Obviously, you have tha right to share whatever personal information you want with the rest of the world. Why that would mean you have no right to privacy is beyond me. By that logic they could confiscate your wealth after donating to a charity, because you were giving away money so you obviously don't need it. You have the right to share your personal information and the right to keep it private.
I'm normally a pretty ardent "speech should not be illegal"
Of course, all of you are for free speech except when it's speech you don't agree with.
You are arguing that this man (if really existed and not just a troll) had a mental illness serious enough that he lacked the capacity of rational thought. In that case, he should have requested medical help and possibly put under care. Since none of those have happened, he maintained the responsibility for his own actions.
Computer failures and the resulting damage are not comparable to nuclear power.
O rly? Not that security has anything to do with the matter at hand.
Capitalism does not solve much. It is more like fire; a useful tool but extremely dangerous and easily spreads causing great harm to anything in it's path. Capitalism is quite EVIL and simply because it is better than all the other blanket solutions does not mean it is something to be proud of nor should it have a religion built around it. Capitalism is simply a lesser evil in a general sense.
I'm not saying that's the best solution, but that's the only one that can't be evaded. Cutting down on fossil dependence voluntarily would be very nice, but not every country is willing to join Kyoto. State-regulated prices of gasoline also work well here in Europe, but not every country wants to do that. But when the supplies start to disappear, capitalism will force the prices up regardless of the will of the consumers. If you think that the disappearance of fossil fuels will be a sudden event, you are wrong, it is a process. When the difference between demand and supply becomes big enough, investing into nuclear or alternative sources will become economical.
5 and 10 year predictions are not worth much. We have been hearing stuff for decades that does not happen.
You do realise we are talking about a 20 year prediction of the economy here, don't you? You don't trust 5 year predictions of scientists, yet you are willing to trust 20 year predictions of economists?
I'm for nuclear power when Homer Simpson can safely operate one.
Then you must be all for heavy water reactors. With the moderator being the same as the coolant, not even a deliberate sabotage can cause a meltdown.
Plus all the stuff I've read over the years seems to indicate it is far better to build many small reactors than build centralized ones
You can't really build a big reactor, the critical mass is a hard size limit. What you can do is build several reactors next to each other to form a big plant. There are several advantages of this over one-reactor plants: facilities like the seam turbine, control and waste storage can be shared, thus reducing costs, and for the more paranoid it also decreases the risks, as there is only one area "endangered" by the plant.
That assumes that kids can steal them. Mind you, it's in the middle of traffic. Also, the protective layer on the top could be painted to the colour of the surrounding asphalt, acting as a disguise. Even if they can, this would still be useful on roads outside of the city, or in streets with cameras.
So did they evolve the optimal strategy of starting with cooperation then mirroring your opponent's last move? Because it's cooperative but you don't need many neurons for that.
Computing is cheap, I think the majority of the costs are the telescopes themselves. The politicians are "not happy" because they are bartering, it remains to be seen if they think it seriously.
According to TFA the only disadvantage of splitting is that there has to be a computing centre built on each site, slightly increasing the costs. But I'm sure that the losing one of the two countries would happily foot the bill for that if it meant that they could still get one half.
It affects everyone returning an item, as it requires them to surrender their identity. There are other ways of dealing with fraudsters. For example, if the device isn't broken, they are not required to take it back. Also, they aren't treated like a "free rental service". The "fraudster" exchanges the use of the device for the use of his money during the same time.
While I don't agree with many things the author said, and I think that the bullshit about different intelligence only shows his own ignorance, his basic argument is right. You have a moral obligation to respect the rights of every human the same way, but how you treat them beyond that should be up to you. Expecting someone to walk carelessly into a dangerous neighbourhood because of some abstract ideology is simply foolish. Aknowledging and evading danger is the first and most important line of defence humans have. It's the same deal as it is with sexism: while the two sexes have obvious differences they should be treated the same. Claiming simply that man and women are different does not make someone a sexist. But for some reason many can't accept that it's possible to treat people of different races the same while at the same time keeping the statistical differences between races in mind. Thinking alone is not a crime, actions are.
Sadly, the problem is more complicated than that. As a theoretical example, if there is a minority that's statistically worse at, for example, doing a given job than employers of that field will start not to employ them, because of their own rational interests. Thus, even assuming no superstition or prejudice, racism can be a result of the basic market forces. The problem is that because members of said minority will now have less chances in that job, they will orientate themselves in other directions, making the statistics even worse. Thus, the system has a positive feedback, and racism generates even more racism and worse conditions. In real life, this happens in not just one but a huge ratio of the jobs, and in most contact with the majority in general.
So racism itself contributes to the problem it causes, but it's naivity to assume it is the only reason. And battling racism alone will not change anything unless other problems like lack of education and lack of order, and the mindset of the other side (the ghetto mentality) are dealt with. Changing conditions is relatively easy compared to changing the thinking of people, especially when those mindsets are individually rational.
I'm still in the process of making up my mind, but labeling people into clear 'racist' and 'tolerant' groups is an oversimplification of a complex problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously, you have tha right to share whatever personal information you want with the rest of the world. Why that would mean you have no right to privacy is beyond me. By that logic they could confiscate your wealth after donating to a charity, because you were giving away money so you obviously don't need it. You have the right to share your personal information and the right to keep it private.
I'm normally a pretty ardent "speech should not be illegal"
Of course, all of you are for free speech except when it's speech you don't agree with.
You are arguing that this man (if really existed and not just a troll) had a mental illness serious enough that he lacked the capacity of rational thought. In that case, he should have requested medical help and possibly put under care. Since none of those have happened, he maintained the responsibility for his own actions.
The Python manual, embedded in the official distribution contains a very nice tutorial.
Which is exactly why NASA should stay at space exploration.
if your kid is vaccinated, then why are you afraid of the infected others?
Computer failures and the resulting damage are not comparable to nuclear power.
O rly? Not that security has anything to do with the matter at hand.
Capitalism does not solve much. It is more like fire; a useful tool but extremely dangerous and easily spreads causing great harm to anything in it's path. Capitalism is quite EVIL and simply because it is better than all the other blanket solutions does not mean it is something to be proud of nor should it have a religion built around it. Capitalism is simply a lesser evil in a general sense.
I'm not saying that's the best solution, but that's the only one that can't be evaded. Cutting down on fossil dependence voluntarily would be very nice, but not every country is willing to join Kyoto. State-regulated prices of gasoline also work well here in Europe, but not every country wants to do that. But when the supplies start to disappear, capitalism will force the prices up regardless of the will of the consumers. If you think that the disappearance of fossil fuels will be a sudden event, you are wrong, it is a process. When the difference between demand and supply becomes big enough, investing into nuclear or alternative sources will become economical.
5 and 10 year predictions are not worth much. We have been hearing stuff for decades that does not happen.
You do realise we are talking about a 20 year prediction of the economy here, don't you? You don't trust 5 year predictions of scientists, yet you are willing to trust 20 year predictions of economists?
I'm for nuclear power when Homer Simpson can safely operate one.
Then you must be all for heavy water reactors. With the moderator being the same as the coolant, not even a deliberate sabotage can cause a meltdown.
Plus all the stuff I've read over the years seems to indicate it is far better to build many small reactors than build centralized ones
You can't really build a big reactor, the critical mass is a hard size limit. What you can do is build several reactors next to each other to form a big plant. There are several advantages of this over one-reactor plants: facilities like the seam turbine, control and waste storage can be shared, thus reducing costs, and for the more paranoid it also decreases the risks, as there is only one area "endangered" by the plant.
They won't just take your wallet but also your hand.
It's a trap!
That assumes that kids can steal them. Mind you, it's in the middle of traffic. Also, the protective layer on the top could be painted to the colour of the surrounding asphalt, acting as a disguise. Even if they can, this would still be useful on roads outside of the city, or in streets with cameras.
Still better than stopping on an empty pothole.
They did incorporate a fitness penalty for the number of neurons, but that penalty was arbitrary, just like the whole model.
So did they evolve the optimal strategy of starting with cooperation then mirroring your opponent's last move? Because it's cooperative but you don't need many neurons for that.
Computing is cheap, I think the majority of the costs are the telescopes themselves. The politicians are "not happy" because they are bartering, it remains to be seen if they think it seriously.
According to TFA the only disadvantage of splitting is that there has to be a computing centre built on each site, slightly increasing the costs. But I'm sure that the losing one of the two countries would happily foot the bill for that if it meant that they could still get one half.
Because the US is a liberal federation as opposed to the leftist welfare states of Europe. Both systems have their ups and downs.
Speed? Distance? Height? The optimal design depends on what you want to achieve.
McAfee releases an antivirus product for insulin pumps.
It affects everyone returning an item, as it requires them to surrender their identity. There are other ways of dealing with fraudsters. For example, if the device isn't broken, they are not required to take it back. Also, they aren't treated like a "free rental service". The "fraudster" exchanges the use of the device for the use of his money during the same time.
It's not just about coding skill, some algorithms simply can't be paralellised.
After Stuxnet they don't want to get hacked again.
Hybrids haven't been here for long, the people who buy a new car every 5 years are not a representative population.
While there could be interesting applications of this, covering your floor with touch sensors is far too expensive to be practical.
About as useful as putting a microusb port on a stoneaxe.
While I don't agree with many things the author said, and I think that the bullshit about different intelligence only shows his own ignorance, his basic argument is right. You have a moral obligation to respect the rights of every human the same way, but how you treat them beyond that should be up to you. Expecting someone to walk carelessly into a dangerous neighbourhood because of some abstract ideology is simply foolish. Aknowledging and evading danger is the first and most important line of defence humans have. It's the same deal as it is with sexism: while the two sexes have obvious differences they should be treated the same. Claiming simply that man and women are different does not make someone a sexist. But for some reason many can't accept that it's possible to treat people of different races the same while at the same time keeping the statistical differences between races in mind. Thinking alone is not a crime, actions are.
Sadly, the problem is more complicated than that. As a theoretical example, if there is a minority that's statistically worse at, for example, doing a given job than employers of that field will start not to employ them, because of their own rational interests. Thus, even assuming no superstition or prejudice, racism can be a result of the basic market forces. The problem is that because members of said minority will now have less chances in that job, they will orientate themselves in other directions, making the statistics even worse. Thus, the system has a positive feedback, and racism generates even more racism and worse conditions. In real life, this happens in not just one but a huge ratio of the jobs, and in most contact with the majority in general.
So racism itself contributes to the problem it causes, but it's naivity to assume it is the only reason. And battling racism alone will not change anything unless other problems like lack of education and lack of order, and the mindset of the other side (the ghetto mentality) are dealt with. Changing conditions is relatively easy compared to changing the thinking of people, especially when those mindsets are individually rational.
I'm still in the process of making up my mind, but labeling people into clear 'racist' and 'tolerant' groups is an oversimplification of a complex problem.
But some aspects are more visible than others.