OP uses air-planes as an example of success by deviating from nature. In fact, the opposite is true: the first practical flying machine was developed by mimicking nature.
I suspect your post is a boiler plate response to any use of the word 'irony,' with no actual understanding of what the word means. You know, like rain, on your wedding day.
Ironically, I was just reading today that the wright brothers developed their innovative control systems after observing that birds pitch the angle of their wings to control their flight.
I think that regardless of any ideology, nuclear disarmament is very unlikely on the grounds of simple game theory - it's essentially a prisoner's dilemma where the temptation to defect is extremely large (the last remaining nuclear power can blackmail the whole world) and punishment for mutual defection is small (the cost of producing and maintaining the weapons).
And the first ever nuclear power nearly did. Before the Russians developed the bomb, there were a number of influential officers pushing to nuke them before they could nuke us.
The average tax return from people under the median income usually garners a rebate. That means they get money back they didn't pay in to the system. The people getting shafted are the medium income earners, not the poor. Its called "wealth redistribution".
Your typical income earner under the median income has all of their taxes deducted out of their pay-check. Come tax season, their rebate is simply the return of some (or all) of that money. At no point will the IRS 'rebate' more money than was paid. A person can only take more out than they put in if they collect some form of social service.
I'm not sure if that was your point, but I thought I should clarify.
I'm not basing my opinion on the assumption that each side wants a peaceful coexistence; I'm basing it on the OP's assumption that each side wants to avoid their own casualties.
If you do your research on game theory, I think you'll find that this is more of an Iterated Prisoner's dilemma, than it is a single instance of the game. If you research your strategies, I think you'll find that the most successful strategy requires that the participants be nice, forgiving, and focused on their own success rather than on beating their opponents.
Apply that to to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and tell me if your conclusion that violence is still the Nash Equilibrium.
I'm not at all trying to say that there is a choice between being technically and socially savvy. I'm just pointing out that showing disinterest in the technical does not automatically make someone a mundane person.
I used child rearing as a point, because it's something that's very important to life, and yet I can imagine a lot of technical people being completely indifferent to the subject.
As a side note: Given the OP's attitude, I think their approach to education is much more of a turn-off than the subject matter.
On the subject of parenting:
Speaking as someone who worked with young children for a living... There are lots and lots of parents who could use a lot of training on how to raise a kid...
I see it every day. Great parents are far outnumbered by adequate parents, and there is a disturbing number of bad parents.
We instinctually know how to fuck, and how to feed a kid until he or she is 18. We don't instinctually know how to raise a kid to be a productive member of modern society.
As a side note... I've noticed that a lot of people who are into technology seem to have a fairly low opinion of themselves. If not understanding computers makes someone an idiot, it follows that knowing a lot about computers is nothing special. I prefer to think of it from the opposite perspective... Understanding complex systems is something special, and it's understandable that it's not for everyone.
The funny thing is, if one of those kid-raising, family-feeding, social-relationship-maintaining co-workers tried to tell you how to change a diaper, how to have a rewarding social relationship, or how to not act like a tosser, you'd probably blow them off.
Sure, you might show some interest in it if you encountered the right teacher or already had an existing interest, but if someone interrupted your work day to talk about how to make friends, you probably wouldn't be so inclined to listen.
This is similar to me demanding that the phone company turn off my call display, and Slashdot running the story as "Slashdot user attempts to ban call display!!" No attempt was made to ban them.
As bad as people make out congress to be, just imagine if our government was run by slashdot editors, and the only people who voted were moderators?
You're absolutely right. There were no significant differences between the 19th and 20th centuries, except for the level of governmental involvement in the economy. This proves your statement that the government is what caused the great depression.
They can reimburse you for your losses, but people shouldn't be on the hook for hypothetical future losses 40 years into the future unless actual deaths were involved (You can estimate earnings, and nothing can reverse death, so the losses are tangible)
I'm reading this, and I'm trying to figure out whether you have no idea about how liability law works, or if you know all too much.
People are on the hook for hypothetical losses all the time. E.g. If your negligence maims a child with a promising future, you can be held liable for that child's lost income.
Do you think that 'I'm just sending random garbage' is going to offer any kind of plausible denyability in any situation where you could expose yourself to prosecution simply for using encryption?
Like it or not, judging any title in the franchise around it's single-player "campaign" is like passing judgment on a car based upon the music system and seat comfort.
And judging a game by it's multi-player is like passing judgement on a car based on how comfortable it is to screw your wife in the back seat.
I really hate throwing around words like 'truth' and 'lies' given how strongly they've become associated with religious viewpoints and conspiracy theorists, but it seemed appropriate given the misinformation being intentionally spread.
'Condoms don't work' 'Marijuana is more dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol.'
As an aside, it's really disappointed that we've given up the word 'truth...'
In my opinion, a big part of problem with the war on drugs (and abstinence only education as well) is that the people who support the lies become invested in them... Financially to be sure, but intellectually and emotionally more so.
For some, it's cognitive dissonance and for other's it's reputation.For the emotional, there's such a belief in the lies told about drug use, and they are so heavily invested in those beliefs that it's impossible for them to truly consider alternatives. For the more rational supporters of prohibition, they've put so much of their reputation on the line, that it's nearly impossible for them to back off and admit that they spread misinformation, and wasted billions upon billions of dollars, ruined lives, and manipulated everyone over this issue.
I personally suspect that drug prohibition will end in two stages... The first will be for a vocal group to really put the message out there, and to educate the public that legalization, while not perfect, would be a significant improvement over prohibition. This group needs to convince people that lies are not education, and that truth and reality are far more effective messages against drugs than scare tactics and misinformation.
The second stage will be the rotation of those invested in prohibition out of power, which IMO will happen naturally - no one's going to be forced out of government due to an anti drug position, but they are going to eventually retire. It may take many years, but as those who grew up with a drug education take positions in government.
Gay rights is a similar issue... It's been pointed out that gay marriage has overwhelming support from my generation (people younger than their mid 30s) and that it's really only a question of who will legalize gay marriage... Do those in power want to go down in history for supporting gay rights? Or do they want to wait another 30 years until my generation is in power to do it?
Not much of a point, IMO. 150MPH is well above what anyone should legitimately do on the street, and very few cars (including cars that make 350 HP) are likely to see that kind of speeds on the track - the problem is that the front straights are usually too short to reach top speed. Most vehicles will hit the brakes for the upcoming turn at about 20-30 miles per hour below what they are capable of.
In northern California, the fastest race track 'Thunder Hill' which is located north of the bay area in a town called Willow Springs.
The front straight is about half a mile long, and the fastest I've ever heard of anyone going down it is about 170 miles per hour on a 200+ horsepower formula race bike.
I personally could hit about 140 riding a production GSX-R 600, which has a 0-60 of about 4.3 seconds.
Here's a list of equipment requirements from a major motorcycle trackday provider in the bay area.
Most riders are very predictable in their braking, and the novice riders usually give some sort of a tell when they are about to stomp on the binders.
The only time it's ever been a problem is when I've followed around a novice rider who's riding with a group well above their skill level... I find that those riders often get on the brakes much harder and much earlier then I would expect.
Final note: all of what I just wrote is why this plan is horrible. I'd [i]love[/i] to open up my car and go play. But allowing a small percentage of the traffic to flow potentially 50% faster than the rest is likely to result in more accidents. The will coincidentally involve worse injuries.
I strongly encourage you, and everyone else to attend a local SCCA trackday or auto cross event. You don't need to have a race car - the family sedan is more than capable of some very impressive speeds if driven properly, and the experience will both help develop skills, and really open your eyes to the realities of driving on the streets. If you do happen to own a sports car, you really owe it to yourself to drive it properly, at least once.
I personally race motorcycles, and ride on the street. I race a very small bike, and the speed differential between myself is sometimes staggering - I may be going 100 miles per hour, only to be passed by another rider going in excess of 140. Yet, it works because everyone knows and obeys the rules.
The rules are simple... There's no marked lanes, no speed limits, no brake lights, and no turn signals.
- When entering the track, do not cut across traffic. Stay outside until you're up to speed. - When riding on the track, be predictable. Throw your hand in the air if you're going to do anything unusual (such as leaving the track.) - Leave a reasonable margin of space for other riders*. - Obey the track marshals.
* The third one is relative. For newer riders, 5 feet is considered safe. For racers, I've seen our guys knock fairings, elbow each other, and in one case, duck so one rider could pass under anther's handlebars.
Speed limits are also very much in place to placate the kind of people who think that 90mph is fast. When California proposed a law permitting drivers to go 75MPH on a few specially selected freeways (such as I5) a lot of people were up in arms over the death such a speed limit would create.
Hell, just look at slashdot for a cross sample of how many rational people are afraid of speed.
Meanwhile, speeds of 90MPH are relatively common in the bay area, despite significantly lower limits.
Slashdot Mirror
OP uses air-planes as an example of success by deviating from nature. In fact, the opposite is true: the first practical flying machine was developed by mimicking nature.
I suspect your post is a boiler plate response to any use of the word 'irony,' with no actual understanding of what the word means. You know, like rain, on your wedding day.
Ironically, I was just reading today that the wright brothers developed their innovative control systems after observing that birds pitch the angle of their wings to control their flight.
And the first ever nuclear power nearly did. Before the Russians developed the bomb, there were a number of influential officers pushing to nuke them before they could nuke us.
Actually, no they weren't. In medieval England where harsh punishment could be dolled out for theft, the rate of theft was still quite high.
Your typical income earner under the median income has all of their taxes deducted out of their pay-check. Come tax season, their rebate is simply the return of some (or all) of that money. At no point will the IRS 'rebate' more money than was paid. A person can only take more out than they put in if they collect some form of social service.
I'm not sure if that was your point, but I thought I should clarify.
Not that it makes a lick of difference: You're right. Your assumption was that each side wants to avoid massive casualties on their own side.
I'm not basing my opinion on the assumption that each side wants a peaceful coexistence; I'm basing it on the OP's assumption that each side wants to avoid their own casualties.
If you do your research on game theory, I think you'll find that this is more of an Iterated Prisoner's dilemma, than it is a single instance of the game. If you research your strategies, I think you'll find that the most successful strategy requires that the participants be nice, forgiving, and focused on their own success rather than on beating their opponents.
Apply that to to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and tell me if your conclusion that violence is still the Nash Equilibrium.
I'm not at all trying to say that there is a choice between being technically and socially savvy. I'm just pointing out that showing disinterest in the technical does not automatically make someone a mundane person.
I used child rearing as a point, because it's something that's very important to life, and yet I can imagine a lot of technical people being completely indifferent to the subject.
As a side note: Given the OP's attitude, I think their approach to education is much more of a turn-off than the subject matter.
On the subject of parenting:
Speaking as someone who worked with young children for a living... There are lots and lots of parents who could use a lot of training on how to raise a kid...
I see it every day. Great parents are far outnumbered by adequate parents, and there is a disturbing number of bad parents.
We instinctually know how to fuck, and how to feed a kid until he or she is 18. We don't instinctually know how to raise a kid to be a productive member of modern society.
As a side note... I've noticed that a lot of people who are into technology seem to have a fairly low opinion of themselves. If not understanding computers makes someone an idiot, it follows that knowing a lot about computers is nothing special. I prefer to think of it from the opposite perspective... Understanding complex systems is something special, and it's understandable that it's not for everyone.
The funny thing is, if one of those kid-raising, family-feeding, social-relationship-maintaining co-workers tried to tell you how to change a diaper, how to have a rewarding social relationship, or how to not act like a tosser, you'd probably blow them off.
Sure, you might show some interest in it if you encountered the right teacher or already had an existing interest, but if someone interrupted your work day to talk about how to make friends, you probably wouldn't be so inclined to listen.
As bad as people make out congress to be, just imagine if our government was run by slashdot editors, and the only people who voted were moderators?
Until I observed those webpages, I thought that the answer was 'Maybe.'
You're absolutely right. There were no significant differences between the 19th and 20th centuries, except for the level of governmental involvement in the economy. This proves your statement that the government is what caused the great depression.
I'm reading this, and I'm trying to figure out whether you have no idea about how liability law works, or if you know all too much.
People are on the hook for hypothetical losses all the time. E.g. If your negligence maims a child with a promising future, you can be held liable for that child's lost income.
So, what you're saying is: people predict that getting the government out of the economy is going to save the economy.
I'm sure the irony was unintentional.
Do you think that 'I'm just sending random garbage' is going to offer any kind of plausible denyability in any situation where you could expose yourself to prosecution simply for using encryption?
I really hate throwing around words like 'truth' and 'lies' given how strongly they've become associated with religious viewpoints and conspiracy theorists, but it seemed appropriate given the misinformation being intentionally spread.
'Condoms don't work'
'Marijuana is more dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol.'
As an aside, it's really disappointed that we've given up the word 'truth...'
In my opinion, a big part of problem with the war on drugs (and abstinence only education as well) is that the people who support the lies become invested in them... Financially to be sure, but intellectually and emotionally more so.
For some, it's cognitive dissonance and for other's it's reputation.For the emotional, there's such a belief in the lies told about drug use, and they are so heavily invested in those beliefs that it's impossible for them to truly consider alternatives. For the more rational supporters of prohibition, they've put so much of their reputation on the line, that it's nearly impossible for them to back off and admit that they spread misinformation, and wasted billions upon billions of dollars, ruined lives, and manipulated everyone over this issue.
I personally suspect that drug prohibition will end in two stages... The first will be for a vocal group to really put the message out there, and to educate the public that legalization, while not perfect, would be a significant improvement over prohibition. This group needs to convince people that lies are not education, and that truth and reality are far more effective messages against drugs than scare tactics and misinformation.
The second stage will be the rotation of those invested in prohibition out of power, which IMO will happen naturally - no one's going to be forced out of government due to an anti drug position, but they are going to eventually retire. It may take many years, but as those who grew up with a drug education take positions in government.
Gay rights is a similar issue... It's been pointed out that gay marriage has overwhelming support from my generation (people younger than their mid 30s) and that it's really only a question of who will legalize gay marriage... Do those in power want to go down in history for supporting gay rights? Or do they want to wait another 30 years until my generation is in power to do it?
End rant...
Not much of a point, IMO. 150MPH is well above what anyone should legitimately do on the street, and very few cars (including cars that make 350 HP) are likely to see that kind of speeds on the track - the problem is that the front straights are usually too short to reach top speed. Most vehicles will hit the brakes for the upcoming turn at about 20-30 miles per hour below what they are capable of.
In northern California, the fastest race track 'Thunder Hill' which is located north of the bay area in a town called Willow Springs.
The front straight is about half a mile long, and the fastest I've ever heard of anyone going down it is about 170 miles per hour on a 200+ horsepower formula race bike.
I personally could hit about 140 riding a production GSX-R 600, which has a 0-60 of about 4.3 seconds.
I meant what I wrote. :)
Here's a list of equipment requirements from a major motorcycle trackday provider in the bay area.
Most riders are very predictable in their braking, and the novice riders usually give some sort of a tell when they are about to stomp on the binders.
The only time it's ever been a problem is when I've followed around a novice rider who's riding with a group well above their skill level... I find that those riders often get on the brakes much harder and much earlier then I would expect.
I browse at +4. Your experience may vary.
I strongly encourage you, and everyone else to attend a local SCCA trackday or auto cross event. You don't need to have a race car - the family sedan is more than capable of some very impressive speeds if driven properly, and the experience will both help develop skills, and really open your eyes to the realities of driving on the streets. If you do happen to own a sports car, you really owe it to yourself to drive it properly, at least once.
I personally race motorcycles, and ride on the street. I race a very small bike, and the speed differential between myself is sometimes staggering - I may be going 100 miles per hour, only to be passed by another rider going in excess of 140. Yet, it works because everyone knows and obeys the rules.
The rules are simple... There's no marked lanes, no speed limits, no brake lights, and no turn signals.
- When entering the track, do not cut across traffic. Stay outside until you're up to speed.
- When riding on the track, be predictable. Throw your hand in the air if you're going to do anything unusual (such as leaving the track.)
- Leave a reasonable margin of space for other riders*.
- Obey the track marshals.
* The third one is relative. For newer riders, 5 feet is considered safe. For racers, I've seen our guys knock fairings, elbow each other, and in one case, duck so one rider could pass under anther's handlebars.
Speed limits are also very much in place to placate the kind of people who think that 90mph is fast. When California proposed a law permitting drivers to go 75MPH on a few specially selected freeways (such as I5) a lot of people were up in arms over the death such a speed limit would create.
Hell, just look at slashdot for a cross sample of how many rational people are afraid of speed.
Meanwhile, speeds of 90MPH are relatively common in the bay area, despite significantly lower limits.
Unfortunately, Darl McBride's head is listed among SCO's liabilities rather than their assets.