Spot on. This happens not because major party A is worried about losing to the third party, but because they are in danger of losing to the major party B if B absorbs those policies.
They couldn't buy all as there would always be holdouts, but they could certainly buy enough to get it below the critical mass level and make it unusable. At that point all the BTC believers would move on to LiteCoin or create a new one. The only thing that will kill cryptocurrencies is when/if people collectively realise they are not useful. Currently they are buoyed by the excitement of getting in at the start of a new thing.
No, you look around and see the ones that are good looking and fit your image of a good looking chick
Everyone is attracted to looks somewhat, but I think it depends on your outlook. Your stereotypical sexist pig may do exactly what you describe, but for most people the image is deeper than physical attractiveness - i.e. the way someone moves gives an indication of their personality, as do their facial expressions. This is what grabs people, rather than bone symmetry and breast size.
are you going to be happy fucking someone that isn't attractive to you
Someone you love is going to be attractive to you.
That's very different. "Fried chicken recipe" isn't of interest to the asker, but the RSA deliberately orchestrating the insertion of an unknown flaw certainly is. All your parent is saying is that they have denied a very specific allegation, and perhaps that allegation is over-specific and got some non-essential details wrong, allowing them to misleadingly deny it as a whole.
Interesting post, but how does that differ from conventional currency? Conventional currency can also be thought of as accounting tokens (for our assets and services) and they have no intrinsic value - any value is given by the network (society) and its perceived stability. It may have been designed as a currency's currency, but even then it can still behave as a currency. Similarly UPS labels, if popular enough, could be directly used as currency.
Further, "sound mathematical reasons" is more like mathematical necessity or restrictions. It would be difficult and messy to create a cryptographic currency with an unbounded number of solutions, although not impossible.
The $100 reimbursed to you is not created out of thin air, it is subtracted from the balance sheets of the credit card company. The hour of bought time represents extra assets created (this part is out of thin air). The asset:dollar ratio has increased, meaning the dollars per asset has decreased, i.e. you can now buy more with each dollar and the next hour of software development will cost you $99.9999999999.
Of course that is the situation under perfect knowledge. What really happens is that it takes time for these changes to become 'known' by the economy. Further, governments keep printing more dollars to deliberately devalue their currency to avoid the paradox of thrift where the economy grinds to a halt (so that hour of programming will really be $100.00000001).
Read the fine title:) That's why the it refers to most music. People like singing because it's an extension of talking, our primary mode of communication. We can differentiate between 1000s of voices in the same accent and therefore singing has more 'personality' than a guitar or piano tone.
Rodrigo y Gabriela belong to the sphere of virtuostic rock music where the personality of the instrument (and playing) is much more pronounced. This makes them an exception. Most of the songs on X-Factor/Idol could be played back instrumentally, using synthesised instruments, and most of the audience couldn't tell.
I do think the need for live instrumental musicians will never disappear. This is the whole point of a concert, to get worse sound quality in exchange for direct communication with the artist*. If the artist is just pushing the play button that disappears. Further, many people enjoy the expression of playing an instrument themselves, and they will always want to hear others do the same.
* Or the hype of a crowd, so maybe DJs will prove me to be wrong.
So, decades of stories containing obscure acronyms deemed unworthy of explanation, now the editors decide binary needs to be defined for the Slashdot audience.
This is not true, I'd guess that for most people the emotional experience from listening to recorded music is more valuable, especially when accounting for the effort to obtain.
It's akin to saying a novel is nothing more than an advertisement for a book reading, or a movie is simply an advertisement for a Broadway play.
This is a very literal reading and not the point at all. Jesus was trying to remove the culture of holier-than-thou moralising by pointing out hypocrisy. The aim was to instil a more tolerant culture of forgiveness. It is in no way meant to be a logical argument against the state administering a justice system.
There are really two elements - individual and state behaviour. Much of Jesus' message was concerned with how an individual should behave under a state that was opposed to a God-led theocracy (this is at a time when the Romans have occupied Israel). The general idea is that you should submit to the state, having a revolution of the heart instead. So you can have state-sanctioned capital punishment while having 'turn the other cheek' personal behaviour.
The real conflict, in my opinion, is what happened when Christianity gained political power. The personal behaviour was not transferred to the state level, it was business as usual. Perhaps this is sensible, as humans being humans, such a lenient system is unlikely to work.
People often point to New York, however that is possibly due to the aging baby boomers (there is a particular age range of males that commit most crimes).
Really the optimum strictness depends on the society and the culture and is affected by things such as population size, density etc. The brutality of yesteryear was (somewhat) appropriate because everybody was that brutal.
Taking your comment at face value, shouldn't we logically decrease the penalties to decrease crime? Perhaps we should pay people to commit crimes?
Is that overdone for effect? My only experience with the Gothenburg accent is from the between-song talking by the singer of Dark Tranquillity, and his English sounds very clear (although clearly northern European).
MP3's have helped so many heavy metal bands gain exposure and allow them to tour.
The interesting question is whether the increased exposure leads to more bands being able to tour a little (as you seem to assume), or less bands being able to tour a lot.
I've always suspected the latter. I.e. with easy global communication I have access to the best bands of all countries. I am no longer restricted to my own area. Consequently the best bands in the world get my attention (and everyone else's) and can tour, at the expense of the lesser bands. It's a similar process to multi-national companies.
Iron Maiden are a unique case, financially. As you mention, even world-famous (amongst metalheads) bands rarely make enough money to do music full time.
What your parent is asking, is *what* makes them like how it sounds. This is more complicated than suggesting the active listener is some sort of perfectly independent thinker. Even music fanatics will be swayed by the opinions of friends, even if it only by giving them more opportunity to appreciate an artist ("Fine, I'll give it another spin if you think it's so great"). Humans also like bonding, so we are inclined to value that which our allies value.
Personally, I'm in the odd situation of loving metal yet having no real life friends who like it (some who can appreciate it, but not as a primary genre). Even so, I can still feel myself swayed by online opinion. Some albums that don't grab me, for example, I'll still buy based on their Encylopaedia Metallum reviews, on the assumption that there must be something I'm missing.
This is the point, it's purely pragmatic. An unknown band starting out has more to gain from publicity (piracy) than album sales. Once they have an established reputation the equation changes and, under the current copyright laws, it is their right to choose. In Metallica's case they updated their business model for the situation. To be snarky, isn't that all the Slashdot majority ever wanted?
The article suggests the piracy/publicity model also works for established bands. I'm open to that but their argument is confused. They claim that, despite being heavily pirated, Iron Maiden makes a lot of profit because metal fans are so loyal they purchase more and pirate less.
Actually the successful model they do reference is using torrent statistics to determine regional popularity and therefore the best concert locations. I'm sure that helps but piracy is hardly needed for that. If digital music were somehow un-piratable you would get the same information from legal downloads. Probably better as it would be less corrupted by TOR and less hidden by sneakernet.
Agreed - I closed it straight away after seeing her image and the 30 minute length, until I read your response and tried again. An insightful and interesting talk.
Her main argument is;
1. In traditional/poor societies, men have the obligation to provide for women children
2. This leads to strict social roles where men are given control (privileges) to help them fulfil their obligations
3. Feminists interpret this as oppression
4. Giving women the same privileges without the obligations causes problems
My only criticism is that she is mildly unbalanced in painting women as ready to take unfair advantage of the changing social structures and men as only having traditional control out of necessity.
There are fucking huge electric mining trucks that can fit a dozen SUVs in the back
I don't think that's a fair comparison. Electric haul packs are not constrained by on-road design regulations, allowing them to fit proportionally more batteries. Further, they can use special heavy-industry chargers at a single, controlled location rather than house mains. More importantly they are not designed for high speed travel (which is where the exponential wind resistance increase would really hit a non-aerodynamic vehicle)
EVs are already at the limits of acceptable range, recharge time and cost. An electric SUV would have significantly worse performance in all three.
Australia has a set quota of refugees that are treated as part of the annual immigration intake - 40000
This is different from my understanding. Australian immigration easily tops 100,000 annually, and the humanitarian intake is separate, not linked. It was 13,000 for years, Gillard increased it to 20,000, Rudd hinted at increasing it to appease the left when he introduced his PNG plan. I assume it's still 20,000 with the new government.
What is linked, is onshore (boat/plane arrivals) and offshore (the 'queue' in refugee camps) humanitarian arrivals. This link was created by the Howard government and, while possibly fair enough, turns onshore arrivals into 'queue jumpers'.
I too, have a suspicion that many of the asylum seekers are simply economic migrants. However I'm sure you've heard the counter-arguments;
- The neighbouring countries they pass through are not signatories to the UN convention on refugees
- They are certainly poorly treated (often gaoled) in Indonesia
- Extended families often pool their money to come up with the $10k to send one member
- 90% of asylum seekers (who arrive by boat) are found to be legitimate refugees by Australia
- The chances of being resettled from a UN refugee camp (i.e. the queue) are very small
All you get are people throwing a bunch of assumptions around. I've yet to see any studies that attempt to categories the real reasons people claim asylum.
Yes, and when your wife finds out that you're cheating on her, it's not your fault for cheating but her fault for finding out
It's slightly more subtle than that. It's like knowing in the back of your mind that you talk too much, then being told by a third party that one of your friends complained about how annoying you can be.
Humans relate more successfully by holding some things private. It damages relationships to have all information in the open, even if that information was already known to all parties.
Diplomacy, and perhaps spying, are the nation state equivalents. People have the expectation that their government should be completely transparent, but this runs counter to the interests of diplomacy and security. I.e. it is not clear that all such behaviour is intrinsically wrong, as your infidelity example suggests.
The verdict: Mr Morrison is correct.
Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country.
That is the case even though these people have not committed any crime, nor broken any Australian or international law.
Mind you, it is still misleading to use this term when speaking to the general public.
Slashdot Mirror
Spot on. This happens not because major party A is worried about losing to the third party, but because they are in danger of losing to the major party B if B absorbs those policies.
Can you think of any advantages to in-browser ad blockers?
They couldn't buy all as there would always be holdouts, but they could certainly buy enough to get it below the critical mass level and make it unusable. At that point all the BTC believers would move on to LiteCoin or create a new one. The only thing that will kill cryptocurrencies is when/if people collectively realise they are not useful. Currently they are buoyed by the excitement of getting in at the start of a new thing.
No, you look around and see the ones that are good looking and fit your image of a good looking chick
Everyone is attracted to looks somewhat, but I think it depends on your outlook. Your stereotypical sexist pig may do exactly what you describe, but for most people the image is deeper than physical attractiveness - i.e. the way someone moves gives an indication of their personality, as do their facial expressions. This is what grabs people, rather than bone symmetry and breast size.
are you going to be happy fucking someone that isn't attractive to you
Someone you love is going to be attractive to you.
That's very different. "Fried chicken recipe" isn't of interest to the asker, but the RSA deliberately orchestrating the insertion of an unknown flaw certainly is. All your parent is saying is that they have denied a very specific allegation, and perhaps that allegation is over-specific and got some non-essential details wrong, allowing them to misleadingly deny it as a whole.
Interesting post, but how does that differ from conventional currency? Conventional currency can also be thought of as accounting tokens (for our assets and services) and they have no intrinsic value - any value is given by the network (society) and its perceived stability. It may have been designed as a currency's currency, but even then it can still behave as a currency. Similarly UPS labels, if popular enough, could be directly used as currency.
Further, "sound mathematical reasons" is more like mathematical necessity or restrictions. It would be difficult and messy to create a cryptographic currency with an unbounded number of solutions, although not impossible.
The $100 reimbursed to you is not created out of thin air, it is subtracted from the balance sheets of the credit card company. The hour of bought time represents extra assets created (this part is out of thin air). The asset:dollar ratio has increased, meaning the dollars per asset has decreased, i.e. you can now buy more with each dollar and the next hour of software development will cost you $99.9999999999.
Of course that is the situation under perfect knowledge. What really happens is that it takes time for these changes to become 'known' by the economy. Further, governments keep printing more dollars to deliberately devalue their currency to avoid the paradox of thrift where the economy grinds to a halt (so that hour of programming will really be $100.00000001).
Read the fine title :) That's why the it refers to most music. People like singing because it's an extension of talking, our primary mode of communication. We can differentiate between 1000s of voices in the same accent and therefore singing has more 'personality' than a guitar or piano tone.
Rodrigo y Gabriela belong to the sphere of virtuostic rock music where the personality of the instrument (and playing) is much more pronounced. This makes them an exception. Most of the songs on X-Factor/Idol could be played back instrumentally, using synthesised instruments, and most of the audience couldn't tell.
I do think the need for live instrumental musicians will never disappear. This is the whole point of a concert, to get worse sound quality in exchange for direct communication with the artist*. If the artist is just pushing the play button that disappears. Further, many people enjoy the expression of playing an instrument themselves, and they will always want to hear others do the same.
* Or the hype of a crowd, so maybe DJs will prove me to be wrong.
So, decades of stories containing obscure acronyms deemed unworthy of explanation, now the editors decide binary needs to be defined for the Slashdot audience.
This is not true, I'd guess that for most people the emotional experience from listening to recorded music is more valuable, especially when accounting for the effort to obtain.
It's akin to saying a novel is nothing more than an advertisement for a book reading, or a movie is simply an advertisement for a Broadway play.
This is a very literal reading and not the point at all. Jesus was trying to remove the culture of holier-than-thou moralising by pointing out hypocrisy. The aim was to instil a more tolerant culture of forgiveness. It is in no way meant to be a logical argument against the state administering a justice system.
There are really two elements - individual and state behaviour. Much of Jesus' message was concerned with how an individual should behave under a state that was opposed to a God-led theocracy (this is at a time when the Romans have occupied Israel). The general idea is that you should submit to the state, having a revolution of the heart instead. So you can have state-sanctioned capital punishment while having 'turn the other cheek' personal behaviour .
The real conflict, in my opinion, is what happened when Christianity gained political power. The personal behaviour was not transferred to the state level, it was business as usual. Perhaps this is sensible, as humans being humans, such a lenient system is unlikely to work.
People often point to New York, however that is possibly due to the aging baby boomers (there is a particular age range of males that commit most crimes).
Really the optimum strictness depends on the society and the culture and is affected by things such as population size, density etc. The brutality of yesteryear was (somewhat) appropriate because everybody was that brutal.
Taking your comment at face value, shouldn't we logically decrease the penalties to decrease crime? Perhaps we should pay people to commit crimes?
Is that overdone for effect? My only experience with the Gothenburg accent is from the between-song talking by the singer of Dark Tranquillity, and his English sounds very clear (although clearly northern European).
This is just an assertion. Do you have any arguments to back it up?
MP3's have helped so many heavy metal bands gain exposure and allow them to tour.
The interesting question is whether the increased exposure leads to more bands being able to tour a little (as you seem to assume), or less bands being able to tour a lot.
I've always suspected the latter. I.e. with easy global communication I have access to the best bands of all countries. I am no longer restricted to my own area. Consequently the best bands in the world get my attention (and everyone else's) and can tour, at the expense of the lesser bands. It's a similar process to multi-national companies.
Iron Maiden are a unique case, financially. As you mention, even world-famous (amongst metalheads) bands rarely make enough money to do music full time.
What your parent is asking, is *what* makes them like how it sounds. This is more complicated than suggesting the active listener is some sort of perfectly independent thinker. Even music fanatics will be swayed by the opinions of friends, even if it only by giving them more opportunity to appreciate an artist ("Fine, I'll give it another spin if you think it's so great"). Humans also like bonding, so we are inclined to value that which our allies value.
Personally, I'm in the odd situation of loving metal yet having no real life friends who like it (some who can appreciate it, but not as a primary genre). Even so, I can still feel myself swayed by online opinion. Some albums that don't grab me, for example, I'll still buy based on their Encylopaedia Metallum reviews, on the assumption that there must be something I'm missing.
This is the point, it's purely pragmatic. An unknown band starting out has more to gain from publicity (piracy) than album sales. Once they have an established reputation the equation changes and, under the current copyright laws, it is their right to choose. In Metallica's case they updated their business model for the situation. To be snarky, isn't that all the Slashdot majority ever wanted?
The article suggests the piracy/publicity model also works for established bands. I'm open to that but their argument is confused. They claim that, despite being heavily pirated, Iron Maiden makes a lot of profit because metal fans are so loyal they purchase more and pirate less.
Actually the successful model they do reference is using torrent statistics to determine regional popularity and therefore the best concert locations. I'm sure that helps but piracy is hardly needed for that. If digital music were somehow un-piratable you would get the same information from legal downloads. Probably better as it would be less corrupted by TOR and less hidden by sneakernet.
Agreed - I closed it straight away after seeing her image and the 30 minute length, until I read your response and tried again. An insightful and interesting talk.
Her main argument is;
1. In traditional/poor societies, men have the obligation to provide for women children
2. This leads to strict social roles where men are given control (privileges) to help them fulfil their obligations
3. Feminists interpret this as oppression
4. Giving women the same privileges without the obligations causes problems
My only criticism is that she is mildly unbalanced in painting women as ready to take unfair advantage of the changing social structures and men as only having traditional control out of necessity.
There are fucking huge electric mining trucks that can fit a dozen SUVs in the back
I don't think that's a fair comparison. Electric haul packs are not constrained by on-road design regulations, allowing them to fit proportionally more batteries. Further, they can use special heavy-industry chargers at a single, controlled location rather than house mains. More importantly they are not designed for high speed travel (which is where the exponential wind resistance increase would really hit a non-aerodynamic vehicle)
EVs are already at the limits of acceptable range, recharge time and cost. An electric SUV would have significantly worse performance in all three.
Australia has a set quota of refugees that are treated as part of the annual immigration intake - 40000
This is different from my understanding. Australian immigration easily tops 100,000 annually, and the humanitarian intake is separate, not linked. It was 13,000 for years, Gillard increased it to 20,000, Rudd hinted at increasing it to appease the left when he introduced his PNG plan. I assume it's still 20,000 with the new government.
What is linked, is onshore (boat/plane arrivals) and offshore (the 'queue' in refugee camps) humanitarian arrivals. This link was created by the Howard government and, while possibly fair enough, turns onshore arrivals into 'queue jumpers'.
I too, have a suspicion that many of the asylum seekers are simply economic migrants. However I'm sure you've heard the counter-arguments;
- The neighbouring countries they pass through are not signatories to the UN convention on refugees
- They are certainly poorly treated (often gaoled) in Indonesia
- Extended families often pool their money to come up with the $10k to send one member
- 90% of asylum seekers (who arrive by boat) are found to be legitimate refugees by Australia
- The chances of being resettled from a UN refugee camp (i.e. the queue) are very small
All you get are people throwing a bunch of assumptions around. I've yet to see any studies that attempt to categories the real reasons people claim asylum.
Yes, and when your wife finds out that you're cheating on her, it's not your fault for cheating but her fault for finding out
It's slightly more subtle than that. It's like knowing in the back of your mind that you talk too much, then being told by a third party that one of your friends complained about how annoying you can be.
Humans relate more successfully by holding some things private. It damages relationships to have all information in the open, even if that information was already known to all parties.
Diplomacy, and perhaps spying, are the nation state equivalents. People have the expectation that their government should be completely transparent, but this runs counter to the interests of diplomacy and security. I.e. it is not clear that all such behaviour is intrinsically wrong, as your infidelity example suggests.
Actually, from ABC fact check;
The verdict: Mr Morrison is correct. Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country. That is the case even though these people have not committed any crime, nor broken any Australian or international law.
Mind you, it is still misleading to use this term when speaking to the general public.
I also like the following possibility that arises from warnings being completely compiler-dependent.
Warning L-8272: Your code is perfectly valid and well-formed.
I wish vendors would implement this, just to be a thorn in the side of those who advocate those unthinking zero-warnings policies.