I think you're being unfairly selective. Before Stranger you get Starman Jones and The Star Beast; afterwards you get Glory Road and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
How do we prepare our youth for their adult lives when they see society's role models, government officials, sports superstars, members of the church, etc... committing breaches of ethics on a daily basis?
Kids' primary role models are their parents. Be a role model, teach them not to look at politicians as role models (is this not extremely obvious!?), and you'll be OK.
Or, people will realize that there isn't that much difference in quality between HD content and regular DVD content and it'll never catch on. We simply don't know yet. But it's too soon to say that DVDs are "fading away." The alternate has only been around a matter of months.
Consider the enormous advantages the CD had over cassette tape - but how long did it take before tape was dead? A lot more than 2 years. And HD just doesn't have those advantages over DVD.
Actually, what you've been doing is failing to accelerate for the past 20+ years. If you'd been accelerating at 1g (in the direction of the center of the Earth), you'd have felt weightless the whole time.
The proper way to do this analysis is to consider the "efficient frontier" of CPUs. CPU X is on the efficient frontier if all equally priced or less expensive CPUs are slower. If you buy a CPU on the efficient frontier, then you couldn't have paid less and gotten more speed (although of course you could have chosen to accept less speed). This factors out the problem of diminishing returns which plagues "frames per dollar" comparisons.
The efficient frontier is analogous to the same concept in Modern Portfolio Theory, where you plot risk vs. return for a set of investments. The idea is that there is no best risk/return position, but for a given risk you want to maximize your return. Choosing investment on the efficient frontier guarantees this.
There have been studies done on this question which demonstrate conclusively that the so-called "liberal" justices have voted as a bloc more often than the so-called "conservative" justices for about the last 25 years. But, as a previous poster said, don't let reality intrude on your fantasies.
[The Cuban government] publicly responded for the first time in 2004 by issuing a statement clarifying that "the revenues of Cuban state companies are used exclusively for the benefit of the people, to whom they belong."
I'm sure they did say this. Do you believe everything the U.S. government says?
In 2005, Fidel publicly rebuked Forbes' report and said he was considering a lawsuit against the magazine for libel.
Oh, gosh. I've made a terrible mistake. Since he denied it, the reports must be false. Because he would never lie for political purposes, like American politicians.
Castro lives in a shack compared to the average upper middle class in the US.
Dude, get real. Castro runs the country as a dictator. If he says, "Go from point A to point B" and you don't do it, you're tossed in prison - no oversight at all. This means he effectively owns the entire asset base of the country. You can argue until you're blue in the face about his "austere lifestyle" and how "his net worth is zero", but the simply fact is that he controls billions of dollars worth of assets.
Schools have better computers than banks in Cuba.
This may well be true. Of course, the banks use abacuses.
Let's not talk about lack of freedom of speech, executions without trial, or with fake trials, because that is not inherent to Cuba and its regime.
I think you meant "unique", not "inherent". It certainly is inherent to Cuba and its regime since the current regime is the one practicing this behavior. It isn't unique, but that doesn't make it right. So why can't we talk about it? Did you make the same argument about embargoes of South Africa under apartheid?
You get decent health care and a good education...
Let me rephrase that more accurately: "You get health care and education...." Unless you consider health care "decent" when there isn't enough penicillin to go around, or when patients have to bring their own toilet paper to the hospital. Unless you consider education "good" when one of the primary measurements is how well you can recite government ideology.
With a oil surplus, a thirsty European Union and 2 of the most advanced refineries in the world(Canada)that can process its sulphur rich oil, they will be buying brand new Lenovo laptops from China:P.
If by "they" you mean Castro, his family, his extended harem, and his top military advisors, but not the other 99% of Cubans... then I quite agree. Sort of like, say, our good friend and ally Saudi Arabia.
You're attributing posts to me that I did not make.
I wasn't really paying attention to who wrote what, obviously! Sorry.
Plenty of other countries might disagree with the Canadians, or dislike their way of life, but pretty much every country respects Canada.
Well, congratulations for them. Maybe we should just turn over the problem of nuclear proliferation in South Asia and North Korea to Canada. They could use their diplomacy to bring about a solution that is equitable to all. No doubt the countries involved would be happy to put aside their differences and come to the table in peace and brotherhood. I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier.
Oh wait, no - we can just appeal to the United Nations to solve these problems. Even better!
My mistake, then - let me rephrase to, "The syllogism that was put on the table...."
It just seemed to be a turn of phrase designed more to conceal than reveal.
Fair enough. I wasn't trying to conceal anything or indeed to make any point at all about the U.S. I'm not denying that our foreign policy has created enemies. (In some sense, I'm glad it has.)
Heh. I'm in the middle of a game right now and Hatshepsut is "cautious" towards me. She keeps wanting to make crazy trades, like I give her "Flight" and she gives me "Military Tradition". Come on, Queen 'Sut, I'm not going for that!
I don't think you understood my point, which has nothing to do with whether foreign countries are justified in disliked America. The syllogism you put on the table was that since no one is in a position to invade Canada, therefore Canada has no enemies. You're now abandoning this position in favor of, "Canada is nice to other countries, therefore Canada has no enemies."
This is more defensible, but unfortunately still unlikely to be true. Canada's less interventionist foreign policy puts it farther down on the list of disliked countries, but its freedoms, standard of living, etc. are still going to create envy among the roughly 80% of the global population that doesn't enjoy similar standards. And that's going to cause you problems eventually. Sorry.
Hey, great idea! And it's about time Britain learned lessons from history. After 1914 and 1938, you finally learned that staying out of foreign conflicts is a good way to prevent war.
...Canada has no enemies. What on earth do you need a huge military for if you have no enemies? Other than the United States (which could probably buy Canada if it really wanted to), who is in a position to invade Canada?
It's a global economy - enemies don't have to invade to cause you harm. Let's take your syllogism (no one can invade Canada, therefore Canada has no enemies) and apply it to the United States. Clearly no one is in a position to invade the U.S. either... therefore the U.S. has no enemies? But... there are a few countries who certainly claim we're they're enemy.
Re:demise of cash?
on
ATM Turns 40
·
· Score: 2, Funny
The government can make anything "successful", if you don't mind subsidizing it with tax dollars. What does this prove? Nothing at all.
The whole strategy of picking specific technologies to subsidize is wrongheaded anyway. If the goal is to produce cleaner power, or reduce dependencies on nonrenewable resources, then the government should tax pollution and nonrenewable use appropriately, and then get out of the way and let the market allocate resources. Governments are good at taxing; markets are good at allocating.
What's happening now with government subsidies of various "clean energy" programs is that there are dozens of interlocking subsidies, most of which will turn out to be backing the wrong technology. But the people who invested in the wrong one will be tied to their subsidy, so the government will never be able to get rid of it. 50 years from now, long after technology X has proved to be the big winner (I'm picking no favorites), we're still going to be stuck spending billions subsidizing loser technologies A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're being unfairly selective. Before Stranger you get Starman Jones and The Star Beast; afterwards you get Glory Road and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
Kids' primary role models are their parents. Be a role model, teach them not to look at politicians as role models (is this not extremely obvious!?), and you'll be OK.
Or, people will realize that there isn't that much difference in quality between HD content and regular DVD content and it'll never catch on. We simply don't know yet. But it's too soon to say that DVDs are "fading away." The alternate has only been around a matter of months.
Consider the enormous advantages the CD had over cassette tape - but how long did it take before tape was dead? A lot more than 2 years. And HD just doesn't have those advantages over DVD.
Er... they are? Which technology is that?
cheney@whitehouse% grep -i lorded terrorist-watch-list.dat
cheney@whitehouse% LordEd 840443 slashdot.org
Yep. Now you're screwed.
Actually I think DVDs start at the edge and spiral in towards the center.
Actually, what you've been doing is failing to accelerate for the past 20+ years. If you'd been accelerating at 1g (in the direction of the center of the Earth), you'd have felt weightless the whole time.
Wonderful. But from our POV on Earth, a 2Mly trip still takes > 2M years. So it isn't faster than radio.
I'm also ignoring the slight problem of actually accelerating at 1g continuously for 20+ years.
The proper way to do this analysis is to consider the "efficient frontier" of CPUs. CPU X is on the efficient frontier if all equally priced or less expensive CPUs are slower. If you buy a CPU on the efficient frontier, then you couldn't have paid less and gotten more speed (although of course you could have chosen to accept less speed). This factors out the problem of diminishing returns which plagues "frames per dollar" comparisons.
The efficient frontier is analogous to the same concept in Modern Portfolio Theory, where you plot risk vs. return for a set of investments. The idea is that there is no best risk/return position, but for a given risk you want to maximize your return. Choosing investment on the efficient frontier guarantees this.
There have been studies done on this question which demonstrate conclusively that the so-called "liberal" justices have voted as a bloc more often than the so-called "conservative" justices for about the last 25 years. But, as a previous poster said, don't let reality intrude on your fantasies.
I'm sure they did say this. Do you believe everything the U.S. government says?
Oh, gosh. I've made a terrible mistake. Since he denied it, the reports must be false. Because he would never lie for political purposes, like American politicians.
Ack, someone help me stop feeding this troll!!
Dude, get real. Castro runs the country as a dictator. If he says, "Go from point A to point B" and you don't do it, you're tossed in prison - no oversight at all. This means he effectively owns the entire asset base of the country. You can argue until you're blue in the face about his "austere lifestyle" and how "his net worth is zero", but the simply fact is that he controls billions of dollars worth of assets.
This may well be true. Of course, the banks use abacuses.
I think you meant "unique", not "inherent". It certainly is inherent to Cuba and its regime since the current regime is the one practicing this behavior. It isn't unique, but that doesn't make it right. So why can't we talk about it? Did you make the same argument about embargoes of South Africa under apartheid?
Let me rephrase that more accurately: "You get health care and education...." Unless you consider health care "decent" when there isn't enough penicillin to go around, or when patients have to bring their own toilet paper to the hospital. Unless you consider education "good" when one of the primary measurements is how well you can recite government ideology.
If by "they" you mean Castro, his family, his extended harem, and his top military advisors, but not the other 99% of Cubans... then I quite agree. Sort of like, say, our good friend and ally Saudi Arabia.
I wasn't really paying attention to who wrote what, obviously! Sorry.
Well, congratulations for them. Maybe we should just turn over the problem of nuclear proliferation in South Asia and North Korea to Canada. They could use their diplomacy to bring about a solution that is equitable to all. No doubt the countries involved would be happy to put aside their differences and come to the table in peace and brotherhood. I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier.
Oh wait, no - we can just appeal to the United Nations to solve these problems. Even better!
My mistake, then - let me rephrase to, "The syllogism that was put on the table...."
Fair enough. I wasn't trying to conceal anything or indeed to make any point at all about the U.S. I'm not denying that our foreign policy has created enemies. (In some sense, I'm glad it has.)
Heh. I'm in the middle of a game right now and Hatshepsut is "cautious" towards me. She keeps wanting to make crazy trades, like I give her "Flight" and she gives me "Military Tradition". Come on, Queen 'Sut, I'm not going for that!
I don't think you understood my point, which has nothing to do with whether foreign countries are justified in disliked America. The syllogism you put on the table was that since no one is in a position to invade Canada, therefore Canada has no enemies. You're now abandoning this position in favor of, "Canada is nice to other countries, therefore Canada has no enemies."
This is more defensible, but unfortunately still unlikely to be true. Canada's less interventionist foreign policy puts it farther down on the list of disliked countries, but its freedoms, standard of living, etc. are still going to create envy among the roughly 80% of the global population that doesn't enjoy similar standards. And that's going to cause you problems eventually. Sorry.
Hey, great idea! And it's about time Britain learned lessons from history. After 1914 and 1938, you finally learned that staying out of foreign conflicts is a good way to prevent war.
Er.... wait....
It's a global economy - enemies don't have to invade to cause you harm. Let's take your syllogism (no one can invade Canada, therefore Canada has no enemies) and apply it to the United States. Clearly no one is in a position to invade the U.S. either... therefore the U.S. has no enemies? But... there are a few countries who certainly claim we're they're enemy.
Fixed that for you.
That does it - we must rush this into production ASAP!
"Would you like to Biggie-size that? Remember, by doing so you'll be reducing our dependence on foreign oil!"
So take the metropolitan area as a whole. No problem.
The government can make anything "successful", if you don't mind subsidizing it with tax dollars. What does this prove? Nothing at all.
The whole strategy of picking specific technologies to subsidize is wrongheaded anyway. If the goal is to produce cleaner power, or reduce dependencies on nonrenewable resources, then the government should tax pollution and nonrenewable use appropriately, and then get out of the way and let the market allocate resources. Governments are good at taxing; markets are good at allocating.
What's happening now with government subsidies of various "clean energy" programs is that there are dozens of interlocking subsidies, most of which will turn out to be backing the wrong technology. But the people who invested in the wrong one will be tied to their subsidy, so the government will never be able to get rid of it. 50 years from now, long after technology X has proved to be the big winner (I'm picking no favorites), we're still going to be stuck spending billions subsidizing loser technologies A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H.