There may be a difference between modelling individuals and modelling crowds. If that is the case, modelling human groups actions may not be as wrong as you make it to be.
You can't copyright data, but the presentation, as you call it, includes the way the text is written. In other words, as long as you tell it your own way without copy-pasting the source you used you are in the clear. I doubt these scraping sites do any meaningful rewriting of their sources, though. And how do you rewrite a picture, by the way, without the data it comes from?
No, we aren't talking about paying for identical thinks. That's completely beside the point. If I win 1M$ a year and you win 1K$ I will certainly be able to buy things that you can't even after paying taxes... unless my taxes amount to 999K$ and yours amount to 0$, which _nobody_ is talking about. So your premise is _wrong_.
The kind of taxes we are talking about don't apply to commerce goods, because it's very difficult to let a store know how much your last year income was.
Anyway, let's suppose we set a flat tax: everybody pays the same. There's a small problem though: there will be people who can't get ahead (due to disability, for example) after paying that flat tax: yes, it's going to happen because the maintenance needs of the administration (common things like roads or police) aren't that low. I suppose you don't consider letting them to die by the roadside an ethical option, so part of that flat tax rate will probably used to support them. Know what? Suddenly your touted flat tax isn't flat any more: whoever gets _any_ kind of relief charged to that flat tax is effectively paying less taxes. So what's the difference between directly applying a somewhat proportional tax and applying a flat tax high enough that lower income people will get rebates through that same tax? None whatsoever: you end up having people pay effectively less than other people, but at least they don't have so many reasons to whine about richer people having it even easier, so proportional taxes may actually help have a more stable society.
And there's no "socialism", "comunism" or any other "-ism" needed. It's simple math. Unless, of course, you'd rather have the poorest portion of the nation starve. In that case, there are some psychological problems you should worry about before worrying about taxes.
I don't know about the cost of goods, which certainly can't be policed like that. But yes, there can be proportionality on taxes, fines and the like. Finland does it and they don't seem to be doing too bad.
I'm actually messing around with that (trying to get an Asus N53JQ to run fully virtualized with direct access to the graphics card). Please check whether your laptop allows for VT-d (device virtualization) because your virtualized glxinfo might have been tricked by the virtual machine.
Golly, mister, I would also be awfully annoyed if someone used "suck", "bloody" and "shit" _once each_ in a comment. Just so your tender sensitivities remain intact, please allow me to rewrite his argument:
Yeah laptops are gonna be a bother. Last time I bought one I shopped around at the "Linux boutiques" and they were all really expensive (as in 2x+ the cost of the same laptop from the vendor with Windows on it). I just bit the bullet and bought a Windows laptop and wiped it (changed the hard drive, actually...I don't want that slow bargain-basement second-rate stuff they put in all off-the-shelf non-gaming PCs).
I thought about refunding the Windows license but decided not to, in case I wanted to run games on it or something. In retrospect I should have done it, even though it's a fair bit of work.
And don't forget to keep your protective gloves and facemask on, lest you get infected by mild swearing.
It's amusing to see that talking about some good feature of a Microsoft product gets bashed down, but it is even more amusing that someone gets on this tangent when the first criticisms directed at ge7 are about his (apparent) misunderstanding of Microsoft tactics.
Let's get back on track.
Fact: Networkworld states that Windows 8 will boot through UEFI.
Fact: Networkworld states that secure UEFI boot requires signed drivers.
Posit: if signatures are made available to open/free software coders anybody can create a signed malware driver.
Corollarium: for secure UEFI boot to work, hardware manufacturers will have to either limit signatures to closed source drivers or deal with different signatures with different levels of hardware access. Or perhaps there will have to be a way to enable or disable secure UEFI boot.
So can Microsoft lock Linux off Windows 8 PCs? Yes if they insist on secure UEFI boot and hardware manufacturers don't go the extra mile to let their products work with both secured and unsecured UEFI boots and there is an option to disable secure UEFI boot altogether.
The worst of all this is that when someone gets hold of a signature a whole range of units will be vulnerable just like they would have been without it. Security by obscurity doesn't scale.
I guess it doesn't matter much to you. It certainly doesn't matter much me any more, as the franchise has been dropping in quality for some time now.
In any case, I find the whole Han Solo shooting in that scene more as a rallying point, a symptom if you will, than something important per se. It is the glaringly simple two second example of how the Star Wars has been distorted by economical or political correctness reasons: I mean, a bounty hunter that misses a shot completely at less than a metre? Really?:)
I suspect changing character defining moments isn't "a thing in the background". I don't care much about Star Wars any more, though, so he can change whatever he wants: he's already crashed it into the ground as far as I am concerned.
Based on this logic, Great Britain, the Dutch Republic, Portugal and the Holy Roman Empire would not have been nations either, since they most definitely took part in the war.
I didn't know any of those hadn't been an independent country before and belonged to Spain at the time;) I repeat: Catalonia didn't move to achieve independency from the Spanish crown but to put in place a king to their liking.
... after the defeat of Emir Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqiwas's troops at Tours in 732 local Visigoths regained autonomy , though they voluntarily made themselves tributary to the emerging Frankish kingdom, [emphasis mine]
That doesn't prove they were an unified entity: they actually didn't spend much time before turning in a set of counties. I admit though this point would require more investigation.
This second quote suggests to me that, at a certain point of time, the Crown of Aragon amounted to a Catalonian empire. As with all empires, it eventually collapsed, but Catalonia has arguably as much right to a claim of nationhood as England...
Catalonia doesn't show as a capital of the kingdom: economically it was Naples, politically it was Zaragoza where the kings were crowned. And may I remark (again?) that the Count of Barcelona dropped his family title when he entered the royal family of Aragon.
But it's a MacBook Pro as well and doesn't have to go through all the hoops to get authenticated and on the network.
Erm... if the problem is authenticating then you can't really compare your MacBook, can you? On related matters, I find it very interesting that your network admins allow you to dance into the network without authentication just because you have a Mac.
In the mean time, the rest of us gaze at our ordinary workaday laptops and desktops with their 10+ minute boot up times...
Now that's interesting. I don't remember having seen a laptop take that long to boot up. The worst one was the one a friend of mine gave me to check out, which took 8 minutes to boot, basically due to a really bad antivirus program and needless programs (like Quicktime or Adobe Acrobat stubs) loading on boot. Now it boots quite faster, not in under a minute but good enough.
In this case, since many Catalonian nationalists invented the concept of Catalonian countries in order to shroud their reivindications with "history" (for some values of history). The post I answered to belonged to this current and I simply denied that basic premise. If you have any more questions you should ask the one that set the premise.
To be clear, while I may understand the nationalist desire, I may also not share it and I may also reject bringing up bogus arguments to support it. In this case I don't share it and I reject bogus arguments. They aren't needed, anyway: nationalists will be nationalists, and they will be someone to pay attention when they get a majority of the people's vote. And by a majority I mean a majority of over half the whole voting age population. Considering abstention rates it seems difficult, though.
Yes, of course it will... if you show weakness by inaction, which is very different from showing bully stupidity by mis-action. I said it then and I'll say it again: USians are (un)fortunate enough to not have had to deal with terrorist groups in their midst for too long and don't know (have forgotten) what really works against them. Hint: it's not hitting at wrong places in the wrong way.
As has been well noted, post 9/11 security is far from perfect, yet they seem to have a perfect score for defeating subsequent attacks.
Correlation is not causation. There have been several attempts in Europe too and you don't see train stations overloaded with detectors... excepting perhaps the high-speed trains.
Besides, I think any pilot with enough brain to tan his hide knows the air kidnapping rules got thrown out of the window and will do whatever is needed to keep kidnappers out of the cockpit. Blow the plane up? Hell, it's either that or blow it into some building.
The Catalonians at the time didn't seem to want to be a nation. They wanted to have a different king in Spain than the one that finally won. It was a sucession war, not a secession war.
Fact: there was a war of sucession, in war people die. So I can hardly make the point that people didn't die in Catalonia during the Sucession War.
Fact: Catalonia wasn't a nation then (otherwise they wouldn't have taken part in the war to choose Spain's next king, would they?) nor was it in any other point of time before (it was a conglomerate of counties which came to be under the crown of Aragon). Even then Constitutions of 1535? (this picture carries the caption 1535 but the Roman numerals look like 1585) are sanctioned by the then king of Spain Philip (which, according to the dates, means it is most certainly Philip II and that the Constitutions belong to 1585). Feel free to point _any_ time of history before 1714 when Catalonia was an unified entity not under a "foreign" power (Rome, France, Aragon, Spain...).
Slashdot Mirror
There may be a difference between modelling individuals and modelling crowds. If that is the case, modelling human groups actions may not be as wrong as you make it to be.
You can't copyright data, but the presentation, as you call it, includes the way the text is written. In other words, as long as you tell it your own way without copy-pasting the source you used you are in the clear. I doubt these scraping sites do any meaningful rewriting of their sources, though. And how do you rewrite a picture, by the way, without the data it comes from?
Considering the amount of charge required... no, they don't. Now, if you happen to have some gasoline vapours near...
Why would an Oracle DB make you feel safer? MySQL belongs to Oracle.
Neither will they be able to not stop at a red light without paying him. Ka-ching!
Just wait until she turns into your wife!
The kind of taxes we are talking about don't apply to commerce goods, because it's very difficult to let a store know how much your last year income was.
Anyway, let's suppose we set a flat tax: everybody pays the same. There's a small problem though: there will be people who can't get ahead (due to disability, for example) after paying that flat tax: yes, it's going to happen because the maintenance needs of the administration (common things like roads or police) aren't that low. I suppose you don't consider letting them to die by the roadside an ethical option, so part of that flat tax rate will probably used to support them. Know what? Suddenly your touted flat tax isn't flat any more: whoever gets _any_ kind of relief charged to that flat tax is effectively paying less taxes. So what's the difference between directly applying a somewhat proportional tax and applying a flat tax high enough that lower income people will get rebates through that same tax? None whatsoever: you end up having people pay effectively less than other people, but at least they don't have so many reasons to whine about richer people having it even easier, so proportional taxes may actually help have a more stable society.
And there's no "socialism", "comunism" or any other "-ism" needed. It's simple math. Unless, of course, you'd rather have the poorest portion of the nation starve. In that case, there are some psychological problems you should worry about before worrying about taxes.
I don't know about the cost of goods, which certainly can't be policed like that. But yes, there can be proportionality on taxes, fines and the like. Finland does it and they don't seem to be doing too bad.
I guess I was trolled before. Hope you have a nice day in your squeaky clean world.
I'm actually messing around with that (trying to get an Asus N53JQ to run fully virtualized with direct access to the graphics card). Please check whether your laptop allows for VT-d (device virtualization) because your virtualized glxinfo might have been tricked by the virtual machine.
Yeah laptops are gonna be a bother. Last time I bought one I shopped around at the "Linux boutiques" and they were all really expensive (as in 2x+ the cost of the same laptop from the vendor with Windows on it). I just bit the bullet and bought a Windows laptop and wiped it (changed the hard drive, actually...I don't want that slow bargain-basement second-rate stuff they put in all off-the-shelf non-gaming PCs).
I thought about refunding the Windows license but decided not to, in case I wanted to run games on it or something. In retrospect I should have done it, even though it's a fair bit of work.
And don't forget to keep your protective gloves and facemask on, lest you get infected by mild swearing.
Let's get back on track.
Fact: Networkworld states that Windows 8 will boot through UEFI.
Fact: Networkworld states that secure UEFI boot requires signed drivers.
Posit: if signatures are made available to open/free software coders anybody can create a signed malware driver.
Corollarium: for secure UEFI boot to work, hardware manufacturers will have to either limit signatures to closed source drivers or deal with different signatures with different levels of hardware access. Or perhaps there will have to be a way to enable or disable secure UEFI boot.
So can Microsoft lock Linux off Windows 8 PCs? Yes if they insist on secure UEFI boot and hardware manufacturers don't go the extra mile to let their products work with both secured and unsecured UEFI boots and there is an option to disable secure UEFI boot altogether.
The worst of all this is that when someone gets hold of a signature a whole range of units will be vulnerable just like they would have been without it. Security by obscurity doesn't scale.
In any case, I find the whole Han Solo shooting in that scene more as a rallying point, a symptom if you will, than something important per se. It is the glaringly simple two second example of how the Star Wars has been distorted by economical or political correctness reasons: I mean, a bounty hunter that misses a shot completely at less than a metre? Really? :)
I suspect changing character defining moments isn't "a thing in the background". I don't care much about Star Wars any more, though, so he can change whatever he wants: he's already crashed it into the ground as far as I am concerned.
Based on this logic, Great Britain, the Dutch Republic, Portugal and the Holy Roman Empire would not have been nations either, since they most definitely took part in the war.
I didn't know any of those hadn't been an independent country before and belonged to Spain at the time ;) I repeat: Catalonia didn't move to achieve independency from the Spanish crown but to put in place a king to their liking.
... after the defeat of Emir Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqiwas's troops at Tours in 732 local Visigoths regained autonomy , though they voluntarily made themselves tributary to the emerging Frankish kingdom, [emphasis mine]
That doesn't prove they were an unified entity: they actually didn't spend much time before turning in a set of counties. I admit though this point would require more investigation.
This second quote suggests to me that, at a certain point of time, the Crown of Aragon amounted to a Catalonian empire. As with all empires, it eventually collapsed, but Catalonia has arguably as much right to a claim of nationhood as England...
Catalonia doesn't show as a capital of the kingdom: economically it was Naples, politically it was Zaragoza where the kings were crowned. And may I remark (again?) that the Count of Barcelona dropped his family title when he entered the royal family of Aragon.
But it's a MacBook Pro as well and doesn't have to go through all the hoops to get authenticated and on the network.
Erm... if the problem is authenticating then you can't really compare your MacBook, can you? On related matters, I find it very interesting that your network admins allow you to dance into the network without authentication just because you have a Mac.
Usually they won't burst into flames more than once each time, as you will probably need a new one after ;)
In the mean time, the rest of us gaze at our ordinary workaday laptops and desktops with their 10+ minute boot up times...
Now that's interesting. I don't remember having seen a laptop take that long to boot up. The worst one was the one a friend of mine gave me to check out, which took 8 minutes to boot, basically due to a really bad antivirus program and needless programs (like Quicktime or Adobe Acrobat stubs) loading on boot. Now it boots quite faster, not in under a minute but good enough.
To be clear, while I may understand the nationalist desire, I may also not share it and I may also reject bringing up bogus arguments to support it. In this case I don't share it and I reject bogus arguments. They aren't needed, anyway: nationalists will be nationalists, and they will be someone to pay attention when they get a majority of the people's vote. And by a majority I mean a majority of over half the whole voting age population. Considering abstention rates it seems difficult, though.
Oh, please, not veiled references to Nazis... besides, your analogy would be completely flawed anyway.
Yes, of course it will... if you show weakness by inaction, which is very different from showing bully stupidity by mis-action. I said it then and I'll say it again: USians are (un)fortunate enough to not have had to deal with terrorist groups in their midst for too long and don't know (have forgotten) what really works against them. Hint: it's not hitting at wrong places in the wrong way.
As has been well noted, post 9/11 security is far from perfect, yet they seem to have a perfect score for defeating subsequent attacks.
Correlation is not causation. There have been several attempts in Europe too and you don't see train stations overloaded with detectors... excepting perhaps the high-speed trains.
Besides, I think any pilot with enough brain to tan his hide knows the air kidnapping rules got thrown out of the window and will do whatever is needed to keep kidnappers out of the cockpit. Blow the plane up? Hell, it's either that or blow it into some building.
The Catalonians at the time didn't seem to want to be a nation. They wanted to have a different king in Spain than the one that finally won. It was a sucession war, not a secession war.
Fact: there was a war of sucession, in war people die. So I can hardly make the point that people didn't die in Catalonia during the Sucession War.
Fact: Catalonia wasn't a nation then (otherwise they wouldn't have taken part in the war to choose Spain's next king, would they?) nor was it in any other point of time before (it was a conglomerate of counties which came to be under the crown of Aragon). Even then Constitutions of 1535? (this picture carries the caption 1535 but the Roman numerals look like 1585) are sanctioned by the then king of Spain Philip (which, according to the dates, means it is most certainly Philip II and that the Constitutions belong to 1585). Feel free to point _any_ time of history before 1714 when Catalonia was an unified entity not under a "foreign" power (Rome, France, Aragon, Spain...).
At least you talked about a real coup d'etat on Chile's case.