Where everyone is a felon, often for laws they don't know they're breaking and wouldn't ever guess. Land of the free, my friends.
Welcome to the real world. If you think this is different anywhere else, you're naive. Other nations make slightly different tradeoffs between the degree of supervision, the severity of punishment, and other control mechanisms, but all governments try to control as much of their citizens' lives as they can get away with.
In a radio interview last Friday, a Swedish professor emeritus of international law, Ove Bring, confirmed that there are no legal obstacles whatsoever preventing Ms. Ny from questioning Assange in London.
And Sweden should do this... why? Should the Swedish legal system bend over backwards every time a self-important "activist" wants to make a statement? Ditto for the US legal system: what incentive does it have to guarantee Assange anything?
Julian Assange has been detained without charge for 973 days. - 413 days at the Ecuadorian Embassy.
Assange hasn't been "detained" at all. He is detaining himself and imposing an imprisonment on himself that is likely to be harsher than anything he would receive under Swedish and US law.
Given that most large E-mail providers add massive amounts of privacy-invading info to E-mail headers (like the IP address where you wrote the message), I doubt the problem here is a limit on technology.
For monetizing, though, there's a simple solution: sell whatever you come up with embedded in a piece of hardware. A self-maintaining "E-mail plug" you just connect to your home network lets you charge for the software as part of the hardware. Other companies have been doing that, for example the Tonido Plug and the PogoPlug.
I don't see any "bribery" involved here. Politicians need political contributions, otherwise only the very wealthy could run. Would you prefer that? And if politicians get political contributions, then isn't it better if those are "spread around" and not tied slavishly to specific political positions?
It doesn't matter how much you tweak the JIT or the GC, Java remains a lousy choice for numerical algorithms and statistical modeling. And the Java community in those areas is pretty weak too. Even if it weren't faster, it still is easier to write and debug those kinds of algorithms in C++, and there are tons more libraries available too.
1, Science is a matter of evidence, not a matter of belief.
Quite right. But policy is a matter of values, decisions, and tradeoffs. The error here is with scientists trying to impose their political choices on everybody else, and misusing their scientific credentials to do so.
It's fine for some group of scientists to point out how they believe Imhofe is wrong. But calling on companies to blacklist any politician who doesn't agree with their position goes way too far.
In fact, a company that really is interested in good corporate citizenship should spread its money and influence around so that opposing views are heard.
Camping to reset my circadian cycle sounds all nice and that, but where do I get power for my gadgets, and where do I get 4G Internet connectivity out in the boondocks?
Do you really believe that the average Joe when confronted with math in his (online) newspaper will be able to 'remember' what the symbol for standard deviation was?
No, I think the average Joe won't be able to understand formulas at all, no matter how you present them. If you present them in words, he may think he understands them more, but that will be a false sense of understanding.
Much like urban telephone customers subsidize rural telephone customers.
Yes, another lousy idea.
If there are hundreds of different "taxi companies" and a complaint is made how do you find the culprit. Fewer companies means better enforcement.
Just the usual litany of justifications for rent seeking. Why don't we take that to its logical conclusions, become a monarchy, and have everybody operate based on royal charters. It would surely improve things so very much.
These services include low hours availability, bad weather availability, services to seniors, services to the disabled, bans on profiling due to races, gender, etc. If unregulated companies just take the profitable rides there is no money to pay for the less profitable ones.
The "less profitable" rides are simply less profitable because prices are also regulated. In effect, you still ask some groups of riders to subsidize other groups of riders, for no particularly good reason.
If you want low-cost or free service for the disabled or seniors, that can be provided or subsidized directly from tax funds. In fact, those services already exist anyway.
And discrimination in business is generally illegal; you don't need to hand out taxi monopolies to get that.
It's really very simple. Rewrite any equation as a high level programming language expression, using (lots of) sensible variable names, and the equation becomes instantly more understandable for pretty much anyone.
Unfortunately, that's not really "understanding". You really only understand the equation if you actually understand what force, mass, and acceleration are. Once you know that, you generally don't have any trouble remembering the variable names.
In effect, you're saying that people who ride cheaply during normal hours should greatly subsidize people who want cheap rides at 2am. Sorry, I don't think that's good policy.
Well, as someone who does a lot of math and programming, I understand what you mean. But in most formulas, remembering the variable names really is a small part of understanding the formula. When there are problems with formulas, they are usually poor organization, poor abstractions, or errors.
Reading from the libertarian bible won't help. I'm familiar with all those arguments, and they are not grounded in reality
I'm sorry you are too blind and beholden to your ideology to understand them, but that's frankly not my problem.
When a CEO fails miserably and grants himself bonuses, those bonuses come directly out of the pocket of labor. You know, those who actually work and create value.
You need the explanation to understand what the paper is about. You need the formulas to verify your understanding and to verify the work.
Many people don't read your formulas because they don't have to: they want to get the big ideas, but they aren't interested in verifying your work. For example, your result may be simple enough that they can verify it themselves, or they may decide that it isn't important enough to bother verifying it.
But for your scientific work to be complete, the formulas (or other formalisms) still need to be there, even if most people never look at them.
Since when were cab drivers big business? I was one and we had to pay to be able to pick up from the airport. On top of that there are vehicle licenses, inspections and higher insurance.
If the ride share services have lower costs, for whatever reason, you can simply join them and stop being a cab driver.
You don't solve real-world problems with an all-star team, you solve it with the resources you have at hand. That often includes people who aren't very good or very experienced. Hopefully, as they go along, they will learn or improve.
I also do not think that the problems we have today were all solved long ago. Superficially, a web browser may seem like other environments, but it is very different. And the Mac architecture of 25 years ago was a clever but horrendously badly designed piece of software that almost destroyed Apple because it became unmaintainable. People's nostalgia tend to distort reality.
Which part of "the kind of radiology procedures you talk about" did you not understand? Radiology procedures, of course, are part of day-to-day medical care, but normal ones do not require complicated IT setups: a tech takes a picture, a radiologist reads it, and a copy is physically stuffed into the patient record. That's the way all my radiological procedures have worked over the last decade (my providers haven't converted yet, thank god).
What is the cost benefit of having a small system that only do the routine procedure while the emergency procedure are done on a different system
Simplicity, privacy, security, proper accounting of costs.
And how is a "Small IT System" make any different? What do you even defines as an all-encompassing IT behemoth?
The kinds of systems that attempt to create a single IT infrastructure for an entire hospital. Requirements like digitization of all patient records; making all records available to all staff securely and privately. Those are really hard problems to solve.
How does a small system make things different? A system that is just used by a single radiologist or shared by a few radiologists, and where archiving and patient records are handled by DVD or memory stick, has much simpler requirements than an equivalent system that is integrated into a hospital network, allows remote access, allows secure exchange and archiving of patient records, etc.
Mind you, the core problem isn't IT or digitization. Some IT infrastructure may be useful. The problem is that requirements are imposed that physicians don't actually have, and that functionality is provided that neither physicians nor patients want or need.
Slashdot Mirror
Welcome to the real world. If you think this is different anywhere else, you're naive. Other nations make slightly different tradeoffs between the degree of supervision, the severity of punishment, and other control mechanisms, but all governments try to control as much of their citizens' lives as they can get away with.
And Sweden should do this... why? Should the Swedish legal system bend over backwards every time a self-important "activist" wants to make a statement? Ditto for the US legal system: what incentive does it have to guarantee Assange anything?
Assange hasn't been "detained" at all. He is detaining himself and imposing an imprisonment on himself that is likely to be harsher than anything he would receive under Swedish and US law.
The whole thing is likely going to collapse under its own weight anyway.
Given that most large E-mail providers add massive amounts of privacy-invading info to E-mail headers (like the IP address where you wrote the message), I doubt the problem here is a limit on technology.
For monetizing, though, there's a simple solution: sell whatever you come up with embedded in a piece of hardware. A self-maintaining "E-mail plug" you just connect to your home network lets you charge for the software as part of the hardware. Other companies have been doing that, for example the Tonido Plug and the PogoPlug.
That hasn't stopped the White House before.
I don't see any "bribery" involved here. Politicians need political contributions, otherwise only the very wealthy could run. Would you prefer that? And if politicians get political contributions, then isn't it better if those are "spread around" and not tied slavishly to specific political positions?
Don't use work computers for personal stuff, ever. Don't date at work either. You'll avoid a lot of problems that way.
It doesn't matter how much you tweak the JIT or the GC, Java remains a lousy choice for numerical algorithms and statistical modeling. And the Java community in those areas is pretty weak too. Even if it weren't faster, it still is easier to write and debug those kinds of algorithms in C++, and there are tons more libraries available too.
No, these people are scientists pretending to be politicians, and that is far worse.
Quite right. But policy is a matter of values, decisions, and tradeoffs. The error here is with scientists trying to impose their political choices on everybody else, and misusing their scientific credentials to do so.
It's fine for some group of scientists to point out how they believe Imhofe is wrong. But calling on companies to blacklist any politician who doesn't agree with their position goes way too far.
In fact, a company that really is interested in good corporate citizenship should spread its money and influence around so that opposing views are heard.
Camping to reset my circadian cycle sounds all nice and that, but where do I get power for my gadgets, and where do I get 4G Internet connectivity out in the boondocks?
No, I think the average Joe won't be able to understand formulas at all, no matter how you present them. If you present them in words, he may think he understands them more, but that will be a false sense of understanding.
Yes, another lousy idea.
Just the usual litany of justifications for rent seeking. Why don't we take that to its logical conclusions, become a monarchy, and have everybody operate based on royal charters. It would surely improve things so very much.
The "less profitable" rides are simply less profitable because prices are also regulated. In effect, you still ask some groups of riders to subsidize other groups of riders, for no particularly good reason.
If you want low-cost or free service for the disabled or seniors, that can be provided or subsidized directly from tax funds. In fact, those services already exist anyway.
And discrimination in business is generally illegal; you don't need to hand out taxi monopolies to get that.
Unfortunately, that's not really "understanding". You really only understand the equation if you actually understand what force, mass, and acceleration are. Once you know that, you generally don't have any trouble remembering the variable names.
In effect, you're saying that people who ride cheaply during normal hours should greatly subsidize people who want cheap rides at 2am. Sorry, I don't think that's good policy.
Well, as someone who does a lot of math and programming, I understand what you mean. But in most formulas, remembering the variable names really is a small part of understanding the formula. When there are problems with formulas, they are usually poor organization, poor abstractions, or errors.
I'm sorry you are too blind and beholden to your ideology to understand them, but that's frankly not my problem.
Uh huh. Straight out of Das Kapital.
You need the explanation to understand what the paper is about. You need the formulas to verify your understanding and to verify the work.
Many people don't read your formulas because they don't have to: they want to get the big ideas, but they aren't interested in verifying your work. For example, your result may be simple enough that they can verify it themselves, or they may decide that it isn't important enough to bother verifying it.
But for your scientific work to be complete, the formulas (or other formalisms) still need to be there, even if most people never look at them.
It may not be safe, but it is entertainment. Are you getting that level of entertainment from a ride share service? Didn't think so!
If the ride share services have lower costs, for whatever reason, you can simply join them and stop being a cab driver.
You don't solve real-world problems with an all-star team, you solve it with the resources you have at hand. That often includes people who aren't very good or very experienced. Hopefully, as they go along, they will learn or improve.
I also do not think that the problems we have today were all solved long ago. Superficially, a web browser may seem like other environments, but it is very different. And the Mac architecture of 25 years ago was a clever but horrendously badly designed piece of software that almost destroyed Apple because it became unmaintainable. People's nostalgia tend to distort reality.
Which part of "the kind of radiology procedures you talk about" did you not understand? Radiology procedures, of course, are part of day-to-day medical care, but normal ones do not require complicated IT setups: a tech takes a picture, a radiologist reads it, and a copy is physically stuffed into the patient record. That's the way all my radiological procedures have worked over the last decade (my providers haven't converted yet, thank god).
Simplicity, privacy, security, proper accounting of costs.
The kinds of systems that attempt to create a single IT infrastructure for an entire hospital. Requirements like digitization of all patient records; making all records available to all staff securely and privately. Those are really hard problems to solve.
How does a small system make things different? A system that is just used by a single radiologist or shared by a few radiologists, and where archiving and patient records are handled by DVD or memory stick, has much simpler requirements than an equivalent system that is integrated into a hospital network, allows remote access, allows secure exchange and archiving of patient records, etc.
Mind you, the core problem isn't IT or digitization. Some IT infrastructure may be useful. The problem is that requirements are imposed that physicians don't actually have, and that functionality is provided that neither physicians nor patients want or need.