Of course, that should mean that under US tax law, the amount people would pay to be an astronaut counts as imputed income on top of the 60k salary, and therefore should be taxed, but whatever.
So what if you volunteer to do something for free because you just want to do it? Isn't what you're saying tantamout to putting a tax on having fun? =Smidge=
So you're saying that, if only those insurance company CEOs would live a humble life, your insurance would be cheaper? I'm skeptical the impact would be that great.
Insurance is all about risk assessment. As an insurance provider, I need to figure out three things:
1) How likely you are to have an accident 2) How much that accident is likely to cost me (as an insurer) 3) How much I should charge, based on 1 and 2, so that I can pay all claims laid against my company and still cover the cost of operations plus profit.
Yes, insurance companies use every excuse they can to avoid paying, but there is enough competition (at least in my area) to keep prices from skyrocketing out of control. That means it is in the company's best interest to keep the prices competitive... which means statistics (1) and (2) become very important.
If everyone drove safely and accidents were more rare, then as a company I wouldn't have to pay out as often, and I can charge less knowing that the greater length of time between payouts compensates for the smaller payments. The more competitive my prices, the more customers I can get and the better my profit margin.
People who drive like assholes have much more influence on insurance costs than the CEO's choice of lifestyle. Do us all a favor and don't drive like an asshole. =Smidge=
Perhaps it's not so much identifying the real identity of the individual, but rather the ability to identify a particular anonymous writer apart from a whole group of anonymous writers.
In other words: they may not know the real names, but they can identify all the anonymous posts made by the same person with 95% accuracy. That seems much more doable compared to divining a person's real identity from nothing more than a pile of anonymous data. =Smidge=
"Jatropha oil is vegetable oil produced from the seeds of the Jatropha curcas, a plant that can grow in wastelands. Jatropha curcas grows almost anywhere, even on gravelly, sandy and saline soils. It can thrive on the poorest stony soil and grow in the crevices of rocks."
A hectare (2.47 acres) of jatropha produces 1,892 liters (500 gallons) of fuel. 202 gallons per acre.
Hemp seed yields 15 gallons per acre.
As much as I think hemp is a valuable crop - which it certainly is - the jatropha seems like a better choice for biofuel production. Over 12 times better, in fact. =Smidge=
That quote has the same sentiment as "Everything that can be invented has been invented." (falsely attributed to various US patent office commissioners).
Intelligence isn't going to make invention obsolete unless there is artificial creativity to go with it. Some problems don't even present themselves as such until you try doing something different and non-obvious - almost random - and begin to realize new possibilities rather than refining existing ones.
How many great inventions came about because someone decided to try something just for the hell of it, without even thinking of the possibilities? =Smidge=
Nice strawman, jackass. The sugar IS stable; the potassium chlorate is not. Call me when children start bursting into flames when the candy in their pockets spontaneously ignites.
Just to expand on that: Sugar contains about 16KJ per gram. A Li-Ion battery can store up to 150 Watt-Hours per Kilogram (source)... which, if I'm doing the conversion right, is 150 W-h/kg * 3600 seconds/h * 0.001 kg/gram = 540 joules per gram - about 1/30th the density of sugar.
Sugar is stable because you need to input more energy in order to release the stored potential. This isn't conductive to a battery (no pun intended) since it would either have to output power all the time, recycling some of the output to maintain the process, or contain some other energy source to start the process when you need it (ie: a battery... and somehow I find the idea of a "battery powered battery" entertaining.)
Catalysts can greatly reduce the energy needed to trigger the reaction of course, sometimes low enough that the energy in ambient temperatures is enough (making the reaction appear spontaneous). By definition, this ruins the "stablility" of sugar as an energy storage medium, and you're right back where you started - the possability of an uncontrolled release of energy, only with 30 times more energy per unit mass. =Smidge=
I'm not quite sure how you made that connection... do you suppose that any "religion" the government deems annoying enough to suppress would be taxed into oblivion? If not, I can't see how taxing the churches would create a situation that can't already be created.
If anything I'd be afraid of the exact opposite. 501(c)(3) status requires that the organization stay politically neutral (no campaigning). Of course the church as a whole is politically bias to the right to put it nicely. If we take away 501(c)(3) status then they are technically free to campaign all they want, and this country just might collapse into a genuine theocracy within a single election cycle. With the tactics politicians use to rake in votes, one could argue we're already on the verge of a theocracy.
They lost the status in the late 60's and they sued the IRS six ways from Sunday. They settled in 1993, paid the IRS some $12M in back taxes (a fraction of what it should have been) and got their tax exempt status back.
To this day they claim tax exemption proves the US accepts it as a religion. =Smidge=
Then I am in full support of revoking the all churches' 501(c)(3) status within the USA. Christ said to pay taxes? Then people shouldn't be allowed to use the church as a tax break, and the church itself can pay taxes on its income too.
The Scientologists will be screwed especially hard over that one. Couldn't happen to a more deserving lot, honestly. =Smidge=
I understand what you're trying to say, but from a purely performance-oriented view this seems a piss-poor way to do things. I installed extra RAM in my computer so I could run more applications and work with larger data sets more efficiently, not so the OS can sit on it "until I need it" - which takes time that could have been used by the application I actually want to be using. That, and given Window's historically bad memory management, means I don't want Windows occupying all my PC's resources.
So are you also upset if your CPU usage isn't near 100%? After all, what's the point of paying for that fast processor if you aren't going to use it's full potential? =Smidge=
Even marginal hardware (by today's standards) is capable of rich multimedia playback without "glitches." Why, then, is MCSS even necessary?
The only explaination I can think of is: Vista does something stupid that causes media playback issues. Instead of fixing the problem, they kludge in a system that forcefully restricts other resources. This is a roundabout way of saying the OS itself is such a resource hog there isn't enough left to do everything that needs to be done, so it does seemingly arbitrary resource allocation to try and hide the problem. =Smidge=
Right, because nothing says "I trust you" like openly recording your telephone calls. I suppose it'll work in the end though - nobody will even talk to you, so you don't even get involved in the first place.
It's the Wally method of covering your ass! =Smidge=
Both types of people exist to be governed right now.
A non-delusional leader could easily make policy and set an example that does not prevent the delusional people from believing in their fairytale, while letting the rational people get on with doing rational things and making modern life possible for everyone else.
A delusional leader will invariably create policies and set examples that reinforce the delusion while hindering everyone else. If we're talking about Christianity, doing so is actually a requirement of the delusion - far too many Christians feel obligated to force their delusion on everyone else.
So no, the two options are not even remotely equivalent. =Smidge=
Creationism is for neither idiots nor the insane. A lot of Creationists/ID believers are actually fairly intelligent and level headed. Instead, they are delusional. That's a whole other ball of wax compared to stupid or insane. Of course, being stupid or insane tends to favor the delusion a bit better...
Delusional people can be much more dangerous because they do have intelligence and behave normally, and are able to apply their delusion to direct and meaningful actions.
And no, I don't think we should elect a delusional man as our leader, even though we have a history of doing so. =Smidge=
Actually, engineers routinely do get out of responsibility for disasters. Part of the reason is that they let their bosses and the prosecutors know about the "paper trail" that they have kept.
Having proof that you did everything "reasonably" possible to meet your responsibilities is not the same as not being responsible at all. (Note: Definition of "reasonably" varies, as it's often a balance between personal ethics and wanting to stay employable)
The real disappointment in this and similar disasters is that the managers who override (or ignore) the engineers are almost never held responsible.
I personally think what you are talking about is better defined as "accountability" which is a subtle but important difference. One can act in an responsible manner and still be held accountable if it goes wrong... the important thing is that you can prove you acted responsibly. The managers in your example were definitely responsible for the disaster, but they were not held accountable for it. I agree that this is bullshit of the finest quality.
Regardless, in your example the software programmers are not responsible for the result in the same way a licensed engineer is. When a bridge collapses, the engineer is often targeted directly because his signature and seal make him directly responsible for the design decisions. When software malfunctions, the company is usually the target, and the shit slides downhill until it ends up in the programmer's lap. A licensed engineer does not have the luxury of using a company as a shield.
The biggest difference is the programmer has a much easier time finding a new job afterwards, but the engineer is going to have a tough time getting a new license, if it's even possible. If he does get his license back, losing it in the first place will forever be a significant burden on his career. =Smidge=
Well, that's a very Good Thing(tm) you brought up, but ti still does not create a stong link between funds and quality. Instead, the real variable here is how that money is spent. I don't mean how it's divided between facilities, administration, transportation, etc... I mean what - and who - that money actually pays for. It sounds like you Minnesotans have your budget priorities straight but just need the actual cash. Maybe you can teach us New Yorkers a thing or two! (Doubt they'd listen...)
If you're spending the money wisely, then more oney will improve things dramatically. If you're wasting it, then more money will only mean more waste... though perhaps that's just common sense. The data is pretty clear that states that spend more money do not necessarily have better education, but sadly does not detail each state's spending habits. =Smidge=
The same standard IS applied. When an engineer is sued it is because his design was faulty, not because the building contractor used shitty concrete. If said contractor used shitty concrete, HE will be sued into oblivion.
And so will the engineer, because his responsibility doesn't end once construction starts... part of his job is to monitor the quality of materials, methods and installed equipment and to make necessary adjustments to the design if things can't be worked out in the field.
An engineer's responsibility for a job isn't over until either some other engineer takes responsibility or he dies. =Smidge=
I agree that simply throwing money at a problem is rarely a solution. But just to back up that "Some places with relatively high spending per child have the crappiest schools" idea with some data...
Page 12 ranks each state spending per pupil per year for primary and secondary education. Top 10 spenders are, in order: New York, New Jersey, DC, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Delaware, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island.
From this page: http://www.psk12.com/rating/USthreeRsphp/STATE_US_ level_Middle_CountyID_0.html (2003 data - Middle Schools only!) the overall rankings for the above top-10 spenders are, in order of spending: New York (#21), New Jersey (#16), DC (#51 - bottom of the barrel, folks!), Vermont (#5), Connecticut (#10), Massachusetts (#1), Delaware (#29), Arkansas (#43), Pennsylvania (#28), Rhode Island (#37)
Clearly there is no strong correlation between money spent and education quality. Here is a list of the top 10 states by education rank (again, middle schools only!) with their spending rank in parenthesis: Massachusetts (#5), Minnesota (#23), New Hampshire (#15), North Dakota (#25), Vermont (#4), Montana (#28), South Dakota (#41), Iowa (#30), Colorado (#31), Connecticut (#5)
Interesting that South Dakota is apparently 7th in the nation for education quality and 41st in the nation for education spending... And DC is #3 in spending but dead last in results... By a huge margin, too! The difference between #50 and #15 (33 points) is more than two thirds the distance between #1 and #50 (45 points)! Smells like corruption to me. =Smidge=
Slashdot Mirror
"Not being able to make choices" != "Not having to make choices"
=Smidge=
So what if you volunteer to do something for free because you just want to do it? Isn't what you're saying tantamout to putting a tax on having fun?
=Smidge=
So you're saying that, if only those insurance company CEOs would live a humble life, your insurance would be cheaper? I'm skeptical the impact would be that great.
Insurance is all about risk assessment. As an insurance provider, I need to figure out three things:
1) How likely you are to have an accident
2) How much that accident is likely to cost me (as an insurer)
3) How much I should charge, based on 1 and 2, so that I can pay all claims laid against my company and still cover the cost of operations plus profit.
Yes, insurance companies use every excuse they can to avoid paying, but there is enough competition (at least in my area) to keep prices from skyrocketing out of control. That means it is in the company's best interest to keep the prices competitive... which means statistics (1) and (2) become very important.
If everyone drove safely and accidents were more rare, then as a company I wouldn't have to pay out as often, and I can charge less knowing that the greater length of time between payouts compensates for the smaller payments. The more competitive my prices, the more customers I can get and the better my profit margin.
People who drive like assholes have much more influence on insurance costs than the CEO's choice of lifestyle. Do us all a favor and don't drive like an asshole.
=Smidge=
Perhaps it's not so much identifying the real identity of the individual, but rather the ability to identify a particular anonymous writer apart from a whole group of anonymous writers.
In other words: they may not know the real names, but they can identify all the anonymous posts made by the same person with 95% accuracy. That seems much more doable compared to divining a person's real identity from nothing more than a pile of anonymous data.
=Smidge=
From TFA;
"Jatropha oil is vegetable oil produced from the seeds of the Jatropha curcas, a plant that can grow in wastelands. Jatropha curcas grows almost anywhere, even on gravelly, sandy and saline soils. It can thrive on the poorest stony soil and grow in the crevices of rocks."
(From Wikipedia article on Jatropha oil)
=Smidge=
A hectare (2.47 acres) of jatropha produces 1,892 liters (500 gallons) of fuel. 202 gallons per acre.
Hemp seed yields 15 gallons per acre.
As much as I think hemp is a valuable crop - which it certainly is - the jatropha seems like a better choice for biofuel production. Over 12 times better, in fact.
=Smidge=
That quote has the same sentiment as "Everything that can be invented has been invented." (falsely attributed to various US patent office commissioners).
Intelligence isn't going to make invention obsolete unless there is artificial creativity to go with it. Some problems don't even present themselves as such until you try doing something different and non-obvious - almost random - and begin to realize new possibilities rather than refining existing ones.
How many great inventions came about because someone decided to try something just for the hell of it, without even thinking of the possibilities?
=Smidge=
Nice strawman, jackass. The sugar IS stable; the potassium chlorate is not. Call me when children start bursting into flames when the candy in their pockets spontaneously ignites.
=Smidge=
Just to expand on that: Sugar contains about 16KJ per gram. A Li-Ion battery can store up to 150 Watt-Hours per Kilogram (source)... which, if I'm doing the conversion right, is 150 W-h/kg * 3600 seconds/h * 0.001 kg/gram = 540 joules per gram - about 1/30th the density of sugar.
Sugar is stable because you need to input more energy in order to release the stored potential. This isn't conductive to a battery (no pun intended) since it would either have to output power all the time, recycling some of the output to maintain the process, or contain some other energy source to start the process when you need it (ie: a battery... and somehow I find the idea of a "battery powered battery" entertaining.)
Catalysts can greatly reduce the energy needed to trigger the reaction of course, sometimes low enough that the energy in ambient temperatures is enough (making the reaction appear spontaneous). By definition, this ruins the "stablility" of sugar as an energy storage medium, and you're right back where you started - the possability of an uncontrolled release of energy, only with 30 times more energy per unit mass.
=Smidge=
The great thing about standards is there's so many to choose from!
(Yeah, old joke... funny 'cause it's true though)
=Smidge=
I'm not quite sure how you made that connection... do you suppose that any "religion" the government deems annoying enough to suppress would be taxed into oblivion? If not, I can't see how taxing the churches would create a situation that can't already be created.
If anything I'd be afraid of the exact opposite. 501(c)(3) status requires that the organization stay politically neutral (no campaigning). Of course the church as a whole is politically bias to the right to put it nicely. If we take away 501(c)(3) status then they are technically free to campaign all they want, and this country just might collapse into a genuine theocracy within a single election cycle. With the tactics politicians use to rake in votes, one could argue we're already on the verge of a theocracy.
No thanks.
=Smidge=
Not even close.
They lost the status in the late 60's and they sued the IRS six ways from Sunday. They settled in 1993, paid the IRS some $12M in back taxes (a fraction of what it should have been) and got their tax exempt status back.
To this day they claim tax exemption proves the US accepts it as a religion.
=Smidge=
Then I am in full support of revoking the all churches' 501(c)(3) status within the USA. Christ said to pay taxes? Then people shouldn't be allowed to use the church as a tax break, and the church itself can pay taxes on its income too.
The Scientologists will be screwed especially hard over that one. Couldn't happen to a more deserving lot, honestly.
=Smidge=
I understand what you're trying to say, but from a purely performance-oriented view this seems a piss-poor way to do things. I installed extra RAM in my computer so I could run more applications and work with larger data sets more efficiently, not so the OS can sit on it "until I need it" - which takes time that could have been used by the application I actually want to be using. That, and given Window's historically bad memory management, means I don't want Windows occupying all my PC's resources.
So are you also upset if your CPU usage isn't near 100%? After all, what's the point of paying for that fast processor if you aren't going to use it's full potential?
=Smidge=
You're missing the point.
Even marginal hardware (by today's standards) is capable of rich multimedia playback without "glitches." Why, then, is MCSS even necessary?
The only explaination I can think of is: Vista does something stupid that causes media playback issues. Instead of fixing the problem, they kludge in a system that forcefully restricts other resources. This is a roundabout way of saying the OS itself is such a resource hog there isn't enough left to do everything that needs to be done, so it does seemingly arbitrary resource allocation to try and hide the problem.
=Smidge=
Right, because nothing says "I trust you" like openly recording your telephone calls. I suppose it'll work in the end though - nobody will even talk to you, so you don't even get involved in the first place.
It's the Wally method of covering your ass!
=Smidge=
I discussed this point with my boss once. I argued for e-mail:
...but with an e-mail, all parties involved have a record of when it was sent, who received it, and what was said.
There may be a record (via phone company) of when a call took place, what number was dialed, and how long it took...
That last part is hard to do with a phone conversation, legally anyway.
=Smidge=
Both types of people exist to be governed right now.
A non-delusional leader could easily make policy and set an example that does not prevent the delusional people from believing in their fairytale, while letting the rational people get on with doing rational things and making modern life possible for everyone else.
A delusional leader will invariably create policies and set examples that reinforce the delusion while hindering everyone else. If we're talking about Christianity, doing so is actually a requirement of the delusion - far too many Christians feel obligated to force their delusion on everyone else.
So no, the two options are not even remotely equivalent.
=Smidge=
Creationism is for neither idiots nor the insane. A lot of Creationists/ID believers are actually fairly intelligent and level headed. Instead, they are delusional. That's a whole other ball of wax compared to stupid or insane. Of course, being stupid or insane tends to favor the delusion a bit better...
Delusional people can be much more dangerous because they do have intelligence and behave normally, and are able to apply their delusion to direct and meaningful actions.
And no, I don't think we should elect a delusional man as our leader, even though we have a history of doing so.
=Smidge=
Complain to hte US census bureau. They compiled the data and created the Excel spreadsheet (with rankings) that I worked from.
Point me towards some relevant data and I might attempt a correction.
=Smidge=
That's why I use acid. No germs left on my hands!
Yeah, but then the spiders start crawling out from under your skin. Huge potential for infection...
=Smidge=
Having proof that you did everything "reasonably" possible to meet your responsibilities is not the same as not being responsible at all. (Note: Definition of "reasonably" varies, as it's often a balance between personal ethics and wanting to stay employable)
I personally think what you are talking about is better defined as "accountability" which is a subtle but important difference. One can act in an responsible manner and still be held accountable if it goes wrong... the important thing is that you can prove you acted responsibly. The managers in your example were definitely responsible for the disaster, but they were not held accountable for it. I agree that this is bullshit of the finest quality.
Regardless, in your example the software programmers are not responsible for the result in the same way a licensed engineer is. When a bridge collapses, the engineer is often targeted directly because his signature and seal make him directly responsible for the design decisions. When software malfunctions, the company is usually the target, and the shit slides downhill until it ends up in the programmer's lap. A licensed engineer does not have the luxury of using a company as a shield.
The biggest difference is the programmer has a much easier time finding a new job afterwards, but the engineer is going to have a tough time getting a new license, if it's even possible. If he does get his license back, losing it in the first place will forever be a significant burden on his career.
=Smidge=
Well, that's a very Good Thing(tm) you brought up, but ti still does not create a stong link between funds and quality. Instead, the real variable here is how that money is spent. I don't mean how it's divided between facilities, administration, transportation, etc... I mean what - and who - that money actually pays for. It sounds like you Minnesotans have your budget priorities straight but just need the actual cash. Maybe you can teach us New Yorkers a thing or two! (Doubt they'd listen...)
If you're spending the money wisely, then more oney will improve things dramatically. If you're wasting it, then more money will only mean more waste... though perhaps that's just common sense. The data is pretty clear that states that spend more money do not necessarily have better education, but sadly does not detail each state's spending habits.
=Smidge=
And so will the engineer, because his responsibility doesn't end once construction starts... part of his job is to monitor the quality of materials, methods and installed equipment and to make necessary adjustments to the design if things can't be worked out in the field.
An engineer's responsibility for a job isn't over until either some other engineer takes responsibility or he dies.
=Smidge=
I agree that simply throwing money at a problem is rarely a solution. But just to back up that "Some places with relatively high spending per child have the crappiest schools" idea with some data...
a rchives/education/010125.html
_ level_Middle_CountyID_0.html (2003 data - Middle Schools only!) the overall rankings for the above top-10 spenders are, in order of spending: New York (#21), New Jersey (#16), DC (#51 - bottom of the barrel, folks!), Vermont (#5), Connecticut (#10), Massachusetts (#1), Delaware (#29), Arkansas (#43), Pennsylvania (#28), Rhode Island (#37)
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/
Or, a few clicks from that page is the actual report (2005 data, released April 2007):
http://ftp2.census.gov/govs/school/05f33pub.pdf
Page 12 ranks each state spending per pupil per year for primary and secondary education. Top 10 spenders are, in order: New York, New Jersey, DC, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Delaware, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island.
From this page: http://www.psk12.com/rating/USthreeRsphp/STATE_US
Clearly there is no strong correlation between money spent and education quality. Here is a list of the top 10 states by education rank (again, middle schools only!) with their spending rank in parenthesis: Massachusetts (#5), Minnesota (#23), New Hampshire (#15), North Dakota (#25), Vermont (#4), Montana (#28), South Dakota (#41), Iowa (#30), Colorado (#31), Connecticut (#5)
Interesting that South Dakota is apparently 7th in the nation for education quality and 41st in the nation for education spending... And DC is #3 in spending but dead last in results... By a huge margin, too! The difference between #50 and #15 (33 points) is more than two thirds the distance between #1 and #50 (45 points)! Smells like corruption to me.
=Smidge=