You seem to anticipate my questioning as some way for me to justify me being greedy. And maybe in some way I feel guilty, but really I do not seek any kind of resolution to my own dissonance. Rather, I ask if we have programs to help people in bad situations get out of bad situations, and the people don't want to be in these situations, yet they persist, then I think we have to look at the basic assumptions. And that is people may like living on that edge. I'm not suggesting regular people like it, but there is some segment of the population that likes whatever it offers. They could be victims of their own self loathing, in which case no amount of money or housing will fix them. The lack of having to be responsible for anyone or anything is truly free. Maybe these are just urban Buddhists?
What I am really suggesting by my questioning is that money won't always fix poverty.
That's great, but you did not answer "what is the point?" Why should we even try? What benefit does it serve society as a whole? Why should we try if the people themselves choose poverty* rather than do the work to not be impoverished?
*I want to qualify this by saying assuming they have access the programs (and after 50 years, I believe we do we do, else why the hell not?)
It seems to me today that "poverty" is on par with 1960s luxury, so what's the point? We have air conditioning everywhere. We have freely available water. Everyone can have a phone, but not just a phone, a cellphone. We have freely available internet.
I'm not a social scientist, so I am legitimately asking "what is the point to eradicating poverty?" Is it just an attempt to integrate a disenfranchised segment of the population - a persistent segment that ever since we moved out of tribes and into larger societies we've had. At what point are these people choosing poverty, and if that is the case why should we care? The current mother of the POTUS managed not to live in poverty, and have a son that went on to lead the free world.
I've been told by y social work friends that the city I live in has sufficient finds and resourced for the homeless. However the vast majority of these are people with mental problems who are high-enough functioning to not be compelled into assistance, who then go out and choose this lifestyle. If that is the case, then I don't think we can ever solve poverty.
For those of us who "want to believe" this creates some dissonance. It has been widely believed by the observant, that following the crash in Roswell, we "invented" t he germanium diode a few years later. The believers associate the two events as causal. That is we reverse-engineered semi-conductor technology from them. This idea has been supported by some people in the "industry" that the crash was not cleaned up (allegedly by high-up grays or even reptilians) so that we could have a chance to boost our technology. Remember at the time we were using vacuum tubes.
I'll accept the germanium diode as a crude version of a silicon diode, but this organic transistor changes everything. The only 'excuses' for aliens to not have been using this technology is that it has disadvantages when used in space or other functional limitations. For those not in the know, a transistor is two diodes attached in opposite orientations. Maybe we can accept silicon transistors as crude copies of organic ones, but the technology in the 50s would not have been up to the task of understanding what is going on. These are way too small. If however I am wrong then the reverse engineering team was really, really clever.
Until we can run our own open cloud servers and get our data to our own repository with our own encryption, I am not interested in any cloud technology. I like the convenience of having my files accessible everywhere but only by me on my own servers that can't be compromised en masse (I'm looking at you Yahoo) We need this fractured cloud design to protect against that.
But really any format that can express structured data is endorsed by me. I do not have a problem with JSON, in fact it is my 2nd favorite. My first favorite is Python's style, which is very, very close to JSON. But JSON has the advantage that web people already know it.
Please don't get bogged down with XML, I wrote XML into my post because despite what you all think, it's not that bad to parse, provided that you use a stream-reader style rather than SAX or DOM. The other reason why I wrote XML is because it does not pre-suppose any kind of scripting engine, so people would not be tempted to use code which would require a JavaScript interpreter, which would end up being a really bad idea.
XML, JSON, Python can all express structured data. They are all equally valid and anything expressed in one can be converted between them all.
Parsing a HTTP session with multi-part mime attachments using chunked encoding is murderous. Now true, many people don't have to worry about this, but the fact is the protocol leaks like a sieve. For instance, you can't send a header after you've entered the body of the HTTP session. You can't mix chunked-length encoded elements with fixed content-length elements with HTTP1.1. Once you've sent your headers and encoding, you're screwed. The web has a solution - AJAX, but then you need JavaScript.
I'd be all for something new. I'd suggest base it on XML with a header section and header-element to get the transfer started then accept any kind of structured data including additional header elements. With this, you can still use HTTP headers for back-wards compatibility, but once recognized as "HTTP 2.0" the structured XML can be used to set additional headers, etc. With the right rules, you can send chunks of files or headers in any arbitrary order and have them reconstructed.
At what concentration of CO2? All the experiments I know about are closed system, with pure CO2. No doubt this is done to produce an easily measurable result, which is fine. But there are two reasons why that experiment does not apply. 1. Earth is not closed and 2a. CO2 is not evenly distributed and 2b. CO2 is a trace constituent.
Your argument has as much relevance as feeding red meat to rabbits and saying red meat causes heart attacks. There' just one fatal flaw with that. Rabbits are herbivores and lack the mechanisms to handle any kind meat, read or otherwise.
See, that's I think where we diverge. If the Roman Warm Period was natural and without additional CO2, why cannot the recent warming also be natural as well? For your interpretation of the theory to be correct, we have to already be resuming the next ice age and be over ruling the next natural ice age. If you assume, as is generally believed that we are still finishing the warming period (IPCC allows for warming for just this reason) then that tends to undercut your logic. Any anthropogenic warming would be boosted by that.
In the end there are two ways to interpret the data reported: 1. We've killed a 2000 year cooling trend in 150, which would be alarming 2. We are naturally warming and are still in the bounds of natural variability.
To me, the evidence supports 2 better than 1. After all we've had 20 centuries, IPCC allows 1.5, so we've got like 30 degrees of variability, and the recent warming trend does not go above that. Therefore, 2.
The Micheal Mann hockeystick used in An Inconvenient Truth is substatntially located aroudn th e same lattitide, using European and Russian trees. So if you are going to call this into question, you have to also call Mann's hockey stick into question. Ironically, they will both live or die together. What this paper does is correct for orbital mechanics, so in a way, it is a refinement that tilts the hockey stick a bit.
I have an e46 M3 like you. The e96 series has the stupid fob-only (no tumbler shaft) that I am talking about. Which are the same fobs that are alloiwing the vehicles to be stolen.
Old style (key): Insert into ignition Using edges of key, twist to start. Turn key to off position Remove key.
New FOB system Insert fob into slot. Do not accidentally hit the trunk release button when doing so. Press start button (seperate motion) Press stop button (seperate motion) Remove key. Do not accidentally hit the trunk release button when doing so.
Now they look a lot a like, except the with the fob there is the potential to open your trunk because that part always sticks out, and that's how you have to grasp it. Additionally with the conventional key you can do it all in one smooth motion. You can't with the start button.
What BMW should have done, is when you stick your fob in the slot, since there is a spring loaded position where it latches (like a SD media slot) is have you push the key in and use that for the starter. No extra button needed.
While I love my BMW (e46) I won't buy another BMW again because they've just made stupid design mistakes like that. To be trendy they actually made it worse. And don't get me started about their nav system. It always opens even if you don't want it to. Even if you set the setting for it. And that rotary wheel is the worst input idea ever. I'd rather an Atari joystick.
For any patent to be granted a list of expenses in developing the patent is also submitted. Then they have patent protection for 10x the expenses in revenue. They will submit an annual report, and any kind of falsification will have the patent terminated. The people who want to use the patent for free will verify the reports to find any falsification. For devices that integrate multiple patents they are allowed to be summed accordingly on a prorated basis.
This way, there is still incentive to do the R&D, because you'll be able to get multiples of your investment back. But the world gets your patents potentially sooner. If you want to delay the world from getting your patents, then set your prices very low, so ti take a long time to recover them, . Or set your prices high and move onto the next thing. This way everyone wins. They either get really cheap inventions or the patent protection runs out fast. It's a great balance.
This not only fixes drug patents but software patents too, as most software patents would only costs thousands to develop and would get paid 10x back in a very short time.
Fundamental Patent Reform. For any patent to be granted a list of expenses in developing the patent is submitted. Then they have patent protection for 10x that in revenue. They will submit an annual report, and any kind of lying will have the patent revoked. The people who want to use the patent will verify the reports to find any falsification. For devices that integrate multiple patents they are allowed to be summed accordingly.
This way, there is still incentive to do the R&D, because you'll get multiples of your investment back. But the wold gets your patents potentially sooner. This not only fixes drug patents but software patents too, as most software patents would only costs thousands to develop and would get paid 10x back in a very short time.
He's given a few, but the longest one, he shows a page full of equations, with terms expanded, and says something like "this is how the forces relate" then admits to cheating because there is one wildcard on the page: H. And now we know that sheet he showed us is indeed correct.
This will sure up the model, but we are still left asking how does gravity work? With this identified as the mechanism, we can devise some experiments and learn more about G, which has the most awesome applications of all.
I would like to add that there has been a paradigm shift in web programming over the last 20 years.
We went from whole-page loads and opaque submission of forms via POST to a Web 2.0 (AJAX+JS) method. Browsers are now only a way of collecting events, sending them to a server and getting the result back. PHP was written to deal with those opaque forms - where you get the whole lot of variables, and render the whole page. But really what we have today with AJAX is a whole new paradigm. Taking that into account, a return to event-driven programing seems to be the way again.
Of we assume that OOP is a good paradigm in general, then there should be some way to construct server-side software in OOP, and not worry about the transport in HTTP. And whereas PHP has OOP bolted on later, maybe this language had it from the start? While Python and Ruby are good, I'd like to talk about a gem i found called Wt
Wt is a spin off of Qt, but rahter than being client app focused, it is web app focused. it is programed in much the same way as Qt, but uses the Boost API proper, not some boost-inspired API.
It supports AJAX and you can even mark C++ functions for export to JS so they run client-side.
The problem is, if you're not used to thinking OOP about websites, and not used to Qt or Boost, the, your learning curve might be a bit longer than you'd like. Also, deployment is not as simple as dropping PHP files into the right spot in a file system.
Never mind that for Nessie to have survived, a breeding population would have to have survived under that last several hundred ice ages, and the glaciation events that created the loch itself.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to anticipate my questioning as some way for me to justify me being greedy. And maybe in some way I feel guilty, but really I do not seek any kind of resolution to my own dissonance. Rather, I ask if we have programs to help people in bad situations get out of bad situations, and the people don't want to be in these situations, yet they persist, then I think we have to look at the basic assumptions. And that is people may like living on that edge. I'm not suggesting regular people like it, but there is some segment of the population that likes whatever it offers. They could be victims of their own self loathing, in which case no amount of money or housing will fix them. The lack of having to be responsible for anyone or anything is truly free. Maybe these are just urban Buddhists?
What I am really suggesting by my questioning is that money won't always fix poverty.
That's great, but you did not answer "what is the point?" Why should we even try? What benefit does it serve society as a whole? Why should we try if the people themselves choose poverty* rather than do the work to not be impoverished?
*I want to qualify this by saying assuming they have access the programs (and after 50 years, I believe we do we do, else why the hell not?)
It seems to me today that "poverty" is on par with 1960s luxury, so what's the point?
We have air conditioning everywhere. We have freely available water. Everyone can have a phone, but not just a phone, a cellphone. We have freely available internet.
I'm not a social scientist, so I am legitimately asking "what is the point to eradicating poverty?" Is it just an attempt to integrate a disenfranchised segment of the population - a persistent segment that ever since we moved out of tribes and into larger societies we've had. At what point are these people choosing poverty, and if that is the case why should we care? The current mother of the POTUS managed not to live in poverty, and have a son that went on to lead the free world.
I've been told by y social work friends that the city I live in has sufficient finds and resourced for the homeless. However the vast majority of these are people with mental problems who are high-enough functioning to not be compelled into assistance, who then go out and choose this lifestyle. If that is the case, then I don't think we can ever solve poverty.
If you're going to use a gas engine as a RE, then just use a wave disc engine full-time.
For those of us who "want to believe" this creates some dissonance. It has been widely believed by the observant, that following the crash in Roswell, we "invented" t he germanium diode a few years later. The believers associate the two events as causal. That is we reverse-engineered semi-conductor technology from them. This idea has been supported by some people in the "industry" that the crash was not cleaned up (allegedly by high-up grays or even reptilians) so that we could have a chance to boost our technology. Remember at the time we were using vacuum tubes.
I'll accept the germanium diode as a crude version of a silicon diode, but this organic transistor changes everything. The only 'excuses' for aliens to not have been using this technology is that it has disadvantages when used in space or other functional limitations. For those not in the know, a transistor is two diodes attached in opposite orientations. Maybe we can accept silicon transistors as crude copies of organic ones, but the technology in the 50s would not have been up to the task of understanding what is going on. These are way too small. If however I am wrong then the reverse engineering team was really, really clever.
Forgot to add - if we want, all we should need is a DNS alias and point that to our own cloud server.
Until we can run our own open cloud servers and get our data to our own repository with our own encryption, I am not interested in any cloud technology. I like the convenience of having my files accessible everywhere but only by me on my own servers that can't be compromised en masse (I'm looking at you Yahoo) We need this fractured cloud design to protect against that.
I thought it funny that they planned to need redeeming.
Mahdi - redeemer of Islam.
Close, "Maud'dib" I also thought Mahdi
But really any format that can express structured data is endorsed by me. I do not have a problem with JSON, in fact it is my 2nd favorite. My first favorite is Python's style, which is very, very close to JSON. But JSON has the advantage that web people already know it.
Please don't get bogged down with XML, I wrote XML into my post because despite what you all think, it's not that bad to parse, provided that you use a stream-reader style rather than SAX or DOM. The other reason why I wrote XML is because it does not pre-suppose any kind of scripting engine, so people would not be tempted to use code which would require a JavaScript interpreter, which would end up being a really bad idea.
XML, JSON, Python can all express structured data. They are all equally valid and anything expressed in one can be converted between them all.
Parsing a HTTP session with multi-part mime attachments using chunked encoding is murderous. Now true, many people don't have to worry about this, but the fact is the protocol leaks like a sieve. For instance, you can't send a header after you've entered the body of the HTTP session. You can't mix chunked-length encoded elements with fixed content-length elements with HTTP1.1. Once you've sent your headers and encoding, you're screwed. The web has a solution - AJAX, but then you need JavaScript.
I'd be all for something new. I'd suggest base it on XML with a header section and header-element to get the transfer started then accept any kind of structured data including additional header elements. With this, you can still use HTTP headers for back-wards compatibility, but once recognized as "HTTP 2.0" the structured XML can be used to set additional headers, etc. With the right rules, you can send chunks of files or headers in any arbitrary order and have them reconstructed.
At what concentration of CO2? All the experiments I know about are closed system, with pure CO2. No doubt this is done to produce an easily measurable result, which is fine. But there are two reasons why that experiment does not apply. 1. Earth is not closed and 2a. CO2 is not evenly distributed and 2b. CO2 is a trace constituent.
Your argument has as much relevance as feeding red meat to rabbits and saying red meat causes heart attacks. There' just one fatal flaw with that. Rabbits are herbivores and lack the mechanisms to handle any kind meat, read or otherwise.
See, that's I think where we diverge. If the Roman Warm Period was natural and without additional CO2, why cannot the recent warming also be natural as well? For your interpretation of the theory to be correct, we have to already be resuming the next ice age and be over ruling the next natural ice age. If you assume, as is generally believed that we are still finishing the warming period (IPCC allows for warming for just this reason) then that tends to undercut your logic. Any anthropogenic warming would be boosted by that.
In the end there are two ways to interpret the data reported:
1. We've killed a 2000 year cooling trend in 150, which would be alarming
2. We are naturally warming and are still in the bounds of natural variability.
To me, the evidence supports 2 better than 1. After all we've had 20 centuries, IPCC allows 1.5, so we've got like 30 degrees of variability, and the recent warming trend does not go above that. Therefore, 2.
With a text to speech app?
The Micheal Mann hockeystick used in An Inconvenient Truth is substatntially located aroudn th e same lattitide, using European and Russian trees. So if you are going to call this into question, you have to also call Mann's hockey stick into question. Ironically, they will both live or die together. What this paper does is correct for orbital mechanics, so in a way, it is a refinement that tilts the hockey stick a bit.
I have an e46 M3 like you. The e96 series has the stupid fob-only (no tumbler shaft) that I am talking about. Which are the same fobs that are alloiwing the vehicles to be stolen.
THIS DAMN THING
Old style (key):
Insert into ignition
Using edges of key, twist to start.
Turn key to off position
Remove key.
New FOB system
Insert fob into slot. Do not accidentally hit the trunk release button when doing so.
Press start button (seperate motion)
Press stop button (seperate motion)
Remove key. Do not accidentally hit the trunk release button when doing so.
Now they look a lot a like, except the with the fob there is the potential to open your trunk because that part always sticks out, and that's how you have to grasp it. Additionally with the conventional key you can do it all in one smooth motion. You can't with the start button.
What BMW should have done, is when you stick your fob in the slot, since there is a spring loaded position where it latches (like a SD media slot) is have you push the key in and use that for the starter. No extra button needed.
While I love my BMW (e46) I won't buy another BMW again because they've just made stupid design mistakes like that. To be trendy they actually made it worse. And don't get me started about their nav system. It always opens even if you don't want it to. Even if you set the setting for it. And that rotary wheel is the worst input idea ever. I'd rather an Atari joystick.
For any patent to be granted a list of expenses in developing the patent is also submitted. Then they have patent protection for 10x the expenses in revenue. They will submit an annual report, and any kind of falsification will have the patent terminated. The people who want to use the patent for free will verify the reports to find any falsification. For devices that integrate multiple patents they are allowed to be summed accordingly on a prorated basis.
This way, there is still incentive to do the R&D, because you'll be able to get multiples of your investment back. But the world gets your patents potentially sooner. If you want to delay the world from getting your patents, then set your prices very low, so ti take a long time to recover them, . Or set your prices high and move onto the next thing. This way everyone wins. They either get really cheap inventions or the patent protection runs out fast. It's a great balance.
This not only fixes drug patents but software patents too, as most software patents would only costs thousands to develop and would get paid 10x back in a very short time.
Fundamental Patent Reform. For any patent to be granted a list of expenses in developing the patent is submitted. Then they have patent protection for 10x that in revenue. They will submit an annual report, and any kind of lying will have the patent revoked. The people who want to use the patent will verify the reports to find any falsification. For devices that integrate multiple patents they are allowed to be summed accordingly.
This way, there is still incentive to do the R&D, because you'll get multiples of your investment back. But the wold gets your patents potentially sooner. This not only fixes drug patents but software patents too, as most software patents would only costs thousands to develop and would get paid 10x back in a very short time.
Johanna Blakley's TED talk
He's given a few, but the longest one, he shows a page full of equations, with terms expanded, and says something like "this is how the forces relate" then admits to cheating because there is one wildcard on the page: H. And now we know that sheet he showed us is indeed correct.
This will sure up the model, but we are still left asking how does gravity work? With this identified as the mechanism, we can devise some experiments and learn more about G, which has the most awesome applications of all.
I would like to add that there has been a paradigm shift in web programming over the last 20 years.
We went from whole-page loads and opaque submission of forms via POST to a Web 2.0 (AJAX+JS) method. Browsers are now only a way of collecting events, sending them to a server and getting the result back. PHP was written to deal with those opaque forms - where you get the whole lot of variables, and render the whole page. But really what we have today with AJAX is a whole new paradigm. Taking that into account, a return to event-driven programing seems to be the way again.
Wt is perfect for that.
Of we assume that OOP is a good paradigm in general, then there should be some way to construct server-side software in OOP, and not worry about the transport in HTTP. And whereas PHP has OOP bolted on later, maybe this language had it from the start?
While Python and Ruby are good, I'd like to talk about a gem i found called Wt
Wt is a spin off of Qt, but rahter than being client app focused, it is web app focused. it is programed in much the same way as Qt, but uses the Boost API proper, not some boost-inspired API.
It supports AJAX and you can even mark C++ functions for export to JS so they run client-side.
The problem is, if you're not used to thinking OOP about websites, and not used to Qt or Boost, the, your learning curve might be a bit longer than you'd like. Also, deployment is not as simple as dropping PHP files into the right spot in a file system.
http://www.webtoolkit.eu/wt
Never mind that for Nessie to have survived, a breeding population would have to have survived under that last several hundred ice ages, and the glaciation events that created the loch itself.