Obamacare taxes people for NON-PARTICIPATION in an activity.
Once upon a time, activity was taxed. Obamacare taxes inactivity.
No, the ACA is a tax on those who take part in the healthcare system (hint: by being alive in the US, you do take part in the US healthcare system). Don't like it? Stop being a part of the system.
Is the point of these gatherings entertainment or communication? I see people complaining about not being entertained...
In an academic conference the purpose is entertainment. The purpose is to get people excited by your work, and want to know more about it. True, you want to communicate the reasons your work is important, and what is great about your work. But the main goal is to get the audience to go home and read your full paper. The paper is the communication medium. The presentation is more about selling the paper.
"The value is in the halls, not in the presentations" - this was a comment in an article on academic conferences (Let there be stoning!, pdf link). Unfortunately, the article hits the nail on the head - most academic talks are atrocious.
And mingling in the halls is still a human activity - you really don't like to do it virtually. It's like going to a virtual bar with your friends. Even if you have the best cocktail at home, the crowd, the sounds, etc. all play a role in keeping you in the mood.
The only advantage I see is in reducing some of the ridiculous conference registration rates I have seen (I'm looking at you IEEE - student registration of $400?). But I don't expect this to take off.
We elected the current turd sandwich that we have right now because too many people felt guilty about not ever having a president with black skin.
I'd say the US elected whom they did because too many people didn't consider third party (and the second party didn't offer a credible alternative). Not to suggest that the current guy is doing a great job, but the US had a choice between him and a 72 year old with a Labrador for a running mate (the first time around). The second time around, the challenger's platform was "Don't ask about the specifics about our plans, you peasant! Just hear my rhetoric and grandstanding, and I'll say everything so just hear what you want to hear.". Unfortunately, all politicians tell you what they think the majority want to hear. Romney wanted to also say (in quick succession) what the minority wanted to hear.
Hell, I think the US should get Bill Clinton back (even if under a Hillary disguise) - he seems to be the best you've had in a while, and the current crop of hopefuls are a joke.
As a counter measure, I was wondering: can this be stopped by designing the right wall?
If you make a wall that scatters a lot back due to a non-homogenous constitution or imperfections, will there be enough reflections to make the system useless? And is that a universal flaw (i.e no matter what type of radar you build, a single "well designed" wall can thwart all such systems)? Or does the wall need to be designed specific to the frequency/design of the detector?
The reason I ask is that I consider this is likely to be an invasion of privacy - "we didn't need a warrant to track the subject, the neighbor was a perv. who had the scanner, and came forward (and we aren't filing charges against him for $unrelated_crime)." It would be nice if a low-tech solution can thwart this.
I'm sorry, let me rephrase that: Do hardware drivers make the user experience so much better? That must be one crappy operating system then....
Funny. If I read just this part of your comment, I wouldn't know whether you are criticizing Windows or Linux. This whole article is about hardware drivers affecting user experience!!
However, science has become a method for the "practitioners" and "priests" to exert social, economic, and institutional influence by swaying the beliefs of those who are not educated enough or informed enough to differentiate between genuine knowledge and blind dogma.
While I agree with you on some aspects, you seem to miss out in that (in theory) other people can call upon those priests to verify their miracles. True, most people never do it. The scientific method requires that there are people to verify claims and catch mistakes. For most important problems, however, there are enough of people to catch mistakes sooner rather than later.
Losing faith in science would be like losing faith in open source because most people aren't educated enough to view the source and verify the code. What matters is that you trust that enough smart people have viewed it and validated the results. My obscure open source project might have a backdoor, but Firefox is unlikely to have one. The problem isn't with open source or the priests, it is that the method assumes enough of resources, which isn't likely for unimportant projects.
In some fields where computers are being used for huge simulations, the problem gets worse. I've known lots of papers that get accepted based on models that were flawed (in Engineering) because there was a sign change in a 20,000 line code. The problem is very hard to catch. However, if it is important enough (or enough eyeballs are looking at it), it will get caught.
I'm not sure what you mean by better at engineering but worse at knowledge.
You are either completely ignorant of how GAO works (which incidentally, covers more than just DoD), or you are blindly biased against defense spending.
I admit the working of the GAO is new to me. Why is it, then, that I have never seen/heard about NSF distributing large sums/grants on the last day of the fiscal year? There seems to be a rush to approve programs here - is it that a lot of programs have their allocation deadlines set to September 30th, or are the allocation deadlines open ended (theoretically), and the people start rushing in approving projects towards the end of the fiscal year (which might imply that the review isn't as good - there is a rush to get them out the door)?
Yes, you've proven beyond a shadow of doubt that you know so little about the history and privilege of voting that you should be kept far away from the ballot box -- under your own proposed rule.
You seem to be mixing up the two positions - just because I don't know about the history about voting shouldn't make me ineligible to vote on ANY issue, just that I shouldn't be voting on voting laws itself (and I know that is what we are discussing - but this is a discussion about a system, not an actual vote which I wouldn't get).
Basically, I'm talking Direct Democracy mixed with the current system. While it is impractical for a society of 300 million people to gather at the country stadium, technology can help there. I have to be eligible to vote on certain issues (kind of like a literacy test), with some mix of representative democracy (to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority socially/legally. You are absolutely free not to believe in gravity. However, if you do hold such beliefs, you shouldn't be free to have a say - either in votes or through a representative - on what NASA should be doing).
Anyway, this is now very off-topic. I learnt something new about how defense budgets work, which is why, in general, I come here.
This statement disqualifies you from being able to vote under your own rules. This is nothing more than a literacy test with a more politically correct name. Since you don't have a working knowledge of history behind voting, you should not have the right to vote.
I stand by my statement. At the time, I admit I didn't bother to RTFA, and my opinions should be given less weight than yours (since I didn't know that the engines had to delivered by P&W). Justifiably, if it came to talking about how defense money should be allocated, my voice shouldn't be heard (since I do not have a working or even second-hand knowdedge about it). I'd be glad if military spending decisions is entrusted to those who satisfy two requirements: (1) They have knowledge of the how spending works in this domain, (2) They do NOT directly benefit from the allocation of funds.
The problem with the literacy test (in your link) is the questions are arbitrary. And no, not knowing of the history of voting doesn't mean my vote on something unrelated (say, if we vote on who should be on the Committee on Science) should be impacted - it just means I shouldn't get to vote on political science issues. Obviously, it isn't going to happen. Any such system will disenfranchise some section of society. But the other extreme - where a creationist gets on the science commitee is a perversion of the system as well.
Cannot just hand out grants to scientific research in the last few hours of the day. Nor the NIH.
Shit like this is what makes me angry at the priorities of the US. There is a very good reason that the NSF program directors can't hand out money to their buddies - proposals need to be submitted, evaluated, debated, etc. But were there multiple competitors for the money given to Pratt and Whitney? Did they have to read, deliberate, and have experts from various organizations debate the merits? Or did some guys get together and say - 'we have a really tough job to do; we need to distribute several billions in a few days/hours'?
And the priorities won't change because of short-sighted citizens being deliberately misled by politicians. If even $500,000 (which isn't really that much for research - it basically hires two or three graduate students at a university for 3 years) gets spent on video game or emperor penguins research, there will be blustering in front of the camera, decrying spending on ivory-tower academics (despite a lot of NSF money going to work that can be of immediate use - but politicians cherry pick programs for outrage) while 'Average hard working blue collar church going Americans are out of jobs and millions go to researching fruitflies'. Want to give a couple million dollars to your buddies in Lockheed or Raytheon? 'We are fighting a war on... Can't afford to show weakness in the international stage... must maintain superpower position...' And the short-signed public goes... "No to Fruitflies, yes to bombs."
Sometimes I wish that some form of achievement was necessary to vote. For your local and county, everyone in that locality gets to vote. But for higher, more powerful positions, you need to prove atleast a rudimentary understanding of the issues before being allowed vote. Nowadays it is more like a popularity contest. Say the right things on stage, flash a smile, kiss some babies, and never-ever say - 'Hmm... this is a nuanced problem that has multiple tradeoffs that needs to be analyzed'. Instead, go with 'Raise taxes on the rich' or 'cut welfare spending'.
Every time I read an RMS opinion, it seems to start at a good position and consistently attempts to be more and more idealistic to the point that he seems to be arguing a strawman
.
So schools should teach exclusively free software, to transmit democratic values and the habit of helping other people.
Malware is common in services and proprietary software products
To teach use of a non-free program is to implant dependence on its owner, which contradicts the social mission of the school. Proprietary developers would have us punish students who are good enough at heart to share software or curious enough to want to change it.
I know he defines Malware differently from the common way (he considers DRM as malware, for example), but democratic values are less likely to be transmitted if I use Office? Proprietary developers want to punish students? I guess he means the corporations - and again, they don't generally give their source for modification, so they might be preventing students from modifying other people's work. Is that punishing them? I won't even claim to understand what the social mission of schools are supposed to be - prepare students for functioning in society? Prepare them for jobs? Prepare them for college? Prepare them to develop free software? Prepare them for ignoring copyrights?
I've been using Windows 8 since its release and haven't gotten used to it, despite using all sorts of third party 'reversion' programs (replacement start menu etc).
So you aren't trying to get used to it. You are basically saying you couldn't get it exactly like an older version of Windows.
One major area where I have found Linux lacking (and I use both Linux and Windows) is printing. I have had a really hard time getting any printer (most recently an old HP Laserjet 2100M, prior to that a Canon Laser imageCLASS MF4890dw) to work on Debian, Ubuntu, Mint or CentOS. I have got tired of messing around with CUPS, HPs Linux Imaging and Printing (a major disappointment), etc.
The HP Laserjet on Windows 8? Plugged it into the LPT port (my newer computers don't even have a port for this), and Windows automatically found and installed the drivers. I was printing in under a minute. I have basically resigned myself to having a Windows box just for printing.
Umm, why can't you just ignore the slow students? If they come to class unprepared, that's their problem.
Unfortunately, that has two problems:
1) Students in college are paying (a lot) of money. So there is a lot of scrutiny and expectations. I have even heard a student effectively say "I have paid a lot of money for this class, and I want to get my money's worth from the instructor". Nothing about how he should work hard to make sure his degree meant something - he effectively wanted to exchange money for knowledge. And there is no way of saying - "here is your refund, now get out"; the instructor can't kick students out except for gross misconduct.
2) This was a pilot course, and the instructor wanted the program to succeed - if only so that he could reuse the video tape, and farm out attending the "lectures" (i.e. the question/answer sessions) to graduate students. A vocal minority of dissatisfied students could basically scuttle the whole project.
And the problem was that a few lazy/slow students would end up stalling the entire class. So for example, if the material covered eigenvectors in linear algebra, and the student was supposed to know what they are and try the homework before the class. There were always a few bad apples that would come in, claim they couldn't understand any of the material, and force the instructor to walk them through the lecture again. And you couldn't just tell the students to RTFM.
So it basically became a case where the good students were hearing the same thing twice over, and couldn't get help with the tougher material (because the easy questions were taking a lot of time to cover). If the teacher skipped the easy problems, the lazy students would complain and whine.
In the typical scenario, all students heard the same material once (in class), and the lazy students would struggle with the homework (or mooch off the better students) while the good students would do well. In the end, it basically came down to the smart students helping the slower ones with the easy problems, so that the class could focus on the tough problems.
Your analogy is slightly off. Let's say you work at a large company (say Microsoft). And you know Bob has an allergy. Now, your wife makes a delicious peanut butter sandwich. She knows Bob is allergic and tells you: "Honey, I made this peanut butter sandwich for you. I'm leaving it at the kitchen counter. You can take it to work if you'd like".
Now, if you do take the peanut butter sandwich to work and it kills Bob, is she partially responsible (in the legal sense)? I'd say no - you knew full well what you were taking to work, you could have chosen not to take it, and you still did. Unless you have a medical condition/addiction that makes your wife know that you had no choice but to take the sandwich to work, she isn't responsible. And AFAIK, there is no obsessive compulsion to check text messages - if such a disease exists, those people shouldn't drive, period.
I guess what I'm asking is this: who gets credit for killing Microsoft's Bob?
The article only talks about how reviews get rated after an initial rating, not about how subsequent reviews are good/bad if the initial review is good/bad. That would be the 'xxx people found this review helpful' - giving it a bunch of helpful ratings initially make more people likely to vote it helpful.
On a slightly related note, I wish Amazon would allow viewers to only view rating histograms of 'Amazon verified purchasers'. I remember when Amazon hadn't even released the Fire (except to Vine members - those who get the product early to review). There were lots of 1 star 'Sux, not worthy of sharing a table with my glorious iPad' reviews by people who hadn't even touched the product.
Anecdotal-ly, I found that if a review is rated high (in usefulness) on Amazon, it is generally quite good and detailed. That, and 2-4 star reviews generally have more details than one or five star reviews.
Of course, much better to live and die by the sword... err... Caveat emptor principles?
While there are areas where regulations are silly, this (atleast on the face of it) doesn't seem to be one of those. The accused was running a ponzi scheme. The fact that the currency could be exchanged for real cash puts it in the SEC's realm.
Do you think that the defense industry should support those that oppose them?
I mean, okay if you disagree with people, but the whole correlation / causation thing I think is backwards. I think there is a causation, but the lawmakers thought a certain way -> therefore they were paid money.
No, I don't think the defense industry should support those who oppose them. I also don't think politicians care about the issue at all - they care more about getting elected than about governing. Let's say that the No voters felt that what is being doing is truly necessary - I would consider that better than the alternative (they don't care or don't think it is necessary, but are doing it for the money). Because there might be a way to change their mind into thinking that voting Yes is the better alternative.
Right now, I think that the only way to change their mind is to throw more cash at them than the other side - which is something that is beyond most people's abilities (well, the third option is that people wake up and let the politician know that voting No is something that will bite them the next election, but we all know that isn't going to happen in enough numbers to make a difference. I wish I could be more optimistic about the chance of that happening, but I'm not).
I don't think they were paid because they thought a certain way - I think they were paid because the politician wants the money. No point in preaching to the choir - if the politician already believed it was necessary, there would be no need to pay them. It is those who don't care that need the most persuasion.
For example, in Africa, The Foundation has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in oil companies including Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp, and Chevron.
The Gates Foundation also has investments in 69 of the worst polluting companies in the US and Canada, including Dow Chemical. It holds investments in pharmaceutical companies whose drugs cost far beyond what most patients around the world can afford and The Foundation often lobbies on behalf of those companies for "Intellectual Property" protections that make obtaining low cost medicines more difficult.
Other companies in the Foundation’s portfolio have been accused of transgressions including forcing thousands of people to lose their homes, supporting child labor and defrauding and neglecting patients in need of medical care.
In the mean time, Bill Gates' net worth has increased by $20 Billion since 2007.
Ideally, that shouldn't happen. However, if you look at the worlds most profitable companies, I would assume you would find most of the 69 companies in that list. If Gates puts back a significant portion of the gains back into philanthropic work, it would be a net gain.
Shell and Exxon do not need Gates money. I doubt Gates is on their board of directors. His organization must have bought the shares on the open market as an investment. They should be using the proceeds of that for further philanthropic works. In a way, his organization might end up using the profits of Exxon to undo the damage of Exxon.
I know the idealistic notion is to say "we don't need blood-money to achieve our goals". And Bill Gates certainly has enough of money to throw at problems. But I'd rather he grow his money and spend the profits on philanthropy than not give to important causes at all.
I actually had the same thought about it, but there is always a practical issue on how we spend resources - even though everything is worth saving, maybe we just have to accept we have done too much damage, learn from our mistakes, and move forward. Bringing these Rhinos back from the brink of extinction and reintroducing them to the natural environment is going to take a very, very long time (given their long gestation period).
On a slightly related note, I recommend a book called "Last Chance to See" by Douglas Adams and Mark Carwardine. A very nice book on conservation, and I found the ending highly thought provoking.
I ask as a person who cares about the environment. I strongly feel humans should have a smaller footprint and stop damaging the environment.
However, we seem to be spending a small fortune on the last few members of a species. Whatever ecological roles the rhinos might have played would have been filled (or the entire ecosystem would have changed faster than usual, possibly not-in-a-good-way).
Shouldn't we be spending that money for conservation where the damage isn't this extensive? In a while, maybe by cloning or using frozen sperms/eggs, we might be able to revive the species.
Slashdot Mirror
Obamacare is different.
Obamacare taxes people for NON-PARTICIPATION in an activity.
Once upon a time, activity was taxed. Obamacare taxes inactivity.
No, the ACA is a tax on those who take part in the healthcare system (hint: by being alive in the US, you do take part in the US healthcare system). Don't like it? Stop being a part of the system.
Is the point of these gatherings entertainment or communication? I see people complaining about not being entertained...
In an academic conference the purpose is entertainment. The purpose is to get people excited by your work, and want to know more about it. True, you want to communicate the reasons your work is important, and what is great about your work. But the main goal is to get the audience to go home and read your full paper. The paper is the communication medium. The presentation is more about selling the paper.
"The value is in the halls, not in the presentations" - this was a comment in an article on academic conferences (Let there be stoning!, pdf link). Unfortunately, the article hits the nail on the head - most academic talks are atrocious.
And mingling in the halls is still a human activity - you really don't like to do it virtually. It's like going to a virtual bar with your friends. Even if you have the best cocktail at home, the crowd, the sounds, etc. all play a role in keeping you in the mood.
The only advantage I see is in reducing some of the ridiculous conference registration rates I have seen (I'm looking at you IEEE - student registration of $400?). But I don't expect this to take off.
We elected the current turd sandwich that we have right now because too many people felt guilty about not ever having a president with black skin.
I'd say the US elected whom they did because too many people didn't consider third party (and the second party didn't offer a credible alternative). Not to suggest that the current guy is doing a great job, but the US had a choice between him and a 72 year old with a Labrador for a running mate (the first time around). The second time around, the challenger's platform was "Don't ask about the specifics about our plans, you peasant! Just hear my rhetoric and grandstanding, and I'll say everything so just hear what you want to hear.". Unfortunately, all politicians tell you what they think the majority want to hear. Romney wanted to also say (in quick succession) what the minority wanted to hear.
Hell, I think the US should get Bill Clinton back (even if under a Hillary disguise) - he seems to be the best you've had in a while, and the current crop of hopefuls are a joke.
As a counter measure, I was wondering: can this be stopped by designing the right wall?
If you make a wall that scatters a lot back due to a non-homogenous constitution or imperfections, will there be enough reflections to make the system useless? And is that a universal flaw (i.e no matter what type of radar you build, a single "well designed" wall can thwart all such systems)? Or does the wall need to be designed specific to the frequency/design of the detector?
The reason I ask is that I consider this is likely to be an invasion of privacy - "we didn't need a warrant to track the subject, the neighbor was a perv. who had the scanner, and came forward (and we aren't filing charges against him for $unrelated_crime)." It would be nice if a low-tech solution can thwart this.
I'm sorry, let me rephrase that: Do hardware drivers make the user experience so much better? That must be one crappy operating system then....
Funny. If I read just this part of your comment, I wouldn't know whether you are criticizing Windows or Linux. This whole article is about hardware drivers affecting user experience!!
However, science has become a method for the "practitioners" and "priests" to exert social, economic, and institutional influence by swaying the beliefs of those who are not educated enough or informed enough to differentiate between genuine knowledge and blind dogma.
While I agree with you on some aspects, you seem to miss out in that (in theory) other people can call upon those priests to verify their miracles. True, most people never do it. The scientific method requires that there are people to verify claims and catch mistakes. For most important problems, however, there are enough of people to catch mistakes sooner rather than later.
Losing faith in science would be like losing faith in open source because most people aren't educated enough to view the source and verify the code. What matters is that you trust that enough smart people have viewed it and validated the results. My obscure open source project might have a backdoor, but Firefox is unlikely to have one. The problem isn't with open source or the priests, it is that the method assumes enough of resources, which isn't likely for unimportant projects.
In some fields where computers are being used for huge simulations, the problem gets worse. I've known lots of papers that get accepted based on models that were flawed (in Engineering) because there was a sign change in a 20,000 line code. The problem is very hard to catch. However, if it is important enough (or enough eyeballs are looking at it), it will get caught.
I'm not sure what you mean by better at engineering but worse at knowledge.
You are either completely ignorant of how GAO works (which incidentally, covers more than just DoD), or you are blindly biased against defense spending.
I admit the working of the GAO is new to me. Why is it, then, that I have never seen/heard about NSF distributing large sums/grants on the last day of the fiscal year? There seems to be a rush to approve programs here - is it that a lot of programs have their allocation deadlines set to September 30th, or are the allocation deadlines open ended (theoretically), and the people start rushing in approving projects towards the end of the fiscal year (which might imply that the review isn't as good - there is a rush to get them out the door)?
Yes, you've proven beyond a shadow of doubt that you know so little about the history and privilege of voting that you should be kept far away from the ballot box -- under your own proposed rule.
You seem to be mixing up the two positions - just because I don't know about the history about voting shouldn't make me ineligible to vote on ANY issue, just that I shouldn't be voting on voting laws itself (and I know that is what we are discussing - but this is a discussion about a system, not an actual vote which I wouldn't get).
Basically, I'm talking Direct Democracy mixed with the current system. While it is impractical for a society of 300 million people to gather at the country stadium, technology can help there. I have to be eligible to vote on certain issues (kind of like a literacy test), with some mix of representative democracy (to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority socially/legally. You are absolutely free not to believe in gravity. However, if you do hold such beliefs, you shouldn't be free to have a say - either in votes or through a representative - on what NASA should be doing).
Anyway, this is now very off-topic. I learnt something new about how defense budgets work, which is why, in general, I come here.
This statement disqualifies you from being able to vote under your own rules. This is nothing more than a literacy test with a more politically correct name. Since you don't have a working knowledge of history behind voting, you should not have the right to vote.
I stand by my statement. At the time, I admit I didn't bother to RTFA, and my opinions should be given less weight than yours (since I didn't know that the engines had to delivered by P&W). Justifiably, if it came to talking about how defense money should be allocated, my voice shouldn't be heard (since I do not have a working or even second-hand knowdedge about it). I'd be glad if military spending decisions is entrusted to those who satisfy two requirements: (1) They have knowledge of the how spending works in this domain, (2) They do NOT directly benefit from the allocation of funds.
The problem with the literacy test (in your link) is the questions are arbitrary. And no, not knowing of the history of voting doesn't mean my vote on something unrelated (say, if we vote on who should be on the Committee on Science) should be impacted - it just means I shouldn't get to vote on political science issues. Obviously, it isn't going to happen. Any such system will disenfranchise some section of society. But the other extreme - where a creationist gets on the science commitee is a perversion of the system as well.
Cannot just hand out grants to scientific research in the last few hours of the day. Nor the NIH.
Shit like this is what makes me angry at the priorities of the US. There is a very good reason that the NSF program directors can't hand out money to their buddies - proposals need to be submitted, evaluated, debated, etc. But were there multiple competitors for the money given to Pratt and Whitney? Did they have to read, deliberate, and have experts from various organizations debate the merits? Or did some guys get together and say - 'we have a really tough job to do; we need to distribute several billions in a few days/hours'?
And the priorities won't change because of short-sighted citizens being deliberately misled by politicians. If even $500,000 (which isn't really that much for research - it basically hires two or three graduate students at a university for 3 years) gets spent on video game or emperor penguins research, there will be blustering in front of the camera, decrying spending on ivory-tower academics (despite a lot of NSF money going to work that can be of immediate use - but politicians cherry pick programs for outrage) while 'Average hard working blue collar church going Americans are out of jobs and millions go to researching fruitflies'. Want to give a couple million dollars to your buddies in Lockheed or Raytheon? 'We are fighting a war on ... Can't afford to show weakness in the international stage... must maintain superpower position...' And the short-signed public goes... "No to Fruitflies, yes to bombs."
Sometimes I wish that some form of achievement was necessary to vote. For your local and county, everyone in that locality gets to vote. But for higher, more powerful positions, you need to prove atleast a rudimentary understanding of the issues before being allowed vote. Nowadays it is more like a popularity contest. Say the right things on stage, flash a smile, kiss some babies, and never-ever say - 'Hmm... this is a nuanced problem that has multiple tradeoffs that needs to be analyzed'. Instead, go with 'Raise taxes on the rich' or 'cut welfare spending'.
Every time I read an RMS opinion, it seems to start at a good position and consistently attempts to be more and more idealistic to the point that he seems to be arguing a strawman
.
So schools should teach exclusively free software, to transmit democratic values and the habit of helping other people.
Malware is common in services and proprietary software products
To teach use of a non-free program is to implant dependence on its owner, which contradicts the social mission of the school.
Proprietary developers would have us punish students who are good enough at heart to share software or curious enough to want to change it.
I know he defines Malware differently from the common way (he considers DRM as malware, for example), but democratic values are less likely to be transmitted if I use Office? Proprietary developers want to punish students? I guess he means the corporations - and again, they don't generally give their source for modification, so they might be preventing students from modifying other people's work. Is that punishing them? I won't even claim to understand what the social mission of schools are supposed to be - prepare students for functioning in society? Prepare them for jobs? Prepare them for college? Prepare them to develop free software? Prepare them for ignoring copyrights?
I've been using Windows 8 since its release and haven't gotten used to it, despite using all sorts of third party 'reversion' programs (replacement start menu etc).
So you aren't trying to get used to it. You are basically saying you couldn't get it exactly like an older version of Windows.
One major area where I have found Linux lacking (and I use both Linux and Windows) is printing. I have had a really hard time getting any printer (most recently an old HP Laserjet 2100M, prior to that a Canon Laser imageCLASS MF4890dw) to work on Debian, Ubuntu, Mint or CentOS. I have got tired of messing around with CUPS, HPs Linux Imaging and Printing (a major disappointment), etc.
The HP Laserjet on Windows 8? Plugged it into the LPT port (my newer computers don't even have a port for this), and Windows automatically found and installed the drivers. I was printing in under a minute. I have basically resigned myself to having a Windows box just for printing.
Umm, why can't you just ignore the slow students? If they come to class unprepared, that's their problem.
Unfortunately, that has two problems:
1) Students in college are paying (a lot) of money. So there is a lot of scrutiny and expectations. I have even heard a student effectively say "I have paid a lot of money for this class, and I want to get my money's worth from the instructor". Nothing about how he should work hard to make sure his degree meant something - he effectively wanted to exchange money for knowledge. And there is no way of saying - "here is your refund, now get out"; the instructor can't kick students out except for gross misconduct.
2) This was a pilot course, and the instructor wanted the program to succeed - if only so that he could reuse the video tape, and farm out attending the "lectures" (i.e. the question/answer sessions) to graduate students. A vocal minority of dissatisfied students could basically scuttle the whole project.
And the problem was that a few lazy/slow students would end up stalling the entire class. So for example, if the material covered eigenvectors in linear algebra, and the student was supposed to know what they are and try the homework before the class. There were always a few bad apples that would come in, claim they couldn't understand any of the material, and force the instructor to walk them through the lecture again. And you couldn't just tell the students to RTFM.
So it basically became a case where the good students were hearing the same thing twice over, and couldn't get help with the tougher material (because the easy questions were taking a lot of time to cover). If the teacher skipped the easy problems, the lazy students would complain and whine.
In the typical scenario, all students heard the same material once (in class), and the lazy students would struggle with the homework (or mooch off the better students) while the good students would do well. In the end, it basically came down to the smart students helping the slower ones with the easy problems, so that the class could focus on the tough problems.
Your analogy is slightly off. Let's say you work at a large company (say Microsoft). And you know Bob has an allergy. Now, your wife makes a delicious peanut butter sandwich. She knows Bob is allergic and tells you: "Honey, I made this peanut butter sandwich for you. I'm leaving it at the kitchen counter. You can take it to work if you'd like".
Now, if you do take the peanut butter sandwich to work and it kills Bob, is she partially responsible (in the legal sense)? I'd say no - you knew full well what you were taking to work, you could have chosen not to take it, and you still did. Unless you have a medical condition/addiction that makes your wife know that you had no choice but to take the sandwich to work, she isn't responsible. And AFAIK, there is no obsessive compulsion to check text messages - if such a disease exists, those people shouldn't drive, period.
I guess what I'm asking is this: who gets credit for killing Microsoft's Bob?
The article only talks about how reviews get rated after an initial rating, not about how subsequent reviews are good/bad if the initial review is good/bad. That would be the 'xxx people found this review helpful' - giving it a bunch of helpful ratings initially make more people likely to vote it helpful.
On a slightly related note, I wish Amazon would allow viewers to only view rating histograms of 'Amazon verified purchasers'. I remember when Amazon hadn't even released the Fire (except to Vine members - those who get the product early to review). There were lots of 1 star 'Sux, not worthy of sharing a table with my glorious iPad' reviews by people who hadn't even touched the product.
Anecdotal-ly, I found that if a review is rated high (in usefulness) on Amazon, it is generally quite good and detailed. That, and 2-4 star reviews generally have more details than one or five star reviews.
"If your part of the 'in' crowd"
THAT IS THE WHOLE FUCKING PROBLEM
Bad grammar?
This is a lot more like stating that a call-girl is the same as a street-walker and, therefore, must fall under the same street-pimp purview.
This is slashdot. Can you do a car analogy?
Of course, much better to live and die by the sword... err... Caveat emptor principles?
While there are areas where regulations are silly, this (atleast on the face of it) doesn't seem to be one of those. The accused was running a ponzi scheme. The fact that the currency could be exchanged for real cash puts it in the SEC's realm.
Do you think that the defense industry should support those that oppose them?
I mean, okay if you disagree with people, but the whole correlation / causation thing I think is backwards. I think there is a causation, but the lawmakers thought a certain way -> therefore they were paid money.
No, I don't think the defense industry should support those who oppose them. I also don't think politicians care about the issue at all - they care more about getting elected than about governing. Let's say that the No voters felt that what is being doing is truly necessary - I would consider that better than the alternative (they don't care or don't think it is necessary, but are doing it for the money). Because there might be a way to change their mind into thinking that voting Yes is the better alternative.
Right now, I think that the only way to change their mind is to throw more cash at them than the other side - which is something that is beyond most people's abilities (well, the third option is that people wake up and let the politician know that voting No is something that will bite them the next election, but we all know that isn't going to happen in enough numbers to make a difference. I wish I could be more optimistic about the chance of that happening, but I'm not).
I don't think they were paid because they thought a certain way - I think they were paid because the politician wants the money. No point in preaching to the choir - if the politician already believed it was necessary, there would be no need to pay them. It is those who don't care that need the most persuasion.
For example, in Africa, The Foundation has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in oil companies including Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp, and Chevron.
The Gates Foundation also has investments in 69 of the worst polluting companies in the US and Canada, including Dow Chemical. It holds investments in pharmaceutical companies whose drugs cost far beyond what most patients around the world can afford and The Foundation often lobbies on behalf of those companies for "Intellectual Property" protections that make obtaining low cost medicines more difficult.
Other companies in the Foundation’s portfolio have been accused of transgressions including forcing thousands of people to lose their homes, supporting child labor and defrauding and neglecting patients in need of medical care.
In the mean time, Bill Gates' net worth has increased by $20 Billion since 2007.
Ideally, that shouldn't happen. However, if you look at the worlds most profitable companies, I would assume you would find most of the 69 companies in that list. If Gates puts back a significant portion of the gains back into philanthropic work, it would be a net gain.
Shell and Exxon do not need Gates money. I doubt Gates is on their board of directors. His organization must have bought the shares on the open market as an investment. They should be using the proceeds of that for further philanthropic works. In a way, his organization might end up using the profits of Exxon to undo the damage of Exxon.
I know the idealistic notion is to say "we don't need blood-money to achieve our goals". And Bill Gates certainly has enough of money to throw at problems. But I'd rather he grow his money and spend the profits on philanthropy than not give to important causes at all.
I actually had the same thought about it, but there is always a practical issue on how we spend resources - even though everything is worth saving, maybe we just have to accept we have done too much damage, learn from our mistakes, and move forward. Bringing these Rhinos back from the brink of extinction and reintroducing them to the natural environment is going to take a very, very long time (given their long gestation period).
On a slightly related note, I recommend a book called "Last Chance to See" by Douglas Adams and Mark Carwardine. A very nice book on conservation, and I found the ending highly thought provoking.
I ask as a person who cares about the environment. I strongly feel humans should have a smaller footprint and stop damaging the environment.
However, we seem to be spending a small fortune on the last few members of a species. Whatever ecological roles the rhinos might have played would have been filled (or the entire ecosystem would have changed faster than usual, possibly not-in-a-good-way).
Shouldn't we be spending that money for conservation where the damage isn't this extensive? In a while, maybe by cloning or using frozen sperms/eggs, we might be able to revive the species.