Just because some people come to the gas station, and have guns, doesn't mean they were going to rob the place. Until they actually commit the crime, you don't know what they would have done, you can only guess and assume.
If they commit the crime, even if you bust them right away, you didn't prevent the crime. You just caught them immediately.
That's not what the article said. It talked specifically about preventing the specific crime that was predicted.
Hey, I don't have to predict anything to lower crime rates. Find the places that have the worst crime, and flood the streets with cops. Done. That's the same thing that you're suggesting.
Ok, so first, if the crime doesn't happen, how do you know you prevented it? Maybe it just didn't happen.
Second, doesn't this seem like there will now be a market for anti-prediction? That is, find out where the cops think the crime will occur, and do the crime somewhere else. Because the cops will be somewhere else, your chances of getting caught are less.
Actually, yes... when you get a bunch of guys together acting immature, they often do harass each other in often sexual ways... Think about calling each other gay or whatever...
That seems to be the prevailing opinion of the wealthy about the poor in the United States. If we cut off all their safety nets, either they get to work earning their way or die off.
Unfortunately, in an industrial society, you need people to buy the goods you make.
The reasons poor people have more kids are many. Lack of viable birth control is a huge factor. However, there is also a tendency to have more children because you're going to lose some. You need spares.
This is sort of like driving faster because you're running out of gas, and hope to make it to the gas station before you fuel runs out.
Yes, but even people in third world countries are living a lot longer, and infant mortality rates are plummeting.. but births in these countries have not.
Yes, western nations birth rates have gone down, but this is more than made up for by third world countries.
Your question is too vague. Do you mean what percentage of people fall within the top 1% of personal wealth? That doesn't have a 1:1 correlation with population.
"top 1%" requires definition of what the 1% applies to specifically, and how it's measured.
For example, suppose you add up all the total wealth, then take 1% of that and figure out how many people are in that category? You will come out with a different number than if you take the wealthiest person and the poorest person, and take 1% of that range and figure out how many people fall in that 1%.
Yet you aren't either. Likely because you don't actually understand how math works. You're using a simplistic equation that assumes everyone is worth different amounts, and thus you get a nice linear vector where you can chop off 1%. That's not likely true at all.
The thing is, hundreds of years ago, the mortality rate was right up there with the birth rate. Even if you cancel out infant mortality with births, it was still pretty high.
If you had a family of 10, you were lucky if 3 survived. Often times, it was only 1 or 2 that survived, making a pretty break even population growth.
With the advent of medicine, however, mortality rates plummeted but birth rates did not.
It appears that the non-creative will be classified as having mental impairment, and will likely be institutionalized and given electro-shock therapy to try and stimulate their create centers.
We're not running out of most natural resources. We have entire landfills to raid for materials that we've thrown away for generations.
Things we ARE running out of are mostly just fossil fuels. And those can be replaced by other technologies once the cost of fossil fuels rises above the cost of other sources.
We can't win against fossil fuels so long as it's the cheapest option. But some day it won't be.
Other kinds of resources, like rare earths will likely be recycled as time goes on We will, eventually learn how to transmute one material to another cheaply.
For example, it's possible to turn lead into gold, but it costs more than the gold is worth. So our economies will eventually turn to something else besides rare elements, and compressed carbon when that happens.
Actually, labor is not expensive. The problem with robots is that they're expensive.
That's not really a problem as long as you have sufficient demand for the product being built by the robots. But if demand wanes, you can lay off workers. Robots are still costing you money (specifically capital expenditure) and they're sitting idle doing nothing.
This problem can be compounded by laying off large amounts of the workforce and replacing them with robots. Now nobody has any money to buy the products that the Robots were bought to build. So now you're paying for a workforce but have no demand for the products it builds.
It has been done. Why would you think google would choose another kernel? Today, Linux has the best hardware support, so naturally Linux is the best choice. But that doesn't mean it has to always be that way.
My point is that there's nothing about Android that is Linux specific, and they could port to any other kernel that they wanted to without affecting any client applications. Android is the OS in this case, not Linux.
Linux has not won any kind of OS battle, much less on phones or tablets.
iOS (which is BSD based) runs the majority of phones and tablets in use, while Android has the majority of the rest.
While it's true that Android phones tend to use a Linux kernel, that's not really a requirement. It's just convenient. Android could run on any kernel. BSD, Windows, Hurd, whatever.. And all Android apps would continue to function.
Android is the OS, not Linux. Linux is just the current kernel, and has absolutely no bearing on Android as a platform.
I have poor vision, bigger screens are easier to read. I want big screens. If I could get the Galaxy Note with my carrier I would. So i'm stuck with the SIII, which is the biggest screen I can get in an actual phone.
Civil law differs from state to state. Some states require unanimous juries, others do not. Federal procedures seem to require unanimity. Because of the size of the trial, and the amount, my guess is that unanimous decisions are required.
Slashdot Mirror
The .NET libs have always passed through to the native code, At some point native code must be called in order to function.
Just because some people come to the gas station, and have guns, doesn't mean they were going to rob the place. Until they actually commit the crime, you don't know what they would have done, you can only guess and assume.
If they commit the crime, even if you bust them right away, you didn't prevent the crime. You just caught them immediately.
That's not what the article said. It talked specifically about preventing the specific crime that was predicted.
Hey, I don't have to predict anything to lower crime rates. Find the places that have the worst crime, and flood the streets with cops. Done. That's the same thing that you're suggesting.
Ok, so first, if the crime doesn't happen, how do you know you prevented it? Maybe it just didn't happen.
Second, doesn't this seem like there will now be a market for anti-prediction? That is, find out where the cops think the crime will occur, and do the crime somewhere else. Because the cops will be somewhere else, your chances of getting caught are less.
Haven't spent much time at a fraternity, have you?
Actually, yes... when you get a bunch of guys together acting immature, they often do harass each other in often sexual ways... Think about calling each other gay or whatever...
The only solution is zero tolerance.
That seems to be the prevailing opinion of the wealthy about the poor in the United States. If we cut off all their safety nets, either they get to work earning their way or die off.
Unfortunately, in an industrial society, you need people to buy the goods you make.
The reasons poor people have more kids are many. Lack of viable birth control is a huge factor. However, there is also a tendency to have more children because you're going to lose some. You need spares.
This is sort of like driving faster because you're running out of gas, and hope to make it to the gas station before you fuel runs out.
Yes, but even people in third world countries are living a lot longer, and infant mortality rates are plummeting.. but births in these countries have not.
Yes, western nations birth rates have gone down, but this is more than made up for by third world countries.
Your question is too vague. Do you mean what percentage of people fall within the top 1% of personal wealth? That doesn't have a 1:1 correlation with population.
"top 1%" requires definition of what the 1% applies to specifically, and how it's measured.
For example, suppose you add up all the total wealth, then take 1% of that and figure out how many people are in that category? You will come out with a different number than if you take the wealthiest person and the poorest person, and take 1% of that range and figure out how many people fall in that 1%.
Yet you aren't either. Likely because you don't actually understand how math works. You're using a simplistic equation that assumes everyone is worth different amounts, and thus you get a nice linear vector where you can chop off 1%. That's not likely true at all.
Maybe, maybe not.
If you have 100 people, and 50 of them are worth $1000 and 50 are worth $500. Where is the top 1%? It's not 1, it's 50.
I misspoke, I meant net worth.
The thing is, hundreds of years ago, the mortality rate was right up there with the birth rate. Even if you cancel out infant mortality with births, it was still pretty high.
If you had a family of 10, you were lucky if 3 survived. Often times, it was only 1 or 2 that survived, making a pretty break even population growth.
With the advent of medicine, however, mortality rates plummeted but birth rates did not.
The top 1% is based on income, not population.
It appears that the non-creative will be classified as having mental impairment, and will likely be institutionalized and given electro-shock therapy to try and stimulate their create centers.
The Social Security act was passed in 1935, not 1965.
We're not running out of most natural resources. We have entire landfills to raid for materials that we've thrown away for generations.
Things we ARE running out of are mostly just fossil fuels. And those can be replaced by other technologies once the cost of fossil fuels rises above the cost of other sources.
We can't win against fossil fuels so long as it's the cheapest option. But some day it won't be.
Other kinds of resources, like rare earths will likely be recycled as time goes on We will, eventually learn how to transmute one material to another cheaply.
For example, it's possible to turn lead into gold, but it costs more than the gold is worth. So our economies will eventually turn to something else besides rare elements, and compressed carbon when that happens.
Actually, labor is not expensive. The problem with robots is that they're expensive.
That's not really a problem as long as you have sufficient demand for the product being built by the robots. But if demand wanes, you can lay off workers. Robots are still costing you money (specifically capital expenditure) and they're sitting idle doing nothing.
This problem can be compounded by laying off large amounts of the workforce and replacing them with robots. Now nobody has any money to buy the products that the Robots were bought to build. So now you're paying for a workforce but have no demand for the products it builds.
It has been done. Why would you think google would choose another kernel? Today, Linux has the best hardware support, so naturally Linux is the best choice. But that doesn't mean it has to always be that way.
My point is that there's nothing about Android that is Linux specific, and they could port to any other kernel that they wanted to without affecting any client applications. Android is the OS in this case, not Linux.
http://bsdroid.org/tiki-index.php
Linux has not won any kind of OS battle, much less on phones or tablets.
iOS (which is BSD based) runs the majority of phones and tablets in use, while Android has the majority of the rest.
While it's true that Android phones tend to use a Linux kernel, that's not really a requirement. It's just convenient. Android could run on any kernel. BSD, Windows, Hurd, whatever.. And all Android apps would continue to function.
Android is the OS, not Linux. Linux is just the current kernel, and has absolutely no bearing on Android as a platform.
I have poor vision, bigger screens are easier to read. I want big screens. If I could get the Galaxy Note with my carrier I would. So i'm stuck with the SIII, which is the biggest screen I can get in an actual phone.
They don't appear to now, but they used to.. particularly during the ODF/MSOXML periods.
Civil law differs from state to state. Some states require unanimous juries, others do not. Federal procedures seem to require unanimity. Because of the size of the trial, and the amount, my guess is that unanimous decisions are required.
Oh, yes, let me give you links to the comments I made on groklaw that weren't approved.
Do you even think before you write?