If a reduction in budgets cause the professers to give 3-day lectures, maybe if the Universities ELIMINATED the budgets the professors would teach all year!
Why is it only Japan that has such an advanced train system?
I dunno, something about a country roughly the size of a Habitrail with the population packed tighter than sardines?
Maybe that's just coincidence, though.
Ontopic, though, I *don't* understand why trains are so bloody expensive. OK, I get it that they are trying to slightly underprice airlines in many markets (Amtrak doesn't even bother), but the simple reason trains won't ever catch on is the EXPENSE.
I can fly Mpls to Chicago in 1 hour for about 1/3 the price of Amtrak, which takes 8 hours. WTH would I want to use Amtrak? It's simple as that.
(cosponsors of HR3961) Rep Delahunt, William D. - 11/20/2003 [MA-10] Rep Greenwood, James C. - 10/8/2003 [PA-8] Rep Hobson, David L. - 10/8/2003 [OH-7] Rep Portman, Rob - 11/20/2003 [OH-2] Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. - 10/8/2003 [WI-5] Rep Smith, Lamar - 10/8/2003 [TX-21] Rep Tauzin, W. J. (Billy) - 10/8/2003 [LA-3] Rep Turner, Michael R. - 11/20/2003 [OH-3] Rep Wexler, Robert - 11/20/2003 [FL-19]
No, it's just the continued beating of a political dead horse. Why don't they just say that he "assumed" power since he "wasn't legally elected anyway".
Personally, this place would better be called \. since it tilts clearly to the left.
I could as well pay directly to the US Government since they control our defense.
You're RIGHT - why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? I've been paying for YOUR defense for the last 50 years and all I've gotten out of it is: a) some good chocolate b) some pretty good cars c) decent beer d) constant whinging about everything e) all of the above.
but i certainly hope that it causes companies to rethink their entire identificatory-ad model.
OK, nike spends $X million for a 30-second ad during the superbowl. Do they really need name recognition? Would anyone not know Nike if they didn't have ads like this?
The marketplace is increasingly becoming dominated by consumers who actively seek the info they need, and/or who are generally sophisticated enough to ignore the bulk of crap-ads on television, radio, etc ANYWAY. More and more sales (I imagine) are becoming the result of the freer exchange of information BETWEEN consumers - an avenue that was (pre-Internet) limited to one's social circle and possibly Consumer Reports. Quick - name the last purchase over $100 that you didn't research on the internet?
When I look at the massive budgets companies spend on advertising I wonder - "could this money:" a) be saved b) be reinvested to make a better product c) lower the sales price for the same profitability?
Perhaps the demise of the current profit model will make companies actually LOOK at these numbers, instead of accepting them as gospel.
IMO what's happening is that PUSH advertising is dying. Someone will eventually realize this, and their market advantage (they're not spending money that others are) will prove irrefutable.
Alternately, the ad money will be spent more wisely, on truly interesting/entertaining advertising campaigns - the BMW mini-movies, the Volkswagen or Sprite ads (almost always entertaining), etc. - there you have name recognition without an obvious push.
It *still* doesn't make me want to buy a Beemer or drink Sprite, but I'm more likely to at least have a positive opinion of a company that has a sense of humor, and the wisdom to not shove their product up my nose to sell it.
I don't get the "no refrigerator" thing.
on
Eating in Space
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I mean, either suit up and stick anything in the shadow of the ISS and it'll be cold pretty darn quick, or mount a metal box flush with any exposed bulkhead directly connected to the skin of the ISS on the shadowed side - you'll have a bloody cold little cupboard in no time.
I mean, it's not like it's rocket science. Well, wait...
Because by the time a film has been released on DVD, it has already generally made back its production costs and turned a profit. DVD sales are just additional profit, which is why they can be sold cheaply.
I call baloney. Production costs for a modern top-40 cd are nowhere NEAR the costs to produce a motion picture. Maybe 1/100th the costs. THAT'S why there's a little thing called free radio. Music creation costs are relatively so low, they can play the songs for FREE to try to induce you to buy the cd. What if the movies tried this stupid model? We'll show the movie for free everywhere, hoping you'll buy the dvd? They'd go broke in a month. Yet for the music industry this works, because their costs are so insanely low per-unit.
Also, if it were that simple, then why is 10-year old music STILL sold for $12.99 per cd? They've made their profit, the continued sales are just additional profit, no?
"I'm guessing your support for centralised state government"
Interesting insight, since I'd deem myself exactly the opposite - I believe in very, very limited central government and much more power to the localities. In US terms, I'd far more favor the rights of states and localities over the federal government. Frankly, the slavery thing aside (morally a repugnant idea), I'd have agreed politically with the South in the Confederacy.
In present terms, I think even the concept of the UN is completely absurd.
Not to go too far into abstracts, but I'm more of a rational individualist - philosophically, I sit somewhere in the space between Kant and Hobbes. Thus my focus on the 'rational'.
I'll have to read more of your references on Social Dominance theory, I'd be very interested to see how that reconciles with Leviathan. Thanks!
Actually, I very much like your development of my relatively half-baked comment. I'm not sure that smart or numbed are precisely the best descriptors for these actors - the opposite of an idiot (ok, that's pejorative - say "irrational" instead) would be a rational person. And in the "Princess and the Pea" sense, the opposite of hypersensitive would probably be "acclimated".
So yes, if we are trying to determine the validity of viewpoints in a social situation, I think it's irrefutable that we have to concede a greater weight to the opinions of the rational, acclimated individuals. As a simple matter of logic, a society cannot perform at the behest of the cacophany of voices of individuals - a society (and thus the self-determined rules thereof) MUST follow a path that most closely approximates the viewpoints of the majority (granted, the definition of rationality then becomes somewhat circular).
If you believe in a Darwinistic evolution of societies, cultures, and the actors within them, then it follows that the dominant actors WOULD BE those both rational enough to make 'reasonable' choices, who are also able to prioritize issues so that they don't spend 'warrantable outrage' on issues of relative insignificance...i.e. forbidding the use of master/slave in terms of computer hardware. (Neatly bringing this long digression back on topic.);)
"If the Megacorps have got it wrong (or more likely are simply covering up) then we've screwed up the planet."
Well, except we in such a case we really haven't. AFAIK the global climate has undergone TREMENDOUS periods of warming and cooling, far outstripping the current maxima or minima. Antarctica was a freakin' jungle - how can a couple of degrees C "screw up the planet" now ??
What's really happening is that the cozy little niche inhabited by humans won't be so cozy any more. SO WHAT? This process, both faster and slower, has happened for eons. And you know what? I bet we'll either adapt or die out, or (preferably) finally be kicked off this backwater planet. None of the above really is so terrifying.
Either way, my money's on the fact that the climate dislocations will prove to be far more gradual, far LESS widespread and LESS severe (speaking chronologically) than the dislocations and problems caused to your average working Joe or Joanna if the envrionmentalists get their way.
"Except that China and India are the big polluters of the day."
"Try basing your posts on actual math next time"
OK, the initial poster was incorrect in saying that China and India are CURRENTLY the big polluters. But you are using a little sleight of hand here, too. The point is NOT that the Chinese and Indians are the biggest polluters NOW, it's that when they reach a per-capita GDP productivity of the US (or even in the same order of magnitude) their emissions will be off the scale. To exempt them from the Kyoto protocols is utter shortsightedness, MAINLY due to political correctness.
Oh, and by the way, do you think they'd have AGREED to the protocol if they weren't exempted? Tell you what, you exempt the US, and I bet the US will agree to it too. Duh.
Re:Well, since the conclusion of his last book
on
Human Accomplishment
·
· Score: 1
So yes, that is pretty much what he concluded: blacks are dumber than other races.
Which is clinically impossible because it makes you uncomfortable. Yes, I see...
I'm not saying the Bell Curve was right, I'm pointing out that YOUR or MY visceral dicomfort with an idea doesn't make it wrong. You claim he cherry-picked his data; that may be. I'm curious what POSSIBLE data could be collected that you wouldn't refute for some reason or another. Test scores? Oh, we all know test scores are biased. Economic performance? We all know that the white man keeps the black man down. What would it take? IMO with a statistical sample of 1 particular experiment, clearly white/western cultures dominate right now. We're having this conversation in English, right? Whether this dominance is the result of biology, psychology, culture, climate, or luck of geography, etc. is rather hard to discern. But I'd say between Amerindian and SS African cultures it's roughly a tie for the bottom rung of the "impact on humanity" ladder - semitic, asian, and latinate cultures have all had a turn, but it frankly doesn't look like we're going to see a "Pax Namibica" anytime soon.
And 90% of the NFL is white? What the fuck NFL are *you* watching? There are what, about 1700 active players in the NFL, you're saying blacks + hispanics + samoans + etc 170? Ha ha ha ha ha ha. According to ESPN* the racial breakdown of the NFL is: 72% black, 26% white, 2% other. Maybe you're really watching hockey and just didn't realize?
* http://espn.go.com/magazine/vol5no03facts.html
What was your point there again? I kind of forgot it while pwning you.
Slashdot Mirror
If a reduction in budgets cause the professers to give 3-day lectures, maybe if the Universities ELIMINATED the budgets the professors would teach all year!
Sounds like everyone wins.
I dunno, something about a country roughly the size of a Habitrail with the population packed tighter than sardines?
Maybe that's just coincidence, though.
Ontopic, though, I *don't* understand why trains are so bloody expensive. OK, I get it that they are trying to slightly underprice airlines in many markets (Amtrak doesn't even bother), but the simple reason trains won't ever catch on is the EXPENSE.
I can fly Mpls to Chicago in 1 hour for about 1/3 the price of Amtrak, which takes 8 hours. WTH would I want to use Amtrak? It's simple as that.
Actually, I don't think so.
The definition of "democracy" that I find is:
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
Being a "republic" does not disqualify a system from being a democracy.
I agree with you, the "'s were ironic in nature. :)
aargh. HR 3261, not 3961. What a dope.
:(
PREview, people. It's not just a good idea, it should be a law.
so remember these names:
Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6]
(cosponsors of HR3961)
Rep Delahunt, William D. - 11/20/2003 [MA-10]
Rep Greenwood, James C. - 10/8/2003 [PA-8]
Rep Hobson, David L. - 10/8/2003 [OH-7]
Rep Portman, Rob - 11/20/2003 [OH-2]
Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. - 10/8/2003 [WI-5]
Rep Smith, Lamar - 10/8/2003 [TX-21]
Rep Tauzin, W. J. (Billy) - 10/8/2003 [LA-3]
Rep Turner, Michael R. - 11/20/2003 [OH-3]
Rep Wexler, Robert - 11/20/2003 [FL-19]
No, it's just the continued beating of a political dead horse. Why don't they just say that he "assumed" power since he "wasn't legally elected anyway".
Personally, this place would better be called \. since it tilts clearly to the left.
You're RIGHT - why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? I've been paying for YOUR defense for the last 50 years and all I've gotten out of it is:
a) some good chocolate
b) some pretty good cars
c) decent beer
d) constant whinging about everything
e) all of the above.
Bah indeed.
but i certainly hope that it causes companies to rethink their entire identificatory-ad model.
OK, nike spends $X million for a 30-second ad during the superbowl. Do they really need name recognition? Would anyone not know Nike if they didn't have ads like this?
The marketplace is increasingly becoming dominated by consumers who actively seek the info they need, and/or who are generally sophisticated enough to ignore the bulk of crap-ads on television, radio, etc ANYWAY. More and more sales (I imagine) are becoming the result of the freer exchange of information BETWEEN consumers - an avenue that was (pre-Internet) limited to one's social circle and possibly Consumer Reports. Quick - name the last purchase over $100 that you didn't research on the internet?
When I look at the massive budgets companies spend on advertising I wonder - "could this money:"
a) be saved
b) be reinvested to make a better product
c) lower the sales price for the same profitability?
Perhaps the demise of the current profit model will make companies actually LOOK at these numbers, instead of accepting them as gospel.
IMO what's happening is that PUSH advertising is dying. Someone will eventually realize this, and their market advantage (they're not spending money that others are) will prove irrefutable.
Alternately, the ad money will be spent more wisely, on truly interesting/entertaining advertising campaigns - the BMW mini-movies, the Volkswagen or Sprite ads (almost always entertaining), etc. - there you have name recognition without an obvious push.
It *still* doesn't make me want to buy a Beemer or drink Sprite, but I'm more likely to at least have a positive opinion of a company that has a sense of humor, and the wisdom to not shove their product up my nose to sell it.
I mean, either suit up and stick anything in the shadow of the ISS and it'll be cold pretty darn quick, or mount a metal box flush with any exposed bulkhead directly connected to the skin of the ISS on the shadowed side - you'll have a bloody cold little cupboard in no time.
I mean, it's not like it's rocket science. Well, wait...
I call baloney. Production costs for a modern top-40 cd are nowhere NEAR the costs to produce a motion picture. Maybe 1/100th the costs. THAT'S why there's a little thing called free radio. Music creation costs are relatively so low, they can play the songs for FREE to try to induce you to buy the cd. What if the movies tried this stupid model? We'll show the movie for free everywhere, hoping you'll buy the dvd? They'd go broke in a month. Yet for the music industry this works, because their costs are so insanely low per-unit.
Also, if it were that simple, then why is 10-year old music STILL sold for $12.99 per cd? They've made their profit, the continued sales are just additional profit, no?
"I'm guessing your support for centralised state government"
Interesting insight, since I'd deem myself exactly the opposite - I believe in very, very limited central government and much more power to the localities. In US terms, I'd far more favor the rights of states and localities over the federal government. Frankly, the slavery thing aside (morally a repugnant idea), I'd have agreed politically with the South in the Confederacy.
In present terms, I think even the concept of the UN is completely absurd.
Not to go too far into abstracts, but I'm more of a rational individualist - philosophically, I sit somewhere in the space between Kant and Hobbes. Thus my focus on the 'rational'.
I'll have to read more of your references on Social Dominance theory, I'd be very interested to see how that reconciles with Leviathan. Thanks!
Actually, I very much like your development of my relatively half-baked comment.
;)
I'm not sure that smart or numbed are precisely the best descriptors for these actors - the opposite of an idiot (ok, that's pejorative - say "irrational" instead) would be a rational person.
And in the "Princess and the Pea" sense, the opposite of hypersensitive would probably be "acclimated".
So yes, if we are trying to determine the validity of viewpoints in a social situation, I think it's irrefutable that we have to concede a greater weight to the opinions of the rational, acclimated individuals. As a simple matter of logic, a society cannot perform at the behest of the cacophany of voices of individuals - a society (and thus the self-determined rules thereof) MUST follow a path that most closely approximates the viewpoints of the majority (granted, the definition of rationality then becomes somewhat circular).
If you believe in a Darwinistic evolution of societies, cultures, and the actors within them, then it follows that the dominant actors WOULD BE those both rational enough to make 'reasonable' choices, who are also able to prioritize issues so that they don't spend 'warrantable outrage' on issues of relative insignificance...i.e. forbidding the use of master/slave in terms of computer hardware. (Neatly bringing this long digression back on topic.)
"Worlds have power, but that power is very dependant on who is looking."
Yeah, but it doesn't mean that all persons PoV's are equally valid.
For example, if one is an idiot. Or hypersensitive.
Why print multiple pages?
Dude, this is SLASHDOT.
Just print the same bloody article about 10 times, you'll swear you were reading them online.
Hey, I'm damn proud of my senior senator from Minnesota!
He's finally able to string a sentence together. Not bad for 4 years in office.
"Any rule that you yourself don't abide by will be instantly disregarded as hypocritical the moment your back is turned. And rightly so."
So you don't think there should be different rules for adults and children? That's sane.
I'd like very much for posts in this thread to be labelled with the caveat:
"I have/don't have kids."
"Funny, I ran into your handle online and you said there you were a 14 years old female virgin?"
"a guess at what transportation in the year 2025"
By then they'll have phased out a few things like:
- the weather
- sand and gravel on roads
- need to carry anything more than a briefcase or purse?
The future is going to be WAAY cooler than I thought....
"If the Megacorps have got it wrong (or more likely are simply covering up) then we've screwed up the planet."
Well, except we in such a case we really haven't.
AFAIK the global climate has undergone TREMENDOUS periods of warming and cooling, far outstripping the current maxima or minima. Antarctica was a freakin' jungle - how can a couple of degrees C "screw up the planet" now ??
What's really happening is that the cozy little niche inhabited by humans won't be so cozy any more. SO WHAT? This process, both faster and slower, has happened for eons. And you know what? I bet we'll either adapt or die out, or (preferably) finally be kicked off this backwater planet. None of the above really is so terrifying.
Either way, my money's on the fact that the climate dislocations will prove to be far more gradual, far LESS widespread and LESS severe (speaking chronologically) than the dislocations and problems caused to your average working Joe or Joanna if the envrionmentalists get their way.
"Except that China and India are the big polluters of the day."
"Try basing your posts on actual math next time"
OK, the initial poster was incorrect in saying that China and India are CURRENTLY the big polluters. But you are using a little sleight of hand here, too. The point is NOT that the Chinese and Indians are the biggest polluters NOW, it's that when they reach a per-capita GDP productivity of the US (or even in the same order of magnitude) their emissions will be off the scale. To exempt them from the Kyoto protocols is utter shortsightedness, MAINLY due to political correctness.
Oh, and by the way, do you think they'd have AGREED to the protocol if they weren't exempted? Tell you what, you exempt the US, and I bet the US will agree to it too. Duh.
Um, so was mine. It's not 'neither here nor there' it's here AND there, to be resolved when it's observed.
Don't you actually mean "here AND there"?
I mean, that's really the point, isn't it?
Which is clinically impossible because it makes you uncomfortable. Yes, I see...
I'm not saying the Bell Curve was right, I'm pointing out that YOUR or MY visceral dicomfort with an idea doesn't make it wrong. You claim he cherry-picked his data; that may be. I'm curious what POSSIBLE data could be collected that you wouldn't refute for some reason or another. Test scores? Oh, we all know test scores are biased. Economic performance? We all know that the white man keeps the black man down. What would it take? IMO with a statistical sample of 1 particular experiment, clearly white/western cultures dominate right now. We're having this conversation in English, right? Whether this dominance is the result of biology, psychology, culture, climate, or luck of geography, etc. is rather hard to discern. But I'd say between Amerindian and SS African cultures it's roughly a tie for the bottom rung of the "impact on humanity" ladder - semitic, asian, and latinate cultures have all had a turn, but it frankly doesn't look like we're going to see a "Pax Namibica" anytime soon.
And 90% of the NFL is white? What the fuck NFL are *you* watching? There are what, about 1700 active players in the NFL, you're saying blacks + hispanics + samoans + etc 170? Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
According to ESPN* the racial breakdown of the NFL is: 72% black, 26% white, 2% other.
Maybe you're really watching hockey and just didn't realize?
* http://espn.go.com/magazine/vol5no03facts.html
What was your point there again? I kind of forgot it while pwning you.
Eek!
Solar storm = we all have to play a game of "death basketball".
In boots, no less.