> So it may boil down to how easy it is for life to arise (which I think is pretty easy)
It does seems to be easy. A more likely issue is how likely complex multicellular life is. Even on Earth, bacteria remain the most evolutionarily successful species by any measure--biomass, numbers, adaptability, footprint among every possible corner of the biosphere, and intracellular processes are extremely optimized--some chemical pathways are even provably optimal. There was no multicellular life for most of the history of life on earth, and complex organisms may not be inevitable--we just perceive them to be so because they arose on this planet by what may just be a freak accident.
Another major point not many touch upon is the fact that in the one anecdotal example we have of intelligent life, ourselves, progress appears to eventually lead us into inner space, not outer space. This is something Asimov warned about long ago with his classic "The End of Eternity" (which is very applicable, just substitute information technology for time travel).
Wiki: "Rats in Skinner boxes with metal electrodes implanted into their nucleus accumbens [the brain's pleasure center] will repeatedly press a lever which activates this region, and will do so in preference over food and water, eventually dying from exhaustion." While we won't directly end up doing this, the virtual lives we are clearly set on creating for ourselves will be a roundabout way of doing the same. Even though we'll keep ourselves alive, unlike the rats, we will pay no attention to outward expansion and exploration.
There was a study showing that Canada overall would benefit from a 3-4 degree rise in temperature (mainly due to receding of the permafrost making for more arable land).
In general usage, average refers to the mean, in which case your postulate would only be true if the average and the mode happened to be the same (which almost never is the case for statistics regarding human populations). Time for going back to highschool math for you:p
This still doesn't let you escape Arrow's impossibility theorem, so you're just trading the flaws of one voting system for the flaws of another. It's a pointless exercise.
>I'm of the opinion that the people and corporations responsible for and/or complicit in the economic collapse should be arrested
The reason this won't work is that there are very few definite targets here; most of the problem is a bit of unethical behavior here, some more over there, didn't push the regulations of capital/asset ratios in this other place, and so on and so forth. The blame is spread around and too thinly for there to be a chance to successfully prosecute but a few people. In any case, the fix is to give up dated neoliberal economic thinking and learn the lessons of MMT.
The reasons direct democracies are unworkable have been covered in a multitude of posts above you, which indicates to all of us that you didn't even bother to read before rushing to use your itchy 'Reply'-clicking finger.
They're also as ignorant of economics as the politicians. I tried to explain modern monetary theory/neo-Chartalism to my local occupy protest and I almost got mobbed by Ron Paul supporters...something I'd have more expected at a Tea Party convention.
I'm willing to bet a lot that nothing will happen. In the tiny chance there is a general revolt, the US military actions will make this a Syria, not an Egypt.
Moreover, direct democracy is inefficient as making an informed decision implies having spent enormous time and effort getting informed, which is a full time job--voters wouldn't be doing anything else. That politicians don't commit this effort either is a sad truth, and therein lies much of the problem.
To make good policy decisions requires extensive time spent researching and studying the subject areas in question, which would be a full-time job for every voter in a direct democracy. The problem is not that we're delegating legislative work to others, but who the delegates are. Sadly, electability is not a function of leadership merit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem
The short of it: individual preferences cannot be aggregated in a meaningful way without paradoxes. Most reasonable people would find unacceptable that any of the listed criteria should be violated, yet there is no way around this. And so, democracy can't work even in theory, let alone in practice.
From what's left, I figure non-dictatorship is the criterium I'm most willing to let go, assuming we can (in the future) specially breed and raise a group from which to choose reliably benevolent dictators who will exercise the minimum influence needed to make the system work..
LOL you're such a shill. Try posting this again once Android security gets to approach this remotely: http://www.cse.psu.edu/~enck/cse597a-s09/slides/security_blackberry.pdf
By the way, don't forget to tell your users, if you really have any, that "if your phone is the entry point for an intrusion into the intranet you are fired and will be sued for the cost of fixing everything" and that "If internal email comes into the hands of unauthorized persons through your device, you are fired". A dire warning is about the only way you can secure Android from being the carrier of an attack vector into the intranet--by making your user so paranoid that he won't install any apps and will guard his phone like a madman.
BES is more important for security, not email. As another poster pointed out, any enterprise with a sensible security point should make it explicit that "If your phone is the entry point for an intrusion into the intranet you are fired and will be sued for the cost of fixing everything" and that "If internal email comes into the hands of unauthorized persons through your device, you are fired" Tell me any iPhone or Android that has a security framework as thought out as http://www.cse.psu.edu/~enck/cse597a-s09/slides/security_blackberry.pdf
There's an overview here. http://www.cse.psu.edu/~enck/cse597a-s09/slides/security_blackberry.pdf
Basically, in a corporate network using BES, a proper configuration has the phones are in a sort of permanent VPN with the corporate network, aided by hardware features (not merely acceleration by hardware encryption, but hardware features that restrict reverse-engineering keys from the firmware and a number of other protections that make stolen/lost phones not a security risk), as well as flexible and detailed security policies for each phone that can be controlled by the IT department. The whole phone is really designed around this infrastructure. Non-corporate customers, of course, don't use BES and instead the other endpoint of the secured tunnel is at RIM's servers (this is what BIS is). So RIM only knows the keys of non-corporate customers. Note that there are many hosted BES solutions out there, so you have other options if you're not corporate but also don't trust RIM (given their aiding of spying by the Indian government, say).
Please don't spread misinformation. For those that run their own BES servers--which is any big business and obviously government--RIM is not in the loop and the other side of the encryption tunnel is at your own servers, not RIM's.
Slashdot Mirror
> So it may boil down to how easy it is for life to arise (which I think is pretty easy)
It does seems to be easy. A more likely issue is how likely complex multicellular life is. Even on Earth, bacteria remain the most evolutionarily successful species by any measure--biomass, numbers, adaptability, footprint among every possible corner of the biosphere, and intracellular processes are extremely optimized--some chemical pathways are even provably optimal. There was no multicellular life for most of the history of life on earth, and complex organisms may not be inevitable--we just perceive them to be so because they arose on this planet by what may just be a freak accident.
Another major point not many touch upon is the fact that in the one anecdotal example we have of intelligent life, ourselves, progress appears to eventually lead us into inner space, not outer space. This is something Asimov warned about long ago with his classic "The End of Eternity" (which is very applicable, just substitute information technology for time travel).
Wiki: "Rats in Skinner boxes with metal electrodes implanted into their nucleus accumbens [the brain's pleasure center] will repeatedly press a lever which activates this region, and will do so in preference over food and water, eventually dying from exhaustion." While we won't directly end up doing this, the virtual lives we are clearly set on creating for ourselves will be a roundabout way of doing the same. Even though we'll keep ourselves alive, unlike the rats, we will pay no attention to outward expansion and exploration.
There was a study showing that Canada overall would benefit from a 3-4 degree rise in temperature (mainly due to receding of the permafrost making for more arable land).
In general usage, average refers to the mean, in which case your postulate would only be true if the average and the mode happened to be the same (which almost never is the case for statistics regarding human populations). Time for going back to highschool math for you :p
This still doesn't let you escape Arrow's impossibility theorem, so you're just trading the flaws of one voting system for the flaws of another. It's a pointless exercise.
>I'm of the opinion that the people and corporations responsible for and/or complicit in the economic collapse should be arrested
The reason this won't work is that there are very few definite targets here; most of the problem is a bit of unethical behavior here, some more over there, didn't push the regulations of capital/asset ratios in this other place, and so on and so forth. The blame is spread around and too thinly for there to be a chance to successfully prosecute but a few people. In any case, the fix is to give up dated neoliberal economic thinking and learn the lessons of MMT.
The reasons direct democracies are unworkable have been covered in a multitude of posts above you, which indicates to all of us that you didn't even bother to read before rushing to use your itchy 'Reply'-clicking finger.
They're also as ignorant of economics as the politicians. I tried to explain modern monetary theory/neo-Chartalism to my local occupy protest and I almost got mobbed by Ron Paul supporters...something I'd have more expected at a Tea Party convention.
You're right, of course. The real issue is our failure to elect our representatives based on merit.
I'm willing to bet a lot that nothing will happen. In the tiny chance there is a general revolt, the US military actions will make this a Syria, not an Egypt.
Moreover, direct democracy is inefficient as making an informed decision implies having spent enormous time and effort getting informed, which is a full time job--voters wouldn't be doing anything else. That politicians don't commit this effort either is a sad truth, and therein lies much of the problem.
To make good policy decisions requires extensive time spent researching and studying the subject areas in question, which would be a full-time job for every voter in a direct democracy. The problem is not that we're delegating legislative work to others, but who the delegates are. Sadly, electability is not a function of leadership merit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem
The short of it: individual preferences cannot be aggregated in a meaningful way without paradoxes. Most reasonable people would find unacceptable that any of the listed criteria should be violated, yet there is no way around this. And so, democracy can't work even in theory, let alone in practice.
From what's left, I figure non-dictatorship is the criterium I'm most willing to let go, assuming we can (in the future) specially breed and raise a group from which to choose reliably benevolent dictators who will exercise the minimum influence needed to make the system work..
Because of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
BB security is about more than email: http://www.cse.psu.edu/~enck/cse597a-s09/slides/security_blackberry.pdf
LOL you're such a shill. Try posting this again once Android security gets to approach this remotely: http://www.cse.psu.edu/~enck/cse597a-s09/slides/security_blackberry.pdf
By the way, don't forget to tell your users, if you really have any, that "if your phone is the entry point for an intrusion into the intranet you are fired and will be sued for the cost of fixing everything" and that "If internal email comes into the hands of unauthorized persons through your device, you are fired". A dire warning is about the only way you can secure Android from being the carrier of an attack vector into the intranet--by making your user so paranoid that he won't install any apps and will guard his phone like a madman.
BES is more important for security, not email. As another poster pointed out, any enterprise with a sensible security point should make it explicit that "If your phone is the entry point for an intrusion into the intranet you are fired and will be sued for the cost of fixing everything" and that "If internal email comes into the hands of unauthorized persons through your device, you are fired" Tell me any iPhone or Android that has a security framework as thought out as http://www.cse.psu.edu/~enck/cse597a-s09/slides/security_blackberry.pdf
Mod parent up and grandparent down! Android and iPhone security is still a joke compared to this http://www.cse.psu.edu/~enck/cse597a-s09/slides/security_blackberry.pdf
There's an overview here. http://www.cse.psu.edu/~enck/cse597a-s09/slides/security_blackberry.pdf
Basically, in a corporate network using BES, a proper configuration has the phones are in a sort of permanent VPN with the corporate network, aided by hardware features (not merely acceleration by hardware encryption, but hardware features that restrict reverse-engineering keys from the firmware and a number of other protections that make stolen/lost phones not a security risk), as well as flexible and detailed security policies for each phone that can be controlled by the IT department. The whole phone is really designed around this infrastructure. Non-corporate customers, of course, don't use BES and instead the other endpoint of the secured tunnel is at RIM's servers (this is what BIS is). So RIM only knows the keys of non-corporate customers. Note that there are many hosted BES solutions out there, so you have other options if you're not corporate but also don't trust RIM (given their aiding of spying by the Indian government, say).
Please don't spread misinformation. For those that run their own BES servers--which is any big business and obviously government--RIM is not in the loop and the other side of the encryption tunnel is at your own servers, not RIM's.
The actual problem is that the data shows no warming in the past ten years: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
Please explain why the very data being discussed shows no warming in the past ten years: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
And what kind of term do we apply to this, where Muller tried to hide that the data shows ZERO warming in the past DECADE? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
This aspect of it is news, and pretty critical at that: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
Mod parent up! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
What it would take is consistent data. Instead, what the data in this latest study shows is that while there has been warming in the past century, there was ZERO warming in the last DECADE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html