Do you mean that no one has any legal basis to complain, or that no one has any basis whatsoever to complain?
All progress, ever, has pretty much been a result of people who were dissatisfied with a situation deciding to improve it. If no one has any basis whatsoever to complain...
Most people who are complaining about this (in western country that does not fully fund college/university education) probably go to a school that is about $7,500 a year (because, as you say, wealthier people are going to care less, that number is based on in-state tuition at second tier schools in my state (by cost, the are fine universities)), so yes, $1,000 of books hurts, but when you consider that they also need a bare minimum of about $8,000 to live on and that they are deferring a good deal of immediate income by going to school, the books represent less than 10% of the cost of getting an education.
People are complaining because they think the prices should be cheaper, not because the price of books is preventing them from accessing education.
I paid about $100 for a physics textbook. I (and my parents) paid a couple of guys upwards of $2500 to explain it. Perhaps that was foolish on my part, but the cost of the book was mostly an unimportant detail.
I was pointing out why you go through the physical process. If you can't use it to produce a calibration mass that is superior to the current system *today*, then it isn't particularly useful to switch over to it (but it would be at the point that the calibration masses become superior).
You can't exactly express a certain number of pounds as kilograms. There is no metric equivalent to 10 pounds. The mass is 10 pounds no matter how you slice it or dice it, but the expressions of the mass in the different systems have different values (the metric value would be less precise). Going the other way, measuring 1 kilogram and converting into pounds results in values that are exactly the same.
Probably because measuring the mass of 1kg of water separately from the container holding it is a pain in the ass. So is actually measuring out 1 liter of water.
The spheres (if they work out to be uniform and consistently measurable) provide a convenient calibration mass.
If it isn't possible to consistently construct and measure the spheres (or some other object), then the a number of atoms isn't particularly more useful for calibration (which is the whole point) than the old standard.
One thing I would really like to see (but have no real interest in compiling) is the differential success of the poor man with 10 kids and the rich man with 2 kids across 5 or 10 generations. The 2 kids have a lot more resources to work with, and then their kids, and so on.
I can't think of what the big deal would be other than having folder1/subfoldera and folder2/subfoldera and being able to use the mouse to get to either subfoldera, rather than typing in the search for folder2 and subfoldera, or the search for folder1 and subfoldera.
(Having "archive" as a "I don't want to look at this anymore" button and tags to group things together is great for me, moving stuff out of the inbox into category folders was something that I felt the need to do(Must. Keep. Everything.) but did not enjoy)
Slashdot Mirror
What? My mother is approaching 70. She uses the internet, email, has a digital camera, a cell phone, drives a car, etc.
Your notion of old is very young.
I'm pretty sure MTV was cool for at least a week. Maybe longer.
Also, the OMFG crowd didn't come about until sometime in the mid 90s.
If it came down to memorizing 100 digits of pi to get a job or digging ditches, I would think long and hard about digging ditches.
Do you mean that no one has any legal basis to complain, or that no one has any basis whatsoever to complain?
All progress, ever, has pretty much been a result of people who were dissatisfied with a situation deciding to improve it. If no one has any basis whatsoever to complain...
How does making sure that evidence is properly collected protect the consumer?
I can see making sure that evidence is not improperly created protecting the consumer, but not collection.
Trained ones do all that stuff too, that is, they do the sensational stuff you are implying they shouldn't and perform surgery poorly.
I don't follow what you are saying. Using BSD is being agnostic to end uses, not preferring proprietary software, so I don't see how that is related.
I'm not arguing that user freedom is bad, or worse, just that it is a preference that has political overtones.
Please explain how preferring user freedom to ease of code (re)use is not a political view.
Perhaps the OP is more interested in seeing his code used widely than he is concerned with what exactly the end uses are.
Most people who are complaining about this (in western country that does not fully fund college/university education) probably go to a school that is about $7,500 a year (because, as you say, wealthier people are going to care less, that number is based on in-state tuition at second tier schools in my state (by cost, the are fine universities)), so yes, $1,000 of books hurts, but when you consider that they also need a bare minimum of about $8,000 to live on and that they are deferring a good deal of immediate income by going to school, the books represent less than 10% of the cost of getting an education.
People are complaining because they think the prices should be cheaper, not because the price of books is preventing them from accessing education.
6 digits, 7, what's the difference?
Married. With children.
I paid about $100 for a physics textbook. I (and my parents) paid a couple of guys upwards of $2500 to explain it. Perhaps that was foolish on my part, but the cost of the book was mostly an unimportant detail.
I was pointing out why you go through the physical process. If you can't use it to produce a calibration mass that is superior to the current system *today*, then it isn't particularly useful to switch over to it (but it would be at the point that the calibration masses become superior).
You can't exactly express a certain number of pounds as kilograms. There is no metric equivalent to 10 pounds. The mass is 10 pounds no matter how you slice it or dice it, but the expressions of the mass in the different systems have different values (the metric value would be less precise). Going the other way, measuring 1 kilogram and converting into pounds results in values that are exactly the same.
1 pound is exactly 0.45359237 kilograms.
1 kilogram is approximately 2.20462262185 pounds.
You can't take a pound and get an exact number of kilograms (especially from a legal perspective). You can go the other way.
Pi describes an idealized construction. Physical manifestations are imperfect to the extent that they don't match pi, not the other way around.
Probably because measuring the mass of 1kg of water separately from the container holding it is a pain in the ass. So is actually measuring out 1 liter of water.
The spheres (if they work out to be uniform and consistently measurable) provide a convenient calibration mass.
If it isn't possible to consistently construct and measure the spheres (or some other object), then the a number of atoms isn't particularly more useful for calibration (which is the whole point) than the old standard.
"are now defined in terms of"
At the moment, when the standard kilogram changes, so does the pound. The relationship is one sided, not equivalent.
One thing I would really like to see (but have no real interest in compiling) is the differential success of the poor man with 10 kids and the rich man with 2 kids across 5 or 10 generations. The 2 kids have a lot more resources to work with, and then their kids, and so on.
CmdrTaco did. Look at the dept. line.
The incremental costs would be lower, but the fixed costs would be insane.
Thousands of movies multiplied by millions of users...
Not reading comments is what comes after not reading the article.
The final step is to not even read your own comments.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he is talking about the Ford Tempo.
The single impressive thing about it was just how much it sucked.
I can't think of what the big deal would be other than having folder1/subfoldera and folder2/subfoldera and being able to use the mouse to get to either subfoldera, rather than typing in the search for folder2 and subfoldera, or the search for folder1 and subfoldera.
(Having "archive" as a "I don't want to look at this anymore" button and tags to group things together is great for me, moving stuff out of the inbox into category folders was something that I felt the need to do(Must. Keep. Everything.) but did not enjoy)