If we can halve the risk to the mother while doubling the risk to the embryo - I'm all for it.
Well, you might as well take that to the logical conclusion, reducing the risk to the mother to zero while ensuring disaster to the embryo, by not getting her pregnant in the first place.
True, but in that case he will not be able to easily pass his genes to the next generation, and as such, it is not a viable evolutionary choice.
Is what is needed. Look, most people understand that they need to take anything they read on wikipedia with a grain of salt; a website that anybody can edit has to be.
Would it be so... I have seen LOTS of examples of that not being the case (lots of unsubstantiated writing thats just copying of Wikipedia, rather than the required original research).
What you call excessive warnings, I call the minimun sanity standard to prevent at least the ones that read the article to taking it at face value.
First, why would you think that ISPs aren't fighting for market share with business connections?
Second, the reason business connections cost more is that generally you get a lot more....
Actually, there is a third reason why business connections cost more: the business ARE less price sensitive on that regard than common consumers. Almost all that can be diferentiated and sold as "business expenses" usually comes with higher costs (and usually, though not always, higher margins for providers).
Could it just be possible that it isn't whether it's "government" or "a corporation" or a "public-private partnership" that makes the difference between well-done and corrupt, but the vision and integrity of the people carrying out the project?
...
It's the quality of the people who make the quality of the world. Whether they organize themselves into "governments" or "corporations" or "anarcho-syndicates" to pursue their goals is totally secondary to the essential matter of who's doing it.
Well, Yes and No... True, were we ALL angels, the organization model chosen would not matter. Since we aren't ALL like that (and even if you can increase the standards of the average, you are going to end up having a few rotten apples there) some organizations do provide better resilience to corruption than others...
Besides the obvious (bulk revenue from the OS is not something they can just ignore) there are some other reasons:
A truly free OS (no strings attached) would be something they couldn't control. Anyone could make their adaptations (even without source code, by replacing some components). This would negate the advantage they have on the Apps market (Office).
A somewhat less free OS (some restrictions on what you could do with the OS) would still suffer from problems (like security, virus, etc.) that would require them to work on it, but if it was free without any revenue stream attached.
Paper trees are always re-planted after being cut down (it would get unsustainable very quickly if this didn't happen) - and generally also have a lot of recycled material in the final product. The tree-cutting damage comes from the food industry clearing the way for beef cows or corn crops.
True, but not the whole truth. Deforestation to create a new crop is always worse than sustainable forests (even if grown-for-paper), but grown-for-paper forests are usually not sustainable (mono-cultures, weak bio-diversity, usually increased water consumption).
I am from a country with a LARGE paper production industry, and I've seen first hand the razing of indigenous species to create paper-friendly forests... It wasn't pretty, even if the new forests are denser than before, with more trees, the bio-diversity took a nose-dive.
A quick poll of the six friends I generally play WoW with reveals that the most irritating mob in the game is the hyena.
/agreed.
I hate hyenas.
Both of you are Horde players, aren't you?
On my horde chars, granted, hyenas are a pest, but Murlocs are MUCH worse than that to lower level (up to 30) Alliance chars.
Nice argument, but how do you know that the person coming to you for their free supply is already an addict? Remember the reason a lot of people become addicts in the first place is that they are living miserable lives and heroin (or whatever) gives them a temporary escape. If they see their mates blissed out on government smack, what's to stop them also going along and pretending to be an addict?
At least having a cost attached limits their ability to afford it.
Is that really so? I always heard "the first one is always free" applied to addictive behaviour. If you WANT or don't mind to get addicted, you can do it easily enough in any case.
Perhaps both parties could strive to look beyond their superficial impressions of each other.
So take, say, Turkey, half third world; I mean in Turkey, the intellectuals, the leading intellectuals, now best known writers, academics, journalists, artists I mean they not only protest atrocities about the Kurdish massacre, they protest it constantly, but they were also constant in carrying out civil disobedience against them. I also participated with them sometimes. And they go publish banned writings which reported presented them to the Prosecutor's Office, demand they were prosecuted. It's not a joke, you know, facing... sometimes they are sent to prison, that's no joke. There's nothing like that in the West. Inconceivable.
When I am in Western Europe I hear them telling me Turkey is not civilized enough to enter the European Union. I burst out laughing! It's the other way round.
Perhaps there is not such civil desobidience in the EU because such acts are not forbidden to begin with? The main complaint in the EU regarding Turkey has been with absurd laws that grant too much power and are seldom enforced except against "enemies".
Funny, China went out of their way to have a major crackdown on distribution and marketing rights to the Olympics, while being one of the biggest nations to pirate IP. You can't have it both ways.
Actually, you can. Crackdowns just show you have laws in place, not that you must enforce them to the good of others... It would be probably against China's interest to crack on each copyright violation, but shows of strenght (for western media sake) are another thing.
The way to demonstrate these things in a rigorous manner isn't to bolt them on a car and drive them around for a few months.The way to do so is to bolt them into a test rig, where the engine can be placed under load in a precisely controlled manner, under identical conditions, as many times as required.
The article suggests that such testing did take place:
"The first engine test was conducted by Cornaglia Iveco, a diesel engine manufacturer in Italy (Figure 6a). The tests measured the fuel consumption rate and the power output at a constant rpm. The results in Table 1 are averaged over measurements for 1 week, with an error bar of 2%."
but the results were not quite the ones they hoped for, so they revised and made some lab tests and road tests (and I expect they published before the next round of tests). Still, to be published in a scientific journal usually requires double blind refereeing, so I expect those claims to be at least plausible.
Disclaimer: although I do scientific research for a living, this is not my research area, and I do not know the credibility of the publication.
Neither candidate has uttered the words that would probably woo over a good portion of people - "cut the budget."
Would it really? I have strong doubts about it, more so as it can be framed like this: I will cut your services, and tax you a little less. Most people are OK with budget cuts, AS LONG AS THEIR PET PROJECTS / PERSONAL SERVICES ARE EXEMPTED. If it were really a vote winner you would see both candidates saying it (even if they didn't mean it).
Here, if you want to sell some sort of electronic equipment to the end-user, YOU (the store) are responsible for providing 2 full years of warranty (if the supplier provides such warranty, you can fall back and use it, but if he doesn't, it is YOUR responsability).
It at least prevents such scenes (and is a reason why some companies don't export to the EU).
So my question is this: How come other forums don't use a moderation system like/.?
I believe that may be a matter of scale. Moderation requires a certain number of interested readers, meta-moderation a greater number still. If you look at most web-forums, the actual contributers (not necessarily the readers) are a few dozens, if that. To get results out of moderation I'm guessing you need at least 10 times that.
It's not that government run enterprises don't work, it's just that they tend to work better when there's a public-private partnership going on.
Well, yes, IF there was some thinking about the terms of the PPP and there is adequate monitoring. In most cases I know of, PPP just allow the private parties to keep profits while the risk is shouldered by the public parties (in some cases the politicians even end up working for the private parties after their terms in office). Not the best recipe for transparency either.
Outlook connects to SharePoint. Everything connects to Outlook. It's not exactly a one-step process, but migrating to or from SharePoint is not terribly hard.
As another bonus, document libraries can be opened straight from Windows Explorer, making moving the data to another server as simple as "copy". With Sharepoint is not that impossible to move within MS domain, but is harder than before to move to outside (that is to export to a linux/OS X/google docs server). Which is just the point.
The reason why Win95 is fondly remembered by Bill may be because it created or at least gave more strength to the bonds that anchor the users to Microsoft. It was a good OS for that reason (it gave MS the foundations for at least 10 more years of market dominance).
However, with the web evolution, Bill is now sure that no other OS will ever be in that position, therefore it goes for the next best thing: hold the users data locked in Sharepoint server (without easy conversion tools to get them outside) and he may prevent those users from fleeing to Google or other competitors (including Open Source tools). So yes, Sharepoint is to take the same role as Win95 in cementing (as in binding) the Users/MS relationship.
Last time I say it, Zimbra doesn't have those capabilities on the open distribution (just on the "for-pay" collaboration suite edition). Has it changed?
Scalix is not truly open (you can't use it for commercial purposes, for what I can read on their Scalix Public License), therefore is no better than outlook/exchange (if you are going to have to pay to use it, why not get the market reference?).
Now, if it moves either to GPL or BSD (hell, even unchanged MPL or CDDL) you would have something.
Actually, I think complaining to the store, and making it suffer, is the correct option, since they obviously shouldn't have such a deffective item (not fit for purpose) for sale.
Wouldn't you think Sony will be more responsive if they are harassed by their clients directly (the stores, which buy in bulk) than from a letter of someone who has no direct sales relationship with them?
The thing is: once a sale is made to outside parties, they are in the same boat (you agree with that). The "border" where the sale occurs may be usually different (it is usually to the retailers in one case, usually to the general public in the other) but it need not be so, like I wrote, and neither can prevent it. Therefore the situation is the same.
Incidently nothing prevents a small manufacturer to enter agreements to distributors regarding minimum price - they just lack the power to force such agreements to be made.
They do have an interesting point -- the current system is asymmetric. A large, vertically intergrated retailer -- who sells products that they make -- can set their own "minimum price" that all their stores must follow. However, under the current interpretation of the law, a company that does its sales through independent retailers can't set such a price. Seems sort of silly to favor one group over the other.
They dont have that point, since it is perfectly legal for someone to buy on a vertically integrated chain and sell it afterwards, at the price it chooses. The chain has no control on the subsequent price, just as a non-integrated chain has no control on its retailers price. They have the choice of price when they sell, thats all.
Slashdot Mirror
If we can halve the risk to the mother while doubling the risk to the embryo - I'm all for it.
Well, you might as well take that to the logical conclusion, reducing the risk to the mother to zero while ensuring disaster to the embryo, by not getting her pregnant in the first place.
True, but in that case he will not be able to easily pass his genes to the next generation, and as such, it is not a viable evolutionary choice.
Bah, everyone knows the real achievement is getting a frist post!
Or posting on a silly thread just to get the achiev...
Is what is needed. Look, most people understand that they need to take anything they read on wikipedia with a grain of salt; a website that anybody can edit has to be.
Would it be so... I have seen LOTS of examples of that not being the case (lots of unsubstantiated writing thats just copying of Wikipedia, rather than the required original research). What you call excessive warnings, I call the minimun sanity standard to prevent at least the ones that read the article to taking it at face value.
First, why would you think that ISPs aren't fighting for market share with business connections?
Second, the reason business connections cost more is that generally you get a lot more. ...
Actually, there is a third reason why business connections cost more: the business ARE less price sensitive on that regard than common consumers. Almost all that can be diferentiated and sold as "business expenses" usually comes with higher costs (and usually, though not always, higher margins for providers).
You can have it. Are you ready to pay the price for it? Hint: it would drastically increase your taxes.
Could it just be possible that it isn't whether it's "government" or "a corporation" or a "public-private partnership" that makes the difference between well-done and corrupt, but the vision and integrity of the people carrying out the project?
It's the quality of the people who make the quality of the world. Whether they organize themselves into "governments" or "corporations" or "anarcho-syndicates" to pursue their goals is totally secondary to the essential matter of who's doing it.
Well, Yes and No... True, were we ALL angels, the organization model chosen would not matter. Since we aren't ALL like that (and even if you can increase the standards of the average, you are going to end up having a few rotten apples there) some organizations do provide better resilience to corruption than others...
They might even give the OS away free
Frankly, I've always wondered why they don't.
Besides the obvious (bulk revenue from the OS is not something they can just ignore) there are some other reasons: A truly free OS (no strings attached) would be something they couldn't control. Anyone could make their adaptations (even without source code, by replacing some components). This would negate the advantage they have on the Apps market (Office).
A somewhat less free OS (some restrictions on what you could do with the OS) would still suffer from problems (like security, virus, etc.) that would require them to work on it, but if it was free without any revenue stream attached.
Paper trees are always re-planted after being cut down (it would get unsustainable very quickly if this didn't happen) - and generally also have a lot of recycled material in the final product. The tree-cutting damage comes from the food industry clearing the way for beef cows or corn crops.
True, but not the whole truth. Deforestation to create a new crop is always worse than sustainable forests (even if grown-for-paper), but grown-for-paper forests are usually not sustainable (mono-cultures, weak bio-diversity, usually increased water consumption).
I am from a country with a LARGE paper production industry, and I've seen first hand the razing of indigenous species to create paper-friendly forests... It wasn't pretty, even if the new forests are denser than before, with more trees, the bio-diversity took a nose-dive.
/agreed.
I hate hyenas.
Both of you are Horde players, aren't you? On my horde chars, granted, hyenas are a pest, but Murlocs are MUCH worse than that to lower level (up to 30) Alliance chars.
Is that really so? I always heard "the first one is always free" applied to addictive behaviour. If you WANT or don't mind to get addicted, you can do it easily enough in any case.
Perhaps both parties could strive to look beyond their superficial impressions of each other.
Perhaps there is not such civil desobidience in the EU because such acts are not forbidden to begin with? The main complaint in the EU regarding Turkey has been with absurd laws that grant too much power and are seldom enforced except against "enemies".
Funny, China went out of their way to have a major crackdown on distribution and marketing rights to the Olympics, while being one of the biggest nations to pirate IP. You can't have it both ways.
Actually, you can. Crackdowns just show you have laws in place, not that you must enforce them to the good of others... It would be probably against China's interest to crack on each copyright violation, but shows of strenght (for western media sake) are another thing.
The way to demonstrate these things in a rigorous manner isn't to bolt them on a car and drive them around for a few months.The way to do so is to bolt them into a test rig, where the engine can be placed under load in a precisely controlled manner, under identical conditions, as many times as required.
The article suggests that such testing did take place:
"The first engine test was conducted by Cornaglia Iveco, a diesel engine manufacturer in Italy (Figure 6a). The tests measured the fuel consumption rate and the power output at a constant rpm. The results in Table 1 are averaged over measurements for 1 week, with an error bar of 2%."
but the results were not quite the ones they hoped for, so they revised and made some lab tests and road tests (and I expect they published before the next round of tests). Still, to be published in a scientific journal usually requires double blind refereeing, so I expect those claims to be at least plausible.
Disclaimer: although I do scientific research for a living, this is not my research area, and I do not know the credibility of the publication.
Neither candidate has uttered the words that would probably woo over a good portion of people - "cut the budget."
Would it really? I have strong doubts about it, more so as it can be framed like this: I will cut your services, and tax you a little less. Most people are OK with budget cuts, AS LONG AS THEIR PET PROJECTS / PERSONAL SERVICES ARE EXEMPTED. If it were really a vote winner you would see both candidates saying it (even if they didn't mean it).
Here, if you want to sell some sort of electronic equipment to the end-user, YOU (the store) are responsible for providing 2 full years of warranty (if the supplier provides such warranty, you can fall back and use it, but if he doesn't, it is YOUR responsability). It at least prevents such scenes (and is a reason why some companies don't export to the EU).
So my question is this: How come other forums don't use a moderation system like /.?
I believe that may be a matter of scale. Moderation requires a certain number of interested readers, meta-moderation a greater number still. If you look at most web-forums, the actual contributers (not necessarily the readers) are a few dozens, if that. To get results out of moderation I'm guessing you need at least 10 times that.
It's not that government run enterprises don't work, it's just that they tend to work better when there's a public-private partnership going on.
Well, yes, IF there was some thinking about the terms of the PPP and there is adequate monitoring. In most cases I know of, PPP just allow the private parties to keep profits while the risk is shouldered by the public parties (in some cases the politicians even end up working for the private parties after their terms in office). Not the best recipe for transparency either.
No, I'm not smoking anything funny.
The reason why Win95 is fondly remembered by Bill may be because it created or at least gave more strength to the bonds that anchor the users to Microsoft. It was a good OS for that reason (it gave MS the foundations for at least 10 more years of market dominance).
However, with the web evolution, Bill is now sure that no other OS will ever be in that position, therefore it goes for the next best thing: hold the users data locked in Sharepoint server (without easy conversion tools to get them outside) and he may prevent those users from fleeing to Google or other competitors (including Open Source tools). So yes, Sharepoint is to take the same role as Win95 in cementing (as in binding) the Users/MS relationship.
Last time I say it, Zimbra doesn't have those capabilities on the open distribution (just on the "for-pay" collaboration suite edition). Has it changed?
Scalix is not truly open (you can't use it for commercial purposes, for what I can read on their Scalix Public License), therefore is no better than outlook/exchange (if you are going to have to pay to use it, why not get the market reference?). Now, if it moves either to GPL or BSD (hell, even unchanged MPL or CDDL) you would have something.
Actually, I think complaining to the store, and making it suffer, is the correct option, since they obviously shouldn't have such a deffective item (not fit for purpose) for sale. Wouldn't you think Sony will be more responsive if they are harassed by their clients directly (the stores, which buy in bulk) than from a letter of someone who has no direct sales relationship with them?
I believe I haven't been very clear.
The thing is: once a sale is made to outside parties, they are in the same boat (you agree with that). The "border" where the sale occurs may be usually different (it is usually to the retailers in one case, usually to the general public in the other) but it need not be so, like I wrote, and neither can prevent it. Therefore the situation is the same.
Incidently nothing prevents a small manufacturer to enter agreements to distributors regarding minimum price - they just lack the power to force such agreements to be made.
Nice quotes... do you have some that are also accurate??