Our experiences in America indicate that we aren't grown up enough yet to have a machine-only ballot count. The machine can give us the quick-fix numbers that so many seem to value, but elections should be only be certified after a paper count *in the open*.
Canada's system sounds solid and reliable. Congratulations, and wish us luck, we need it.
Paper! Get lost, eh! We here in America would rather have the swank technical, Enterprise console, button-pushing, lights blinking, what-a-good-boy-am-I *voting experience*. We'd look pretty silly holding a *pencil* !!! Ha ha ha ha ha!
Sure, you may get who you voted for. But where's the rock'n'roll in that? You may laugh, but when that tundra up there is done melting, half your country iz gonna sink. Too hot to sell tooks! So unless you can scrape up another Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, or Ian and Sylvia, what'll you do for an economy?
When they can recognize my face through an Alfred E. Nixon facemask, I'll be impressed. What'll they do, switch to positrons?
As for the claims about what the technology can do... or will *ever* be able to do... where's the beef? I don't believe 90 percent of it. It'll create so many false positives that even a Machiavellian funding level won't provide the needed personnel to sort it all out.
And of course, the "free" market will respond with stealth makeup. Call it "counter-physics".
If it's something I just want to know a little about, or it's *technical* (particularly in hard sciences or math), or entertaining, I'll use Wikipedia.
When it comes to potentially contentious or vaguer concepts out of the reach of science, or when I suspect that the WP article will be deficient (I've learned how to guess), I'll use Google.
Increasingly though, many Wikipedia articles have an adequate list of recommended external links that are often as good or better than guessing what's good on Google's page one. Particularly when it comes to special interests that are likely to be popular (games, for example), because those pages attract fans who are highly knowledgeable. In such cases you might need to visit 50 Google offerings to find something remotely as worthy.
The nice *useful* GUI, the access to *desireable software*, and the quality of the hardware are all part of the Mac price-point.
Only people who've used a Mac for quite a while can grok the difference. There's quite a bit more to it than meets the eye. Not that people who are technical *need* a Mac, but for those who aren't, it's like (old metaphor) the VCR you *can* set the clock on. It's less fiddly.
Merit badges are optional; there's a big range of choices to suit the individual. This would be one for a boy that's clenched a little tighter than most. Some boyscouts are bound to up being fragged by their own men.
Scouting was cool when it was about getting outdoors and having fun with friends. But the programming was always lurking in the background. Something that "Lone Scouts" didn't have to put up with.
Intelligent, creative people *who are not completely vampirizing their sex drive* will intelligently recognize that energy-efficient investments in personal appearance pays back in better action.
I'd like to see the poll used on people who have actually learned something about evolution and can pass a short 10-point questionaire... THEN they get to say whether they "believe" it or not.
After eliminating the 50% or whatever number of people who couldn't be bothered to learn but still "have a right to an opinion", I'm sure the 53percent number would drop precipitously.
"Writers, painters, musicians...all of these can expect to end life as paupers...if they're lucky. There are exceptions, but that's what they should expect."
Very, very sad, but true. Thanks for spelling it out.
It takes courage to devote a significant part of one's life and energies to the arts. Lots of well-known creative people... Wallace Stevens, WC Williams, Herman Melville come to mind... had to do what they did in their spare time. That works for the geniuses, but not for those who need more time to create... and most of what they create is done 'on speculation', with no guarantee of any reward for their efforts. Arts contributors recognize that, but there aren't very many of them.
RAW may not have been a skilled businessman or investor. Many creative people aren't. It's fantastic that his contributions are remembered and appreciated by so many... who are caring enough to part with a little scratch to make his last days better.
Thanks, those of you who are caring. You've made my days better too.
*Whether* our activities are a contributing factor isn't in question,only extent; the question is 1) whether we have the time and power to change our activities to minimize our contribution; 2) whether we can agree on appropriate actions in time to choose them rationally instead of having them thrust upon us by fate.
When scientists say "probably" related to our actions, that constitutes "strong reasons to think that we are causing"... because when scientists say "probably" they have numbers to back up that assertion.
The majority opinion of the NAS does not constitute "pure fiction". There is no call for such rhetoric; there is cause for concern; there IS a call for reasoned discussion... which is not assisted by categorical denial in the face of mounting evidence. Whatever is causing the poles to melt... most certainly NOT fiction... it behooves us to look very hard at that.
In the face of enormous uncertainties, to the extent that we MAY be contributing, the only rational response is to look for ways in which we might be endangering ourselves, and for ways to ameliorate those dangers. Hand-waving and partisan red herrings are not an appropriate response to the potential magnitude of this problem.
I buy more CDs than I used to before music appeared online.
I'm constantly exposed, online, to artists I would never have heard, even if I heard of them, before. I couldn't open the shrinkwrap, and most music stores didn't have anything I listen to on listening stations. And, online, I'm reminded of stuff I always meant to buy and never did.
My quick estimate is that in the past 5 years I've bought 4 times as many CDs as I did in the previous 20 years.
My point exactly. You simply had things to do that you were responsible for. You could also spend hours day after day studying something because you were working on a new invention. None of which are described by "addiction".
Lots of people do things in their spare time without being "addicted". I remember reading about a janitor who came home from work year after year. He lived alone, and was rarely seen in public. When he died, people discovered he had been painting. He had painted dozens of original canvasses. Was he "addicted" to painting? No. Antisocial maybe, but there's no law against that.
My point was that the word "addiction" is not necessarily appropriate. Yes an activity could be "obsessive", but people get productively obsessed all of the time. Einstein and Edison and thousands of other high achievers were "obsessive" about studying. If I spend many hours a day studying on the computer, am I addicted? Is that detrimental?
The question is whether there's a focus that's mentally healthy. That's not about "addiction". Addiction is a well-defined term that certainly doesn't apply to all the people who spend a lot of time in front of a screen.
If my screen time was clearly hurting me, I'd hope people who care for me would talk to me about it. Without using some psychobabble word that they don't understand.
I'm guessing that there's got to be a ton of imbedded resistance to E-books. The cost of a physical book means a living to presses, ink companies, paper companies (and their suppliers), and distributors. It's a big industry.
Catch-22. How can a publisher cut their ties to these people without cutting their own throat? If they sell e-books cheaper, and only get 30% penetration, they still have all the costs associated with paper publishing... of which the actual cost of paper is only a fraction... as well as holding onto business relationships formed over decades.
Until something like a book iPod comes along... actually it'd have to be much more universal... E-books are a nice convenience for people with money. They, and the readers, are priced accordingly.
Take a look at the UCap in the Wikipedia article. It stores 2600 FARADS. A medium sized capacitor in electronics might store 100 MICRO farads. Yeah... this is a lot higher capacity.
They're for sale, which suggests that they (unlike some laptops) don't blow up.
1 coulomb is 1 ampere for 1 second. (At 120 volts) 3600 amperes for 5 minutes is 3600*300= 1,080,000 coulombs.
"A capacitor has a value of one farad when one coulomb of stored charge causes a potential difference of one volt across its terminals." The Wikipedia "supercapacitor" article shows a 2600F Maxwell capacitor. It would take 415 of them to store a million coulombs at one volt.
The Maxwell Ucap weighs 0.46kg; 415 of them would weigh 191kg.
Slashdot Mirror
Our experiences in America indicate that we aren't grown up enough yet to have a machine-only ballot count. The machine can give us the quick-fix numbers that so many seem to value, but elections should be only be certified after a paper count *in the open*.
Canada's system sounds solid and reliable. Congratulations, and wish us luck, we need it.
Paper! Get lost, eh! We here in America would rather have the swank technical, Enterprise console, button-pushing, lights blinking, what-a-good-boy-am-I *voting experience*. We'd look pretty silly holding a *pencil* !!! Ha ha ha ha ha!
Sure, you may get who you voted for. But where's the rock'n'roll in that? You may laugh, but when that tundra up there is done melting, half your country iz gonna sink. Too hot to sell tooks! So unless you can scrape up another Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, or Ian and Sylvia, what'll you do for an economy?
When they can recognize my face through an Alfred E. Nixon facemask, I'll be impressed.
... or will *ever* be able to do ... where's the beef? I don't believe 90 percent of it. It'll create so many false positives that even a Machiavellian funding level won't provide the needed personnel to sort it all out.
What'll they do, switch to positrons?
As for the claims about what the technology can do
And of course, the "free" market will respond with stealth makeup. Call it "counter-physics".
If it's something I just want to know a little about, or it's *technical* (particularly in hard sciences or math), or entertaining, I'll use Wikipedia.
When it comes to potentially contentious or vaguer concepts out of the reach of science, or when I suspect that the WP article will be deficient (I've learned how to guess), I'll use Google.
Increasingly though, many Wikipedia articles have an adequate list of recommended external links that are often as good or better than guessing what's good on Google's page one. Particularly when it comes to special interests that are likely to be popular (games, for example), because those pages attract fans who are highly knowledgeable. In such cases you might need to visit 50 Google offerings to find something remotely as worthy.
The nice *useful* GUI, the access to *desireable software*, and the quality of the hardware are all part of the Mac price-point.
Only people who've used a Mac for quite a while can grok the difference. There's quite a bit more to it than meets the eye. Not that people who are technical *need* a Mac, but for those who aren't, it's like (old metaphor) the VCR you *can* set the clock on. It's less fiddly.
Text select, drag-and-drop to desktop has been a Mac feature for a long time ... at least since System 7 if memory serves.
... drag-and-drop the image on the desktop, and it's viewable instantly in Preview.
The same process is available for most browser images
All the schools just installed kiddy fingerprinting ... without telling parents ... because they don't have to tell them anyway.
... people were frightened enough to keep mum ... pubs were the next move. Wonder what's on the whole list of next moves?
.... it'll be a while longer
Once that clearly worked
Of course here in the US we still have half a constitution left
Merit badges are optional; there's a big range of choices to suit the individual. This would be one for a boy that's clenched a little tighter than most. Some boyscouts are bound to up being fragged by their own men.
Scouting was cool when it was about getting outdoors and having fun with friends. But the programming was always lurking in the background. Something that "Lone Scouts" didn't have to put up with.
Intelligent, creative people *who are not completely vampirizing their sex drive* will intelligently recognize that energy-efficient investments in personal appearance pays back in better action.
Makes bad days at the lab seem *much* better.
WHERE ELSE, oh lord, can I see an actual calculation of how long it takes a snail to get from Spain to Tokyo?
... makes me miss my bamboo sliderule.
Slashdot
Oh, man. LOL. Once again, I REALLY MISS Firesign Theatre. The last 6 years would have been so much better with them explaining it.
So thanks for the stand-in.
I'd like to see the poll used on people who have actually learned something about evolution and can pass a short 10-point questionaire ... THEN they get to say whether they "believe" it or not.
After eliminating the 50% or whatever number of people who couldn't be bothered to learn but still "have a right to an opinion", I'm sure the 53percent number would drop precipitously.
"Writers, painters, musicians...all of these can expect to end life as paupers...if they're lucky. There are exceptions, but that's what they should expect."
... Wallace Stevens, WC Williams, Herman Melville come to mind ... had to do what they did in their spare time. That works for the geniuses, but not for those who need more time to create... and most of what they create is done 'on speculation', with no guarantee of any reward for their efforts. Arts contributors recognize that, but there aren't very many of them.
Very, very sad, but true. Thanks for spelling it out.
It takes courage to devote a significant part of one's life and energies to the arts. Lots of well-known creative people
Bravo. Well put.
... who are caring enough to part with a little scratch to make his last days better.
RAW may not have been a skilled businessman or investor. Many creative people aren't. It's fantastic that his contributions are remembered and appreciated by so many
Thanks, those of you who are caring. You've made my days better too.
Of all the greenhouse gases, CO2 is, by a considerable margin, the most significant.
e _greenhouse_gases
Apart from water vapor itself, of course (which is -possibly- three times more important than CO2):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Th
*Whether* our activities are a contributing factor isn't in question,only extent; the question is 1) whether we have the time and power to change our activities to minimize our contribution; 2) whether we can agree on appropriate actions in time to choose them rationally instead of having them thrust upon us by fate.
The rest is out of our hands.
When scientists say "probably" related to our actions, that constitutes "strong reasons to think that we are causing" ... because when scientists say "probably" they have numbers to back up that assertion.
... which is not assisted by categorical denial in the face of mounting evidence. Whatever is causing the poles to melt ... most certainly NOT fiction ... it behooves us to look very hard at that.
The majority opinion of the NAS does not constitute "pure fiction". There is no call for such rhetoric; there is cause for concern; there IS a call for reasoned discussion
In the face of enormous uncertainties, to the extent that we MAY be contributing, the only rational response is to look for ways in which we might be endangering ourselves, and for ways to ameliorate those dangers. Hand-waving and partisan red herrings are not an appropriate response to the potential magnitude of this problem.
Greenpeace, huh? That wouldn't have been my guess he brought up green.
... *something* green will have to do.
I think it has to do with the Chinese manufacturing the iPod, sleeping 100 in a dorm, getting $50 a month.
If he can't do anything about that
I buy more CDs than I used to before music appeared online. I'm constantly exposed, online, to artists I would never have heard, even if I heard of them, before. I couldn't open the shrinkwrap, and most music stores didn't have anything I listen to on listening stations. And, online, I'm reminded of stuff I always meant to buy and never did. My quick estimate is that in the past 5 years I've bought 4 times as many CDs as I did in the previous 20 years.
My point exactly. You simply had things to do that you were responsible for. You could also spend hours day after day studying something because you were working on a new invention. None of which are described by "addiction".
Lots of people do things in their spare time without being "addicted". I remember reading about a janitor who came home from work year after year. He lived alone, and was rarely seen in public. When he died, people discovered he had been painting. He had painted dozens of original canvasses. Was he "addicted" to painting? No. Antisocial maybe, but there's no law against that.
The question is whether there's a focus that's mentally healthy. That's not about "addiction". Addiction is a well-defined term that certainly doesn't apply to all the people who spend a lot of time in front of a screen.
If my screen time was clearly hurting me, I'd hope people who care for me would talk to me about it. Without using some psychobabble word that they don't understand.
I'm guessing that there's got to be a ton of imbedded resistance to E-books. The cost of a physical book means a living to presses, ink companies, paper companies (and their suppliers), and distributors. It's a big industry.
... of which the actual cost of paper is only a fraction ... as well as holding onto business relationships formed over decades.
... actually it'd have to be much more universal ... E-books are a nice convenience for people with money. They, and the readers, are priced accordingly.
Catch-22. How can a publisher cut their ties to these people without cutting their own throat? If they sell e-books cheaper, and only get 30% penetration, they still have all the costs associated with paper publishing
Until something like a book iPod comes along
$350? for a little plastic box to read text?
Wow, that sets MY world on fire.
The more I see attempts to create an E-book, the more I appreciate paper.
Take a look at the UCap in the Wikipedia article. It stores 2600 FARADS. A medium sized capacitor in electronics might store 100 MICRO farads. Yeah ... this is a lot higher capacity.
They're for sale, which suggests that they (unlike some laptops) don't blow up.
1 coulomb is 1 ampere for 1 second. (At 120 volts) 3600 amperes for 5 minutes is 3600*300= 1,080,000 coulombs. "A capacitor has a value of one farad when one coulomb of stored charge causes a potential difference of one volt across its terminals." The Wikipedia "supercapacitor" article shows a 2600F Maxwell capacitor. It would take 415 of them to store a million coulombs at one volt. The Maxwell Ucap weighs 0.46kg; 415 of them would weigh 191kg.
How much is that in empty beer cans and stale lettuce?