There's a good chance it'll be faster than Android (no Dalvik layer) but many suspect that HTML5 isn't a good basis for apps and that Sailfish will be the fastest Linux-based operating system.
If it's real Linux, it's inherently more secure than iOS and Android. Depending on how open the source is, it may be future proof.
Tizen was announced before Sailfish and really the latter stole its thunder with the Maemo/MeeGo community.
Sailfish has compatibility with MeeGo, is largely open source, will probably be very fast and has an advanced UI. Whereas Tizen has Samsung behind it.
There's going to be a mismatch of demand and supply of housing in the English cities until rents and house prices go even higher. There's plenty of available housing in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
I might be a bit overzealous with setting the bar at 'beating placebo by 10%'.
I figure though, once you've run the experiment 4 times to get your first positive result, made absolutely sure the patients know what they're taking, run a 'placebo washout' etc, beating placebo by 10% pretty much means your drug is a placebo.
it would also cause unnecessary suffering.
Agree however, there is an immense amount of suffering in healthcare already. It's possible that SSRIs were implicated in this shooting -- they certainly have been in others. In the long term, it would greatly reduce suffering.
So we continue to paint the car (and rebuild the engine) while drive 90 MPH down a twisty highway. You seem to be on the helpful side, so keep at it.
I really like your metaphor. It's the way I've thought of it for a long time.
Your list just shows that there are thousands of causes for every action, albeit of decreasing significance.
Blame is just vengeance/deterrence. With vengeance it almost doesn't matter who you aim blame at. With deterrence, everyone should think about the consequences of their actions, therefore blaming a single person is stupid.
Over in Britain, left wingers have been far more successful in curtailing freedom, scrapping most of our rights, locking up people for protesting, getting a shadow minister arrested for doing his job...
Probably successful because left wingers are trusted more to not do this stuff.
If he hadn't shot those people... If his mother had secured her guns and raised him better... If the various shrinks had spotted the signs... If the US govt had banned automatic weapons... If James Madison hadn't written such a shit amendment...
Others have mentioned that Aspergers has been removed from DSM V. This is irrelevant. DSM is like trying to describe a painting by doing a reverse painting-by-numbers and then averaging the number. Conditions still exist whether properly accounted for in DSM or not.
I did want to point out that if he actually got diagnosed then presumably a shrink missed this homicidal tendency.
1. Announce on Sunday that banks will only allow withdrawals up to £100 ($150) a day. 2. Create an investigative team. 3. Create an emergency law that gives bankers failing to help the investigative team a 10 year prison sentence, 4. Lift withdrawal limit on banks that are solvent. This should take less than 2 weeks. 5. Put the rest into bankruptcy. Bail out no-one. 6. Commission report on future of sustainable customer-oriented banking.
Note that even if every race decided with IRV is two hours, my last ballot had 33 of them. 33. That's 66 hours.
Surely you just count them with 33 teams? Or am I missing something.
As for how Democratic the US and UK are, you're missing a couple pretty important points. While in theory the UK Constitution could be easily scrapped, that has not happened since 1688.
Not since 1688 has the constitution been as weak as it was 2 years ago. We have one law which can rewrite constitutional laws without debate in Parliamant. We have another which grants unlimited emergency powers in the event of a minor emergency. We had a law which banned unauthorised protest within a mile of Parliament. We had suspicionless stop and search. We had anyone being detainable for 48 days with no evidence presented. We had a law that every passport applicant (which you need to get to Europe et al) had to be fingerprinted, retina scanned and entered on a central database.
Trust me, it's better to have a constitution -- even your old one which thinks guns are a consitutional issue.
As for primaries, you're showing your Britishness again. There's no single rule re: primaries in the US. Every state sets it's own rules. In some there's no partisan registration, so Parties can't stop non-members from voting, but they can (and do) insist that you only vote in one primary at a time. In others there's a top-two primary, where all candidates choose a party description, and and run in one primary. The top two get to advance. In those states it's actually unusual to have two different parties running in the general election because in most districts the Top Two are both one party. Still others have a Closed Primary system, whereby everyone registers as a member of a specific political party, and can only vote in that party's primary.
I actually knew all that and its all better than no primaries.
As for the presence of third parties = democracy, that is debatable. If a group is large enough to get into the legislature under any rules it will generally be pandered to by at least one of the major parties. Which means it does not need it's own party label to have it's views listened to by the system. Third parties tend to be people who really do not understand how to get what they want and/or are vanity candidates. The Greens, for example, could easily get somebody onto the ballot in a Top Two system if they were willing to not spend any money on no-hope Gubernatorial and presidential bids, which would give them a decent shot at winning actual political power. But having that no-hope presidential candidacy seems very important to them, so they don't do it.
And what is the highest a Green has polled in either a congressional or senate seat?
I think you grossly underestimate the bias against third parties.
You seem to be mixing two very different situations.
You can't have a proportional system when voting for one person, for president.
Proportionality doesn't make sense when electing a single seat. However, you do want people to vote for their preferred candidate, which is why IRV is vastly superior to plurality.
Also, you can't have a proportional system when voting for two people per state, for the Senate.
You can use STV. It won't be proportional, but it would be a lot better than IRV or similar.
Now, what if you have a second round of voting to determine the president? The best way is for congressmen to do a secret second IRV ballot. This changes everything. Bush would never have got a second term. There would be no presidential candidates as such. Consequently, elections would be fought on local issues.
No. With STV, which is proportional-enough, not only are you voting for an individual, parties are encouraged to stand > 1 candidate, so you can choose your favourite.
The problem with IRV is we elect too god-damned-many politicians to actually count all the IRV races we need to count.
Counts generally take less time than is presumed and IRV counts are estimated to take 40% longer. We're talking about 2 hours in total to count 50,000 IRV votes.
I would love it if it if somebody with power proposed that we go over to a less-American, more Westminster syetem that would allow luxuries like IRV/Concordet but nobody does
Between the US and the UK, we have the worst democracies in the Western world. I often wonder which is worse. UK doesn't have funding corruption but then it doesn't have a constitution (which can be rewritten without debate in Parliament). UK has a third party (which might get wiped out at the next election) but the US has open primaries.
Both have the shitty plurality system which means only 2 parties can win the election [b]ever[/b].
IRV and approval voting (vote first and second preferences) are the only two single seat systems where your less preferred votes don't harm your most preferred vote. This means voters have full motivation to put their preferred candidate/party first even if they have no chance in a million years of winning. This further means that those newer parties that do well are likely to get a lot more media coverage next time round.
Now if you're concerned about choice of candidates/parties, you shouldn't be using a single seat electoral system in the first place. You should be using Single Transferable Vote, or a multiple round voting system.
STV is much like IRV except multi-seat and proportional-enough. It doesn't rely on party lists like all other PR systems -- rather it encourages parties to put up multiple candidates and voters get to choose who they prefer. This helps where there are unpopular candidates in safe seats.
Slashdot Mirror
Sailfish will be mostly open and compatible with Nemo.
https://sailfishos.org/wiki/QA
I suspect nearly all MeeGo apps will run natively assuming ARM architecture. Maemo apps (of which there's about 700) will need minimal adjustment.
It'll be cheaper than iOS of course.
There's a good chance it'll be faster than Android (no Dalvik layer) but many suspect that HTML5 isn't a good basis for apps and that Sailfish will be the fastest Linux-based operating system.
If it's real Linux, it's inherently more secure than iOS and Android. Depending on how open the source is, it may be future proof.
Tizen was announced before Sailfish and really the latter stole its thunder with the Maemo/MeeGo community.
Sailfish has compatibility with MeeGo, is largely open source, will probably be very fast and has an advanced UI. Whereas Tizen has Samsung behind it.
http://www.slashgear.com/jolla-planning-3-5-phone-with-android-app-compatibility-20243313/
There's going to be a mismatch of demand and supply of housing in the English cities until rents and house prices go even higher. There's plenty of available housing in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
There are drugs that genuinely outperform placebo
There are drugs that genuinely outperform placebo
I might be a bit overzealous with setting the bar at 'beating placebo by 10%'.
I figure though, once you've run the experiment 4 times to get your first positive result, made absolutely sure the patients know what they're taking, run a 'placebo washout' etc, beating placebo by 10% pretty much means your drug is a placebo.
it would also cause unnecessary suffering.
Agree however, there is an immense amount of suffering in healthcare already. It's possible that SSRIs were implicated in this shooting -- they certainly have been in others. In the long term, it would greatly reduce suffering.
So we continue to paint the car (and rebuild the engine) while drive 90 MPH down a twisty highway. You seem to be on the helpful side, so keep at it.
I really like your metaphor. It's the way I've thought of it for a long time.
Your list just shows that there are thousands of causes for every action, albeit of decreasing significance.
Blame is just vengeance/deterrence. With vengeance it almost doesn't matter who you aim blame at. With deterrence, everyone should think about the consequences of their actions, therefore blaming a single person is stupid.
I'm no expert but it's clear that auto and semi-auto weapons are far easier to mass kill with, especially for someone untrained.
They'd also be marginally better for defending the US from its own govt, although that really isn't much of a threat with your constitution.
Also highly amused I was modded down -1 Troll.
Over in Britain, left wingers have been far more successful in curtailing freedom, scrapping most of our rights, locking up people for protesting, getting a shadow minister arrested for doing his job...
Probably successful because left wingers are trusted more to not do this stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
Although I believe this to be a perversion of the US constitution...
If he hadn't shot those people...
If his mother had secured her guns and raised him better...
If the various shrinks had spotted the signs...
If the US govt had banned automatic weapons...
If James Madison hadn't written such a shit amendment...
Someone mod this post up.
Others have mentioned that Aspergers has been removed from DSM V. This is irrelevant. DSM is like trying to describe a painting by doing a reverse painting-by-numbers and then averaging the number. Conditions still exist whether properly accounted for in DSM or not.
I did want to point out that if he actually got diagnosed then presumably a shrink missed this homicidal tendency.
Actually, we'd be best off abolishing psychiatry and starting again.
Or the same improvement might be seen by banning any psychiatric medicine which fails to outperform placebo by 10% ie all of it.
Note, I'm a psychotherapist with a success rate at least 40% above placebo.
It helps to distract from the pressure equalisation of landing.
Admittedly there are bigger issues, but I think I just resent being treated as a terrorist, a peep show and then an idiot in quick succession.
*Spontaneous round of applause*
I do exactly the same though I'm on Economy 7 and thus only mine at night. I don't get anything like 4 bitcoins a month though.
You can even run Android's Angry Birds on top now. It's been able to run WebOS games for ages.
Someone ported Homeworld a month ago. Opera Software are still updating Opera Mini. Someone's written a RAW camera app from the ground up.
In spite of Elop's attempt to [i]kill[/i] the platform, Maemo has the most committed developers I've ever seen.
1. Announce on Sunday that banks will only allow withdrawals up to £100 ($150) a day.
2. Create an investigative team.
3. Create an emergency law that gives bankers failing to help the investigative team a 10 year prison sentence,
4. Lift withdrawal limit on banks that are solvent. This should take less than 2 weeks.
5. Put the rest into bankruptcy. Bail out no-one.
6. Commission report on future of sustainable customer-oriented banking.
Job done.
Note that even if every race decided with IRV is two hours, my last ballot had 33 of them. 33. That's 66 hours.
Surely you just count them with 33 teams? Or am I missing something.
As for how Democratic the US and UK are, you're missing a couple pretty important points. While in theory the UK Constitution could be easily scrapped, that has not happened since 1688.
Not since 1688 has the constitution been as weak as it was 2 years ago. We have one law which can rewrite constitutional laws without debate in Parliamant. We have another which grants unlimited emergency powers in the event of a minor emergency. We had a law which banned unauthorised protest within a mile of Parliament. We had suspicionless stop and search. We had anyone being detainable for 48 days with no evidence presented. We had a law that every passport applicant (which you need to get to Europe et al) had to be fingerprinted, retina scanned and entered on a central database.
Trust me, it's better to have a constitution -- even your old one which thinks guns are a consitutional issue.
As for primaries, you're showing your Britishness again. There's no single rule re: primaries in the US. Every state sets it's own rules. In some there's no partisan registration, so Parties can't stop non-members from voting, but they can (and do) insist that you only vote in one primary at a time. In others there's a top-two primary, where all candidates choose a party description, and and run in one primary. The top two get to advance. In those states it's actually unusual to have two different parties running in the general election because in most districts the Top Two are both one party. Still others have a Closed Primary system, whereby everyone registers as a member of a specific political party, and can only vote in that party's primary.
I actually knew all that and its all better than no primaries.
As for the presence of third parties = democracy, that is debatable. If a group is large enough to get into the legislature under any rules it will generally be pandered to by at least one of the major parties. Which means it does not need it's own party label to have it's views listened to by the system. Third parties tend to be people who really do not understand how to get what they want and/or are vanity candidates. The Greens, for example, could easily get somebody onto the ballot in a Top Two system if they were willing to not spend any money on no-hope Gubernatorial and presidential bids, which would give them a decent shot at winning actual political power. But having that no-hope presidential candidacy seems very important to them, so they don't do it.
And what is the highest a Green has polled in either a congressional or senate seat?
I think you grossly underestimate the bias against third parties.
... is that you're still encouraged to vote tactically and as such, it artificially represses smaller parties.
You seem to be mixing two very different situations.
You can't have a proportional system when voting for one person, for president.
Proportionality doesn't make sense when electing a single seat. However, you do want people to vote for their preferred candidate, which is why IRV is vastly superior to plurality.
Also, you can't have a proportional system when voting for two people per state, for the Senate.
You can use STV. It won't be proportional, but it would be a lot better than IRV or similar.
Now, what if you have a second round of voting to determine the president? The best way is for congressmen to do a secret second IRV ballot.
This changes everything. Bush would never have got a second term. There would be no presidential candidates as such. Consequently, elections would be fought on local issues.
But not as good as STV though, which gives voters choice over party candidates.
And that writing a number on the ballot thing is weird.
No. With STV, which is proportional-enough, not only are you voting for an individual, parties are encouraged to stand > 1 candidate, so you can choose your favourite.
The problem with IRV is we elect too god-damned-many politicians to actually count all the IRV races we need to count.
Counts generally take less time than is presumed and IRV counts are estimated to take 40% longer. We're talking about 2 hours in total to count 50,000 IRV votes.
I would love it if it if somebody with power proposed that we go over to a less-American, more Westminster syetem that would allow luxuries like IRV/Concordet but nobody does
Between the US and the UK, we have the worst democracies in the Western world. I often wonder which is worse. UK doesn't have funding corruption but then it doesn't have a constitution (which can be rewritten without debate in Parliament). UK has a third party (which might get wiped out at the next election) but the US has open primaries.
Both have the shitty plurality system which means only 2 parties can win the election [b]ever[/b].
No, he was right. It's hard to imagine a worse system than plurality.
Condorcet isn't a system.
IRV and approval voting (vote first and second preferences) are the only two single seat systems where your less preferred votes don't harm your most preferred vote. This means voters have full motivation to put their preferred candidate/party first even if they have no chance in a million years of winning. This further means that those newer parties that do well are likely to get a lot more media coverage next time round.
Now if you're concerned about choice of candidates/parties, you shouldn't be using a single seat electoral system in the first place. You should be using Single Transferable Vote, or a multiple round voting system.
STV is much like IRV except multi-seat and proportional-enough. It doesn't rely on party lists like all other PR systems -- rather it encourages parties to put up multiple candidates and voters get to choose who they prefer. This helps where there are unpopular candidates in safe seats.