Action for Rights of Children". There are separate complaints from civil liberties groups regarding the invasion of privacy.
[...] all the fat people or people with nasty genitalia don't want stand in one of these machines.
And that's a perfectly reasonable wish for them to have.
The Guardian is not making the complaint, it's reporting on it. And it's not just reporting on a complaint - it's reporting on a complaint which the government has reacted to by exempting people under 18 during the trials of the scanners. There is no way a responsible newspaper could not report on these events.
And while you think the topic should be easy to decide (and I would concur there is no way in hell this qualifies as CP) - the department of transport doesn't think so, and the Manchester airport doesn't think so. Quite possibly because they are aware that CP laws have long lost all touch with common sense. Regardless what you think of that: it's news.
Better not. Godwin's law is just a monument to the failure of Usenet to evolve. It's used solely to avoid valid comparisons and is useless otherwise. It does not prevent discussions derailing, just adds useless "Godwin's law" discussions to the threads.
Anyway it's something the Nazis would do. (Thanks, I'm here all week...)
I have nothing against nudism, but wearing clothes is something humans have done for a long time - for 70000 years according to this. So arguably wearing clothes is as natural for humans as using tools.
Well the "within the industry part" is nonsense, beyond that - yes the boss could be vindictive, but you are still better off unemployed than being sued for divulging trade secrets *and* employed.
That's correct, however one side has almost every credible organization of scientists on it (list), the other has a writer of thrillers, some blogs and lobbyists. There are five organizations which are considered to be on the fence (see the same page), but even there you find not one which actually issued a statement that it thinks climate change is not occurring. There is no scientific controversy about global warming, only a political one.
As for the impact on humanity - the temperature rising a few degrees is the prediction for the "good" scenario - i.e. what's expected to happen if we do act and reduce carbon emissions significantly and swiftly. It's nice if you think that's not so bad, but that's irrelevant. When deciding whether to tackle climate change you need to go with the bad scenario - i.e. what's expected to happen if we don't act, emissions continue to rise and temperature changes dramatically.
And be immediately terminated for refusal to follow order/insubordination.
Look I'm sorry - but don't be such a wimp. Only the most psychopathic of bosses would lay off an effective employee because he refuses do engage in something shady like that. However if you have such a boss, then getting laid off is still better than facing trial some time down the road.
Hmmm - could they just smuggle explosives the way drugs are often smuggled - i.e. put them into a condom swallow it and... uhm... retrieve later when on the toilet? Are plastic explosives flexible enough for that?
I don't completely disagree, but that is not the only alternative. Other countries have fixed formulas for calculating the lawyers fees for example. (Roughly: x hourly fee based on value of the lawsuit.) Using this you'd avoid giving the lawyer such a huge share of the settlement, but still compensate them fairly. (Good lawyers are more likely to get the high value cases, after all.) There are lots of legal systems in the world, and while the US system is certainly not the worst, there is considerable room for improvement.
That's true, but we are now leaving the area of "defence against pirates" and entering instead "being pirates" territory. The topic I think was more about using market forces to eliminate pirates, not so much about creating better more efficient pirates.
I do admit: that transition is not without precedent...
They won't do it because of regulation, but because of the prisoner's dilemma.
It doesn't make sense for a single shipping company to raise an army and pay for the pirates to be killed. Their own costs would go up, while competing companies would get the same benefit and not share the cost. So as a result none of the companies will do anything to improve the overall situation.
They can overcome this problem by cooperating - creating a common organization which organizes the army and having each company pay part of the cost - e.g. by charging a fee for the passage through Somali waters, depending on the amount of goods you are transporting. Of course you could then call the fee "tax" and the "common organization which organizes the army and collects the tax" could be named "state" in short.
The US has contributed a lot to the UN declaration to human rights (it was mainly written by US citizens) but hasn't actually ratified it. So those are rights of other people not US citizens. Some of these are implemented in state constitutions though.
Slashdot Mirror
Evolution doesn't give us the best possible solution, just one which was "good enough" at some point in time. As a result we have spines which hurt, wrists which break easily when we try to protect us from a fall, women who become infertile long before they would lose the strength to carry a child, etc.
It's more of a taboo to make fun of dead females. Same with domestic abuse and sexual violations. That's not owed to feminism btw - it was like that long before feminism has appeared, it just stuck around.
China's "lashing out with wounded national pride" is actually typically limited to press releases, slightly delaying contracts, complaints to ambassadors. Very rarely does it actually impact political or economical relations. The Chinese government is well aware that for the time being it needs the West a lot more than the other way round.
Sure it won't do to underestimate China, but it also doesn't make sense to accept their own sense of importance as fact.
Perhaps the server in question wasn't a Chinese machine, just a random machine they hacked and used to attack google's Network.
They are doing it, too - an update is planned for mid-2010 according to Amazon. The universities have agreed not to purchase, recommend or promote the Kindle until the update is in place.
I don't think what China is doing is necessarily immoral - many countries have e.g. ignored others' patent and copyright claims as long as it was to their advantage. The US has done so as long as ignoring that was to their benefit - they only changed their tune once they became the innovators. By the same token: while this may not be a moral issue, it's still something companies need to take into account. If manufacturing in China is not to your company's benefit then you shouldn't do it, and to evaluate the risk you need to be aware that manufacturing in China has different implications than manufacturing in the Republic of Czech.
That's why it's a good comparison - the Aztec images were not created by Mexicans either.
That's peanuts though: Germany could declare the nazis to be their cultural heritage. About 90% of Hollywood movies might be affected...
[...] all the fat people or people with nasty genitalia don't want stand in one of these machines.
And that's a perfectly reasonable wish for them to have.
And while you think the topic should be easy to decide (and I would concur there is no way in hell this qualifies as CP) - the department of transport doesn't think so, and the Manchester airport doesn't think so. Quite possibly because they are aware that CP laws have long lost all touch with common sense. Regardless what you think of that: it's news.
Anyway it's something the Nazis would do. (Thanks, I'm here all week ...)
I have nothing against nudism, but wearing clothes is something humans have done for a long time - for 70000 years according to this. So arguably wearing clothes is as natural for humans as using tools.
Well the "within the industry part" is nonsense, beyond that - yes the boss could be vindictive, but you are still better off unemployed than being sued for divulging trade secrets *and* employed.
That's correct, however one side has almost every credible organization of scientists on it (list), the other has a writer of thrillers, some blogs and lobbyists. There are five organizations which are considered to be on the fence (see the same page), but even there you find not one which actually issued a statement that it thinks climate change is not occurring. There is no scientific controversy about global warming, only a political one.
As for the impact on humanity - the temperature rising a few degrees is the prediction for the "good" scenario - i.e. what's expected to happen if we do act and reduce carbon emissions significantly and swiftly. It's nice if you think that's not so bad, but that's irrelevant. When deciding whether to tackle climate change you need to go with the bad scenario - i.e. what's expected to happen if we don't act, emissions continue to rise and temperature changes dramatically.
Look I'm sorry - but don't be such a wimp. Only the most psychopathic of bosses would lay off an effective employee because he refuses do engage in something shady like that. However if you have such a boss, then getting laid off is still better than facing trial some time down the road.
I think you could do the same you do anywhere with fire exits: have additional doors which trigger an alarm when opened.
So I presume the terrorists are bringing a bomb to the undressing area?
Drug mules don't draw the line at that, so it's save to assume terrorists won't either.
Hmmm - could they just smuggle explosives the way drugs are often smuggled - i.e. put them into a condom swallow it and ... uhm ... retrieve later when on the toilet? Are plastic explosives flexible enough for that?
I don't completely disagree, but that is not the only alternative. Other countries have fixed formulas for calculating the lawyers fees for example. (Roughly: x hourly fee based on value of the lawsuit.) Using this you'd avoid giving the lawyer such a huge share of the settlement, but still compensate them fairly. (Good lawyers are more likely to get the high value cases, after all.) There are lots of legal systems in the world, and while the US system is certainly not the worst, there is considerable room for improvement.
Well the internet is very much a creation of a bunch of academics with state funding, so lets not stereotype so much.
I do admit: that transition is not without precedent ...
It doesn't make sense for a single shipping company to raise an army and pay for the pirates to be killed. Their own costs would go up, while competing companies would get the same benefit and not share the cost. So as a result none of the companies will do anything to improve the overall situation.
They can overcome this problem by cooperating - creating a common organization which organizes the army and having each company pay part of the cost - e.g. by charging a fee for the passage through Somali waters, depending on the amount of goods you are transporting. Of course you could then call the fee "tax" and the "common organization which organizes the army and collects the tax" could be named "state" in short.
The US has contributed a lot to the UN declaration to human rights (it was mainly written by US citizens) but hasn't actually ratified it. So those are rights of other people not US citizens. Some of these are implemented in state constitutions though.