And having printed an unenforceable rule makes it valid? Why is this?
Having it in the syllabus doesn't make it valid, but it does create a burden that you should have known it was going to happen, and should have taken steps (dean, police, lawyer, etc) before the incident took place.
Many times I read a syllabus and drop a course right then. Or, I'll ask for a copy of the syllabus when deciding whether to register for a course.
The other thing is that it didn't talk about the higher death rate for men under 30. Polygyny is about having a few men live well, and most die trying to become one of the few.
(A) Give your money to a big insurance company, run by strangers with Harvard MBAs seeking to maximize profits for shareholders, then ask for some of it back when you want some health care.
(B) Give your money to Congress, run by smooth-talking lawyers seeking to maximize their terms in office through maintaining access to the massive amounts of cash necessary for perennial re-election, then ask for some of it back when you want some health care.
(C) Keep your money, and spend it on health care when and where you choose.
Strangely enough, people keep choosing (A) and (B), under the amazing delusion that somehow if you make all the transactions really complicated -- shuffle the dollar bills around fast enough -- we can receive more value in health care than we pay out in actual money. Proof that the bitter lesson of TANSTAAFL has not been learned by most adults.
I benefit more from a good health care system than merely having my health care needs taken care of. I do not want to see or hear about my neighbors or coworkers who are in a bind because they don't have enough money to pay for a medical condition. When I pay money to the Government one of the things I'm paying my taxes for is to be relieved of this social situation. I believe there is a system that will sufficiently reward the appropriate use of medical dollars, but will still allow people who really need some treatment to get it.
Then the Earth cooled enough that liquid water could remain on the surface, dividing the land from the sea. I think I understood that better than the earlier stuff. Then simple stuff like plants evolved. Then animals, including monkey things that looked sorta like us. Then us.
Only that isn't what Genesis says. The plants were around before the sun, moon, and stars. Even if every day is a million years, then I find it hard to understand how the plants evolved without a sun.
Actually, you don't need to be hypnotzed to get memories. Elizabeth Loftus implants memories in college sophomores. About 25% of people claim the implanted memory as their own. The technique is that she gets you to provide the names and addresses of four people who knew you as a child. Then she mails out a questionnaire to those people asking them to tell a memory that they have about the college student. Then, she throws out one of the four responses and inserts a standard memory. She asks the students if they remember this story, and if they remember that story, and if they remember the standard story, and when the experiment is over and the students are being debriefed, many claim that even though Loftus made up this story -- it happens to exactly match what really happened to them.
Memory is a tricky thing -- and the most interesting thing about it is that your (and others') confidence about eyewitness memory is not a reliable guide to whether the memory is correct or not. Confidence is the product of rehearsal -- not accuracy. And by the time anyone gets on the witness stand, they've rehearsed quite a bit.
Here is one result of a google search using "Loftus Implanted Memory"
That same top 10% also holds more than 50% of all wealth in this country. By that standard, they should be paying 1/2 rather than 1/3 of all taxes.
Let's try a thought experiment and look at Commieville. In Commieville, all people make the same amount of money, by their age. A 20 year old makes $10K/Year for ten years. A 30 year old makes $20K/Year for ten years. A 40 year old makes $30K/Year for ten years and so on. At age 70, all people in Commieville retire. Each person requires $5K per year to live, and saves half of the amount that they make more than $5K/year, and uses the other half to increase their standard of living.
In Commieville the top 17% of of income earners have five times the income of the bottom 17% of income earners and the top 17% of people have 45% of all of the wealth.
Thus, the statistics that are used to show the inequality of income, do not, by themselves, show inequality of income over a lifetime.
Not to mention, that usually these figures are for households, not people. Rich households usually have multiple income earners, poor households usually have single income earners. So what looks like high income inequality across households, becomes much less unequal when looked at per capita.
I work at Indiana University. As part of an agreement between IU and MS, I am entitled to one license of each version of Windows (and Office) for the price of $5 per CD. So, for example, our bookstore sells old (no longer useful to the university) PCs naked, and we are allowed (required) to install the OS ourselves.
However, if I buy a computer from just about anybody, I can't tell them that I have a license derived from my employment. Sigh.
... is that we can't think about or perceive things that we don't have words for.
We know this to be false, because of studies of other cultures where there are very few color words (White, Black, and Red, for instance). These people can discriminate between pink and purple just fine, even though their vocabulary doesn't allow them to verbally make distinctions between these colors. So people can perceive what their hardware is set up to perceive, even if they don't have any words to describe what they are perceiveing.
On the other hand, people also have a short-term memory limit of 5 to 9 (7 +/- 2) chunks of information. A good model can turn 15 to 20 unrelated pieces of informaion into three or four chunks -- which can all be held in short-term memory at one time and mentally manipulated. So having a good model will make some thoughts possible that would be impossible (because of the limitations of short-term memory) without the model.
If big brother like organizations waste a week trying to decrypt your mother's letter about a new recipe she just tried, that is a week they don't have to decrypt the message you reply with explaining why your family has to go into hiding. We need to inject more noise into the system.
Ummm, I thought that if they decrypt your mother's new recipe then they have your private key, and then they can decrypt everything else you send without much force. Of course, I'm somewhat ignorant -- do people change their keys every message? Does the software exist to change the key for each packet that is sent?
I was thinking about a method of dealing with sabotage. Why not send the same problem packet to two (three?) different machines signed up with different IP domains. If the answer packets don't match, then send it out to two more machines. This would (I think) take quite a tremendous effort to circumvent. Of course, it requires more than twice as many cycles, but the ability to release full source clients may make up for that.
Slashdot Mirror
As a historical example, there were TVs with built-in VHS and/or DVD players, but the other stuff got obsolete long before the TV did.
And having printed an unenforceable rule makes it valid? Why is this?
Having it in the syllabus doesn't make it valid, but it does create a burden that you should have known it was going to happen, and should have taken steps (dean, police, lawyer, etc) before the incident took place.
Many times I read a syllabus and drop a course right then. Or, I'll ask for a copy of the syllabus when deciding whether to register for a course.
The other thing is that it didn't talk about the higher death rate for men under 30. Polygyny is about having a few men live well, and most die trying to become one of the few.
which of these three options makes sense?
(A) Give your money to a big insurance company, run by strangers with Harvard MBAs seeking to maximize profits for shareholders, then ask for some of it back when you want some health care.
(B) Give your money to Congress, run by smooth-talking lawyers seeking to maximize their terms in office through maintaining access to the massive amounts of cash necessary for perennial re-election, then ask for some of it back when you want some health care.
(C) Keep your money, and spend it on health care when and where you choose.
Strangely enough, people keep choosing (A) and (B), under the amazing delusion that somehow if you make all the transactions really complicated -- shuffle the dollar bills around fast enough -- we can receive more value in health care than we pay out in actual money. Proof that the bitter lesson of TANSTAAFL has not been learned by most adults.
I benefit more from a good health care system than merely having my health care needs taken care of. I do not want to see or hear about my neighbors or coworkers who are in a bind because they don't have enough money to pay for a medical condition. When I pay money to the Government one of the things I'm paying my taxes for is to be relieved of this social situation. I believe there is a system that will sufficiently reward the appropriate use of medical dollars, but will still allow people who really need some treatment to get it.
>I've said it before, and the absurdity of rejecting science
:= Technology.
>while depending on it so heavily is just lost on these people.
These people are rejecting science and depending on technology. Science
Surely, the instructions for the Holy Handgrenade of Antioch predate this.
Then the Earth cooled enough that liquid water could remain on the surface, dividing the land from the sea. I think I understood that better than the earlier stuff. Then simple stuff like plants evolved. Then animals, including monkey things that looked sorta like us. Then us.
Only that isn't what Genesis says. The plants were around before the sun, moon, and stars. Even if every day is a million years, then I find it hard to understand how the plants evolved without a sun.
Actually, you don't need to be hypnotzed to get memories. Elizabeth Loftus implants memories in college sophomores. About 25% of people claim the implanted memory as their own. The technique is that she gets you to provide the names and addresses of four people who knew you as a child. Then she mails out a questionnaire to those people asking them to tell a memory that they have about the college student. Then, she throws out one of the four responses and inserts a standard memory. She asks the students if they remember this story, and if they remember that story, and if they remember the standard story, and when the experiment is over and the students are being debriefed, many claim that even though Loftus made up this story -- it happens to exactly match what really happened to them.
Memory is a tricky thing -- and the most interesting thing about it is that your (and others') confidence about eyewitness memory is not a reliable guide to whether the memory is correct or not. Confidence is the product of rehearsal -- not accuracy. And by the time anyone gets on the witness stand, they've rehearsed quite a bit.
Here is one result of a google search using "Loftus Implanted Memory"
http://www.skepticfiles.org/false/memimpar.htm
Let's try a thought experiment and look at Commieville. In Commieville, all people make the same amount of money, by their age. A 20 year old makes $10K/Year for ten years. A 30 year old makes $20K/Year for ten years. A 40 year old makes $30K/Year for ten years and so on. At age 70, all people in Commieville retire. Each person requires $5K per year to live, and saves half of the amount that they make more than $5K/year, and uses the other half to increase their standard of living.
In Commieville the top 17% of of income earners have five times the income of the bottom 17% of income earners and the top 17% of people have 45% of all of the wealth.
Thus, the statistics that are used to show the inequality of income, do not, by themselves, show inequality of income over a lifetime.
Not to mention, that usually these figures are for households, not people. Rich households usually have multiple income earners, poor households usually have single income earners. So what looks like high income inequality across households, becomes much less unequal when looked at per capita.
I work at Indiana University. As part of an agreement between IU and MS, I am entitled to one license of each version of Windows (and Office) for the price of $5 per CD. So, for example, our bookstore sells old (no longer useful to the university) PCs naked, and we are allowed (required) to install the OS ourselves. However, if I buy a computer from just about anybody, I can't tell them that I have a license derived from my employment. Sigh.
We know this to be false, because of studies of other cultures where there are very few color words (White, Black, and Red, for instance). These people can discriminate between pink and purple just fine, even though their vocabulary doesn't allow them to verbally make distinctions between these colors. So people can perceive what their hardware is set up to perceive, even if they don't have any words to describe what they are perceiveing.
On the other hand, people also have a short-term memory limit of 5 to 9 (7 +/- 2) chunks of information. A good model can turn 15 to 20 unrelated pieces of informaion into three or four chunks -- which can all be held in short-term memory at one time and mentally manipulated. So having a good model will make some thoughts possible that would be impossible (because of the limitations of short-term memory) without the model.
Ummm, I thought that if they decrypt your mother's new recipe then they have your private key, and then they can decrypt everything else you send without much force. Of course, I'm somewhat ignorant -- do people change their keys every message? Does the software exist to change the key for each packet that is sent?
I was thinking about a method of dealing with sabotage. Why not send the same problem packet to two (three?) different machines signed up with different IP domains. If the answer packets don't match, then send it out to two more machines. This would (I think) take quite a tremendous effort to circumvent. Of course, it requires more than twice as many cycles, but the ability to release full source clients may make up for that.