But if you combine sleep, eating, personal hygiene and suchlike, then it's plausible to me that a person would need a minimum of 9 hours a day, more likely atleast 10 to "take care of bodily needs", which is more than just sleeping.
That is true. Not all offensive speech deserves protection. But my point was the opposite one: all the speech that needs protection, is offensive to someone. And the speech that *really* needs protection is offensive to many and/or powerful people.
Think about it. It's always been allowed, at all times and all places, to say things which where popular, well-liked, unoffensive and agreed upon. Even in North-Korea you can say: "Nice weather today!".
Speech needs protection only when it offends someone. Because that is the only time anyone has any reason to try to supress it. The more people it offends, and the more powerful the offended people are, the more likely it is that they'll try to supress it.
Thus offensive speech is the only speech that needs protection, and speech that is offensive to many, especially if they're many and powerful, needs the most protection of all.
Yeah, it's an assumption, and it's perhaps not a 100% certanity that it is correct.
But I think we can agree that the odds of some alien race being familiar with the concept of integers, is a lot higher than the odds that they'll understand english.
Yeah, okay. "huge" majority might be pushing it, depending on your definition of huge.
How large a fraction of the population get 15-20 hours/month worth of exercize ? 20% ? In any case it *is* enough to be in reasonably good shape, though far from enough to be a competitive athlete.
Calmly biking to work ain't really very high intensity, not much higher than walking. Thus sweating is pretty modest. But sufficient that combined with a helmet, my hair looks shit. Not saying that's the end of the world, but the odds that a lacking helmet will severly hurt me are -also- not exactly sky-high.
Extra hassles *do* translate to actually bothering more seldom. And doing exercize too seldom, does kill millions every year. (in contrast, the total bike-related fatalities are 3/year here, and yeah, maybe it'd be 2/year if everyone wore a helmet, but we're talking tiny odds here.
Meet me then. I do bike, but not to work. If I do wear a helmet, and bike the 8 miles, then the combined action of sweating and wearing a helmet makes my hair look like shit for the rest of the working-day, which I refuse to accept.
I run 40 miles a month, bike about 100 and kayak 2 hours a week, i.e. I'm more fit than the huge majority of people my age (or any age, for that matter)
It's a long shitty process indeed. But it's a fixed cost, and not a per-unit cost, thus it's one of those costs that gets less and less relevant the higher number of devices you sell.
At this price-point ($4500) that hardly matters. Sure, you might need expert help for configuring them optimally. What's reasonable pay for a good audiologist, and how many hours does he need to help you tune them well ? If you said he'd need 4 hours, and he'd cost $250/hour, that still adds up to $1000, leaving $3500 for the hardware, which is utterly ridicolous.
I dunno. At this point the bullshit around diamonds is sufficiently well-known that I'd expect most smart women to not even want them. Among my friends I can't think of any who has diamonds in their engagement or wedding-rings, and it's not because they couldn't afford it.
Short version: If you try to *sell* diamonds, you quickly discover they're now worth a fraction of what they where "worth" when you where the buyer. This is true to some degree with everything ofcourse, but to a much larger degree with diamonds than with other valuables such as precious metals.
True. But luckily we neither need, nor want, one single answer that solves everything. We're better off in a multitude of ways from havign a healthy mix of different energy-sources, rather than being subject to the whims of a single one.
It's better to have some hydropower, some wind, some sun, some nuclear, some hydrocarbons, some tides, some biomass instead of putting all our eggs in one basket. As such, "can we cover our entire energy-needs *only* with wind?" is the wrong questions. The right question is if wind can be one part of the overall solution, it seems pretty clear to me that the answer to that is "yes".
As for NIMBY, there's solutions to that. Fewer people are bothered by wind-farms being installed a few miles offshore, such as those in the UK and Denmark currently, for example.
That's not true. If that was the case it'd make no sense comparing the *actual* costs of FDE ($235/computer/year) with the *potential* losses. You'd need to multiply the latter with the estimated likelihood of that loss to get an average loss, and the study makes no such attempt, instead it concludes that FDE is a big win because $235 is less than $4650.
Agreed on the smell-test. No matter how good a security-measure is, it cannot save more money than is lost without it. (i.e. the best possible security is 100%)
Thus for FDE to save $4650/computer/year, the current cost of data-loss that would be avoided with FDE must be atleast the same amount.
There's about 100 million computers sold annually in USA, essentially none of which have FDE. The average computer is used for atleast 3 years. The total *current* cost of data-losses must thus be atleast: 100M * $4650 *3 = $1395 billion/year.
That doesn't pass the smell-test. It would mean the losses add up to $12500 a year for each household, which is utterly ridicolous.
I think you should stop playing one on the Internet. It's not required to be a lawyer to have an opinion, but it doesn't hurt to learn atleast the basics.
There's a long string of court-cases that together define derivative work. Like always in life, grey areas exist, it's possible to create a new work in such a way that it's unknown whether a court would consider it a derivative or not, but none of your examples fall in that category.
It certainly is. I live in Norway, where income has grown steadily over the last 30 years (yes, that includes over the last 5 years), and there's no, or very little, such pessimism here. (you can find data here: http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/05/01/10/inntekt_en/ )
If that makes people less risk-averse is hard to say. There's some risks it's easier to take - a work-market with an overabundance of good-paying jobs means you can quit to try it out on your own, knowing that if it doesn't work out, you'll very likely very easily be able to find a job, helps. Having a partner who earns well enough that the entire family could survive decently on his (or her) income, also helps.
It depends on what "on call" means. If I am "on call" then I must: * Not drink alcohol. * Have a car available. * Be able to show up at work in 30 minutes (i.e. be -near- my home-city). * Have my wife home, or a babysitter on call. * Don't turn off my phone, or put it on silent. * Be reachable by phone. (i.e. no going out of cover, no going windsurfing, no going swimming, no paddling unless I bring the phone along.
All of the above adds up to some burden, even if the phone never rings. I'm compensated with 20% of my normal pay for being "on call" though, so that makes it okay, but I'd never consider doing it for free.
Certainly. If anyone told you Scandinavia is heaven, they lied. Everyones feet stinks.
But not equally much. Specifically I compared to South-Africa. It's not precisely a secret that sexual violence, including rape, is extremely common there.
So your feet don't need to smell like roses, to stink less than theirs.
What people *think* when someone says "rape", i.e. being assaulted outdoors by a stranger, for example on the way home from a party, is indeed rare in many countries.
But most rapes don't fit in that category, and aren't mentioned in the news. Most rapes, for example, happen between people who know eachother, and are not reported to the police.
I'd say about 1 in 5. But the statistics vary *wildly* by geography. The -majority- of south-african women I know have experienced rape, or atleast sexual abuse, while perhaps only 1 in 10 among Scandinavians, Americans are somewhere in between, I'd say.
Here's a hint: if 1:3 sounds *wildly* out of proportion to you, perhaps you don't know many women, or don't know them all that well. Or your social group and local environment is among the safer ones.
For 50GB, try SpiderOak ? It's encrypted (locally, at your end), versioned, cross-platform and affordable.
Yeah, the first backup takes a while if you ain't got heaps of bandwith, but the client is smart about only pushing stuff as it changes lateron, so ongoing bandwith-consumption isn't much.
In principle, sure. In practice, when the wealthy do something, they do so trough a company, and that company holds no more assets than absolutely neseccary.
Thus, you can sue, but any major win won't be against the company-owner, but instead against the company. The company folds, taking with it the miniscule fraction of wealth that happened to be invested in it.
This ain't news. SCO folds, sure. They fail to pay enormous damages that they'd rightly owe to IBM and others. You're fooling yourself if you think that people who *owned* SCO are today living on the streets, though - no they're still wealthier than 99% of us.
Few people claim USA is a bad place to live. It's a nice place to live, certainly nicer than the living-conditions 90% of humanity has.
But many are claiming that USA has some problems that are unique, or nearly so, among countries of comparable wealth.
There's no other wealthy first-world nations with zero days of by-law parental leave, for example. Nor is there one where the distribution of wealth is so skewed towards the top 1%. Hardly one with so many people lacking healthcare-coverage either.
Usa *IS* an awesome place to live. But if you honestly think it's universally world-best in all ways, I think it's likely you have limited experience with other wealthy first-world countries.
For example I chuckled at your mention of housing-standards. Hint: if you compare average housing-standard in USA to average housing-standard in Norway, USA doesn't end up looking good at all.
Slashdot Mirror
True. Many do fine on less than that.
But if you combine sleep, eating, personal hygiene and suchlike, then it's plausible to me that a person would need a minimum of 9 hours a day, more likely atleast 10 to "take care of bodily needs", which is more than just sleeping.
Thus 14.5 hours a day of work isn't sustainable.
That is true. Not all offensive speech deserves protection. But my point was the opposite one: all the speech that needs protection, is offensive to someone. And the speech that *really* needs protection is offensive to many and/or powerful people.
Nah. The standard reply goes that atheism is a religion the same way celibacy is a sex-position.
That's what free speech means.
Think about it. It's always been allowed, at all times and all places, to say things which where popular, well-liked, unoffensive and agreed upon. Even in North-Korea you can say: "Nice weather today!".
Speech needs protection only when it offends someone. Because that is the only time anyone has any reason to try to supress it. The more people it offends, and the more powerful the offended people are, the more likely it is that they'll try to supress it.
Thus offensive speech is the only speech that needs protection, and speech that is offensive to many, especially if they're many and powerful, needs the most protection of all.
Glad to clear that up for you !
Yeah, it's an assumption, and it's perhaps not a 100% certanity that it is correct.
But I think we can agree that the odds of some alien race being familiar with the concept of integers, is a lot higher than the odds that they'll understand english.
Yeah, okay. "huge" majority might be pushing it, depending on your definition of huge.
How large a fraction of the population get 15-20 hours/month worth of exercize ? 20% ? In any case it *is* enough to be in reasonably good shape, though far from enough to be a competitive athlete.
Calmly biking to work ain't really very high intensity, not much higher than walking. Thus sweating is pretty modest. But sufficient that combined with a helmet, my hair looks shit. Not saying that's the end of the world, but the odds that a lacking helmet will severly hurt me are -also- not exactly sky-high.
Extra hassles *do* translate to actually bothering more seldom. And doing exercize too seldom, does kill millions every year. (in contrast, the total bike-related fatalities are 3/year here, and yeah, maybe it'd be 2/year if everyone wore a helmet, but we're talking tiny odds here.
Yeah sure. If there where showers at work. Even then, that'd be an extra hassle. Sure it's doable, but it's more inconvenient.
More inconvenient == done more seldom. That's not rocket-science.
Meet me then. I do bike, but not to work. If I do wear a helmet, and bike the 8 miles, then the combined action of sweating and wearing a helmet makes my hair look like shit for the rest of the working-day, which I refuse to accept.
I run 40 miles a month, bike about 100 and kayak 2 hours a week, i.e. I'm more fit than the huge majority of people my age (or any age, for that matter)
It's a long shitty process indeed. But it's a fixed cost, and not a per-unit cost, thus it's one of those costs that gets less and less relevant the higher number of devices you sell.
At this price-point ($4500) that hardly matters. Sure, you might need expert help for configuring them optimally. What's reasonable pay for a good audiologist, and how many hours does he need to help you tune them well ? If you said he'd need 4 hours, and he'd cost $250/hour, that still adds up to $1000, leaving $3500 for the hardware, which is utterly ridicolous.
I dunno. At this point the bullshit around diamonds is sufficiently well-known that I'd expect most smart women to not even want them. Among my friends I can't think of any who has diamonds in their engagement or wedding-rings, and it's not because they couldn't afford it.
No they don't. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/
Short version: If you try to *sell* diamonds, you quickly discover they're now worth a fraction of what they where "worth" when you where the buyer. This is true to some degree with everything ofcourse, but to a much larger degree with diamonds than with other valuables such as precious metals.
True. But luckily we neither need, nor want, one single answer that solves everything. We're better off in a multitude of ways from havign a healthy mix of different energy-sources, rather than being subject to the whims of a single one.
It's better to have some hydropower, some wind, some sun, some nuclear, some hydrocarbons, some tides, some biomass instead of putting all our eggs in one basket. As such, "can we cover our entire energy-needs *only* with wind?" is the wrong questions. The right question is if wind can be one part of the overall solution, it seems pretty clear to me that the answer to that is "yes".
As for NIMBY, there's solutions to that. Fewer people are bothered by wind-farms being installed a few miles offshore, such as those in the UK and Denmark currently, for example.
That's not true. If that was the case it'd make no sense comparing the *actual* costs of FDE ($235/computer/year) with the *potential* losses. You'd need to multiply the latter with the estimated likelihood of that loss to get an average loss, and the study makes no such attempt, instead it concludes that FDE is a big win because $235 is less than $4650.
Agreed on the smell-test. No matter how good a security-measure is, it cannot save more money than is lost without it. (i.e. the best possible security is 100%)
Thus for FDE to save $4650/computer/year, the current cost of data-loss that would be avoided with FDE must be atleast the same amount.
There's about 100 million computers sold annually in USA, essentially none of which have FDE. The average computer is used for atleast 3 years. The total *current* cost of data-losses must thus be atleast: 100M * $4650 *3 = $1395 billion/year.
That doesn't pass the smell-test. It would mean the losses add up to $12500 a year for each household, which is utterly ridicolous.
I think you should stop playing one on the Internet. It's not required to be a lawyer to have an opinion, but it doesn't hurt to learn atleast the basics.
There's a long string of court-cases that together define derivative work. Like always in life, grey areas exist, it's possible to create a new work in such a way that it's unknown whether a court would consider it a derivative or not, but none of your examples fall in that category.
It certainly is. I live in Norway, where income has grown steadily over the last 30 years (yes, that includes over the last 5 years), and there's no, or very little, such pessimism here. (you can find data here: http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/05/01/10/inntekt_en/ )
If that makes people less risk-averse is hard to say. There's some risks it's easier to take - a work-market with an overabundance of good-paying jobs means you can quit to try it out on your own, knowing that if it doesn't work out, you'll very likely very easily be able to find a job, helps. Having a partner who earns well enough that the entire family could survive decently on his (or her) income, also helps.
It depends on what "on call" means. If I am "on call" then I must:
* Not drink alcohol. * Have a car available. * Be able to show up at work in 30 minutes (i.e. be -near- my home-city). * Have my wife home, or a babysitter on call. * Don't turn off my phone, or put it on silent. * Be reachable by phone. (i.e. no going out of cover, no going windsurfing, no going swimming, no paddling unless I bring the phone along.
All of the above adds up to some burden, even if the phone never rings. I'm compensated with 20% of my normal pay for being "on call" though, so that makes it okay, but I'd never consider doing it for free.
Certainly. If anyone told you Scandinavia is heaven, they lied. Everyones feet stinks.
But not equally much. Specifically I compared to South-Africa. It's not precisely a secret that sexual violence, including rape, is extremely common there.
So your feet don't need to smell like roses, to stink less than theirs.
What people *think* when someone says "rape", i.e. being assaulted outdoors by a stranger, for example on the way home from a party, is indeed rare in many countries.
But most rapes don't fit in that category, and aren't mentioned in the news. Most rapes, for example, happen between people who know eachother, and are not reported to the police.
I'd say about 1 in 5. But the statistics vary *wildly* by geography. The -majority- of south-african women I know have experienced rape, or atleast sexual abuse, while perhaps only 1 in 10 among Scandinavians, Americans are somewhere in between, I'd say.
Here's a hint: if 1:3 sounds *wildly* out of proportion to you, perhaps you don't know many women, or don't know them all that well. Or your social group and local environment is among the safer ones.
For 50GB, try SpiderOak ? It's encrypted (locally, at your end), versioned, cross-platform and affordable.
Yeah, the first backup takes a while if you ain't got heaps of bandwith, but the client is smart about only pushing stuff as it changes lateron, so ongoing bandwith-consumption isn't much.
In principle, sure. In practice, when the wealthy do something, they do so trough a company, and that company holds no more assets than absolutely neseccary.
Thus, you can sue, but any major win won't be against the company-owner, but instead against the company. The company folds, taking with it the miniscule fraction of wealth that happened to be invested in it.
This ain't news. SCO folds, sure. They fail to pay enormous damages that they'd rightly owe to IBM and others. You're fooling yourself if you think that people who *owned* SCO are today living on the streets, though - no they're still wealthier than 99% of us.
Few people claim USA is a bad place to live. It's a nice place to live, certainly nicer than the living-conditions 90% of humanity has.
But many are claiming that USA has some problems that are unique, or nearly so, among countries of comparable wealth.
There's no other wealthy first-world nations with zero days of by-law parental leave, for example. Nor is there one where the distribution of wealth is so skewed towards the top 1%. Hardly one with so many people lacking healthcare-coverage either.
Usa *IS* an awesome place to live. But if you honestly think it's universally world-best in all ways, I think it's likely you have limited experience with other wealthy first-world countries.
For example I chuckled at your mention of housing-standards. Hint: if you compare average housing-standard in USA to average housing-standard in Norway, USA doesn't end up looking good at all.