So it actually costs somewhere around $37/person to count and classify each of us......well, without counting us all, we can't be sure how much it costs per person:-)
car accidents are special---as the car insurance corp is obligated to pay your medical care (irrelevant of whose fault it is) if you apply within a certain timeframe of the accident (30 days?). most lawyers know this, and it would be the first thing they setup. most states also have a thing for hit and run type of accidents, to which car insurance corps pool money. just saying there are funds out there precisely for such situations, and lawyers who do such cases should know all ways of getting money for medical care.
and paying a lawyer to collect evidence instead of going to one of them `lawyer gets paid only if you win' lawyers is just...amm...weird. The only reason a lawyer wouldn't take the case is if they -know- you'll lose, in which case paying a lawyer isn't improving your chances.
and paying 100k to a lawyer is just stupid. median salary for a lawyer employed at a lawfirm is ~90k a year. in other words, the lawyer was taking advantage of your situation.
How about a loser pays upto a maximum of what the other side is paying their lawyers.
So if RIAA is suing you without evidence, and spending $10k on their lawyers, then they're liable to pay you $10k for your lawyer.
Similarly, if you want to sue a large corp, and you spend $2k on a lawyer, they can only get back what you paid for your lawyer, meaning $2k (even if they spend $20k defending their case).
They'll either have to get cheaper lawyers, or stop suing folks.
Eh. I was teaching a class of 10 students (CUNY), where students pickup a laptop and then return it at the end of class.
After a few weeks of this, one laptop suddenly disappeared, with some students still in the class. ie: I -know- one of the 6 students took it, but nobody confessed, nor admitted seeing anyone taking it. These are college students in a small group (ie: I know the names of everyone in the class), yet somehow such a thing still happened!
Afterwards, I had sign-out and sign-in sheets for each machine.
I guess the point is that you never know. Some people aren't afraid of getting caught and can appear just as shocked/surprised as anyone that such a thing happened.
How well do you think Amazon would do if they were forbidden by law to know the identity of the people ordering the books? Elections are anonymous - the analogy doesn't hold.
Aha. Well, I'm ``anonymous'' (more or less) behind my online identity; There's no reason we can't verify someone's validity to vote, and then separately only track their online login without actual personal identification attached.
I've noticed that the `new' (eh!) generation is a bit shallow in their skills or curiosity. Most can quickly pickup front end things, but for most `hard' stuff, they expect an existing library to be present.
Hypothetical example: most new developers can quickly setup a streaming video from their website, but have little or no idea how TCP/IP nor video decoding actually works. Yes, I know it's sort of a pointless thing to know when you don't "need" to know it, just saying that the previous generation seemed to have been a bit more curious about things, even if they didn't "need" to know them.
Nix all the evoting crap and go back to paper ballots.
I tend to take a different point of view. For example, if amazon can track the millions of customers, purchases, orders, etc., with minimal errors (most folks tend to get what they ordered and charged the proper amount), why can't evoting on the same scale work?
Yes, there are architectural differences, etc., but my point is that we can make evoting about as reliable as paper voting---there's nothing fundamentally `bad' about machines adding up the votes.
The fact of the matter is that someday humans will have to stop having kids...
Don't remember who came up with it, but one possible solution may be to set (and progressively increase) the reproductive age. If folks could only have kids after they're 30, there would be less kids, etc., if the population problem persists, increase age to 35, and so on and so forth. This also has a side affect of increasing the average lifespan.
I know what you're saying, but isn't the whole point of being a sovereign nation is... you don't really give a damn what some other country's laws are? If iran/north korea really are -countries- in their own right, why the heck should they care what US or others have to say?
And no, I don't think they should have the bomb, but your argument that US has any right in controlling what other countries do is bad (ie: would you like it if Iran told US what not to do?)
Exactly. In fact, as time goes on, it will be -easier- to store information, as data storage capabilities grow faster than our information creation capabilities, and our population (ie: lets say every human on the planet walks around with as many HD cameras as they can carry, recording everything in their lives... the population growth will still make it a manageable amount of information long term).
There's also a limit on how much information can be consumed per person (or searched, etc.,---beyond a certain point, there's no reason to `keep' it around). Lets say you're capable of watching and comprehending 10000 HD videos at the same time. That's still a cap on how much information you can consume in your life time.
ie: Google's job of indexing all of the worlds information is becoming easier and easier every day.
Unless of course some AI shows up and starts producing and consuming information at an ever increasing rate---but then I'd imagine it would be doing something -useful- with all that information (hopefully). Maybe it would create a simulation of the universe---where people would wonder about things.
Paradoxically, this may turn off many folks. ie: ``you can get this online for free'' isn't exactly popular with some crowds---especially the type of crowds that love Microsoft products (even if they have to torrent them).
Well, once upon a time the GNU tools used to be installed more often from disks or tapes you bought from FSF than downloaded, because of what at the time were large file sizes.
Yes. Except I don't think it needs to start this trend at human intelligence.
I think we will (ie: distant future) build a very simple stupid program (nothing anyone would consider `intelligent'), and have it evolve and learn to reach and surpass human intelligence.
I thought that AI would take care of itself, as well as the rest... ie: we build a machine that can learn, and it becomes super-human intelligent all on its own, and then goes ahead and builds ``things like cold fusion, teleportation, quantum computing, virtual reality capable of universe-scale simulation, therapeutic gene engineering and nanosurgery, universal molecular constructors, interstellar flight and perhaps even Dyson spheres...''
So our job is to make that initial leap to start the process---which might just happen within 20 years.
Also, we don't need to understand or know how the brain works. the AI just has to work, who cares -how- it works. let it figure out how to do it.
XP SP3 (rc1) b0rked the sound on my laptop (High Definition Audio driver thingie). And there's no easy way to downgrade to SP2. This is my dev box (not production, etc., but still annoying). Hoping for SP3 to be released soon so everyone will scream for this to be fixed asap.
So, I guess that means the story headline could be changed into "UK Government to reduce ISP's customer base by 6 Million".
Or... ``The elected UK government putting interests of Corps ahead of 6 million of its citizens''.
Damn it. Politicians should be AFRAID to pass such things. The government is there for the people. Not corporations. I mean, the politician who gets to do this, should lose 6 million votes instantly (and be out of the office, impeached or something). Too bad those 6 million suckers will still vote for those corrupt bags.
If they cut spending, they'll cut math and science classes, not some bullshit topic, simply because there will be a vote, and majority will vote to cut math/science.
Why? Because there are many more bullshit topic teachers than math/science teachers. Bigger departments tend to get bigger, at the expense of smaller ones.
One use is finding bottlenecks in new construction or city planning. if a dirty bomb blows up in the middle of the city, what will cripple evacuation?
It's not something that can be done once and that's it. It's something where every new construction/change needs to be modeled. Even new technology (like cell phones) can change the crowd behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
So it actually costs somewhere around $37/person to count and classify each of us... ...well, without counting us all, we can't be sure how much it costs per person :-)
car accidents are special---as the car insurance corp is obligated to pay your medical care (irrelevant of whose fault it is) if you apply within a certain timeframe of the accident (30 days?). most lawyers know this, and it would be the first thing they setup. most states also have a thing for hit and run type of accidents, to which car insurance corps pool money. just saying there are funds out there precisely for such situations, and lawyers who do such cases should know all ways of getting money for medical care.
and paying a lawyer to collect evidence instead of going to one of them `lawyer gets paid only if you win' lawyers is just...amm...weird. The only reason a lawyer wouldn't take the case is if they -know- you'll lose, in which case paying a lawyer isn't improving your chances.
and paying 100k to a lawyer is just stupid. median salary for a lawyer employed at a lawfirm is ~90k a year. in other words, the lawyer was taking advantage of your situation.
sorry, and I hope you're well.
How about a loser pays upto a maximum of what the other side is paying their lawyers.
So if RIAA is suing you without evidence, and spending $10k on their lawyers, then they're liable to pay you $10k for your lawyer.
Similarly, if you want to sue a large corp, and you spend $2k on a lawyer, they can only get back what you paid for your lawyer, meaning $2k (even if they spend $20k defending their case).
They'll either have to get cheaper lawyers, or stop suing folks.
Eh. I was teaching a class of 10 students (CUNY), where students pickup a laptop and then return it at the end of class.
After a few weeks of this, one laptop suddenly disappeared, with some students still in the class. ie: I -know- one of the 6 students took it, but nobody confessed, nor admitted seeing anyone taking it. These are college students in a small group (ie: I know the names of everyone in the class), yet somehow such a thing still happened!
Afterwards, I had sign-out and sign-in sheets for each machine.
I guess the point is that you never know. Some people aren't afraid of getting caught and can appear just as shocked/surprised as anyone that such a thing happened.
How well do you think Amazon would do if they were forbidden by law to know the identity of the people ordering the books? Elections are anonymous - the analogy doesn't hold.
Aha. Well, I'm ``anonymous'' (more or less) behind my online identity; There's no reason we can't verify someone's validity to vote, and then separately only track their online login without actual personal identification attached.
I've noticed that the `new' (eh!) generation is a bit shallow in their skills or curiosity. Most can quickly pickup front end things, but for most `hard' stuff, they expect an existing library to be present.
Hypothetical example: most new developers can quickly setup a streaming video from their website, but have little or no idea how TCP/IP nor video decoding actually works. Yes, I know it's sort of a pointless thing to know when you don't "need" to know it, just saying that the previous generation seemed to have been a bit more curious about things, even if they didn't "need" to know them.
Nix all the evoting crap and go back to paper ballots.
I tend to take a different point of view. For example, if amazon can track the millions of customers, purchases, orders, etc., with minimal errors (most folks tend to get what they ordered and charged the proper amount), why can't evoting on the same scale work?
Yes, there are architectural differences, etc., but my point is that we can make evoting about as reliable as paper voting---there's nothing fundamentally `bad' about machines adding up the votes.
The fact of the matter is that someday humans will have to stop having kids...
Don't remember who came up with it, but one possible solution may be to set (and progressively increase) the reproductive age. If folks could only have kids after they're 30, there would be less kids, etc., if the population problem persists, increase age to 35, and so on and so forth. This also has a side affect of increasing the average lifespan.
Not sure how one would enforce this though.
I know what you're saying, but isn't the whole point of being a sovereign nation is... you don't really give a damn what some other country's laws are? If iran/north korea really are -countries- in their own right, why the heck should they care what US or others have to say?
And no, I don't think they should have the bomb, but your argument that US has any right in controlling what other countries do is bad (ie: would you like it if Iran told US what not to do?)
I'd imagine it's cheaper than most people think. It's labor costs and unions that killed steel production in US, not the lack of steel or energy.
Any new venture has to avoid getting unions, and it might just work.
ie: Consider Toyota vs GM/Ford/etc. The US isn't a bad place for manufacturing; it's only bad when you have obstacles.
I'd also go as far as making the keyboard 1" wider (making all buttons similarly slightly larger). The keyboard is bordering on being unusable.
Exactly. In fact, as time goes on, it will be -easier- to store information, as data storage capabilities grow faster than our information creation capabilities, and our population (ie: lets say every human on the planet walks around with as many HD cameras as they can carry, recording everything in their lives... the population growth will still make it a manageable amount of information long term).
There's also a limit on how much information can be consumed per person (or searched, etc.,---beyond a certain point, there's no reason to `keep' it around). Lets say you're capable of watching and comprehending 10000 HD videos at the same time. That's still a cap on how much information you can consume in your life time.
ie: Google's job of indexing all of the worlds information is becoming easier and easier every day.
Unless of course some AI shows up and starts producing and consuming information at an ever increasing rate---but then I'd imagine it would be doing something -useful- with all that information (hopefully). Maybe it would create a simulation of the universe---where people would wonder about things.
This is correct. According to every official source...
But the very fact that it appeared to him out of thin air may indicate that it has cosmic significance that DNA wasn't aware of.
Similarly, if someone steals your IP, they can only be sued upto the amount claimed.
Except nobody cares; and the folks hiring him are likely of the same character.
Paradoxically, this may turn off many folks. ie: ``you can get this online for free'' isn't exactly popular with some crowds---especially the type of crowds that love Microsoft products (even if they have to torrent them).
Well, once upon a time the GNU tools used to be installed more often from disks or tapes you bought from FSF than downloaded, because of what at the time were large file sizes.
Yes. They were professional then.
I don't think there is sufficient data to give a meaningful answer to these questions.
Not unless we find some ``counter++'' variable, somewhere in physical laws, that only gets executed during boot.
Yes. Except I don't think it needs to start this trend at human intelligence.
I think we will (ie: distant future) build a very simple stupid program (nothing anyone would consider `intelligent'), and have it evolve and learn to reach and surpass human intelligence.
Sort of like humans start off with DNA, etc.
I thought that AI would take care of itself, as well as the rest... ie: we build a machine that can learn, and it becomes super-human intelligent all on its own, and then goes ahead and builds ``things like cold fusion, teleportation, quantum computing, virtual reality capable of universe-scale simulation, therapeutic gene engineering and nanosurgery, universal molecular constructors, interstellar flight and perhaps even Dyson spheres...''
So our job is to make that initial leap to start the process---which might just happen within 20 years.
Also, we don't need to understand or know how the brain works. the AI just has to work, who cares -how- it works. let it figure out how to do it.
XP SP3 (rc1) b0rked the sound on my laptop (High Definition Audio driver thingie). And there's no easy way to downgrade to SP2. This is my dev box (not production, etc., but still annoying). Hoping for SP3 to be released soon so everyone will scream for this to be fixed asap.
So, I guess that means the story headline could be changed into "UK Government to reduce ISP's customer base by 6 Million".
Or... ``The elected UK government putting interests of Corps ahead of 6 million of its citizens''.
Damn it. Politicians should be AFRAID to pass such things. The government is there for the people. Not corporations. I mean, the politician who gets to do this, should lose 6 million votes instantly (and be out of the office, impeached or something). Too bad those 6 million suckers will still vote for those corrupt bags.
It's just their way to move users to Yahoo!, which they'll soon own.
If they cut spending, they'll cut math and science classes, not some bullshit topic, simply because there will be a vote, and majority will vote to cut math/science.
Why? Because there are many more bullshit topic teachers than math/science teachers. Bigger departments tend to get bigger, at the expense of smaller ones.
One use is finding bottlenecks in new construction or city planning. if a dirty bomb blows up in the middle of the city, what will cripple evacuation?
It's not something that can be done once and that's it. It's something where every new construction/change needs to be modeled. Even new technology (like cell phones) can change the crowd behavior.