You'd think they might deploy fiber-optic cables and actually use them instead of letting them remain dark. I hear you get better throughput and higher bandwidth that way.
- published incorrect data leading to incorect conclusions, - refused to release his algorithm so it had to be reverse-engineered, - and deliberately exaggerated the global warming threat to push his personal agenda (which he later admitted).
No, it's not necessary or very useful to use anti-bacterial soap. No, it won't create super-bacteria that come and kill us all.
I don't use it because I'm allergic to the anti-bacterial ingredient. I'm not sure why we need misleading hype for every opinion on either side of everything though.
Stupidity doesn't preclude rationality. It simply tends to limit the benefit somewhat. Even a stupid person is does things to try to improve his life.
And taking crack is clearly rational. Crack makes you feel really good. And it's not even that expensive at $10-$20. The future consequences of that transaction are unknown, because the future hasn't happened yet and can go any particular way. It's not hard to imagine making the choice to smoke crack. It doesn't turn out well for people, but some folks think they can beat the odds. I bet some people actually do, too. I'd be willing to wager that there are folks who used crack 1-2 times, got all the benefits and didn't get addicted or harmed in any way. It's just a sucker bet most of the time.
Smoking cigarettes is a better example really. There's a clear benefit -- they make you feel good. The drawbacks are minimal for a long, long time. If I were diagnosed with a terminal disease and I had no chance of living for more than 3 years, smoking cigarettes could be considered a wise choice for me. Even crack or heroin might be wise. When people are dying of cancer, no one worries about whether they'll end up addicted to pain killers.
An action doesn't have to be beyond criticism to be considered rational. It doesn't need to be well-thought-out to be rational. It simply needs to not be random or intentionally self-destructive.
When you see people doing "weird" things or "stupid" things they almost always have a reason. There's usually a benefit they wish to archive for themselves. Knowledge and wisdom lie in trying to understand that reason rather than simply belittling them.
At some oil price, there will be substitutes for everything oil is useful for. At $10000 per barrel, there will be other fuels that cost less, or people will stay home or ride a horse.
But that $10000 barrel can still be bought for $10000 if you have a use for it.
That other guy covered it pretty well. For the purposes of economics, rational basically means "not intentionally self destructive". It doesn't mean everyone would agree on every decision every time (or even often).
It's fairly easy to make the case that if a guy owned trees and could sell them for good money, he wouldn't just cut them all down for no good reason. You are asserting the opposite: that he would, in fact, cut them all down without regard to his losses. But you haven't said why. What makes you think he would?
The "economics doesn't work because people aren't rational" argument is a denial of reason itself.
The outcome of any individual situation -- especially a hypothetical one like the Easter Island with privately-owned trees -- is always in doubt. But economics still gives you the ability to understand and predict the behavior of market-based systems in general.
The oil sells and you run out, or the oil doesn't sell and you might as well have run out.
People who can't pay the new higher price might as well have run out. But people who can pay the higher price can still buy what's left. The last barrel of oil effectively has an infinite price. But it doesn't run out.
What does economic theory tell us about the last tree on Easter Island?
It tells us that it wasn't on private property. It wasn't owned by anyone who was selling trees. In other words, trees weren't an economic commodity on Easter Island.
Had trees been treated as private property, the owners of the land would have planted more, growing more trees to sell. They would have desperately protected the valuable trees they had, selling them at high prices. They would have ensured their children's continued ability to sell these valuable trees by carefully managing their farms.
If trees had been treated as private property, there would likely still be trees on Easter Island.
You simply don't understand economics. No oil supplier is going to sell out at a low price when he could simply wait a short time for shortages to worsen and sell at a higher price.
Oil can never run out. In a free market, economic commodities that are owned by people can't run out. The price changes, but it will ALWAYS be available at some price.
Yeah. The anti-Bush articles are understandable. People have definite feelings about Bush.
I'm not sure why anyone cares about the specific uses of a trademark by 2 different humongous 100+ year-old organizations. It doesn't seem like a compelling story for anyone, let alone a good story choice for Slashdot.
What's next? "USX Corp. engages in a minor reorganization of their Human Resources Dept."? Can we have a 9-part series of in-depth articles on this?
This news story seems to be off-topic from the stated mission of this site.
If they want to change it from "News for Nerds" to "News for Anti-Corporate Bigots" or "News for Politically-Correct Drug Company Haters" then this would be a perfect story. It's even got the half-truths and misleading spin in the summary that seems to appeal to bigots and haters these days.
How dare they try to protect their trademark anyway?
I'm wondering why we need government grants to develop computers now. There are many companies that make computers. They'll make a fast one for you if you order it.
There are also real projects from the NSA and other government branches that need fast computers. Why not a specific grant to develop a computer for a specific application rather than just a "make a fast supercomputer"?
Should we have grants for "make a tastier fast-food french fry" next?
The president can commute sentences whenever he wants, for whatever reason he wants. There's no "rational explanation" required. This has been the case since George Washington.
I'm not sure what your point is. The power to commute a sentence isn't subject to your (or anyone's) approval.
Let me add:
What a travesty! Not sending a guy to prison. What kind of a tyrant keeps (political) prisoners out of prison? Where's Amnesty International on this? Next thing we know, even more people won't be imprisoned. Where does it all end? Soon people will be able to serve in government without fear that their political opponents will send them to prison! Do we really want that?
It seems that every time somebody tries to bring up a valid point about the way things are run or working within the government, someone else will counter that by claiming the original argument simply stems from party affiliation.
Actually, if you'll observe a little more closely, that line of argument is usually only used by the Democrat side. Claims of partisan motives tend to be used against Republicans and conservatives. Republicans tend to claim Democrats are wrong, but not "partisan".
There are lots of exceptions, but in general, this is true.
Every time there's a discussion about politics, it seems pointless to me to read it, because I know it will only degrade into two camps insulting each other and not really discussing anything.
I agree with this. Folks have decided that attacks are a legitimate substitute for reason. I suspect that this is because those folks don't base their beliefs on reason, but rather on emotion. It is not a good trend.
I think this is a sign of the creeping unreality in US culture. Sometimes reality is less than ideal. Presented with unfortunate realities, people have to grow up and face life responsibly. They don't want to and they engage in a struggle to avoid it.
There never seems to be a possibility of a third viewpoint, of a compromise.
I disagree with your wish for a compromise. The motives of the people involved don't really allow for compromise. These issues usually come down to one group wishing to force others to do things (or not do them) against their will. That's not something that ought to be compromised very often or very much.
I think that's one reason why the current government gets away with so much. To an outside observer, especially from a northern European democracy, it seems really amazing that there's isn't more of a backlash, especially in the media. Even my father, whose a very mild-mannered man commented on the Scooter Libby pardon, sorry, 'commute', 'it's like it's some kind of a banana republic!'
You and your father seem to be led by the biases of your media outlets, just like we are in the US. Your thoughts are exactly those that the media wishes you to have. They have carefully screened the information they've told you to craft this reaction.
They hype things that fit their agenda and ignore things that don't. Other voices and other points of view are called "partisan" and you're told not to listen to them.
I might also add that I'm replying only to discuss this. In the US, there are some folks that place a high value on the opinions of Europeans. While everyone may have an opinion, Europe can vote for European governments, and in the US we'll vote for ours.
But I really do think that the two-party system and the mentality it brings is hurting the country.
You may be right about that. You may be wrong. We've more-or-less had the two party system for hundreds of years. So it can't be that bad. It didn't stop us on our way up. It's hard to make the case that it will cripple us now.
The problems seem to lie elsewhere. Or perhaps consider that there are no extraordinary problems and that the day-to-day difficulties we have are normal -- no worse than usual for the last 200 years or so.
Yes, the web is a much bigger deal now. Things aren't exactly the same, they're mostly the same. In 10 years, there will be one or two things that are a lot different. But most things will be mostly the same.
Think back even 20 years. There have been some great advances. But at a casual glance, most things will seem about the same. There were no flying cars then. There are no flying cars now.
In 20 years, there will be no flying cars. Plumbing will be the same. People will still have cats and dogs, and neither will talk. The Simpsons may still be on. TV will be the same HDTV we have now. People will still complain about stress. Mexican food will continue to be popular (actually, I predict gains in the popularity of Mexican food worldwide). Beer will still be drunk. Mojitos will not. Air travel will be common. Fashion will continue to be unimportant to the vast majority.
Things will be mostly the same, with just a few key differences. That's the future.
The future will be very much like today. In 10 years, we'll have the same modes of transportation, the same fuels, the same foreign policy issues, the same bad TV, the same bad politicians, etc.
If you look back 10 years, what are the big changes?
Slashdot Mirror
You'd think they might deploy fiber-optic cables and actually use them instead of letting them remain dark. I hear you get better throughput and higher bandwidth that way.
Given the recent flurry of articles ..., I'm forced to wonder, what is the solution?
The solution: Stop reading the articles.
I thought it muddied the waters plenty when he
- published incorrect data leading to incorect conclusions,
- refused to release his algorithm so it had to be reverse-engineered,
- and deliberately exaggerated the global warming threat to push his personal agenda (which he later admitted).
This is some nice anti-anti-bacterial soap hype.
No, it's not necessary or very useful to use anti-bacterial soap. No, it won't create super-bacteria that come and kill us all.
I don't use it because I'm allergic to the anti-bacterial ingredient. I'm not sure why we need misleading hype for every opinion on either side of everything though.
We're boned.
Stupidity doesn't preclude rationality. It simply tends to limit the benefit somewhat. Even a stupid person is does things to try to improve his life.
And taking crack is clearly rational. Crack makes you feel really good. And it's not even that expensive at $10-$20. The future consequences of that transaction are unknown, because the future hasn't happened yet and can go any particular way. It's not hard to imagine making the choice to smoke crack. It doesn't turn out well for people, but some folks think they can beat the odds. I bet some people actually do, too. I'd be willing to wager that there are folks who used crack 1-2 times, got all the benefits and didn't get addicted or harmed in any way. It's just a sucker bet most of the time.
Smoking cigarettes is a better example really. There's a clear benefit -- they make you feel good. The drawbacks are minimal for a long, long time. If I were diagnosed with a terminal disease and I had no chance of living for more than 3 years, smoking cigarettes could be considered a wise choice for me. Even crack or heroin might be wise. When people are dying of cancer, no one worries about whether they'll end up addicted to pain killers.
An action doesn't have to be beyond criticism to be considered rational. It doesn't need to be well-thought-out to be rational. It simply needs to not be random or intentionally self-destructive.
When you see people doing "weird" things or "stupid" things they almost always have a reason. There's usually a benefit they wish to archive for themselves. Knowledge and wisdom lie in trying to understand that reason rather than simply belittling them.
At some oil price, there will be substitutes for everything oil is useful for. At $10000 per barrel, there will be other fuels that cost less, or people will stay home or ride a horse.
But that $10000 barrel can still be bought for $10000 if you have a use for it.
Dry? I doubt it.
That other guy covered it pretty well. For the purposes of economics, rational basically means "not intentionally self destructive". It doesn't mean everyone would agree on every decision every time (or even often).
It's fairly easy to make the case that if a guy owned trees and could sell them for good money, he wouldn't just cut them all down for no good reason. You are asserting the opposite: that he would, in fact, cut them all down without regard to his losses. But you haven't said why. What makes you think he would?
The "economics doesn't work because people aren't rational" argument is a denial of reason itself.
The outcome of any individual situation -- especially a hypothetical one like the Easter Island with privately-owned trees -- is always in doubt. But economics still gives you the ability to understand and predict the behavior of market-based systems in general.
The oil sells and you run out, or the oil doesn't sell and you might as well have run out.
People who can't pay the new higher price might as well have run out. But people who can pay the higher price can still buy what's left. The last barrel of oil effectively has an infinite price. But it doesn't run out.
What does economic theory tell us about the last tree on Easter Island?
It tells us that it wasn't on private property. It wasn't owned by anyone who was selling trees. In other words, trees weren't an economic commodity on Easter Island.
Had trees been treated as private property, the owners of the land would have planted more, growing more trees to sell. They would have desperately protected the valuable trees they had, selling them at high prices. They would have ensured their children's continued ability to sell these valuable trees by carefully managing their farms.
If trees had been treated as private property, there would likely still be trees on Easter Island.
You simply don't understand economics. No oil supplier is going to sell out at a low price when he could simply wait a short time for shortages to worsen and sell at a higher price.
Oil can never run out. In a free market, economic commodities that are owned by people can't run out. The price changes, but it will ALWAYS be available at some price.
The giant mouse looked like this and it stole my cookie.
grep it for "Boris Yeltsin"
Yeah. The anti-Bush articles are understandable. People have definite feelings about Bush.
I'm not sure why anyone cares about the specific uses of a trademark by 2 different humongous 100+ year-old organizations. It doesn't seem like a compelling story for anyone, let alone a good story choice for Slashdot.
What's next? "USX Corp. engages in a minor reorganization of their Human Resources Dept."? Can we have a 9-part series of in-depth articles on this?
This news story seems to be off-topic from the stated mission of this site.
If they want to change it from "News for Nerds" to "News for Anti-Corporate Bigots" or "News for Politically-Correct Drug Company Haters" then this would be a perfect story. It's even got the half-truths and misleading spin in the summary that seems to appeal to bigots and haters these days.
How dare they try to protect their trademark anyway?
I'm wondering why we need government grants to develop computers now. There are many companies that make computers. They'll make a fast one for you if you order it.
There are also real projects from the NSA and other government branches that need fast computers. Why not a specific grant to develop a computer for a specific application rather than just a "make a fast supercomputer"?
Should we have grants for "make a tastier fast-food french fry" next?
It's not like Muslim extremists are going to take over USA anytime soon
No one thinks it's going to happen "soon". You're simply lying about this.
Thanks for the security advice, Microsoft. You are the experts. We need your wisdom. Who better to advise us on security.
I guess we can only hope to be a safe from attack as Windows is.
The president can commute sentences whenever he wants, for whatever reason he wants. There's no "rational explanation" required. This has been the case since George Washington.
I'm not sure what your point is. The power to commute a sentence isn't subject to your (or anyone's) approval.
Let me add:
What a travesty! Not sending a guy to prison. What kind of a tyrant keeps (political) prisoners out of prison? Where's Amnesty International on this? Next thing we know, even more people won't be imprisoned. Where does it all end? Soon people will be able to serve in government without fear that their political opponents will send them to prison! Do we really want that?
It seems that every time somebody tries to bring up a valid point about the way things are run or working within the government, someone else will counter that by claiming the original argument simply stems from party affiliation.
Actually, if you'll observe a little more closely, that line of argument is usually only used by the Democrat side. Claims of partisan motives tend to be used against Republicans and conservatives. Republicans tend to claim Democrats are wrong, but not "partisan".
There are lots of exceptions, but in general, this is true.
Every time there's a discussion about politics, it seems pointless to me to read it, because I know it will only degrade into two camps insulting each other and not really discussing anything.
I agree with this. Folks have decided that attacks are a legitimate substitute for reason. I suspect that this is because those folks don't base their beliefs on reason, but rather on emotion. It is not a good trend.
I think this is a sign of the creeping unreality in US culture. Sometimes reality is less than ideal. Presented with unfortunate realities, people have to grow up and face life responsibly. They don't want to and they engage in a struggle to avoid it.
There never seems to be a possibility of a third viewpoint, of a compromise.
I disagree with your wish for a compromise. The motives of the people involved don't really allow for compromise. These issues usually come down to one group wishing to force others to do things (or not do them) against their will. That's not something that ought to be compromised very often or very much.
I think that's one reason why the current government gets away with so much. To an outside observer, especially from a northern European democracy, it seems really amazing that there's isn't more of a backlash, especially in the media. Even my father, whose a very mild-mannered man commented on the Scooter Libby pardon, sorry, 'commute', 'it's like it's some kind of a banana republic!'
You and your father seem to be led by the biases of your media outlets, just like we are in the US. Your thoughts are exactly those that the media wishes you to have. They have carefully screened the information they've told you to craft this reaction.
They hype things that fit their agenda and ignore things that don't. Other voices and other points of view are called "partisan" and you're told not to listen to them.
I might also add that I'm replying only to discuss this. In the US, there are some folks that place a high value on the opinions of Europeans. While everyone may have an opinion, Europe can vote for European governments, and in the US we'll vote for ours.
But I really do think that the two-party system and the mentality it brings is hurting the country.
You may be right about that. You may be wrong. We've more-or-less had the two party system for hundreds of years. So it can't be that bad. It didn't stop us on our way up. It's hard to make the case that it will cripple us now.
The problems seem to lie elsewhere. Or perhaps consider that there are no extraordinary problems and that the day-to-day difficulties we have are normal -- no worse than usual for the last 200 years or so.
Yes, the web is a much bigger deal now. Things aren't exactly the same, they're mostly the same. In 10 years, there will be one or two things that are a lot different. But most things will be mostly the same.
Think back even 20 years. There have been some great advances. But at a casual glance, most things will seem about the same. There were no flying cars then. There are no flying cars now.
In 20 years, there will be no flying cars. Plumbing will be the same. People will still have cats and dogs, and neither will talk. The Simpsons may still be on. TV will be the same HDTV we have now. People will still complain about stress. Mexican food will continue to be popular (actually, I predict gains in the popularity of Mexican food worldwide). Beer will still be drunk. Mojitos will not. Air travel will be common. Fashion will continue to be unimportant to the vast majority.
Things will be mostly the same, with just a few key differences. That's the future.
Predicting the future is actually very easy.
The future will be very much like today. In 10 years, we'll have the same modes of transportation, the same fuels, the same foreign policy issues, the same bad TV, the same bad politicians, etc.
If you look back 10 years, what are the big changes?
From today:
Yung Nasteecat use powah of flite
So you're already repelled. When they reverse the effect, maybe you'll be attracted. It will be sweaters every day for you.