Since the War on Terror guarantees we are perpetually at war now with an enemy we define as we go, declaring a state of emergency can be done any time I suppose.
The problem is, that there is no such thing as a "collective conscience" when it comes to money.
I see your point, money is essentially conscienceless, but we just have to stop seeing "The Economy" as an important end in and of itself and rather an important tool to other ends, such as having a great life, security, freedom, etc. As you point out, you can legislate a conscience by capturing the external costs as you judge them as a society. For example, valuing wetlands economically by penalizing their destruction or rewarding their creation as a government tax or other means will definitely result in more wetlands. Cap and trade reduced acid rain in the 70's or 80's or whenever that happened.
You have to be careful to type the https:/// and the www or you don't get SSL. I think it should be the opposite: Google shoud detect if you can handle SSL and use it if you can and not if you can't.
Imagine if the newspapers gave up on mind-bending overly-clever space-saving headlines and just went with descriptive titles. It would make sense to me that this is a good strategy in the modern era. There are no space restrictions really on the web, or not as much as in print. Perhaps Google could somehow try to reward accuracy in headlines in their algorithms. Did I just say "Al Gore rhythms?"
How do you know I haven't thought it up yet? The alternative is to just not rely on the government to do it. I would prefer that the government fund a private entity to do it, with strict admonition to include everything, including porn or kill flicks, and have submissions be anonymous and automatically accepted. Does that work for you?
I'm not a big fan of the Steve Jobsian App Store lockdown policies, but at least inside of that, if an app is discovered to be malicious, Apple can wipe it from everyone's phones I believe without even asking them.
I knew I'd get modded down. LOL I ain't no steenkin' arts major, but I think xkcd is a travesty that should be deleted from the Internet. And yes, I run Linux. So screw you all!
The time when America was the King of Everything is no longer. We need to get used to the idea that we are going to lose leadership in some areas and retain it in others. The Unipolar Moment has passed.
IDC says lowering software piracy by just 10 percentage points during the next four years would create nearly 500,000 new jobs and pump $140 billion into 'ailing economies.'
Because everyone knows that police and regulation are the best ways to boost productivity and grow your economy! Just as North Korea, the former Soviet Union, etc.
I like Grand Central Dispatch. Don't shoot me, it's from Apple. But it's open source, so it's good, right? What I like about it is that it relieves a programmer from the burden of choosing the number of threads to run, initializing all the various mutexes, etc. Very nice model. I don't see a big driver for adoption, unfortunately, outside of HPC geeks like yours truly.
I think when someone's job is shipped overseas and despite having a degree, experience and even still being young (I'm old so I expect age discrimination), that their unhappiness is due to their finances.
I'd say you're not alone. Most people blame their circumstances or something outside themselves for their feelings. Again, I'm just pointing out that there is more to the story than what seems to be "the truth." I can imagine points of view where those circumstances have absolutely no impact on the person's happiness. Or even make the person happier!
When 20% of society has 95% of the wealth-- how can you relieve the other 80%'s suffering without redistribution of that wealth?
If you believe that the suffering is due to lack of wealth, then your choices are limited but not nonexistent. I guess instead of redistribution (zero-sum solution) you could try growing the economy more fairly, giving more opportunity to the poor, or training people. I would favor that approach to redistributing, because I do not trust our government to do anything fairly or effectively in that area.
If you believe that suffering is due to something other than lack of wealth, you could make a difference for the people in other ways that impact the suffering in a more powerful way.
I hear you about the wage disparity, it doesn't seem fair to have that in existence. I'm just pointing out that in my view, your anger about Steve Jobs is not forced on you by the facts -- it's forced onto you by your interpretation of the facts. There is no simple equation that money equals happiness. If someone is suffering, it is not because of their finances. Rather than try to punish the Steve Jobs' of the world just because they are "powerful," I'd prefer to see what we can do to relieve the suffering.
Well, that's one way of thinking about it. Of course, the "information" we get has to pass through our perceptual filters first. So when two people hear or see the same thing they may feel very differently. You might see every news story through the filter of "the rich have too much power, how is this going to screw the little guy?" Then you'd spend a lot of your time angry, I'm guessing. Since your point of view looks like "the truth" or "information" to you, you are stuck with your anger.
Why am I saying all this? You started out asking, essentially, "why am I angry?" Just to point out you have a choice about your feelings, when you understand that your point of view is just a point of view and not "the truth." I'm not saying it's false, BTW. But are you 100% sure it's absolutely accurate?
Am I being manipulated into this anger, or have they just put their heel on the back of my neck long enough that their propaganda has stopped working?
Are those your only choices? You're not being manipulated into anger. The fact that you are angry at "the rich" when an article about Steve Jobs' opinion on one piece of open source software comes along strikes me as a bit over-furious. LOL
My understanding is that lobbyists don't run congress. Who runs them is staff. Staff tell them how to vote they had better follow orders or the party will not support them. It's all about divisive party politics now.
As for the topic at hand, like fusion reactors the main problem will be getting MORE energy than you consume. There's no point in doing something like this if you spend 2 megawatts running the laser and only get 1.9 megawatts back from your star.
Perhaps a smarter move would be to figure out how to harness the star we already have
Of course, the teams of physicists on the project haven't thought of that! Let's go send them an email and save them from their headache. In actuality, getting more energy out than in is going to happen. The real problem is sustaining the reaction.
here's a random link and here is another but you can google "inertial confinement fusion" for yourself if you like.
Steve Jobs did not claim Apple is an open-source shop. He said this: "Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. " Why is this so hard to understand? Are there other motives other than being a pure "open source advocate" here? Hell yes. Is apple more open when it comes to web standards than Adobe? Sure. Do I care? Not much.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the War on Terror guarantees we are perpetually at war now with an enemy we define as we go, declaring a state of emergency can be done any time I suppose.
This study needs to repeated few more times before any results can come from it.
That's probably why they only used two hives. Gotta make a living, you know!
The problem is, that there is no such thing as a "collective conscience" when it comes to money.
I see your point, money is essentially conscienceless, but we just have to stop seeing "The Economy" as an important end in and of itself and rather an important tool to other ends, such as having a great life, security, freedom, etc. As you point out, you can legislate a conscience by capturing the external costs as you judge them as a society. For example, valuing wetlands economically by penalizing their destruction or rewarding their creation as a government tax or other means will definitely result in more wetlands. Cap and trade reduced acid rain in the 70's or 80's or whenever that happened.
You have to be careful to type the https:/// and the www or you don't get SSL. I think it should be the opposite: Google shoud detect if you can handle SSL and use it if you can and not if you can't.
Imagine if the newspapers gave up on mind-bending overly-clever space-saving headlines and just went with descriptive titles. It would make sense to me that this is a good strategy in the modern era. There are no space restrictions really on the web, or not as much as in print. Perhaps Google could somehow try to reward accuracy in headlines in their algorithms. Did I just say "Al Gore rhythms?"
So pardon my ignorance, but flying cars comics aside, so what? Why do I care? What does this help with?
How do you know I haven't thought it up yet? The alternative is to just not rely on the government to do it. I would prefer that the government fund a private entity to do it, with strict admonition to include everything, including porn or kill flicks, and have submissions be anonymous and automatically accepted. Does that work for you?
I'm not a big fan of the Steve Jobsian App Store lockdown policies, but at least inside of that, if an app is discovered to be malicious, Apple can wipe it from everyone's phones I believe without even asking them.
Who wants to bet against my prediction that they'll cook up a new fudge factor to cover their physicist butts? :-)
Somehow, relying on the government to be the central repository of all things cultural seems like an idea best left unexplored.
Why does it require an explanation that the Pirate Party would host Pirate Bay? I mean come on.
I knew I'd get modded down. LOL I ain't no steenkin' arts major, but I think xkcd is a travesty that should be deleted from the Internet. And yes, I run Linux. So screw you all!
So wikipedia is not amused. Does *anyone* think xkcd is funny? Every time I look at it it fails to rise to the level of a grin.
The time when America was the King of Everything is no longer. We need to get used to the idea that we are going to lose leadership in some areas and retain it in others. The Unipolar Moment has passed.
IDC says lowering software piracy by just 10 percentage points during the next four years would create nearly 500,000 new jobs and pump $140 billion into 'ailing economies.'
Because everyone knows that police and regulation are the best ways to boost productivity and grow your economy! Just as North Korea, the former Soviet Union, etc.
Sorry to nitpick, but 2-3 minutes is not "instantly."
I like Grand Central Dispatch. Don't shoot me, it's from Apple. But it's open source, so it's good, right? What I like about it is that it relieves a programmer from the burden of choosing the number of threads to run, initializing all the various mutexes, etc. Very nice model. I don't see a big driver for adoption, unfortunately, outside of HPC geeks like yours truly.
I think when someone's job is shipped overseas and despite having a degree, experience and even still being young (I'm old so I expect age discrimination), that their unhappiness is due to their finances.
I'd say you're not alone. Most people blame their circumstances or something outside themselves for their feelings. Again, I'm just pointing out that there is more to the story than what seems to be "the truth." I can imagine points of view where those circumstances have absolutely no impact on the person's happiness. Or even make the person happier!
When 20% of society has 95% of the wealth-- how can you relieve the other 80%'s suffering without redistribution of that wealth?
If you believe that the suffering is due to lack of wealth, then your choices are limited but not nonexistent. I guess instead of redistribution (zero-sum solution) you could try growing the economy more fairly, giving more opportunity to the poor, or training people. I would favor that approach to redistributing, because I do not trust our government to do anything fairly or effectively in that area.
If you believe that suffering is due to something other than lack of wealth, you could make a difference for the people in other ways that impact the suffering in a more powerful way.
I hear you about the wage disparity, it doesn't seem fair to have that in existence. I'm just pointing out that in my view, your anger about Steve Jobs is not forced on you by the facts -- it's forced onto you by your interpretation of the facts. There is no simple equation that money equals happiness. If someone is suffering, it is not because of their finances. Rather than try to punish the Steve Jobs' of the world just because they are "powerful," I'd prefer to see what we can do to relieve the suffering.
How we feel is based on the information we get.
Well, that's one way of thinking about it. Of course, the "information" we get has to pass through our perceptual filters first. So when two people hear or see the same thing they may feel very differently. You might see every news story through the filter of "the rich have too much power, how is this going to screw the little guy?" Then you'd spend a lot of your time angry, I'm guessing. Since your point of view looks like "the truth" or "information" to you, you are stuck with your anger.
Why am I saying all this? You started out asking, essentially, "why am I angry?" Just to point out you have a choice about your feelings, when you understand that your point of view is just a point of view and not "the truth." I'm not saying it's false, BTW. But are you 100% sure it's absolutely accurate?
Am I being manipulated into this anger, or have they just put their heel on the back of my neck long enough that their propaganda has stopped working?
Are those your only choices? You're not being manipulated into anger. The fact that you are angry at "the rich" when an article about Steve Jobs' opinion on one piece of open source software comes along strikes me as a bit over-furious. LOL
shits ice cream.
two girls one cup?
My understanding is that lobbyists don't run congress. Who runs them is staff. Staff tell them how to vote they had better follow orders or the party will not support them. It's all about divisive party politics now.
As for the topic at hand, like fusion reactors the main problem will be getting MORE energy than you consume. There's no point in doing something like this if you spend 2 megawatts running the laser and only get 1.9 megawatts back from your star.
Perhaps a smarter move would be to figure out how to harness the star we already have
Of course, the teams of physicists on the project haven't thought of that! Let's go send them an email and save them from their headache. In actuality, getting more energy out than in is going to happen. The real problem is sustaining the reaction. here's a random link and here is another but you can google "inertial confinement fusion" for yourself if you like.
Steve Jobs did not claim Apple is an open-source shop. He said this: "Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. " Why is this so hard to understand? Are there other motives other than being a pure "open source advocate" here? Hell yes. Is apple more open when it comes to web standards than Adobe? Sure. Do I care? Not much.