Wow. I think you COMPLETELY missed the joke. It's a mirror universe because the article is talking about -451 degrees Fahrenheit. In our universe, Bradbury wrote a book called Fahrenheit 451.
I think it would be just as reasonable to assume that you're saving energy to heat the home during the winter months. I'd expect the net to be close to zero, depending on the climate and the difference in heating/cooling efficiencies.
I'm pretty sure energy supply has kept up with demand in most parts of the country. In my state, the energy company likes to brag that their prices have actually gone down over tha past 20 years. That would be pretty unlikely if demand was increasing much faster than supply.
Why not make it illegal to link to a page that links to a page that links to gambling?
I can actually see how the legislators could see a reason to do that. Taxpayer X wants to link to a gambling site, but knows that that's illegal. So he links to a site that has links to gambling sites, and tells you to click through. (Even worse, maybe that link redirects to the gambling site!) So clearly this needs to be stopped as well.
And what about linking to a page that links to a page that links to a page that links to gambling?
I've been saying during this whole debate that it's better for Google (and the others) to be there, rather than not be there. Mainly because they will be providing the Chinese people with more and better information that they had before. And the fact that censorship can never be 100%. So this study is telling us that Google is providing 17% more "undesirable" content than if they were not there. OK, maybe that math is not correct (assuming Chinese censorship was 100% effective before, it'd be infinitely more content now). But the fact is that Google will allow SOME access to the content in question.
Actually, it's Bill Gates Sr. who is strongly in favor of keeping the estate tax. (As well as Warren Buffet.) Bill Sr. is also a millionaire in his own right. Google for Gates and "estate tax" to find more details.
Yeah, it would have been terrible if we'd have had to suffer with Amigas or Atari STs or something equally cool, instead of boring PCs with trailing-edge technologies.
You don't seem to be very familiar with how US corporations work. You have to pay $50 when you get that card to bribe the others into electing you as Chairman of the Board. Also note that the dollars in the game of Monoploy represent about $1000 in real-life money.
Interesting. If I recall, VMS has a security model in which applications had rights along with users. Kind of like setuid, but granular. I believe that a process's rights were the combination of the rights of the user and of the application.
Windows NT was designed and implemented by the main VMS designer. A lot of the low-level kernel stuff is quite similar. But I don't think this feature made it across in any way.
I think you're too emotionally involve in this topic to have a rational discussion. And you completely failed to answer my questions.
You seem to have this idea that the larger the atrocity, the more guilt by association to apply. But while you may condemn the people who made the Nazi gas chambers, I don't think it makes sense to condemn the farmers who grew the food that the Nazis ate. (Without that food, the Nazis could have not committed the atrocities, so the farmers, must be to blame, under your theory.)
You're also failing to compare the 2 options. The 2 options here are for Google to be in China and follow the Chinese law, or not to be in China. Either way, the Chinese government gets to maintain the status quo. So that really can't be a part of the argument about which of the 2 to choose.
The real meat of the argument is then left with a couple of subtle points. On the one hand, being in China does increase the number of companies that implement the censorship. On the other hand, Google being in China allows them to provide more information to the Chinese people. Seeing as how censorship can never be 100% effective, this will help the Chinese people a bit in getting access to the censored information.
Another subtle point is which choice would help to make changes to the Chinese government's policies. If Google stays out of China, some other company (perhaps even run by the Chinese government) would fill in the gap. How could Google then help to effect change within China? If Google goes into China, they've got a foothold, and can slowly push to make changes there. And I'd think that threatening to leave the market would give Google a lot more leverage than threatening not to enter the market.
Interesting, I hadn't thought of the virus landscape as being part of our environment. I'd like to change my previous answer -- I think that may actually be a bigger predictable environmental change than global warming. (Basically, I'm talking about the adaptation of viruses and bacteria to become immune to our antibiotics.) Although it's probably still not nearly as big a threat to us as the unpredictable threats.
This reminds me of the passage of the PATRIOT Act. It was like 1000 pages, too long for legislator to have had time to read it in the short time it took them to pass it. So after they passed it, they found out that there were some things in there that nobody liked, and nobody would have voted for.
When I found out about that, I thought that surely the Constitution would have mentioned that the legislators would have to have known what they were voting on and agreeing to. Unfortunately, there's no such wording in the Constitution. I suppose our founding fathers never contemplated that things could digress to such a point.
I think the point is that Hong Kong best portrays the Libertarian ideal of not regulating companies. And probably starys out of morality decisions for the people as well. As moderately libertarian myself, I would be perfectly fine with the list of centralized social services you listed. And I think that tax rate shows that the Hong Kong government is quite restrained -- yet another indication of libertarian leanings.
I think that pretty well phrases one of the big theological questions I have.
I also have to agree that Tom's explanation of his Christian-based morality is very well-reasoned, well-written, and consistent. Because of that, I definitely respect his viewpoint, even though I may disagree with him in significant ways. I've enjoyed the back-and-forth conversation, and the calm, rational debate. Lord knows we could use much more of that in the "real world" on these topics.
I fail to see how Google operating in China is endorsing the Chinese government. If a Chinese company started operating in the US, would we say that the company endorsed the US government? Everything the US government does? The NSA spying on American citizens? The war in Iraq? What if it had to obey the law requiring it to help the NSA spying programs?
No, I wouldn't quite agree with you there. Like the stock market, I believe the biggest changes in evolution are due to unpredictable externalities -- especailly catastrophes.
Excluding the unpredictable, I would agree with you.;)
One problem with your analogy. The censored encyclopedia would actually have an entry for "The Holocaust". And the text of that entry would be something to the effect of "we're sorry, but we're not allowed to tell you about that". (Which frankly, would lead some people to wonder why, and find some other means of finding out about it.)
I really don't see the problem with that. What have you taken away from the people that they did not have before? If I have 2 apples, and I give you one, I've done something nice. If I have 2 apples, and I do not give you one, I have not necessarily done something mean.
Thank you. I think a lot of people don't realize that that's where morality comes from. And I agree that it really would be in the best long-term interest of companies to do the right thing. (At least most of the time.)
I think there are several reasons that people (and the people that run companies) do the wrong thing.
They don't see the long-term benefits of doing the right thing.
They mistakenly value short-term over long-term. (There's scientific data that shows that this is the case in general, even when it's clearly irrational.)
So you're saying that the Chinese government will have an easier time restricting people's access to information with Google than without. I find that a very hard argument to buy. For one, Google requires that the Chinese government specify everything that they should censor. So anything the government doesn't tell them to censor gets through. Not to mention all the other information that the people will be getting access to.
To me, that's generally a good thing. The alternative is to write a whole bunch of code to do one simple thing. One thing I remember about using Lisp is that the amount of concept per line was huge. Maybe you have to think about each line longer, but each line accomplishes a lot more. Generally, that trade-off is in favor of languages like Lisp -- at least for highly competent programmers.
Well, it is blind to everything but "fitness" to survive. I agree that in the end, it's who has surviving decendents that matters. But your claim is more that "those that survive survive". You're not looking at the cause of survival, which is where Darwin made his great discovery.
Only the severely maladapted are getting weeded out right now, but they do get weeded out.
That's just another way of saying that there is very little evolutionary pressure on us.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. I think you COMPLETELY missed the joke. It's a mirror universe because the article is talking about -451 degrees Fahrenheit. In our universe, Bradbury wrote a book called Fahrenheit 451.
Does liquid helium really cost $24/gallon? If so, we might want to get ahead of the curve and see if we can run our cars on it.
I think it would be just as reasonable to assume that you're saving energy to heat the home during the winter months. I'd expect the net to be close to zero, depending on the climate and the difference in heating/cooling efficiencies.
I'm pretty sure energy supply has kept up with demand in most parts of the country. In my state, the energy company likes to brag that their prices have actually gone down over tha past 20 years. That would be pretty unlikely if demand was increasing much faster than supply.
Why not make it illegal to link to a page that links to a page that links to gambling?
I can actually see how the legislators could see a reason to do that. Taxpayer X wants to link to a gambling site, but knows that that's illegal. So he links to a site that has links to gambling sites, and tells you to click through. (Even worse, maybe that link redirects to the gambling site!) So clearly this needs to be stopped as well.
And what about linking to a page that links to a page that links to a page that links to gambling?
I've been saying during this whole debate that it's better for Google (and the others) to be there, rather than not be there. Mainly because they will be providing the Chinese people with more and better information that they had before. And the fact that censorship can never be 100%. So this study is telling us that Google is providing 17% more "undesirable" content than if they were not there. OK, maybe that math is not correct (assuming Chinese censorship was 100% effective before, it'd be infinitely more content now). But the fact is that Google will allow SOME access to the content in question.
Actually, it's Bill Gates Sr. who is strongly in favor of keeping the estate tax. (As well as Warren Buffet.) Bill Sr. is also a millionaire in his own right. Google for Gates and "estate tax" to find more details.
Yeah, it would have been terrible if we'd have had to suffer with Amigas or Atari STs or something equally cool, instead of boring PCs with trailing-edge technologies.
You don't seem to be very familiar with how US corporations work. You have to pay $50 when you get that card to bribe the others into electing you as Chairman of the Board. Also note that the dollars in the game of Monoploy represent about $1000 in real-life money.
The other obvious solution is to make the skirts looser, so they're less likely to cover up the interesting bits.
Interesting. If I recall, VMS has a security model in which applications had rights along with users. Kind of like setuid, but granular. I believe that a process's rights were the combination of the rights of the user and of the application.
Windows NT was designed and implemented by the main VMS designer. A lot of the low-level kernel stuff is quite similar. But I don't think this feature made it across in any way.
I consider my skills to be my job security. Not with one single employer, of course.
If you don't want to actually solve the problem -- or even discuss how to best go about it -- then feel free to emote as much as you want.
I think you're too emotionally involve in this topic to have a rational discussion. And you completely failed to answer my questions.
You seem to have this idea that the larger the atrocity, the more guilt by association to apply. But while you may condemn the people who made the Nazi gas chambers, I don't think it makes sense to condemn the farmers who grew the food that the Nazis ate. (Without that food, the Nazis could have not committed the atrocities, so the farmers, must be to blame, under your theory.)
You're also failing to compare the 2 options. The 2 options here are for Google to be in China and follow the Chinese law, or not to be in China. Either way, the Chinese government gets to maintain the status quo. So that really can't be a part of the argument about which of the 2 to choose.
The real meat of the argument is then left with a couple of subtle points. On the one hand, being in China does increase the number of companies that implement the censorship. On the other hand, Google being in China allows them to provide more information to the Chinese people. Seeing as how censorship can never be 100% effective, this will help the Chinese people a bit in getting access to the censored information.
Another subtle point is which choice would help to make changes to the Chinese government's policies. If Google stays out of China, some other company (perhaps even run by the Chinese government) would fill in the gap. How could Google then help to effect change within China? If Google goes into China, they've got a foothold, and can slowly push to make changes there. And I'd think that threatening to leave the market would give Google a lot more leverage than threatening not to enter the market.
Interesting, I hadn't thought of the virus landscape as being part of our environment. I'd like to change my previous answer -- I think that may actually be a bigger predictable environmental change than global warming. (Basically, I'm talking about the adaptation of viruses and bacteria to become immune to our antibiotics.) Although it's probably still not nearly as big a threat to us as the unpredictable threats.
This reminds me of the passage of the PATRIOT Act. It was like 1000 pages, too long for legislator to have had time to read it in the short time it took them to pass it. So after they passed it, they found out that there were some things in there that nobody liked, and nobody would have voted for.
When I found out about that, I thought that surely the Constitution would have mentioned that the legislators would have to have known what they were voting on and agreeing to. Unfortunately, there's no such wording in the Constitution. I suppose our founding fathers never contemplated that things could digress to such a point.
I think the point is that Hong Kong best portrays the Libertarian ideal of not regulating companies. And probably starys out of morality decisions for the people as well. As moderately libertarian myself, I would be perfectly fine with the list of centralized social services you listed. And I think that tax rate shows that the Hong Kong government is quite restrained -- yet another indication of libertarian leanings.
I think that pretty well phrases one of the big theological questions I have.
I also have to agree that Tom's explanation of his Christian-based morality is very well-reasoned, well-written, and consistent. Because of that, I definitely respect his viewpoint, even though I may disagree with him in significant ways. I've enjoyed the back-and-forth conversation, and the calm, rational debate. Lord knows we could use much more of that in the "real world" on these topics.
I fail to see how Google operating in China is endorsing the Chinese government. If a Chinese company started operating in the US, would we say that the company endorsed the US government? Everything the US government does? The NSA spying on American citizens? The war in Iraq? What if it had to obey the law requiring it to help the NSA spying programs?
No, I wouldn't quite agree with you there. Like the stock market, I believe the biggest changes in evolution are due to unpredictable externalities -- especailly catastrophes.
;)
Excluding the unpredictable, I would agree with you.
One problem with your analogy. The censored encyclopedia would actually have an entry for "The Holocaust". And the text of that entry would be something to the effect of "we're sorry, but we're not allowed to tell you about that". (Which frankly, would lead some people to wonder why, and find some other means of finding out about it.)
I really don't see the problem with that. What have you taken away from the people that they did not have before? If I have 2 apples, and I give you one, I've done something nice. If I have 2 apples, and I do not give you one, I have not necessarily done something mean.
I think there are several reasons that people (and the people that run companies) do the wrong thing.
So you're saying that the Chinese government will have an easier time restricting people's access to information with Google than without. I find that a very hard argument to buy. For one, Google requires that the Chinese government specify everything that they should censor. So anything the government doesn't tell them to censor gets through. Not to mention all the other information that the people will be getting access to.
To me, that's generally a good thing. The alternative is to write a whole bunch of code to do one simple thing. One thing I remember about using Lisp is that the amount of concept per line was huge. Maybe you have to think about each line longer, but each line accomplishes a lot more. Generally, that trade-off is in favor of languages like Lisp -- at least for highly competent programmers.
Evolution is blind
Well, it is blind to everything but "fitness" to survive. I agree that in the end, it's who has surviving decendents that matters. But your claim is more that "those that survive survive". You're not looking at the cause of survival, which is where Darwin made his great discovery.
Only the severely maladapted are getting weeded out right now, but they do get weeded out.
That's just another way of saying that there is very little evolutionary pressure on us.
People looking for dates try to make themselves look better than they really are. News at 11.