Every seat in congress is "winner takes all". It does not really help that there are hundreds of seats, you still need to be first past the post in a district.
So even if 20% of the US population supported a certain point of view, they would only be represented if they happened to be concentrated by location. (e.g. 1% of pop thinks Hawaii is important, they get represented, 3% are green, they don't cause they're spread geographically)
Easily removed is going to defeat at least one of the reasons for having them. Though i can't see any reason they can't take them out / neutralise them at the check-out like they do with other theft-prevention devices these days...
>"Oh, dear...they can't reintroduce Selective >Availibility...let's pass a UN resolution >against it! Oh, wait, I forgot, we Europeans >decided it's OK to flagrantly violate UN >resolutions you don't agree with."
hey? The one thing almost no-one argues with in the whole Iraq process is that the Security council has NOT authorised a military strike.
It is the US that first said even if a motion wasn't pass due to a veto, they'd still have moral authority from a majority voting for it (wonder what the administration would do if the russians or chinese said the same about a us veto). And now they realised they won't even get a simple majority, they just ignored the UN...
Anyway, not saying whether the war is right or wrong, but ignoring the UN is what the US are doing at the moment, not europe.
> one end doesn't know what the other end is doing. > The end is near.
Can't see how that follows, surely if one end doesn't know what the other is doing, they must be a long long way from each other. Chances are you're somewhere in the middle... so the end is far!
> So in cases where Microsoft speaks against Microsoft, > their word is absolutely correct, but when Microsoft speaks for Microsoft, > nothing can be trusted?
you got it... When the defendent admits a crime the jury almost certainly will believe it, if he denies it this is not the case.
> Why in the world don't they just make the roads bigger?
Somehow that reminds me of the infamous Marie Antoinette quote "Let them eat cake". The whole problem is that there is *no* space left in london to make roads bigger and wider. As for sprawl, commuters already live as far as 1-2 hours train car/train journey away. I think anywhere short of tearing down the whole city and rebuilding it US style (and I have to say I much prefer the crowded London over the endless sprawl of LA) the only solution is to get people on public transport.
Charging a fee for a rare good (space on roads in this case) is something that should be very natural to capitatlists around the world, yet many countries such as the US or Germany (or Britain in fact) see the free use of roads as a divine right no-one should interfere with (while at the same time complaining about large governments and tax..).
If I am not completely mistaken the practice of unsolicited telephone marketing is illegal in Germany, I have never received any call trying to sell me anything...
The only people that call do "market research" and that's annoying enough, but it seems to always have been genuine, I was never offered anything to buy..
This seems particularly rude considering the appeals court was not even unanimous in its verdict (2:1) so not only do they call the original jury a bunch of idiots, but also their fellow appeals court judge...
Considering the US governemnts current popularity in most parts of the world, there is nothing like them pushing MS products to get others to move to OSS.
> Oh, what I've found, they are very qualified, but like the holiday more than work, so any yank > is worth 2 brits just because the yank works harder (being equally educated that is)
I think that goes for most of Europe and is the primary reason i wouldn't like to work in the US. Believe it or not, for some people life is not solely about work... I'd rather have some time to spend my money...
> There's nothing troll about this comment, it's the truth. Universities are money making > institutions first and foremost, if you don't believe it then you haven't attended one
While this might be true in the US (i wouldn't know), it certainly isn't in Europe. University staff are vastly underpaid compared to equivalent industry positions, and the only reason they can be kept at university is that there is a certain amount of idealism still there. The lack of university fees (or a fixed sum of 1k pounds in the UK) is another factor that stops universities from becoming mere money-making institutions.
Don't get me wrong. They're extremely inefficient (being run by committees of acadmics) and you probably get an equally good education in the US, but I do think that european universities are not primarily about money...
The point is that the instant run-off system you propose does not fulfill both these conditions in all possible outcomes either. Finding one example where it works is not a proof:). If you want a counter example:
Voters voting Nader > Gore > Bush: 30 Voters voting Gore > Nader > Bush: 15 Voters voting Gore > Bush > Nader: 10 Voters voting Bush > Gore > Nader: 45
now include 2nd preferences: Bush: 55 Nader: 45 -> Bush wins
BUT 55% preferred Gore over Bush. In this case we have the situation where a majority prefer Nader over Gore.
Re:don't mean to be a pessimist, but...
on
Pipeline Mass Transit?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
> You'll never keep a vaccum with this.
I don't think it's that much of a problem. For a start we're not talking about the kind of vaccuum nuclear physicsts need. Get it down to 10% of outside pressure and you'll have gone a long way towards reducing friction. Stick a slow pump in every couple of hundreds of meters and you can cope with some leakage very easily. And after all, nuclear physicists have shown us that you can keep an extreme vaccuum in kilometer long tubes..
> There's no way to overcome the problems
is always a dangerous thing to say.
Now I don't think I'm going to see this technology happen in my lifetime, but I don't think it's as impossible as you say.
The debate was not about whether file-sharing was legal or illegal, or even whether it would hurt the profits of the big music labels. The debate was about whether it is "a threat to the future of music".
The music industry seemed to argue that without the current system, there would be no music or at the very least no creative/exciting/new music. I am certain that this is not so.
Even the assertion that one cannot earn money with music in an mp3-sharing world is hard to swallow, considering the amount of people happy to spend 100s of dollars for rock concerts etc., the only thing that might be in danger is the current business model of the big music labels...
> Now, which action is hate. To wish a human baby has the same rights you do, or to celebrate > the fact that a woman can murder her own child? WHICH IS REALLY THE HATE HERE?
If that was all that all "pro-life" groups did, there would not be an argument. If they go round advocating the murder of doctors, that *is* hate. Just like wanting a free palestine is legitimate, but blowing up israelis is terrorism.
Have a look at the site. If that is not hate-speech, i don't know what is. Some things I read on extremist christian sites (have a look at tencommandments.org) made me feel actually sick, including suggesting the murder of all non-believers as a solution to world hunger, implicitly or explicitly condoning murder of doctors, homosexuals etc. not even speaking of generally insulting individuals and groups or religions that happen not to share their views. In my view this is hate-speech and asks people to commit crimes.
Some countries have different definitions of where the right to free speech ends, for example when it urges people to commit crimes.
In germany there would be not much controversy about censoring a magazine or group that wanted to glorify and re-instate a nazi-regime / get rid of all non-christians / foreigners /... particularly when it includes calls to direct action.
Anyway, different countries have different standards, google.de is registered in Germany, so it has to comply with its laws, Germany is a democracy, so if people get upset, they can vote in a new government that will repeal them.
I'm not saying i agree with their methods, but how exactly is it going to be disastrous for China in the long run? No-one would buy this software there at full price as it's simply not affordable. With the pirated versions people gain knowledge and skills that can get them jobs everywhere in the world! And it advances Chinas computer industry, so until the US lays a boycot on them for lack of copy-right prevention it'll do nothing but good for the country, seeing it doesn't loose any profit itself
> That raises another point, actually. It hasn't been proven that the "perfect chess game" doesn't exist.
Indeed it can be proven that a "perfect chess game" does exist. In fact it is quite obvious that it does. Chess is a finite problem (due to rules about repeating a position 3 times being considered a draw). The question really is whether the "perfect game" results in a win for either color or in a draw.
To a first approximation the space-station is in free-fall with no friction so you'd be in total weightlessness.
Of course there will be a minute amount of momentum transferred to the station by tiny particles/molecules as well as sunlight etc. which is certainly not 100% isotropic so there would be a tiny force, my guess would be that radiation pressure from the sun would be the largest of this group of effects.
Also the thing rotates (very slowly) so you will have an *apparent* "centrifugal force" everywhere other than the centre of the station.
There is also a minute difference in the effect of earths (+moon & sun) gravity at different places in the space station.
For all intents and purposes you would be weightless and the effect of you breathing out will have a larger impact on your movement than any of the ones mentioned above...
In the case of Cherenkov radiation the speed of light in the medium is certainly not faster than the "normal speed of light in the medium". Rather, the speed of a charged particle is faster than the speed of light causing the equivalent of the sonic boom in the form of a usually bluish radiation.
Think about it, in the case of the sonic boom, the airplane exceeds the speed of sound, not the sound itself!
That argument makes no sense whatsoever. If peer-reviewed online-journals existed without the need for expensive subscriptions, a publication in one of those would be just as valuable as the publication in a print journal.
Incidentally, the reviewers as far as I know don't get paid much (or anything? ) for their work, so all the journal does is act as editor and intermediary as well as distributor. One could argue that many of these things could be performed by a largely automated online system at a fraction of the cost. The recognition of research is based on the review process, not the fact that you pay for the journal...
Slashdot Mirror
Every seat in congress is "winner takes all". It does not really help that there are hundreds of seats, you still need to be first past the post in a district.
So even if 20% of the US population supported a certain point of view, they would only be represented if they happened to be concentrated by location. (e.g. 1% of pop thinks Hawaii is important, they get represented, 3% are green, they don't cause they're spread geographically)
Easily removed is going to defeat at least one of the reasons for having them. Though i can't see any reason they can't take them out / neutralise them at the check-out like they do with other theft-prevention devices these days...
>"Oh, dear...they can't reintroduce Selective
>Availibility...let's pass a UN resolution
>against it! Oh, wait, I forgot, we Europeans
>decided it's OK to flagrantly violate UN
>resolutions you don't agree with."
hey? The one thing almost no-one argues with in the whole Iraq process is that the Security council has NOT authorised a military strike.
It is the US that first said even if a motion wasn't pass due to a veto, they'd still have moral authority from a majority voting for it (wonder what the administration would do if the russians or chinese said the same about a us veto). And now they realised they won't even get a simple majority, they just ignored the UN...
Anyway, not saying whether the war is right or wrong, but ignoring the UN is what the US are doing at the moment, not europe.
it means they charge you a levy of $13 + 16% VAT on that levy, thus ~ $15 in total. All it points out is that the levy is still subject to VAT.
> one end doesn't know what the other end is doing.
> The end is near.
Can't see how that follows, surely if one end doesn't know what the other is doing, they must be a long long way from each other. Chances are you're somewhere in the middle... so the end is far!
Ponxx
Isn't a watermark steganography? After all you'r hiding a message in another message/picture/... The only difference is the intention.
> So in cases where Microsoft speaks against Microsoft,
> their word is absolutely correct, but when Microsoft speaks for Microsoft,
> nothing can be trusted?
you got it... When the defendent admits a crime the jury almost certainly will believe it, if he denies it this is not the case.
> Why in the world don't they just make the roads bigger?
Somehow that reminds me of the infamous Marie Antoinette quote "Let them eat cake". The whole problem is that there is *no* space left in london to make roads bigger and wider. As for sprawl, commuters already live as far as 1-2 hours train car/train journey away. I think anywhere short of tearing down the whole city and rebuilding it US style (and I have to say I much prefer the crowded London over the endless sprawl of LA) the only solution is to get people on public transport.
Charging a fee for a rare good (space on roads in this case) is something that should be very natural to capitatlists around the world, yet many countries such as the US or Germany (or Britain in fact) see the free use of roads as a divine right no-one should interfere with (while at the same time complaining about large governments and tax..).
I'm sure if you accept an indian IT workers wage, and match his skill, you won't have any trouble finding an IT job in the US either...
If I am not completely mistaken the practice of unsolicited telephone marketing is illegal in Germany, I have never received any call trying to sell me anything...
The only people that call do "market research" and that's annoying enough, but it seems to always have been genuine, I was never offered anything to buy..
> "No reasonable jury could find otherwise."
This seems particularly rude considering the appeals court was not even unanimous in its verdict (2:1) so not only do they call the original jury a bunch of idiots, but also their fellow appeals court judge...
Considering the US governemnts current popularity in most parts of the world, there is nothing like them pushing MS products to get others to move to OSS.
> Oh, what I've found, they are very qualified, but like the holiday more than work, so any yank
> is worth 2 brits just because the yank works harder (being equally educated that is)
I think that goes for most of Europe and is the primary reason i wouldn't like to work in the US. Believe it or not, for some people life is not solely about work... I'd rather have some time to spend my money...
> There's nothing troll about this comment, it's the truth. Universities are money making
> institutions first and foremost, if you don't believe it then you haven't attended one
While this might be true in the US (i wouldn't know), it certainly isn't in Europe. University staff are vastly underpaid compared to equivalent industry positions, and the only reason they can be kept at university is that there is a certain amount of idealism still there. The lack of university fees (or a fixed sum of 1k pounds in the UK) is another factor that stops universities from becoming mere money-making institutions.
Don't get me wrong. They're extremely inefficient (being run by committees of acadmics) and you probably get an equally good education in the US, but I do think that european universities are not primarily about money...
The point is that the instant run-off system you propose does not fulfill both these conditions in all possible outcomes either. Finding one example where it works is not a proof :). If you want a counter example:
Voters voting Nader > Gore > Bush: 30
Voters voting Gore > Nader > Bush: 15
Voters voting Gore > Bush > Nader: 10
Voters voting Bush > Gore > Nader: 45
Thus 1st preferences:
Bush: 45,
Nader: 30
Gore: 25 - > Gore eliminated
now include 2nd preferences:
Bush: 55
Nader: 45 -> Bush wins
BUT 55% preferred Gore over Bush. In this case we have the situation where a majority prefer Nader over Gore.
> You'll never keep a vaccum with this.
I don't think it's that much of a problem. For a start we're not talking about the kind of vaccuum nuclear physicsts need. Get it down to 10% of outside pressure and you'll have gone a long way towards reducing friction.
Stick a slow pump in every couple of hundreds of meters and you can cope with some leakage very easily. And after all, nuclear physicists have shown us that you can keep an extreme vaccuum in kilometer long tubes..
> There's no way to overcome the problems
is always a dangerous thing to say.
Now I don't think I'm going to see this technology happen in my lifetime, but I don't think it's as impossible as you say.
The debate was not about whether file-sharing was legal or illegal, or even whether it would hurt the profits of the big music labels. The debate was about whether it is "a threat to the future of music".
The music industry seemed to argue that without the current system, there would be no music or at the very least no creative/exciting/new music. I am certain that this is not so.
Even the assertion that one cannot earn money with music in an mp3-sharing world is hard to swallow, considering the amount of people happy to spend 100s of dollars for rock concerts etc., the only thing that might be in danger is the current business model of the big music labels...
> Now, which action is hate. To wish a human baby has the same rights you do, or to celebrate
> the fact that a woman can murder her own child? WHICH IS REALLY THE HATE HERE?
If that was all that all "pro-life" groups did, there would not be an argument. If they go round advocating the murder of doctors, that *is* hate. Just like wanting a free palestine is legitimate, but blowing up israelis is terrorism.
Have a look at the site. If that is not hate-speech, i don't know what is. Some things I read on extremist christian sites (have a look at tencommandments.org) made me feel actually sick, including suggesting the murder of all non-believers as a solution to world hunger, implicitly or explicitly condoning murder of doctors, homosexuals etc. not even speaking of generally insulting individuals and groups or religions that happen not to share their views. In my view this is hate-speech and asks people to commit crimes.
... particularly when it includes calls to direct action.
Some countries have different definitions of where the right to free speech ends, for example when it urges people to commit crimes.
In germany there would be not much controversy about censoring a magazine or group that wanted to glorify and re-instate a nazi-regime / get rid of all non-christians / foreigners /
Anyway, different countries have different standards, google.de is registered in Germany, so it has to comply with its laws, Germany is a democracy, so if people get upset, they can vote in a new government that will repeal them.
> but disasterous to their nation in the long run
I'm not saying i agree with their methods, but how exactly is it going to be disastrous for China in the long run? No-one would buy this software there at full price as it's simply not affordable. With the pirated versions people gain knowledge and skills that can get them jobs everywhere in the world! And it advances Chinas computer industry, so until the US lays a boycot on them for lack of copy-right prevention it'll do nothing but good for the country, seeing it doesn't loose any profit itself
> That raises another point, actually. It hasn't been proven that the "perfect chess game" doesn't exist.
Indeed it can be proven that a "perfect chess game" does exist. In fact it is quite obvious that it does. Chess is a finite problem (due to rules about repeating a position 3 times being considered a draw). The question really is whether the "perfect game" results in a win for either color or in a draw.
To a first approximation the space-station is in free-fall with no friction so you'd be in total weightlessness.
Of course there will be a minute amount of momentum transferred to the station by tiny particles/molecules as well as sunlight etc. which is certainly not 100% isotropic so there would be a tiny force, my guess would be that radiation pressure from the sun would be the largest of this group of effects.
Also the thing rotates (very slowly) so you will have an *apparent* "centrifugal force" everywhere other than the centre of the station.
There is also a minute difference in the effect of earths (+moon & sun) gravity at different places in the space station.
For all intents and purposes you would be weightless and the effect of you breathing out will have a larger impact on your movement than any of the ones mentioned above...
In the case of Cherenkov radiation the speed of light in the medium is certainly not faster than the "normal speed of light in the medium". Rather, the speed of a charged particle is faster than the speed of light causing the equivalent of the sonic boom in the form of a usually bluish radiation.
Think about it, in the case of the sonic boom, the airplane exceeds the speed of sound, not the sound itself!
That argument makes no sense whatsoever. If peer-reviewed online-journals existed without the need for expensive subscriptions, a publication in one of those would be just as valuable as the publication in a print journal.
Incidentally, the reviewers as far as I know don't get paid much (or anything? ) for their work, so all the journal does is act as editor and intermediary as well as distributor. One could argue that many of these things could be performed by a largely automated online system at a fraction of the cost. The recognition of research is based on the review process, not the fact that you pay for the journal...
I don't know about experiments, but for a physics website http://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm is pretty good!