Diplomacy and foreign policy are not about what's good for the other guy. We don't go to a place and talk and persuade them in order to make their lives easier and give them things.
You go there to get things favorable to you, not the other guy.
If that results in their lives being easier or them getting things in return, so be it. If not, so be it. Sometimes they make the decision to shortchange a long term benefit in favor of a short term one. Sometimes they make a decision because of an overriding demand ( such as "oppose communism at all costs").
Point: It's not about them, the other guy, and what's best for them. It's about you, and what's best for you. That is the reality.
you have no damn clue what you're talking about. if this is what passes for history being taught these days we're in for a load of hurt in the coming years.
Why do you need a regulation for that? It will do nothing but cost money and slow down rate of progress in the devices (cause it will take forever to change the regs when the next advance in interface occurs).
Pretty much the only phones that dont have a micro USB are iphones. Even my crappy little samsung pre-paid go phone blackberry knockoff (that i bought for $20 and put in my regular SIM card rather than pay for an upgrade/replacement when my old phone died) has one.
Dont buy a phone that doesnt have a common connector and dont buy a car that doesnt either.
Vote with wallet, etc etc. It really does work. Or buy an adapter.
There several alternate methods to solving this problem: 1- Logic + map (most towns have amenities) 2- Pre-planning (Proper prior planning prevents piss poor performance) 3- Talking to people
It all depends on how you define efficiency. Plus trains have a far more limited list of origins and destinations. Is your efficiency cost/volume? Fuel/volume? Time/cost? Time/volume? Do you only care about speed? Or only about cost? This is why logistics managers/planners can make some serious bank.
If you're defining efficiency how i think you are, container ships are even more efficient than trains, but even more limited in routes.
Container ships are the most efficient for anything connected by sea beyond X distance. Two ports 20 miles apart would likely be better served by rail or truck. Trains are the most efficient for anything not connected by sea, or connected by sea less than X apart, that is more than Y distance apart by road. Two towns or warehouse just a few blocks or miles apart are better served by truck. Trucks are best for anything less than Y or X apart and connected by roads, or where the time of loading/unloading and changing venues outweighs the efficiencies of the others.
Trains dont have to stop at night, truckers do. But truckers can go more places. Some truckers unload themselves, others are part of companies that handle the loading/unloading and the trucker simply disconnects his rig and picks up a new already loaded trailer. Do you truck to a train terminal, get loaded on a train, then back on a truck near destination, or just truck the whole way?
actually thats not true. you can compete against free, particularly when free has crappy "customer service".
such as, its free, but you have to recomplie/transcode or otherwise convert it to make it work. vs, pay us 10$ and we do all that stuff for you, so it just works. (case in point: Planescape:torment on GoG vs what you can download)
Three Mile Island, the most highly publicized nuclear meltdown in the US released significant levels of radiation into the background. Incidents of cancer trippled over the decade following the accident. Food and water supplies were tainted.
its not really a law. a moratorium is basically a collective agreement to focus on other things. and congress makes these sorts of collective agreements/resolutions regularly, typically at the begining of a new session (which would be right about now) as a way of deciding what they will work on for the next few years and how they will do it.
the comment was a direct response to the scenario posited in the summary, which included the car making the decision to sacrifice me to save the bus as a moral decision, and the concept of it being immoral to drive oneself rather than let the car do it.
the freedom of travel concept comes in to play in that in order to travel i must give up the right to determine my own fate by leaving my fate, and my safety and right to life, to the car's computer, a computer that may decide to sacrifice me in the mentioned scenario involving a bus full of people/kids. in order to safegaurd my own life i must inherently give up right to travel, the two concepts having now been put at odds with each other, a so-called "chilling effect".
You never actually read Asimov. And if you did, you're the one that failed to grasp the points. The points he even clearly spells out in several of his own essays.
Asimov wasn't writing about the ambiguity or incompleteness of the laws...he wrote the damn laws. And he did consider them a blueprint. He said so. And when MIT (and other) students began using his rules as a programming basis he was proud!!
It wasnt a warning.
Asimov was writing about robots as an engineering problem to be solved, period. The laws are basic simple concepts that solve 99% of the problems in engineering a robot. He then wrote science fiction stories dealing with the laws in the manner of good science fiction, that is to make you think about: the science itself, the consequences of science, the difference in human thinking and logical thinking, difference in human and robots...ie to think period.
Example: in telling a robot to protect a human, how far should a robot go in protecting that human? Should he protect that human from self inflicted harm like smoking, at the expense of the persons freedom? In this case Asimov, again, wasnt writing about the dangers of the laws, or to warn people against them. He's writing about the classic question of "protection/security vs freedom", this time approached from the angle of the moral dilema (sp) placed on a "thinking machine" as it tries to carry out its directives.
in fact Asimov frequently uses and explains things through the literary mechanics of his "electropsychological potential" (or whatever word he used was). In a nutshell its a numeric comparison: Directive 1 causes X amount of voltage potential, Directive 2 causes Y amount, and Directive 3 causes Z amount, and whichever of these is the largest determines the behaviour of the robot. In one story a malfunctioning robot was obeying Rule 3 (self-preservation) at the detriment of the other two, because the voltage of Rule 3 was abnormally large and overpowering the others.
Again, he wrote about robots not as monsters or warnings. he specifically stated many times that his writings were in fact about the exact opposite: that they arent monsters, but engineering problems created by man and solved by man. since man created them, man is responsible for them, and their flaws. robots are an engineering problem and the rules are a simple elegant solution to control their behaviour (his words).
Screw the bus. I don't care about the bus. The bus is big and likely will barely feel the impact anyway. I care about the fact I don't want to die. Why would buy and use a machine that would choose to let me die?
And I posit that the author has failed to consider freedom of travel, freedom of choice, and other basic individual rights/freedoms that mandating driverless cars would run over (pun intended).
Exactly. And everytime they do this, even when its both sides fault, they blame the other guy. And get political mileage out of it cause their core of constituents dont pay attention, but ignore their own guy and go along with blaming the other side
thats why i say the dems and reps both have a hand on teh wheel keeping it pointed straight at the cliff, pedal to the floor, happily driving it over, blaming each other the whole way.
not saying just the story in wow was better. saying that the built in fanbase (of both blizzard games in general, that have always been a cut above the rest, and the warcraft universe) really helped with the launch. MMOs with a sense of being part of something huge seem to do better, and with WoW that sense is provided by the warcraft universe. 3 hugely popular games, each with expansions and physical books written and expanding on the lore....and then you tell those people they can jump into that same universe and be a part of it in an MMO, getting to play in it, "influence" it? Instant market appeal. the same thing helped SWTOR's (and perviously Star Wars galaxies)
friend of mine and i used to argue all the time about it. he was all about how hardcore UO was cause of item loss, forced pvp and so on. and then he got into the math and theory crafting and became big on the shadowknight boards. still plays last i heard.
This is why you should be careful with statistics, something I thought most/.'ers knew.
Those statistics are taken across the entire police force. Break it down by the different duties and a different picture emerges. Traffic enforcement and desk duty are the big outliers than lower the statistical rate on the rest of the duties. Traffic enforcement, generally not hazardous to health, though they are always wary of the potential that the guy you just pulled over may be wanted or may shoot you. (Just cause its uncommon doesnt mean you ignore the risk; cops want to get home to their families too, and criminals dont tend to just break one law and call it quits, but several)
Other more hazardous duties are things like: drug enforcement/busts responding to calls (robbery, etc) domestic disputes (actually one of the most dangerous and unpredictable things cops deal with)
Not everything is pulling over grannies who went a little fast.
Slashdot Mirror
How much is from the seas changing, and how much is from the land masses changing (rising/settling/erosion/plate tectonics and subduction)?
How you measure to 1meter (or more) throughout the day/month/year, influenced by the moon/temperature/sunlight/weather?
And cue more proof of the sig.
Diplomacy and foreign policy are not about what's good for the other guy.
We don't go to a place and talk and persuade them in order to make their lives easier and give them things.
You go there to get things favorable to you, not the other guy.
If that results in their lives being easier or them getting things in return, so be it. If not, so be it.
Sometimes they make the decision to shortchange a long term benefit in favor of a short term one. Sometimes they make a decision because of an overriding demand ( such as "oppose communism at all costs").
Point: It's not about them, the other guy, and what's best for them. It's about you, and what's best for you.
That is the reality.
you have no damn clue what you're talking about. if this is what passes for history being taught these days we're in for a load of hurt in the coming years.
Why shouldn't we support someone favorable to our interests over someone favorable to our enemies?
Why do you need a regulation for that? It will do nothing but cost money and slow down rate of progress in the devices (cause it will take forever to change the regs when the next advance in interface occurs).
Pretty much the only phones that dont have a micro USB are iphones. Even my crappy little samsung pre-paid go phone blackberry knockoff (that i bought for $20 and put in my regular SIM card rather than pay for an upgrade/replacement when my old phone died) has one.
Dont buy a phone that doesnt have a common connector and dont buy a car that doesnt either.
Vote with wallet, etc etc. It really does work.
Or buy an adapter.
There several alternate methods to solving this problem:
1- Logic + map (most towns have amenities)
2- Pre-planning (Proper prior planning prevents piss poor performance)
3- Talking to people
It all depends on how you define efficiency. Plus trains have a far more limited list of origins and destinations. Is your efficiency cost/volume? Fuel/volume? Time/cost? Time/volume? Do you only care about speed? Or only about cost? This is why logistics managers/planners can make some serious bank.
If you're defining efficiency how i think you are, container ships are even more efficient than trains, but even more limited in routes.
Container ships are the most efficient for anything connected by sea beyond X distance. Two ports 20 miles apart would likely be better served by rail or truck.
Trains are the most efficient for anything not connected by sea, or connected by sea less than X apart, that is more than Y distance apart by road. Two towns or warehouse just a few blocks or miles apart are better served by truck.
Trucks are best for anything less than Y or X apart and connected by roads, or where the time of loading/unloading and changing venues outweighs the efficiencies of the others.
Trains dont have to stop at night, truckers do. But truckers can go more places. Some truckers unload themselves, others are part of companies that handle the loading/unloading and the trucker simply disconnects his rig and picks up a new already loaded trailer. Do you truck to a train terminal, get loaded on a train, then back on a truck near destination, or just truck the whole way?
actually thats not true. you can compete against free, particularly when free has crappy "customer service".
such as, its free, but you have to recomplie/transcode or otherwise convert it to make it work.
vs, pay us 10$ and we do all that stuff for you, so it just works.
(case in point: Planescape:torment on GoG vs what you can download)
Its not just about price points, but also QoS.
derailment accidents would suck though
Three Mile Island, the most highly publicized nuclear meltdown in the US released significant levels of radiation into the background. Incidents of cancer trippled over the decade following the accident. Food and water supplies were tainted.
That's patently false. A Blatant Lie.
its not really a law. a moratorium is basically a collective agreement to focus on other things. and congress makes these sorts of collective agreements/resolutions regularly, typically at the begining of a new session (which would be right about now) as a way of deciding what they will work on for the next few years and how they will do it.
the comment was a direct response to the scenario posited in the summary, which included the car making the decision to sacrifice me to save the bus as a moral decision, and the concept of it being immoral to drive oneself rather than let the car do it.
the freedom of travel concept comes in to play in that in order to travel i must give up the right to determine my own fate by leaving my fate, and my safety and right to life, to the car's computer, a computer that may decide to sacrifice me in the mentioned scenario involving a bus full of people/kids. in order to safegaurd my own life i must inherently give up right to travel, the two concepts having now been put at odds with each other, a so-called "chilling effect".
the comment was a direct response to the scenario posited in the summary
Probably detected a break in the HDCP chain. The Anydvd driver is essential for HTPCs even when you own the bluray disc.
Found a lot of my lost collection and favorites there. Love em.
You never actually read Asimov.
And if you did, you're the one that failed to grasp the points.
The points he even clearly spells out in several of his own essays.
Asimov wasn't writing about the ambiguity or incompleteness of the laws...he wrote the damn laws. And he did consider them a blueprint. He said so. And when MIT (and other) students began using his rules as a programming basis he was proud!!
It wasnt a warning.
Asimov was writing about robots as an engineering problem to be solved, period.
The laws are basic simple concepts that solve 99% of the problems in engineering a robot.
He then wrote science fiction stories dealing with the laws in the manner of good science fiction, that is to make you think about: the science itself, the consequences of science, the difference in human thinking and logical thinking, difference in human and robots...ie to think period.
Example: in telling a robot to protect a human, how far should a robot go in protecting that human? Should he protect that human from self inflicted harm like smoking, at the expense of the persons freedom? In this case Asimov, again, wasnt writing about the dangers of the laws, or to warn people against them. He's writing about the classic question of "protection/security vs freedom", this time approached from the angle of the moral dilema (sp) placed on a "thinking machine" as it tries to carry out its directives.
in fact Asimov frequently uses and explains things through the literary mechanics of his "electropsychological potential" (or whatever word he used was). In a nutshell its a numeric comparison: Directive 1 causes X amount of voltage potential, Directive 2 causes Y amount, and Directive 3 causes Z amount, and whichever of these is the largest determines the behaviour of the robot. In one story a malfunctioning robot was obeying Rule 3 (self-preservation) at the detriment of the other two, because the voltage of Rule 3 was abnormally large and overpowering the others.
Again, he wrote about robots not as monsters or warnings. he specifically stated many times that his writings were in fact about the exact opposite: that they arent monsters, but engineering problems created by man and solved by man. since man created them, man is responsible for them, and their flaws. robots are an engineering problem and the rules are a simple elegant solution to control their behaviour (his words).
Screw the bus.
I don't care about the bus.
The bus is big and likely will barely feel the impact anyway.
I care about the fact I don't want to die.
Why would buy and use a machine that would choose to let me die?
And I posit that the author has failed to consider freedom of travel, freedom of choice, and other basic individual rights/freedoms that mandating driverless cars would run over (pun intended).
i dont think a successful compromise was assumed at all.
i think it was sold to the american people that way.
but i believe that both sides did it knowing full well they can walk right over the cliff and still emerge politically victorious.
Exactly. And everytime they do this, even when its both sides fault, they blame the other guy. And get political mileage out of it cause their core of constituents dont pay attention, but ignore their own guy and go along with blaming the other side
thats why i say the dems and reps both have a hand on teh wheel keeping it pointed straight at the cliff, pedal to the floor, happily driving it over, blaming each other the whole way.
not saying just the story in wow was better. saying that the built in fanbase (of both blizzard games in general, that have always been a cut above the rest, and the warcraft universe) really helped with the launch. MMOs with a sense of being part of something huge seem to do better, and with WoW that sense is provided by the warcraft universe. 3 hugely popular games, each with expansions and physical books written and expanding on the lore....and then you tell those people they can jump into that same universe and be a part of it in an MMO, getting to play in it, "influence" it? Instant market appeal. the same thing helped SWTOR's (and perviously Star Wars galaxies)
friend of mine and i used to argue all the time about it. he was all about how hardcore UO was cause of item loss, forced pvp and so on.
and then he got into the math and theory crafting and became big on the shadowknight boards. still plays last i heard.
Mod up. both for truth and for source.
driving old cars badly in need of maintenance and new shocks/brakes at breakneck speeds. man taxis scare me
This is why you should be careful with statistics, something I thought most /.'ers knew.
Those statistics are taken across the entire police force.
Break it down by the different duties and a different picture emerges.
Traffic enforcement and desk duty are the big outliers than lower the statistical rate on the rest of the duties.
Traffic enforcement, generally not hazardous to health, though they are always wary of the potential that the guy you just pulled over may be wanted or may shoot you. (Just cause its uncommon doesnt mean you ignore the risk; cops want to get home to their families too, and criminals dont tend to just break one law and call it quits, but several)
Other more hazardous duties are things like:
drug enforcement/busts
responding to calls (robbery, etc)
domestic disputes (actually one of the most dangerous and unpredictable things cops deal with)
Not everything is pulling over grannies who went a little fast.