Wherein is the conflict between the two? This is basic Adam Smith economics. Businesses make money by providing goods and services that people want. There is no altruism involved - all businessmen are in business to make a profit. But by making a profit in a fair and open market, where all have a chance to compete, they make the comfortable rich world we live in.
Yes, Facebook makes money from us. If we have access to the internet, we can choose to use Facebook, with its advantages and disadvantages, or leave it. If we don't have internet access, we don't have that choice.
Very US-centric reply. European airlines, particularly BOAC/BEA, did have such training schemes.
My view is that properly trained, rested, crew are a safety item that airlines should not be allowed to skimp on. Yes, profits are thin. But we don't allow airlines to , say, skimp on checks or cut equipment minima because of that. (Or if we so, we shouldn't). OK, ticket prices may rise. If costs are fairly imposed across the industry (and I recognise that is much more easily said than done) it shouldn't harm any particular airline.
As to crew pay, if it is that bad they will start leaving the industry, at least for a while. This will force pay up to drag them back when airlines start having to cancel flights because of lack of crew. Airlines are spending billions on new aircraft. They should also spend more on the person in charge of their many tens of million dollars investment.
Can you clarify: you are happy to take the risk of an incident which will leave millions dead, and cost trillions in property damage, and depend on financial restitution after the accident? You say you wouldn't live near it: a serious nuclear accident could pollute 1/3 of the US (Chernobyl polluted Scotland): three such plants and you have to leave the country. Do you know how open-cast mining companies have managed to manipulate such a system? An initial company opens the mine, extracts the coal and gets the profits, then as the mine is coming to the end of its life, transfers it to a shell company which has no assets. When the time comes to close the mine and rehabilitate the land, the company goes bust, with no resources to do the job their long-distant predecessors started. Ditto with pollution (Love Canal etc). Have you not heard of Bhopal - how many of them (a) got financial restitution, and (b) would not far rather have healthy lives than any financial payback? The law should prevent this, you say? Would you bet your life against the lawyers and political favours that a significant slice of a ten billion dollar profit can buy? And do you really think money can compensate for human lives? Will you sell permits to murder - which is essentially your proposition?
How much time are you willing to spend researching before going into a burger bar? Remembering that the burger chain owners will be spending significant amounts of money whitewashing their reputation and attacking those who say their food is dangerous even if it isn't. There is a proven history over millennia of big guys screwing consumers, often fatally, and getting away with it. Before food regulations were instituted in London, approximately 10% of food sold was actively dangerous (flour padded out with white lead) and more than 80% was adulterated (bread padded out with chalk). The profits from "getting away with it", and the ease of providing a fall guy to take the heat if you don't, are irresistible to the small percentage of the population who are actively dishonest - and then the majority who are trying to compete with them have to do the same and go bust.
Big business, due to simple financial muscle, can always outgun the little guy. The only solution the little guy has is to gang up together: all together we have the muscle to match business. Such a ganging-together of all the little guys is called a "government".
I can only conclude that you are completely ignorant of the law of the past 200 years if you have such a naive trust in post-facto restitution, and ignorant of advertising if you trust on reputation to warn of bad providers. That worked in a medieval village. It didn't work even in a medieval town, let alone an industrial country with tens of millions of businesses,
That is a hugely sweeping assertion that requires some justification. Do you have any statistical evidence to back it up, or are you speaking from sheer prejudice?
There is a huge amount of regulation. Which means that if only a very tiny bit of regulation is bad, there is a lot of bad regulation. But to generalise from the fact that there is a lot of bad regulation to the idea that 99% of regulation is bad is the sloppiest of sloppy thinking.
From you statement, for example, road safety regulations are a waste of time, as are all those for any other form of transport. There is an incredible amount of aviation safety regulation - are you happy to repeal 99% of it? Which 1% of poisonous chemicals do you want still banned? Are you happy to deregulate your local nuclear power plant, so it can be run by the workers willing to accept the lowest pay? And, of course, get rid of all those regulations intended to keep politicians at least a little hinest - sell political office to the highest bidder.
So you would make speculative IP creation impossible. Before you created any IP, you would have to establish contact with all possible customers and agree, and contract, a price for the IP you would create. This was the way the system used to work in the 18th century: Dr Johnson had to line up a number of sponsors before he produced his dictionary. The same applied for music: Bach needed a sponsor for his cantatas etc. The invention of copyright then produced an explosion of publishing: because people could retain the IP of their putative great works, they could publish speculatively (possibly with funding from a publisher), and if indeed it turned out they were great works, they would be repaid for their efforts,
Your proposal would, I think, destroy the literature and magazine industries. Yes, magazines have subscribers. But why should I subscribe if I can get a copy as soon as the magazine is published? How can the editor of a magazine get enough readers to contract for something that they will receive free once the first user has received it? How can the writer who/thinks/ he has a great book make a profit from it when the first review copy can be Torrented for free? Why create any new work of literature? Music is slightly different: a live performance is different from a recording, and some groups distribute recordings for free in order to get fans at their concerts. But, in the days of the Kindle etc., an e-copy of a book is approximately as good as a hard copy.
Literature and music are not the same things as burgers and car repairs. The invention of copyright had a massive positive effect on human culture. Very little of the music you listen to and the books and magazines you read would exist without it. Of course, I am not saying that the existing system is perfect - very far from it. Its application to programs and code is very defective. But in throwing the whole thing out, you are losing the good as well as the bad.
So safety sometimes has costs. Big news. The airlines will have, collectively, to find some way of getting more trained crew. Back in the dim and distant past, airlines trained pilots more or less from the ground up. Mind you, that was at a time when there were fewer airlines and they were more nationalistic, so your chances of retaining a pilot once trained were pretty good. We need a way of providing some return to that. Maybe there are already schemes which are not sufficiently taken up: they need to be tinkered with until they are taken up.
Whatever the mechanism, nobody should be cutting corners with such a basic piece of safety equipment as the pilot. Airlines need to stock the proper quantity of properly maintained pilots, just as they do brakes, engines etc.
No, it is quite conventional to omit periods in full caps. Most people would accept "guns are common in the USA" and not require it to be "guns are common in the U.S.A." or "guns are common in USA".
Due to sitting inside it, rather than on or outside it, it had a name bases on its appearance seen from the inside long before we realised that there wer other similar things, which we saw from the outside. Though "galaxy" is only "Milky Way" in Latin.
Dark in "Dark Side of the Moon" means "unknown", in the same sense as "Darkest Africa" or "Dark Arts". Nobody thought the sun didn't rise in unexplored Africa - though there seems to be a convention that Dark Arts are practised at night in dark robes.
Hey, if I do my Dark Spells on the beach in a Hawaiian shirt, maybe nobody will notice. World domination, here I come!
The major cause of war/unrest in the world isn't skin color, it's religion.
I would invite you to show cause and effect. My view is that religion is a coat of paint people put on their deeds to make them look better. People without religion can make war just as well, they just need a different coat of paint, such as extreme political ideologies (the many flavours of Communism and Fascism), nationalism.or tribalism.
Many wars have been fought in the name of religion simply because religion is endemic to the world. But to show it is a cause of warfare, you have to show more than partial correlation,
I could imagine a completely separate attitude sensor shutting the engine down, with a pitch angle too small to see but large enough to detect. The rockets really are meant to fire straight down, and even a small error might well trigger a closedown.
If only they had labeled, with the arrow, the words "up", and put another arrow down, with the letters "dn" for "down", then none of this would have happened.
Unless, of course, somebody else had, for reasons that seemed excellent to them, decreed that this particular sub-assembly needed to be assembled upside down. At which point you need a careful worker to decide whether Up and Down mean assembly or launch orientation. This is wh nautical types use Port and Starboard instead of Left and Right for bits of the ship. Perhaps rocketeers need similar terms for nose and tail (Hot and Cold?).
Just ban them from ever using a telephone of any variety again, or working for a company which uses them. So not allowed to own or use a landline or cellphone, or work for a company connected to the phone system - which is any company, Show them what it is like not to have the system they have abused
I would say the two meanings come from the same source, but with different spins. Meaning 4: Needs to go to the moot to be debated: truth still uncertain Meaning 5: Taken out of current consideration by postponing until the moot (which was an annual event)
I.e. meaning 4 regards the moot as a place where complex things are debated, while meaning 5 regards it as an annual event where a lot of hot air is expended about nothing. Both are probably correct.
My watch is 1. Analog for easy reading, 2. Solar powered so it will never run out of power, 3. radio synchronised so it is always more accurate than I need. It has day/date, but rather hard to read. The only extra feature I would add is an alarm, plus make the day/date more reasonable. It cost me GBP40 from a magazine special offer.
I programmed PDP11/23s in Pascal for embedded functions, debugging with a Logic Analyser. I used to be able to read the Logic Analyser screen (aaah... octal), inverse assemble it, and recognise my Pascal code, all in my head. I never got that close to the machine since, despite working on embedded systems most of the time since.
As I thought I made clear - security. All browsers have security problems, particularly older browsers before security became such a problem. Up-to-date may mean an old browser still being maintained for security fixes. You don't have to have the latest, greatest whizzy bits, but you do need holes patched.
The problem with sticking to your old web experience is that if something new appears for which you do want a more modern browser, you will be forced to do an upgrade at a time which may not be of your convenience. To return to the car analogy, you may keep your 1960s car as antique or as a pleasure. But would you use it for your wage-paying, must get there, journey to work or to customers? Would you risk a crucial customer meeting because your beloved veteran decides not to start today?
Of course, there is no need to be totally up to date. But I trade in a car when it reaches the stage in life that things keep breaking - maybe seven to ten years old. I thing the same with browsers, though the timescale is shorter. I would expect to upgrade my browser every two to three years, at a time of my own choosing rather than waiting for something to break.
If they bought software for a single purpose (or a set of purposes) and that purpose hasn't changed since years ago, why should they be forced to upgrade?
If the software is potentially connected to the Internet, then it represents a security risk which becomes greater the longer people have to learn about it its bugs. If it is not maintained, the case is even stronger.
People should have an up-to-date, high quality browser for Internet use. People should not have two browsers, because they will confuse them.
You maintain or replace your car. The same is true for internet-capable software: the Internet is continually evolving and you need to respond to that.
How would you have done so in the days before cellphones? Such situations are very, very rare. Far rarer than idiots who think they can phone and drive. No solution can cover 100% of possible situations - if they cover, at relatively low cost, 90% of situations, and only lock out a few useful situations, they are probably good.
I disagree that this is, prima facie, a bad idea. The problem of drivers using phones while driving and killing themselves (Darwinian selection) and, more importantly, others who are not participants in their driving is a real one.
Just as in the seatbelt case, I think there might be an argument for a warning rather than lockout system. Many cars have warning lights and beepers for seatbelt not fastened, which allows you to move a car a few feet or to move in an emergency without fastening seatbelt. Similarly, you could have a voice which coos in your ear (and that of the person you are talking to) "Phoning while driving is dangerous", and prefixes your text unerasably with "Sent While Driving". Peer pressure will then stop most people doing it, while still allowing the exceptional cases which might exist.
I would want only-transmit, not only-receive. I don't want my phone ringing unexpectedly in the theatre; I can make up my on mind whether to call, though it could put up an easily dismissed "silence requested by " screen..
According to TFA, the research which originally showed this could not be repeated since the chemical given to trace growth was found to be poisonous. Therefore it was based on a probably correct but unrepeatable experiment, something people in the hard sciences do not like. This new experiment has provided confirmation of the earlier result by a different method.
Slashdot Mirror
Wherein is the conflict between the two? This is basic Adam Smith economics. Businesses make money by providing goods and services that people want. There is no altruism involved - all businessmen are in business to make a profit. But by making a profit in a fair and open market, where all have a chance to compete, they make the comfortable rich world we live in.
Yes, Facebook makes money from us. If we have access to the internet, we can choose to use Facebook, with its advantages and disadvantages, or leave it. If we don't have internet access, we don't have that choice.
Very US-centric reply. European airlines, particularly BOAC/BEA, did have such training schemes.
My view is that properly trained, rested, crew are a safety item that airlines should not be allowed to skimp on. Yes, profits are thin. But we don't allow airlines to , say, skimp on checks or cut equipment minima because of that. (Or if we so, we shouldn't). OK, ticket prices may rise. If costs are fairly imposed across the industry (and I recognise that is much more easily said than done) it shouldn't harm any particular airline.
As to crew pay, if it is that bad they will start leaving the industry, at least for a while. This will force pay up to drag them back when airlines start having to cancel flights because of lack of crew. Airlines are spending billions on new aircraft. They should also spend more on the person in charge of their many tens of million dollars investment.
Can you clarify: you are happy to take the risk of an incident which will leave millions dead, and cost trillions in property damage, and depend on financial restitution after the accident? You say you wouldn't live near it: a serious nuclear accident could pollute 1/3 of the US (Chernobyl polluted Scotland): three such plants and you have to leave the country. Do you know how open-cast mining companies have managed to manipulate such a system? An initial company opens the mine, extracts the coal and gets the profits, then as the mine is coming to the end of its life, transfers it to a shell company which has no assets. When the time comes to close the mine and rehabilitate the land, the company goes bust, with no resources to do the job their long-distant predecessors started. Ditto with pollution (Love Canal etc). Have you not heard of Bhopal - how many of them (a) got financial restitution, and (b) would not far rather have healthy lives than any financial payback? The law should prevent this, you say? Would you bet your life against the lawyers and political favours that a significant slice of a ten billion dollar profit can buy? And do you really think money can compensate for human lives? Will you sell permits to murder - which is essentially your proposition?
How much time are you willing to spend researching before going into a burger bar? Remembering that the burger chain owners will be spending significant amounts of money whitewashing their reputation and attacking those who say their food is dangerous even if it isn't. There is a proven history over millennia of big guys screwing consumers, often fatally, and getting away with it. Before food regulations were instituted in London, approximately 10% of food sold was actively dangerous (flour padded out with white lead) and more than 80% was adulterated (bread padded out with chalk). The profits from "getting away with it", and the ease of providing a fall guy to take the heat if you don't, are irresistible to the small percentage of the population who are actively dishonest - and then the majority who are trying to compete with them have to do the same and go bust.
Big business, due to simple financial muscle, can always outgun the little guy. The only solution the little guy has is to gang up together: all together we have the muscle to match business. Such a ganging-together of all the little guys is called a "government".
I can only conclude that you are completely ignorant of the law of the past 200 years if you have such a naive trust in post-facto restitution, and ignorant of advertising if you trust on reputation to warn of bad providers. That worked in a medieval village. It didn't work even in a medieval town, let alone an industrial country with tens of millions of businesses,
That is a hugely sweeping assertion that requires some justification. Do you have any statistical evidence to back it up, or are you speaking from sheer prejudice?
There is a huge amount of regulation. Which means that if only a very tiny bit of regulation is bad, there is a lot of bad regulation. But to generalise from the fact that there is a lot of bad regulation to the idea that 99% of regulation is bad is the sloppiest of sloppy thinking.
From you statement, for example, road safety regulations are a waste of time, as are all those for any other form of transport. There is an incredible amount of aviation safety regulation - are you happy to repeal 99% of it? Which 1% of poisonous chemicals do you want still banned? Are you happy to deregulate your local nuclear power plant, so it can be run by the workers willing to accept the lowest pay? And, of course, get rid of all those regulations intended to keep politicians at least a little hinest - sell political office to the highest bidder.
So you would make speculative IP creation impossible. Before you created any IP, you would have to establish contact with all possible customers and agree, and contract, a price for the IP you would create. This was the way the system used to work in the 18th century: Dr Johnson had to line up a number of sponsors before he produced his dictionary. The same applied for music: Bach needed a sponsor for his cantatas etc. The invention of copyright then produced an explosion of publishing: because people could retain the IP of their putative great works, they could publish speculatively (possibly with funding from a publisher), and if indeed it turned out they were great works, they would be repaid for their efforts,
Your proposal would, I think, destroy the literature and magazine industries. Yes, magazines have subscribers. But why should I subscribe if I can get a copy as soon as the magazine is published? How can the editor of a magazine get enough readers to contract for something that they will receive free once the first user has received it? How can the writer who /thinks/ he has a great book make a profit from it when the first review copy can be Torrented for free? Why create any new work of literature? Music is slightly different: a live performance is different from a recording, and some groups distribute recordings for free in order to get fans at their concerts. But, in the days of the Kindle etc., an e-copy of a book is approximately as good as a hard copy.
Literature and music are not the same things as burgers and car repairs. The invention of copyright had a massive positive effect on human culture. Very little of the music you listen to and the books and magazines you read would exist without it. Of course, I am not saying that the existing system is perfect - very far from it. Its application to programs and code is very defective. But in throwing the whole thing out, you are losing the good as well as the bad.
So safety sometimes has costs. Big news. The airlines will have, collectively, to find some way of getting more trained crew. Back in the dim and distant past, airlines trained pilots more or less from the ground up. Mind you, that was at a time when there were fewer airlines and they were more nationalistic, so your chances of retaining a pilot once trained were pretty good. We need a way of providing some return to that. Maybe there are already schemes which are not sufficiently taken up: they need to be tinkered with until they are taken up.
Whatever the mechanism, nobody should be cutting corners with such a basic piece of safety equipment as the pilot. Airlines need to stock the proper quantity of properly maintained pilots, just as they do brakes, engines etc.
No, it is quite conventional to omit periods in full caps. Most people would accept "guns are common in the USA" and not require it to be "guns are common in the U.S.A." or "guns are common in USA".
Due to sitting inside it, rather than on or outside it, it had a name bases on its appearance seen from the inside long before we realised that there wer other similar things, which we saw from the outside. Though "galaxy" is only "Milky Way" in Latin.
Dark in "Dark Side of the Moon" means "unknown", in the same sense as "Darkest Africa" or "Dark Arts". Nobody thought the sun didn't rise in unexplored Africa - though there seems to be a convention that Dark Arts are practised at night in dark robes.
Hey, if I do my Dark Spells on the beach in a Hawaiian shirt, maybe nobody will notice. World domination, here I come!
Or living on a lump of earth called "Earth" orbiting a sun called "Sun" in a universe called "the Universe".
Which is roughly what TFA said, rather than the contrary as had been assumed up to now.
The major cause of war/unrest in the world isn't skin color, it's religion.
I would invite you to show cause and effect. My view is that religion is a coat of paint people put on their deeds to make them look better. People without religion can make war just as well, they just need a different coat of paint, such as extreme political ideologies (the many flavours of Communism and Fascism), nationalism.or tribalism.
Many wars have been fought in the name of religion simply because religion is endemic to the world. But to show it is a cause of warfare, you have to show more than partial correlation,
"One ring to rule them, and in the darkness bind them".
A cheap shot, but it resonates.
I could imagine a completely separate attitude sensor shutting the engine down, with a pitch angle too small to see but large enough to detect. The rockets really are meant to fire straight down, and even a small error might well trigger a closedown.
If only they had labeled, with the arrow, the words "up", and put another arrow down, with the letters "dn" for "down", then none of this would have happened.
Unless, of course, somebody else had, for reasons that seemed excellent to them, decreed that this particular sub-assembly needed to be assembled upside down. At which point you need a careful worker to decide whether Up and Down mean assembly or launch orientation. This is wh nautical types use Port and Starboard instead of Left and Right for bits of the ship. Perhaps rocketeers need similar terms for nose and tail (Hot and Cold?).
Royalties in many licenses allow an unlimited number of CPUs on the same chip. You pay the royalty per design per chip.
Just ban them from ever using a telephone of any variety again, or working for a company which uses them. So not allowed to own or use a landline or cellphone, or work for a company connected to the phone system - which is any company, Show them what it is like not to have the system they have abused
I would say the two meanings come from the same source, but with different spins.
Meaning 4: Needs to go to the moot to be debated: truth still uncertain
Meaning 5: Taken out of current consideration by postponing until the moot (which was an annual event)
I.e. meaning 4 regards the moot as a place where complex things are debated, while meaning 5 regards it as an annual event where a lot of hot air is expended about nothing. Both are probably correct.
My watch is 1. Analog for easy reading, 2. Solar powered so it will never run out of power, 3. radio synchronised so it is always more accurate than I need. It has day/date, but rather hard to read. The only extra feature I would add is an alarm, plus make the day/date more reasonable. It cost me GBP40 from a magazine special offer.
I programmed PDP11/23s in Pascal for embedded functions, debugging with a Logic Analyser. I used to be able to read the Logic Analyser screen (aaah... octal), inverse assemble it, and recognise my Pascal code, all in my head. I never got that close to the machine since, despite working on embedded systems most of the time since.
As I thought I made clear - security. All browsers have security problems, particularly older browsers before security became such a problem. Up-to-date may mean an old browser still being maintained for security fixes. You don't have to have the latest, greatest whizzy bits, but you do need holes patched.
The problem with sticking to your old web experience is that if something new appears for which you do want a more modern browser, you will be forced to do an upgrade at a time which may not be of your convenience. To return to the car analogy, you may keep your 1960s car as antique or as a pleasure. But would you use it for your wage-paying, must get there, journey to work or to customers? Would you risk a crucial customer meeting because your beloved veteran decides not to start today?
Of course, there is no need to be totally up to date. But I trade in a car when it reaches the stage in life that things keep breaking - maybe seven to ten years old. I thing the same with browsers, though the timescale is shorter. I would expect to upgrade my browser every two to three years, at a time of my own choosing rather than waiting for something to break.
If they bought software for a single purpose (or a set of purposes) and that purpose hasn't changed since years ago, why should they be forced to upgrade?
If the software is potentially connected to the Internet, then it represents a security risk which becomes greater the longer people have to learn about it its bugs. If it is not maintained, the case is even stronger.
People should have an up-to-date, high quality browser for Internet use. People should not have two browsers, because they will confuse them.
You maintain or replace your car. The same is true for internet-capable software: the Internet is continually evolving and you need to respond to that.
How would you have done so in the days before cellphones? Such situations are very, very rare. Far rarer than idiots who think they can phone and drive. No solution can cover 100% of possible situations - if they cover, at relatively low cost, 90% of situations, and only lock out a few useful situations, they are probably good.
I disagree that this is, prima facie, a bad idea. The problem of drivers using phones while driving and killing themselves (Darwinian selection) and, more importantly, others who are not participants in their driving is a real one.
Just as in the seatbelt case, I think there might be an argument for a warning rather than lockout system. Many cars have warning lights and beepers for seatbelt not fastened, which allows you to move a car a few feet or to move in an emergency without fastening seatbelt. Similarly, you could have a voice which coos in your ear (and that of the person you are talking to) "Phoning while driving is dangerous", and prefixes your text unerasably with "Sent While Driving". Peer pressure will then stop most people doing it, while still allowing the exceptional cases which might exist.
I would want only-transmit, not only-receive. I don't want my phone ringing unexpectedly in the theatre; I can make up my on mind whether to call, though it could put up an easily dismissed "silence requested by " screen..
According to TFA, the research which originally showed this could not be repeated since the chemical given to trace growth was found to be poisonous. Therefore it was based on a probably correct but unrepeatable experiment, something people in the hard sciences do not like. This new experiment has provided confirmation of the earlier result by a different method.