No need to get angry. The point is that the YY/MM scheme is sufficient to distinguish versions even if you do not understand the date represented in it. Intuitively users will understand that 11.04 is different from and came before 11.10, no matter what the numbers actually mean. For everyone who wants more information the next step is using google where they instantly find the link I posted. I do not see what kind of potential user faces problems from this system.
That will roll around in some half a dozen years, but Ubuntu also has YY.MM version numbers, so you know immediately that version 08.04 is over four years old.
Why would I know that? Do you mean they also mandate that their major releases match the last two digits of the year they came out? Good to know. Certainly not obvious.
You would know that if you cared enough to look it up. It is of course much more comfortable to assume that the numbering is arbitrary and stupid. Feel free to explain any numbering/naming convention that is easier to understand than YY.MM and is at the same time so intuitive that no one could ever ask "Why would I know that?"
Getting the implementation just right can be tricky, but this(along with appeals to the authority of the invisible friends of the powers that be) has been a fundamental part of human civilization for pretty much all of human history...
The problem being that if your implementation is a little off you will probably not get a second chance.
I won't be surprised at another global calamity 10 to 30 years in the future - and by then, blood may flow like rivers and corpse may pile up like hills and mountains - it would apocalypse, in every sense of the term
It's basically a "Yeah, see if you can stop us", kinda deal. The fact that they're able to flip their middle finger to any and all drug prohibition laws and sit there and rake in a non-trivial amount of money in the process... that strikes me as a major shift in how prohibition laws will need to be enforced (or if they'll even try to) in the future.
The weak point being that the process is based on anonymity. Therefore, buyers need to have blind trust in sellers. This enables the DEA to set up fake sales and bust the buyers. After they do this for a while, word gets out and buyers start losing trust in the process, therefore killing it. Am I missing something?
From your logic, if the relation of drug related violence to total violence is large enough, we can conclude that "drug wars are common". Which would also apply to a town with exactly one shooting incident per year, which happens to be drug related.
The article is an obvious piece of PR disguised as informative journalism. I guess getting your sales pitch on slashdot is easier than renting billboards. Would not read again.
Oh the irony...you say that most people - but not you - only feel good if they can make others look bad. Kinda sounds like you are feeling pretty good about being "better" than others.
Since when do we call foreigners by the title their native language uses? I would be surprised to find the times referring to the German "Bundeskanzlerin".
You can pretty easily define your way around that. Instead of saying that everyone has the right to "marry a person they romantically love, if that person is able to give consent and does so" you can say that everyone has the right to marry a partner of the opposite sex.
If that is the only right you want to fulfill, homosexuals are not technically deprived of a right you are acknowledging.
Publishers generally try to influence content if they feel there's a buck in it. Whether this is the case for the EA/Bioware relationship, I do not know.
I would then like to propose the idea of gravitation goblins.
When you throw a rock in the air, a gravitation goblin commes running and immediately starts pushing the rock down to the floor.
This just serves to illustrate that its not a good idea to judge a theory's merits by evaluating what it predicts for a single scenario. Knowing the rock falls down is not everything there is to know about gravitation.
This can only be fixed if only climate scientists get to vote on whos on the energy committee and only economists get to vote on whos to decide what to do about the deficit. This makes sense in principle and would definitely get better results than current systems, but still has some caveats. Who decides who is allowed to vote on who is allowed to decide?
This is not the point made in the abstract. There it just says that people who do not know a lot about a certain topic are often unable to identify the person in a group who has the most expertise in the field. Which is not really that surprising and has very little to do with intelligence. For example, I am sure that experts in biology would have difficulties telling you who - given a set of candidates - knows the most about astrophysics. Quite obviously this does not make them "not smart enough".
Slashdot Mirror
No need to get angry. The point is that the YY/MM scheme is sufficient to distinguish versions even if you do not understand the date represented in it. Intuitively users will understand that 11.04 is different from and came before 11.10, no matter what the numbers actually mean. For everyone who wants more information the next step is using google where they instantly find the link I posted. I do not see what kind of potential user faces problems from this system.
That will roll around in some half a dozen years, but Ubuntu also has YY.MM version numbers, so you know immediately that version 08.04 is over four years old.
Why would I know that? Do you mean they also mandate that their major releases match the last two digits of the year they came out? Good to know. Certainly not obvious.
You would know that if you cared enough to look it up. It is of course much more comfortable to assume that the numbering is arbitrary and stupid. Feel free to explain any numbering/naming convention that is easier to understand than YY.MM and is at the same time so intuitive that no one could ever ask "Why would I know that?"
Getting the implementation just right can be tricky, but this(along with appeals to the authority of the invisible friends of the powers that be) has been a fundamental part of human civilization for pretty much all of human history...
The problem being that if your implementation is a little off you will probably not get a second chance.
Starting a revolution is really hard when you're fat.
I won't be surprised at another global calamity 10 to 30 years in the future - and by then, blood may flow like rivers and corpse may pile up like hills and mountains - it would apocalypse, in every sense of the term
You should lay off the bible reading for a while.
Try asking a dealer in the street if he takes bitcoin and see what happens...
$2 million doesn't even register.
It's basically a "Yeah, see if you can stop us", kinda deal. The fact that they're able to flip their middle finger to any and all drug prohibition laws and sit there and rake in a non-trivial amount of money in the process... that strikes me as a major shift in how prohibition laws will need to be enforced (or if they'll even try to) in the future.
The weak point being that the process is based on anonymity. Therefore, buyers need to have blind trust in sellers. This enables the DEA to set up fake sales and bust the buyers. After they do this for a while, word gets out and buyers start losing trust in the process, therefore killing it. Am I missing something?
From your logic, if the relation of drug related violence to total violence is large enough, we can conclude that "drug wars are common". Which would also apply to a town with exactly one shooting incident per year, which happens to be drug related.
see you in 5 minutes after you realize it actually is kinda hard
you misspelt anus
True, since 4 out of 4 probably die within the first 4 years...
After you hit a helicopter it probably loses height even quicker than a ship.
Showering sure is easier if you don't have to ask the military for permission.
The article is an obvious piece of PR disguised as informative journalism. I guess getting your sales pitch on slashdot is easier than renting billboards. Would not read again.
Oh the irony...you say that most people - but not you - only feel good if they can make others look bad. Kinda sounds like you are feeling pretty good about being "better" than others.
Since when do we call foreigners by the title their native language uses? I would be surprised to find the times referring to the German "Bundeskanzlerin".
You can pretty easily define your way around that. Instead of saying that everyone has the right to "marry a person they romantically love, if that person is able to give consent and does so" you can say that everyone has the right to marry a partner of the opposite sex. If that is the only right you want to fulfill, homosexuals are not technically deprived of a right you are acknowledging.
Publishers generally try to influence content if they feel there's a buck in it. Whether this is the case for the EA/Bioware relationship, I do not know.
I would then like to propose the idea of gravitation goblins. When you throw a rock in the air, a gravitation goblin commes running and immediately starts pushing the rock down to the floor. This just serves to illustrate that its not a good idea to judge a theory's merits by evaluating what it predicts for a single scenario. Knowing the rock falls down is not everything there is to know about gravitation.
Are you looking for this ?
This can only be fixed if only climate scientists get to vote on whos on the energy committee and only economists get to vote on whos to decide what to do about the deficit. This makes sense in principle and would definitely get better results than current systems, but still has some caveats. Who decides who is allowed to vote on who is allowed to decide?
This is not the point made in the abstract. There it just says that people who do not know a lot about a certain topic are often unable to identify the person in a group who has the most expertise in the field. Which is not really that surprising and has very little to do with intelligence. For example, I am sure that experts in biology would have difficulties telling you who - given a set of candidates - knows the most about astrophysics. Quite obviously this does not make them "not smart enough".