There are plenty of places where the same error repeated will have little or no difference. I can see this being great for pattern recognition, lossy compression, D/A conversion, etc. And if the item being checked needs an exact match from a huge selection, have the 'guessing processor' find the probably matches and passing them to the conventional processor for confirmation could be viable in certain circumstances, as well.
Keep in mind, everyone breathing carries around an inexact processor that is capable of handling a variety of situations with an acceptable degree of success, far better and more efficiently than any CPU designed.
Except for, if they wait until copyright expires, all the publishers can print it. So why would the first publisher pay for the rights to the book and then not do anything with it?
You have to have SOME icon for things, there is no reason to change it arbitrarily to shit nobody understands. People know that the calendar icon gets you, well a calendar even if they've never seen a real calendar.
Then as you point out most of them are not at all archaic. Manila folders still dominate filing cabinets at businesses, TVs don't look like they did in the 50s, but TVs are still everywhere and not dropping in numbers. Wrenches are same as they ever were and if you own a house, you either have a wrench or will have one soon enough.
This was just an article written by some moronic 19 year old hipster who has fuck-all experience with the world. "Oh these are things I've never seen in Starbucks or my philosophy 101 classroom, clearly they are obsolete!"
Also, funny enough, companies do update their iconography. Like in Windows it uses an icon that looks like a widescreen LCD HDTV to represent a TV (for things like HDMI outs in the sound panel or the like). They do generally modernize the look as time goes on.
However ultimately it doesn't matter. If we recognize the icon as meaning something, we will continue to. Hell take a look at the icon for Steam. It is a black background with a strange white joint on it. It is just the logo Valve made for Steam. I don't know what it is supposed to represent, if anything. Doesn't matter, I instantly recognize it and my brain says "That is Steam." Same shit with any other icon.
So what you're saying is that we're creating a new set of hieroglyphs for the computer world. I'm okay with that, but let's not call it intuitive. I can accept commonly accepted.
But one of the benefits posited by GUI designers is the intuitive interface. If the icons have no inherent indication of their purpose, then it is no longer intuitive, even if the knowledge is transferable. Note that File, Save still makes sense so long as you're saving files.
Here's an interesting experiment: divide the number of hours a terrorist has been emitting radiation on American soil with the number of hours nuclear scientists and medical patients have emitted radiation on American soil. If the number isn't 0, it's pretty close.
While everything you've mentioned here is true, exactly which crime did the person pulled over commit? You'd need better evidence than this to pull over someone suspected of drug trafficking.
It's a rare and strange enough occurrence that I don't see a problem with that.
This "rare and strange enough occurrence" happens multiple times daily in every major city in the civilized world. And that's just the medical cases. Now, how many times have terrorists done such in the United States, ever? So why is this sufficient grounds for questioning, let alone searches?
The funniest thing about people like you who want less government monitoring is how many times you've been proven wrong, yet you still hold dearly on to the mantra that the market will make the right decision. Like with BP in the Gulf about a year ago. Or Enron. Or matchmakers prior to the legislation abolishing the use of white phosphorus. I'm sure there was a guy making crappy wheels for chariots in Roman times, living high on the hog until one broke and killed someone important (at which time he asked for a favor from his wealthy friends).
Adding criminal charges to the penalties will only increase the threshold where they think it's worth screwing you over. I'm not interested in buying a Pinto that catches fire half as often as the original - I want one that's safe.
So what's more broken - having to threaten to put in your own broadband, and then be sued not to in order to get the telco to put in broadband, or having to do that in earnest?
So what you're promoting is harsher penalties, and post facto regulation - if what you do injures enough people to not be written off as coincidence and can't be buried under our big piles of cash, then we can be punished. Or do we still keep those (or some other) regulators busy trying to catch the unethical ones before they hurt people?
Welcome to the real world - if the answer was easy, the idiots running the country would have stumbled across it in the last 200+ years. The right number might well be what's being spent right now. After all, it's pretty obvious that it isn't a simply a funding problem...which is why focusing on it (especially in the absolute all or nothing) doesn't advance the discussion.
Arent latest, greatest fads usually just fads? Arent the most popular programming languages generally decades old (C++, Java)? Isnt one of the most popular languages for embedded devices (C) even older?
All programming languages are just decades old. There wasn't much in the way of computers before WWII, and I think they were coded in machine language. C is about 40 years old. FORTRAN and COBOL are about 55 years old. Somewhat surprisingly, BASIC is 50 years old.
So BASIC is older than C...maybe sometimes newer is better!
So your answer is to pour an unlimited amount of money into schools that are failing to teach 78% of students. And if they keep failing to teach, just keep giving them more and more money. Because rewarding failure is wise.
You keep saying unlimited. No one else is. But schools need some money to teach, and if you think your doctor's bill is high now, wait until you get his bill for having to fund his private primary education, too. Never mind the "service fees" the uneducated, unemployed, unemployable, and desperate will extract from you simply to survive (extreme, perhaps, but then, even Finland only spends about 35% GDP on education to the States' 6% - university included).
Given the results I got when I did a search on "fda falsified drug trials", and the things that happen now, how do you think less regulation would improve the situation? I'm assuming, of course, since most "free-market" promoters are also "small government" promoters, that you don't intend to hire more highly educated and qualified people to determine if the data is falsified. And given our educated public, and the fact that most people seem to have a hard time dealing with even the basics of statistical analysis (grade school in Canada only touched on it when I was in it, and it's not required for all university graduates) how would they even be able to detect fraud in the trial results? Or should we just start trusting the talking heads, where typically the person who gets the most attention is the one who shouts the loudest? Or are you also promoting a meritocracy, where if you're not smart enough, you deserve to be screwed over?
And that's only a couple of my problems with the free market philosophy. Just like communism, free-market ideology is flawed in the real world. Communism ignores the fact that some or most people will be lazy if there is no penalty to them, the free market ideology ignores that some people will be 'too ruthless' and engage in unethical practices to make that extra buck.
....it raises the question as to how they will define 'unlawful.'
No it doesn't. It doesn't raise any question at all. The answer is obvious - anyone gathering for anything that Harper disapproves of will be considered unlawful. Period.
The sad thing is I really am not joking...
Of course, no instancesof abuse towards protesters was ever made against the majority government just before this one. Only the conservatives would do that, not the liberals. Oh wait...
What really surprised me is that the conservatives don't even try to hide that they are compiling a database of their supporters and rejecters. This goes against the very idea of secret ballot voting, and in most civilised countries is at least theoretically illegal.
The ballot is secret. If they call you, ask who you're voting for, and you tell them, the secret is out. Just like....any other time you tell other people about a secret...
It's neither illegal nor unusual for various parties to have these lists. A good test of whether a party is big enough to be a concern is if they have the resources to compile these lists.
Perhaps, but I've yet to see news of such a conspiracy from the liberal side. It is healthy to treat both sides with a fair amount of skepticism, but don't let the news of one side openly committing fraud turn into a belief that the other is automatically guilty of the same.
Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.
Google "shawinigate" or "liberal sponsorship scandal". Hell, we all know that won't happen. You can start reading here and here. I know 8 to12 years is a long time for some people, but this is what came out just before the liberals lost power.
Generally Canada has two strong parties(CONS, LIBS), and two or three "weak" parties(NDP, GRN, OTHER) where the two strong generally had enough seats to "run" the country; but couldn't push a draconian law if all the other parties "voted" together.
Um, for almost the entire history of Canada, we have had a majority leadership. This means they could force through whatever they want - they would always have the majority vote, and party 'rules' required people to vote with their party most of the time. For examples of both the Liberals and conservatives passing laws more or less arbitrarily, see the long gun registry and the repealing of the long gun registry.
Also, having just reviewed the general election history for the entire lifespan of Canada, we've had about 30 years of minority government, 7 of those prior to the current majority. Any party has been generally 'bad' by some definition. In fact, what got the conservatives in power was the liberals being on the outs after their sponsorship scandal.
You realize that you're pretty much describing the history of Hollywood, right? Excessive IP laws were making it expensive to operate in one region, so people up and left that region to work in an area with more relaxed laws. Yeah, that is pretty unthinkable.
The key flaw in your logic is that everyone is a perfectly righteous soul, who would never do anything wrong if given the right motive. (Let's not get into relative morality and just assume that blowing up bridges is wrong.) No one is incorruptible, and I imagine a lot of people would at least think about blowing up a bridge for $250k, if not actually say yes.
When it gets right down to it, everyone has their price. If not in one area, then in another.
This is the key difference between menus and toolbars. Words have an inherent meaning - if you're literate, you can at least read it, and probably infer its meaning. Pictures require a cultural context, which changes over time. For instance, when's the last time you saw a 3.5" floppy disk, outside of the toolbar in most applications? How do I teach my kids that this means "save file"? "Well, this little blue box with the little white box, that means save. Why? Well, long before you were born..." The obvious conclusion is that at some point I'm going to have to learn a new icon, even if I don't know what it's going to be yet. And this gets back to the self-discovery. When you peruse menus looking for that one feature you need, even if you have the wrong name for it you should be able to have an idea of what the names there do mean, and find the right one. The up side is, if you have the wrong name for it, you'll have at least heard of the right name by the time you find it.
Not only that: the non-immune kids, once you break past herd immunity numbers, become the incubators of the mutations that break out of the vaccination wall.
If the virus mutated sufficiently to get past the vaccination, then anyone would be equally likely to get the virus. From what the article says, this is about reduced effectiveness of the vaccine, not mutation of the disease. If this statement was valid, one would expect outbreaks at the level of before pertussis vaccinations were introduced.
So:
81% fully vaccinated.
11% incomplete.
8% unvaccinated.
If you'd read a little closer, you'd see these vaccination rates are for those who actually contracted the disease, not the vaccination rates for California in general. The two data elements are completely unrelated, unless all kids in California contracted the disease.
"The longer you went from your last vaccine, the greater your risk of disease," Witt told Reuters Health. At age 13, the number of cases dropped, presumably because that's the age when children are eligible for their booster shot.
Aha! The REAL pattern begins to emerge:
Broken herd immunity lets the disease in: those with incomplete vaccinations begin to be affected at higher rates than those who have received the booster shot. In essence, age 12 - due to the pacing of the booster shots - is effectively a risk zone.
Um, no. To quote the article:
Witt and his colleagues suggest that the booster seems to come too late, leaving pre-teens at an increased risk of catching pertussis.
But moving up the Tdap booster shot to an earlier age is not so easy, Clark said, and it might not fix the problem.
So, unlike you, the experts acknowledge that vaccinations become less effective over time, and that that is the root cause of the higher rate of disease for that age range. The question is, what is to be done about that. The experts don't seem to agree on what is the best option.
This is why "religious objections" for booster shots are such fucking bullshit: being unvaccinated DOES cause societal risk. We need 92% minimum coverage for herd immunity and we do not have it.
Ignoring your incorrect assumptions about the percentages, which I pointed out above, perhaps it's the attitude and equally incorrect information (as those making the "religious objections") you provide that causes people like me, who are looking for unbiased or, failing that, more balanced information to reserve our judgement of vaccinations. All I see are cheerleaders, on either side of the equation. Note that I'm not saying you're entirely incorrect, just equally as the other cheerleaders.
Here's a little further reading. ABC News: "While coverage rates for the childhood pertussis vaccine series hover around 90 percent of recommended recipients, rates for the Tdap booster are now around 30 percent, according to the CDC." So, it appears that we haven't reached the 92% min. you claim, which I haven't verified (and, given your other errors, don't take on credit), but we're also much closer than you asserted above.
Propaganda has taught you well. But have you taken LSD? That doesn't happen unless you take a heavy dose. I think lsd has benefits but its nothing comparedto say,ibogaine-Forthepurposeof introspective healing that is. See maps.org for research articles etc if this is something you actually want to have some intelligence in, or feel free to stick to the old adage of siding with the angry religious in denial backlash against the ever so eccentric Timothy Leary.
Jesus Christ, that's the longest I've ever taken to read a three-line post. Either get a keyboard with a working space bar and kill the run-on sentences, or lay off the lsd before posting.
Also, the Russian underworld has a bit of a reputation for being quite thorough when it comes to retaliations, which would fit the GPP's assertions of the behaviour of someone living under that kind of regime for a couple generations.
Slashdot Mirror
There are plenty of places where the same error repeated will have little or no difference. I can see this being great for pattern recognition, lossy compression, D/A conversion, etc. And if the item being checked needs an exact match from a huge selection, have the 'guessing processor' find the probably matches and passing them to the conventional processor for confirmation could be viable in certain circumstances, as well.
Keep in mind, everyone breathing carries around an inexact processor that is capable of handling a variety of situations with an acceptable degree of success, far better and more efficiently than any CPU designed.
Except for, if they wait until copyright expires, all the publishers can print it. So why would the first publisher pay for the rights to the book and then not do anything with it?
You have to have SOME icon for things, there is no reason to change it arbitrarily to shit nobody understands. People know that the calendar icon gets you, well a calendar even if they've never seen a real calendar.
Then as you point out most of them are not at all archaic. Manila folders still dominate filing cabinets at businesses, TVs don't look like they did in the 50s, but TVs are still everywhere and not dropping in numbers. Wrenches are same as they ever were and if you own a house, you either have a wrench or will have one soon enough.
This was just an article written by some moronic 19 year old hipster who has fuck-all experience with the world. "Oh these are things I've never seen in Starbucks or my philosophy 101 classroom, clearly they are obsolete!"
Also, funny enough, companies do update their iconography. Like in Windows it uses an icon that looks like a widescreen LCD HDTV to represent a TV (for things like HDMI outs in the sound panel or the like). They do generally modernize the look as time goes on.
However ultimately it doesn't matter. If we recognize the icon as meaning something, we will continue to. Hell take a look at the icon for Steam. It is a black background with a strange white joint on it. It is just the logo Valve made for Steam. I don't know what it is supposed to represent, if anything. Doesn't matter, I instantly recognize it and my brain says "That is Steam." Same shit with any other icon.
So what you're saying is that we're creating a new set of hieroglyphs for the computer world. I'm okay with that, but let's not call it intuitive. I can accept commonly accepted.
But one of the benefits posited by GUI designers is the intuitive interface. If the icons have no inherent indication of their purpose, then it is no longer intuitive, even if the knowledge is transferable. Note that File, Save still makes sense so long as you're saving files.
Here's an interesting experiment: divide the number of hours a terrorist has been emitting radiation on American soil with the number of hours nuclear scientists and medical patients have emitted radiation on American soil. If the number isn't 0, it's pretty close.
While everything you've mentioned here is true, exactly which crime did the person pulled over commit? You'd need better evidence than this to pull over someone suspected of drug trafficking.
It's a rare and strange enough occurrence that I don't see a problem with that.
This "rare and strange enough occurrence" happens multiple times daily in every major city in the civilized world. And that's just the medical cases. Now, how many times have terrorists done such in the United States, ever? So why is this sufficient grounds for questioning, let alone searches?
Treat only criminals like criminals.
The funniest thing about people like you who want less government monitoring is how many times you've been proven wrong, yet you still hold dearly on to the mantra that the market will make the right decision. Like with BP in the Gulf about a year ago. Or Enron. Or matchmakers prior to the legislation abolishing the use of white phosphorus. I'm sure there was a guy making crappy wheels for chariots in Roman times, living high on the hog until one broke and killed someone important (at which time he asked for a favor from his wealthy friends).
Adding criminal charges to the penalties will only increase the threshold where they think it's worth screwing you over. I'm not interested in buying a Pinto that catches fire half as often as the original - I want one that's safe.
So what's more broken - having to threaten to put in your own broadband, and then be sued not to in order to get the telco to put in broadband, or having to do that in earnest?
So what you're promoting is harsher penalties, and post facto regulation - if what you do injures enough people to not be written off as coincidence and can't be buried under our big piles of cash, then we can be punished. Or do we still keep those (or some other) regulators busy trying to catch the unethical ones before they hurt people?
Welcome to the real world - if the answer was easy, the idiots running the country would have stumbled across it in the last 200+ years. The right number might well be what's being spent right now. After all, it's pretty obvious that it isn't a simply a funding problem...which is why focusing on it (especially in the absolute all or nothing) doesn't advance the discussion.
Arent latest, greatest fads usually just fads? Arent the most popular programming languages generally decades old (C++, Java)? Isnt one of the most popular languages for embedded devices (C) even older?
All programming languages are just decades old. There wasn't much in the way of computers before WWII, and I think they were coded in machine language. C is about 40 years old. FORTRAN and COBOL are about 55 years old. Somewhat surprisingly, BASIC is 50 years old.
So BASIC is older than C...maybe sometimes newer is better!
So your answer is to pour an unlimited amount of money into schools that are failing to teach 78% of students. And if they keep failing to teach, just keep giving them more and more money. Because rewarding failure is wise.
You keep saying unlimited. No one else is. But schools need some money to teach, and if you think your doctor's bill is high now, wait until you get his bill for having to fund his private primary education, too. Never mind the "service fees" the uneducated, unemployed, unemployable, and desperate will extract from you simply to survive (extreme, perhaps, but then, even Finland only spends about 35% GDP on education to the States' 6% - university included).
Given the results I got when I did a search on "fda falsified drug trials", and the things that happen now, how do you think less regulation would improve the situation? I'm assuming, of course, since most "free-market" promoters are also "small government" promoters, that you don't intend to hire more highly educated and qualified people to determine if the data is falsified. And given our educated public, and the fact that most people seem to have a hard time dealing with even the basics of statistical analysis (grade school in Canada only touched on it when I was in it, and it's not required for all university graduates) how would they even be able to detect fraud in the trial results? Or should we just start trusting the talking heads, where typically the person who gets the most attention is the one who shouts the loudest? Or are you also promoting a meritocracy, where if you're not smart enough, you deserve to be screwed over?
And that's only a couple of my problems with the free market philosophy. Just like communism, free-market ideology is flawed in the real world. Communism ignores the fact that some or most people will be lazy if there is no penalty to them, the free market ideology ignores that some people will be 'too ruthless' and engage in unethical practices to make that extra buck.
An excellent baby seal joke and not one funny mod. How sad...
(Posting AC because I'm at work.)
....it raises the question as to how they will define 'unlawful.'
No it doesn't. It doesn't raise any question at all. The answer is obvious - anyone gathering for anything that Harper disapproves of will be considered unlawful. Period.
The sad thing is I really am not joking...
Of course, no instancesof abuse towards protesters was ever made against the majority government just before this one. Only the conservatives would do that, not the liberals. Oh wait...
What really surprised me is that the conservatives don't even try to hide that they are compiling a database of their supporters and rejecters. This goes against the very idea of secret ballot voting, and in most civilised countries is at least theoretically illegal.
The ballot is secret. If they call you, ask who you're voting for, and you tell them, the secret is out. Just like....any other time you tell other people about a secret...
It's neither illegal nor unusual for various parties to have these lists. A good test of whether a party is big enough to be a concern is if they have the resources to compile these lists.
Perhaps, but I've yet to see news of such a conspiracy from the liberal side. It is healthy to treat both sides with a fair amount of skepticism, but don't let the news of one side openly committing fraud turn into a belief that the other is automatically guilty of the same.
Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.
Google "shawinigate" or "liberal sponsorship scandal". Hell, we all know that won't happen. You can start reading here and here. I know 8 to12 years is a long time for some people, but this is what came out just before the liberals lost power.
Generally Canada has two strong parties(CONS, LIBS), and two or three "weak" parties(NDP, GRN, OTHER) where the two strong generally had enough seats to "run" the country; but couldn't push a draconian law if all the other parties "voted" together.
Um, for almost the entire history of Canada, we have had a majority leadership. This means they could force through whatever they want - they would always have the majority vote, and party 'rules' required people to vote with their party most of the time. For examples of both the Liberals and conservatives passing laws more or less arbitrarily, see the long gun registry and the repealing of the long gun registry.
Also, having just reviewed the general election history for the entire lifespan of Canada, we've had about 30 years of minority government, 7 of those prior to the current majority. Any party has been generally 'bad' by some definition. In fact, what got the conservatives in power was the liberals being on the outs after their sponsorship scandal.
You realize that you're pretty much describing the history of Hollywood, right? Excessive IP laws were making it expensive to operate in one region, so people up and left that region to work in an area with more relaxed laws. Yeah, that is pretty unthinkable.
The key flaw in your logic is that everyone is a perfectly righteous soul, who would never do anything wrong if given the right motive. (Let's not get into relative morality and just assume that blowing up bridges is wrong.) No one is incorruptible, and I imagine a lot of people would at least think about blowing up a bridge for $250k, if not actually say yes.
When it gets right down to it, everyone has their price. If not in one area, then in another.
This is the key difference between menus and toolbars. Words have an inherent meaning - if you're literate, you can at least read it, and probably infer its meaning. Pictures require a cultural context, which changes over time. For instance, when's the last time you saw a 3.5" floppy disk, outside of the toolbar in most applications? How do I teach my kids that this means "save file"? "Well, this little blue box with the little white box, that means save. Why? Well, long before you were born..." The obvious conclusion is that at some point I'm going to have to learn a new icon, even if I don't know what it's going to be yet. And this gets back to the self-discovery. When you peruse menus looking for that one feature you need, even if you have the wrong name for it you should be able to have an idea of what the names there do mean, and find the right one. The up side is, if you have the wrong name for it, you'll have at least heard of the right name by the time you find it.
Not only that: the non-immune kids, once you break past herd immunity numbers, become the incubators of the mutations that break out of the vaccination wall.
If the virus mutated sufficiently to get past the vaccination, then anyone would be equally likely to get the virus. From what the article says, this is about reduced effectiveness of the vaccine, not mutation of the disease. If this statement was valid, one would expect outbreaks at the level of before pertussis vaccinations were introduced.
So:
81% fully vaccinated.
11% incomplete.
8% unvaccinated.
If you'd read a little closer, you'd see these vaccination rates are for those who actually contracted the disease, not the vaccination rates for California in general. The two data elements are completely unrelated, unless all kids in California contracted the disease.
"The longer you went from your last vaccine, the greater your risk of disease," Witt told Reuters Health. At age 13, the number of cases dropped, presumably because that's the age when children are eligible for their booster shot.
Aha! The REAL pattern begins to emerge:
Broken herd immunity lets the disease in: those with incomplete vaccinations begin to be affected at higher rates than those who have received the booster shot. In essence, age 12 - due to the pacing of the booster shots - is effectively a risk zone.
Um, no. To quote the article:
Witt and his colleagues suggest that the booster seems to come too late, leaving pre-teens at an increased risk of catching pertussis.
But moving up the Tdap booster shot to an earlier age is not so easy, Clark said, and it might not fix the problem.
So, unlike you, the experts acknowledge that vaccinations become less effective over time, and that that is the root cause of the higher rate of disease for that age range. The question is, what is to be done about that. The experts don't seem to agree on what is the best option.
This is why "religious objections" for booster shots are such fucking bullshit: being unvaccinated DOES cause societal risk. We need 92% minimum coverage for herd immunity and we do not have it.
Ignoring your incorrect assumptions about the percentages, which I pointed out above, perhaps it's the attitude and equally incorrect information (as those making the "religious objections") you provide that causes people like me, who are looking for unbiased or, failing that, more balanced information to reserve our judgement of vaccinations. All I see are cheerleaders, on either side of the equation. Note that I'm not saying you're entirely incorrect, just equally as the other cheerleaders.
Here's a little further reading. ABC News: "While coverage rates for the childhood pertussis vaccine series hover around 90 percent of recommended recipients, rates for the Tdap booster are now around 30 percent, according to the CDC." So, it appears that we haven't reached the 92% min. you claim, which I haven't verified (and, given your other errors, don't take on credit), but we're also much closer than you asserted above.
People like you do nothing to promote your cause.
Propaganda has taught you well. But have you taken LSD? That doesn't happen unless you take a heavy dose. I think lsd has benefits but its nothing comparedto say,ibogaine-Forthepurposeof introspective healing that is. See maps.org for research articles etc if this is something you actually want to have some intelligence in, or feel free to stick to the old adage of siding with the angry religious in denial backlash against the ever so eccentric Timothy Leary.
Jesus Christ, that's the longest I've ever taken to read a three-line post. Either get a keyboard with a working space bar and kill the run-on sentences, or lay off the lsd before posting.
Also, the Russian underworld has a bit of a reputation for being quite thorough when it comes to retaliations, which would fit the GPP's assertions of the behaviour of someone living under that kind of regime for a couple generations.