You realize that much of the (less than a) trillion has already been paid back to the government, right?
It still amounts to a really good loan, and there are lots of banks that haven't paid it back yet (and who knows, maybe they won't), but you are overstating the taxpayer loss by at least a factor of 2, probably 4 by the time things are done shaking out.
It's entirely reasonable. They are a corporation. He is a customer. He shouldn't care too much about what they are up to as long as they are providing him a product that he desires.
And as they say, if they aren't providing the product, they aren't providing the product.
I agree, if we are going to try to communicate with ET, we should be using technology that we don't have. Give me some decent funding and I will get things going right away.
What do you mean by 'barely keep things going'? When I look around, I see a population that has grown by a factor of 7 in the last 100 years, while increasing energy consumption.
That trend might not be sustainable (though every Malthusian prediction to date has been 'wrong'), but the current evidence is that we are a thriving, swarming success.
In which case? If a computer is legally allowed to drive a car, that likely means it will be cheap for an owner to insure. In the case of a taxi, the insurance would be simple to recoup in the mileage rate.
I have some pretty strong doubts that it would be profitable to try to sell grain into the U.S., even if subsidies and tariffs were wiped right out (on both ends of the trip, I read Tim Harford quite a bit, and he repeatedly makes the point that one of the problems third world farmers face is the red tape and bribes required to get their product onto a boat).
The stable political climate and mechanization are pretty strong factors, as is less shipping.
(and that is leaving aside the fact that it probably makes sense for the government to spend money to ensure that a certain level of food production is maintained)
I'm very much looking forward to riding in cars that are better drivers than I am.
Hopefully it makes sense to have them operate as taxis, but with reduced costs, because of the lack of a meat-bag to operate the thing. If the per mile cost is low enough, no need to own!
My understanding is that the capacitive and resistive tech gets a bit hard to implement for larger screens, so they all use infrared in one way or another (a camera with a filter is pointed at the screen (the back or the front) and then various techniques are used to get brighter illumination at points where something is touching the screen).
Only if the programmers are lazy and user hostile.
The computer should serve as an assistant, not as an adjudicator (so it should do obvious things automatically, and move the players through battles and stuff, but it should be really easy to change something if the players want to do so).
It depends on how much they cost relative to treatment. If they lasers are relatively cheap, you can put them where there are lots of people (which should reduce the infection rate) and use treatment elsewhere, or if they are even cheaper, put them where people spend lots of time and use treatment on the people who still end up infected.
If doesn't have to be a perfect solution to have a massive impact on the problem (like the comment below yours says, nets are probably a better idea).
What the fuck are you eating? Or are the U.S. and Canada poor countries now?
(See, I mostly eat corn, whether it is still corn, or if it has been processed into sugar or meat, most of my calories come from corn, and then most of the rest come from wheat; a few more come from various fruits and vegetables, but hey, those are mostly grown here too, with the notable exception of bananas).
It certainly wouldn't be worth $500, but if there was a way to get the computer to recognize letter tiles, you could use the computer to save games, and to look back through games for strategic errors and such (by the end of the game, the computer would even know when each tile was actually drawn).
I'm entirely serious. You just highlighted the fact that voters already do an incredibly poor job of evaluating the low quality information available to them, I simply don't see much harm in further reducing the quality of the information, and I see some chance for benefit, as many people are only so credulous.
Would that film sway your opinion? No? So that's 1 person where it was irrelevant, how many more do you think there are? And then there are all the people on the other side who already think she is a demon incarnate, a movie making that case is just going to make them feel good.
I think Glenn Beck is a moron, so I don't really care where he shows up, if someone can't see him for the raving lunatic that he is, I figure they are already lost (I see some slight chance that Beck isn't really serious and that it is all a big act, but if that were the case I feel like he would be better at it, like O'Reilly, or if he were a true master Colbert (imagine him without all the little in jokes or occasional cuttingly sane diatribe, he would be pretty convincing))
A reasonable case that the device puts out more energy than it consumes (and it has to be more after you connect it up to some thingamjig that generates electricity, probably a steam turbine)?
I like how the line of reasoning is always "You can't do two things at once, so the experience is better.", and then the answer to "What if I want to do two things as once?" is always "You don't need to, the experience is better.", and I am left scratching my head.
Slashdot Mirror
You realize that much of the (less than a) trillion has already been paid back to the government, right?
It still amounts to a really good loan, and there are lots of banks that haven't paid it back yet (and who knows, maybe they won't), but you are overstating the taxpayer loss by at least a factor of 2, probably 4 by the time things are done shaking out.
Do you think PLoS Biology will be available on the iPad?
That's the only good use case for DRM: it lowers the value of the content, so you can charge less for it.
Not that many content distributors seem to have embraced this though.
It's entirely reasonable. They are a corporation. He is a customer. He shouldn't care too much about what they are up to as long as they are providing him a product that he desires.
And as they say, if they aren't providing the product, they aren't providing the product.
So you pillage your B vitamins from the third world?
I agree, if we are going to try to communicate with ET, we should be using technology that we don't have. Give me some decent funding and I will get things going right away.
Would you be terribly stunned to see a child trying to throw a paper airplane to the top of a mountain?
By the time you get a little ways away from Earth, the power grid isn't even there.
What do you mean by 'barely keep things going'? When I look around, I see a population that has grown by a factor of 7 in the last 100 years, while increasing energy consumption.
That trend might not be sustainable (though every Malthusian prediction to date has been 'wrong'), but the current evidence is that we are a thriving, swarming success.
They did. The plan is to take the plant offline.
I guess they might work with the local government to make sure they have enough salt in the future (by paying for extra storage or whatever).
In which case? If a computer is legally allowed to drive a car, that likely means it will be cheap for an owner to insure. In the case of a taxi, the insurance would be simple to recoup in the mileage rate.
I have some pretty strong doubts that it would be profitable to try to sell grain into the U.S., even if subsidies and tariffs were wiped right out (on both ends of the trip, I read Tim Harford quite a bit, and he repeatedly makes the point that one of the problems third world farmers face is the red tape and bribes required to get their product onto a boat).
The stable political climate and mechanization are pretty strong factors, as is less shipping.
(and that is leaving aside the fact that it probably makes sense for the government to spend money to ensure that a certain level of food production is maintained)
Hah! I'm far to important to have to mess around texting.
(No, not really)
I'm very much looking forward to riding in cars that are better drivers than I am.
Hopefully it makes sense to have them operate as taxis, but with reduced costs, because of the lack of a meat-bag to operate the thing. If the per mile cost is low enough, no need to own!
My understanding is that the capacitive and resistive tech gets a bit hard to implement for larger screens, so they all use infrared in one way or another (a camera with a filter is pointed at the screen (the back or the front) and then various techniques are used to get brighter illumination at points where something is touching the screen).
There is brief discussion of it here:
http://wiki.nuigroup.com/Multitouch_Technologies
Only if the programmers are lazy and user hostile.
The computer should serve as an assistant, not as an adjudicator (so it should do obvious things automatically, and move the players through battles and stuff, but it should be really easy to change something if the players want to do so).
It depends on how much they cost relative to treatment. If they lasers are relatively cheap, you can put them where there are lots of people (which should reduce the infection rate) and use treatment elsewhere, or if they are even cheaper, put them where people spend lots of time and use treatment on the people who still end up infected.
If doesn't have to be a perfect solution to have a massive impact on the problem (like the comment below yours says, nets are probably a better idea).
What the fuck are you eating? Or are the U.S. and Canada poor countries now?
(See, I mostly eat corn, whether it is still corn, or if it has been processed into sugar or meat, most of my calories come from corn, and then most of the rest come from wheat; a few more come from various fruits and vegetables, but hey, those are mostly grown here too, with the notable exception of bananas).
It certainly wouldn't be worth $500, but if there was a way to get the computer to recognize letter tiles, you could use the computer to save games, and to look back through games for strategic errors and such (by the end of the game, the computer would even know when each tile was actually drawn).
TOO SMALL!
I'm entirely serious. You just highlighted the fact that voters already do an incredibly poor job of evaluating the low quality information available to them, I simply don't see much harm in further reducing the quality of the information, and I see some chance for benefit, as many people are only so credulous.
Would that film sway your opinion? No? So that's 1 person where it was irrelevant, how many more do you think there are? And then there are all the people on the other side who already think she is a demon incarnate, a movie making that case is just going to make them feel good.
I think Glenn Beck is a moron, so I don't really care where he shows up, if someone can't see him for the raving lunatic that he is, I figure they are already lost (I see some slight chance that Beck isn't really serious and that it is all a big act, but if that were the case I feel like he would be better at it, like O'Reilly, or if he were a true master Colbert (imagine him without all the little in jokes or occasional cuttingly sane diatribe, he would be pretty convincing))
Imagine someone who said 15-20 years in 1995. They aren't even wrong yet.
Often, when I hear a joke, I repeat the punch line and then laugh like 'HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA'.
I get all the chicks.
A reasonable case that the device puts out more energy than it consumes (and it has to be more after you connect it up to some thingamjig that generates electricity, probably a steam turbine)?
I like how the line of reasoning is always "You can't do two things at once, so the experience is better.", and then the answer to "What if I want to do two things as once?" is always "You don't need to, the experience is better.", and I am left scratching my head.