Well, royality of the current day british sort is basically a bunch of people that have been groomed to become diplomats from birth (or since they married into the family) that you can use to interact with head of states instead of the current leader of goverment, without insulting other countries. Yes, in theory, they have some more power over laws in the country, but they never use it. Besides that they also give turists something to look at and overall bring more money in than they are paid.
It is a bit hard to come up with a good pragmatic reason why this style of royalities should be removed.
I think it is plausible that free to play games, where the goal of creating them is more or less to get people addicted (so they buy more stuff), could be more addictive than drugs or alcohol, where the goal is to give plusure. I am not sure if we are there yet, but in principle I could see that happening.
The important difference between free to play games on one side and drugs and alcohol on the other is that the cost to the individual is much lower. The cost is mainly in terms of time spend on it that could be spend more productively for the games (and lets face it, most everybody waste quite a bit of their time on things), where for drugs and alcohol it futher includes the persons health and that they can easier lead to crimes (because you need to spend much more money on getting a fix and crime is consided an easy way to get money, correctly or otherwise). It also means that it would be harder to ban, because while drugs and alcohol has negative effects on society outside the individual, the negative effects are more exclusively focused on the individual for games.
The funny part is that the quote is incorrect - either he said Celsius and the article misquotes him or he said something wrong. The melting point of stainless steel is roughly 1500-1600 C (well somewhere in the range from 1325 - 1530)!
I think whether you want temperature in C or Fahrenheit is a matter of taste. I grew up with C and think it is easy enough - 0C - melting point for ice - if it is below roughly 0 it might be icy and you should be carefull 17C or so is ok to swim in 21-23C nice indoor temp. 30C a bit too hot. 100C water boils. What more is necessary to know?
Honestly, the main problem for people with disabilities in Paris (of the physical kind anyway) is that many of the metro stations have no elevators. Hence, while it may be cheap or free for them, they will have to move further than others to get into and out of the metros (i.e. they have to go to the right metro stations - I have no idea how tricky it must be for some one with a disability that visits Paris to find out which stations they can get in and out of)... It is also annoying when you have to go up those 2-3 floors of stairs with a big suitcase.
I think they really should fix that, but I guess this is at least them starting to think of such things.
Unless the people are stacked on top of each other at a depth of 10 it will not reach 2 mio. Heck, they can only reach 120,000 if everybody is standing shoulder to shoulder and front to back.
This is not an investigation. This is a class action lawsuit. I am sure that if Apple loses, all these video game consoles will get class action lawsuits against them too.
Also, the way you write it make it sound like a defense of Apple. You can not use the fact that someone else jay walks to get out of a fine for jay walking. Similar thing here.
Trump is not popular. Yes, in the last strecth of time he has started to be comparable to previous presidents (he is not doing that much worse than the least popular of them), but he has only ever been better off than one president in net approval at the samepoint in their presidency (to be direct, he has been more popular than Truman 3 months in total or so, so far).
It was a blue wave, for any reasonable definition. They got the 3rd greatest election (in vote margin) since 92 and the democrats are typically worse in midterms.
Why was there 1600 km between the two if every second matters? A flight ticket back and forth does not sound that expensive. Is this one of the US stories about the price of hospitals or something?
One could do some insurance like scheme for this fairly easily. Thus, e.g. if projects fail with probability x, then for each dollar the campaign would put x dollars aside in case it fails. This way, you would, on average have enough money to cover it.
I feel that this is a bad point. Unions are there to increase the bargain power of the employees. I am aware that people in the US view them as promoting seniority but that is not inherent.
E.g. Denmark, the socalist paradise or whatever it is thought of in the US, has no minimum salary, at-will employement and in general are quite high on the list of best countries to open a business in. The thing they do have is very strong unions, but the unions are only viewed as increasing bargain power (note the at-will employement). They do not protect you from getting fired or anything (except in cases where something wrong happend - it is illegal to fire a woman for being pregnant like in the US for instance).
Really? Binary sort? To the best of my knowledge there is no such sorting algorithm and a brief search found nothing as well. Binary insertion sort exists, but even that is not good CS 101 material, because it has bad complexity (O(n^2)) and is not even the simplest algorithm with that complexity (that would be bubble sort).
hopefully cops are not running around with their weapon drawn much and that seems a better starting time to my mind (it should be easy enough to figure out when they draw).
Look, you keep focusing on 1 number (relative change in the EU over the last year) and dont explain why this is the most important.
Let me come with an attempt for most important relative number (I still think absolute is better but fine): it is reasonably well-known that when you are talking climate, the standard periode of time to look over is 30 years. If you look over the last 30 years, EU has cut roughhly 1/3 and the US 1/4.
To argue that 1 year is the wrong amount of time, observe that it has roughly proceeded as follows over those 30years in EU: it is relative stable for some years followed by a sharp decline, then relative stable for some years followed by a sharp decline and so on. Yes, we entered a relative stable periode 3 years ago and as part of that went up a bit (1.7% is a bit compared to the 5% to 10% of a sharp decline). That is ok as long as we can continue the overall pattern!
Btw. I have not attacked you personally but you keep on doing that to me. While I understand the US political system (i.e. 2 parties) and culture (most people live around people with similar pov) makes attacks more attractive on people that belive something else, it still makes it harder to convince others.
Ahh! I (and I think many others based on the posts) read the title "sensible" to be for the last line of the summery and not the title.
It is true that what the US does with car emission won't make a meaningful difference, in the same sense that a relative small change anywhere does not make a meaningful difference if that is the only thing. But it would make some difference if the US got anywhere close to the current amount of emission per person of either EU or Asia. That does require making a lot of small changes like that.
I disagree that one year is a meaningful length of time for this kind of thing. It is like doing a diet and looking at the day-to-day changes. Sure, one day the person weight a bit more and one day a bit less. There is too much noise (like the person is slightly more to the one side of the weight than normal or similar) in that to be truly a good way to measure the weight. Similarly, one year of change in carbon emission is a very noisy measure. Pick a bigger number, like 5 or 10 years.
Regarding the math comment: Sure. But as you also just said, if there is no meaningful difference it does not matter. There would be no meaningful difference for climate change even with a doubling of the CO_2 production, if the absolute amount of CO_2 emission were much much smaller (this is because there are many other things that contributes to climate change besides CO_2 production). E.g. 51+0.0001 is not meaningfully different from 51+0.0002, even though the additional number in the second is twice as big.
Btw. I am unsure about why you keep on making ad hominem attacks. I am fairly sure that I have said nothing negative about you as a person. I did agree with you that EU should do better. I just also said that the US needs to improve much more, which should be comparatively easy. It is much easier to cut 10% out of daily food budget of 10$ than cutting 10% out of a daily food budget of 5$.
You, in your original post, state that it is sensible for the US to do nothing, because in the last year EU and Asia has gotten worse. Doing this you are disregarding that in the years before that they have gotten better - e.g. EU went from 6137 to 5608 from 2010 to 2016. Using your 1.7% EU is at 5704 in 2017. Yes, that is worse, but it is still much better than just a few years before.
Regarding trends vs. absolute numbers: If we had a million times less global emission, global warming would not change much based on even a doubling of emission from that. Thus, the problem is the absolute numbers and not the trend.
From 2010 to 2016, emission in Europe has gone from 6137 to 5608 (I think million ton CO_2). Yes, it is bad that it is not getting better every year, but these are quite complex things to change, so it seems reasonable that it takes a few years.
Sure, I agree that it would be better if the trends in EU and Asia were downward.
I just do not see any way that this fact means that the US, who is a lot worse than either, can point to them and say that they, the US, need do nothing.
In a nut shell, the problem is not the trends. The problem is the absolute numbers (per person)!
I agree! If EU continues like this, then, in just a few years the average European will produce HALF as much as the average American!
I do not know the total emission by Asia and I could not be bothered to calculate it by adding up the countries, but the average person in Asia still produces much less than the average American.
The fines are partly based on size. Thus, google, being big, is asked to pay more. It seems reasonably to me that this is a way around the gpâ(TM)s problem.
I am wondering if it is reasonably to give people sugar pills as a placebo to test these kinds of things. I would think that sugar does give people energy but perhaps less attention?
âoeAnother explanation is that the U.S. might just be too damned big. The Scandinavian countries are quite a bit smaller. About 40% of U.S. states have more people than Denmark, Norway, or Finland and about 20% of states are bigger than Sweden. I suspect that even if you did have a racially homogenous population, that it would start to drift culturally once you reach that size, especially given the wide variety in geography.â
I think the first part of your post is very reasonable, but surely population size is an advantage? I mean, many here do know divide-and-conquer which (I think, anyway) clearly applies here...
Yes, if there are 4 targets and you atrack 3, the obivous question is why not the 4th as well. I have not been able to come with more than 2 reasons: either it is too dangerous or you have an agreement. I can not see how in the concret case that hacking the Trump campaign (assuming no agreement) would be more dangerous for the russian goverment than hacking the other 3. Therefore, this case suggests some agreement betwen Trump and the russian goverment, which I feel is problematic.
Well, citation needed, but frankly, the fact that we hear nothing from the Trump campaign suggests four possibilites: (1) the russians tried and failed (but I think it is clear that Trump would tell everybody about this, if this was the case) (2) the russians tried and succeded but found nothing of interest. In the words said to be by Cardinal Richelieu: If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. (On the other hand, I guess you might argue that Trump does not fit into the category of most honest of men) (3) the russians tried, succeed and found something (4) the russians did not try
I think the first two, as argued, are not likely to be the right one. The last 2 suggests something problematic.
The definition (from Merriam-Webster) of capitalism is: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
There is no requirement for well regulated or anything.
This is an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. Concretely, pure capitalism seems to lead to monopolies. Instead of accepting this and thus that pure capitalism is not perfect, people try to change the definition of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, royality of the current day british sort is basically a bunch of people that have been groomed to become diplomats from birth (or since they married into the family) that you can use to interact with head of states instead of the current leader of goverment, without insulting other countries. Yes, in theory, they have some more power over laws in the country, but they never use it. Besides that they also give turists something to look at and overall bring more money in than they are paid.
It is a bit hard to come up with a good pragmatic reason why this style of royalities should be removed.
I think it is plausible that free to play games, where the goal of creating them is more or less to get people addicted (so they buy more stuff), could be more addictive than drugs or alcohol, where the goal is to give plusure. I am not sure if we are there yet, but in principle I could see that happening.
The important difference between free to play games on one side and drugs and alcohol on the other is that the cost to the individual is much lower. The cost is mainly in terms of time spend on it that could be spend more productively for the games (and lets face it, most everybody waste quite a bit of their time on things), where for drugs and alcohol it futher includes the persons health and that they can easier lead to crimes (because you need to spend much more money on getting a fix and crime is consided an easy way to get money, correctly or otherwise). It also means that it would be harder to ban, because while drugs and alcohol has negative effects on society outside the individual, the negative effects are more exclusively focused on the individual for games.
The funny part is that the quote is incorrect - either he said Celsius and the article misquotes him or he said something wrong. The melting point of stainless steel is roughly 1500-1600 C (well somewhere in the range from 1325 - 1530)!
E.g. see: https://www.bssa.org.uk/topics...
I think whether you want temperature in C or Fahrenheit is a matter of taste. I grew up with C and think it is easy enough -
0C - melting point for ice - if it is below roughly 0 it might be icy and you should be carefull
17C or so is ok to swim in
21-23C nice indoor temp.
30C a bit too hot.
100C water boils.
What more is necessary to know?
Honestly, the main problem for people with disabilities in Paris (of the physical kind anyway) is that many of the metro stations have no elevators. Hence, while it may be cheap or free for them, they will have to move further than others to get into and out of the metros (i.e. they have to go to the right metro stations - I have no idea how tricky it must be for some one with a disability that visits Paris to find out which stations they can get in and out of)... It is also annoying when you have to go up those 2-3 floors of stairs with a big suitcase.
I think they really should fix that, but I guess this is at least them starting to think of such things.
Unless the people are stacked on top of each other at a depth of 10 it will not reach 2 mio. Heck, they can only reach 120,000 if everybody is standing shoulder to shoulder and front to back.
Source:http://time.com/5490304/crowd-times-square-new-years/
This is not an investigation. This is a class action lawsuit. I am sure that if Apple loses, all these video game consoles will get class action lawsuits against them too.
Also, the way you write it make it sound like a defense of Apple. You can not use the fact that someone else jay walks to get out of a fine for jay walking. Similar thing here.
I am a bit unsure about much of what you write.
Trump is not popular. Yes, in the last strecth of time he has started to be comparable to previous presidents (he is not doing that much worse than the least popular of them), but he has only ever been better off than one president in net approval at the samepoint in their presidency (to be direct, he has been more popular than Truman 3 months in total or so, so far).
It was a blue wave, for any reasonable definition. They got the 3rd greatest election (in vote margin) since 92 and the democrats are typically worse in midterms.
Numbers from https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...
and https://projects.fivethirtyeig...
Why was there 1600 km between the two if every second matters? A flight ticket back and forth does not sound that expensive. Is this one of the US stories about the price of hospitals or something?
One could do some insurance like scheme for this fairly easily. Thus, e.g. if projects fail with probability x, then for each dollar the campaign would put x dollars aside in case it fails. This way, you would, on average have enough money to cover it.
I feel that this is a bad point. Unions are there to increase the bargain power of the employees. I am aware that people in the US view them as promoting seniority but that is not inherent.
E.g. Denmark, the socalist paradise or whatever it is thought of in the US, has no minimum salary, at-will employement and in general are quite high on the list of best countries to open a business in. The thing they do have is very strong unions, but the unions are only viewed as increasing bargain power (note the at-will employement). They do not protect you from getting fired or anything (except in cases where something wrong happend - it is illegal to fire a woman for being pregnant like in the US for instance).
Really? Binary sort? To the best of my knowledge there is no such sorting algorithm and a brief search found nothing as well. Binary insertion sort exists, but even that is not good CS 101 material, because it has bad complexity (O(n^2)) and is not even the simplest algorithm with that complexity (that would be bubble sort).
What you say makes sense. However, there is another property of voting that has some effect: if you vote, you get some stake in the goverment.
hopefully cops are not running around with their weapon drawn much and that seems a better starting time to my mind (it should be easy enough to figure out when they draw).
Look, you keep focusing on 1 number (relative change in the EU over the last year) and dont explain why this is the most important.
Let me come with an attempt for most important relative number (I still think absolute is better but fine): it is reasonably well-known that when you are talking climate, the standard periode of time to look over is 30 years. If you look over the last 30 years, EU has cut roughhly 1/3 and the US 1/4.
To argue that 1 year is the wrong amount of time, observe that it has roughly proceeded as follows over those 30years in EU: it is relative stable for some years followed by a sharp decline, then relative stable for some years followed by a sharp decline and so on. Yes, we entered a relative stable periode 3 years ago and as part of that went up a bit (1.7% is a bit compared to the 5% to 10% of a sharp decline). That is ok as long as we can continue the overall pattern!
Btw. I have not attacked you personally but you keep on doing that to me. While I understand the US political system (i.e. 2 parties) and culture (most people live around people with similar pov) makes attacks more attractive on people that belive something else, it still makes it harder to convince others.
Ahh! I (and I think many others based on the posts) read the title "sensible" to be for the last line of the summery and not the title.
It is true that what the US does with car emission won't make a meaningful difference, in the same sense that a relative small change anywhere does not make a meaningful difference if that is the only thing. But it would make some difference if the US got anywhere close to the current amount of emission per person of either EU or Asia. That does require making a lot of small changes like that.
I disagree that one year is a meaningful length of time for this kind of thing. It is like doing a diet and looking at the day-to-day changes. Sure, one day the person weight a bit more and one day a bit less. There is too much noise (like the person is slightly more to the one side of the weight than normal or similar) in that to be truly a good way to measure the weight. Similarly, one year of change in carbon emission is a very noisy measure. Pick a bigger number, like 5 or 10 years.
Regarding the math comment: Sure. But as you also just said, if there is no meaningful difference it does not matter. There would be no meaningful difference for climate change even with a doubling of the CO_2 production, if the absolute amount of CO_2 emission were much much smaller (this is because there are many other things that contributes to climate change besides CO_2 production). E.g. 51+0.0001 is not meaningfully different from 51+0.0002, even though the additional number in the second is twice as big.
Btw. I am unsure about why you keep on making ad hominem attacks. I am fairly sure that I have said nothing negative about you as a person.
I did agree with you that EU should do better. I just also said that the US needs to improve much more, which should be comparatively easy. It is much easier to cut 10% out of daily food budget of 10$ than cutting 10% out of a daily food budget of 5$.
You, in your original post, state that it is sensible for the US to do nothing, because in the last year EU and Asia has gotten worse. Doing this you are disregarding that in the years before that they have gotten better - e.g. EU went from 6137 to 5608 from 2010 to 2016. Using your 1.7% EU is at 5704 in 2017. Yes, that is worse, but it is still much better than just a few years before.
Regarding trends vs. absolute numbers: If we had a million times less global emission, global warming would not change much based on even a doubling of emission from that. Thus, the problem is the absolute numbers and not the trend.
Numbers from http://globalcarbonatlas.org/e...
From 2010 to 2016, emission in Europe has gone from 6137 to 5608 (I think million ton CO_2). Yes, it is bad that it is not getting better every year, but these are quite complex things to change, so it seems reasonable that it takes a few years.
Data from http://globalcarbonatlas.org/e...
Sure, I agree that it would be better if the trends in EU and Asia were downward.
I just do not see any way that this fact means that the US, who is a lot worse than either, can point to them and say that they, the US, need do nothing.
In a nut shell, the problem is not the trends. The problem is the absolute numbers (per person)!
I agree! If EU continues like this, then, in just a few years the average European will produce HALF as much as the average American!
I do not know the total emission by Asia and I could not be bothered to calculate it by adding up the countries, but the average person in Asia still produces much less than the average American.
The fines are partly based on size. Thus, google, being big, is asked to pay more. It seems reasonably to me that this is a way around the gpâ(TM)s problem.
I am wondering if it is reasonably to give people sugar pills as a placebo to test these kinds of things. I would think that sugar does give people energy but perhaps less attention?
âoeAnother explanation is that the U.S. might just be too damned big. The Scandinavian countries are quite a bit smaller. About 40% of U.S. states have more people than Denmark, Norway, or Finland and about 20% of states are bigger than Sweden. I suspect that even if you did have a racially homogenous population, that it would start to drift culturally once you reach that size, especially given the wide variety in geography.â
I think the first part of your post is very reasonable, but surely population size is an advantage? I mean, many here do know divide-and-conquer which (I think, anyway) clearly applies here...
Yes, if there are 4 targets and you atrack 3, the obivous question is why not the 4th as well. I have not been able to come with more than 2 reasons: either it is too dangerous or you have an agreement. I can not see how in the concret case that hacking the Trump campaign (assuming no agreement) would be more dangerous for the russian goverment than hacking the other 3.
Therefore, this case suggests some agreement betwen Trump and the russian goverment, which I feel is problematic.
Well, citation needed, but frankly, the fact that we hear nothing from the Trump campaign suggests four possibilites:
(1) the russians tried and failed (but I think it is clear that Trump would tell everybody about this, if this was the case)
(2) the russians tried and succeded but found nothing of interest. In the words said to be by Cardinal Richelieu:
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
(On the other hand, I guess you might argue that Trump does not fit into the category of most honest of men)
(3) the russians tried, succeed and found something
(4) the russians did not try
I think the first two, as argued, are not likely to be the right one. The last 2 suggests something problematic.
The definition (from Merriam-Webster) of capitalism is:
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
There is no requirement for well regulated or anything.
This is an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. Concretely, pure capitalism seems to lead to monopolies. Instead of accepting this and thus that pure capitalism is not perfect, people try to change the definition of it.