If you want to be taken seriously hen discussing economics, displaying some knowledge of the fundamentals of the processes you are talking about might be a start. Here is your first clue: quantitative easing does not involve physically printing any money.
I thought he'd been sacked. I don't have him filtered (I like them where I can see them) and I haven't seen his stories for ages, or indeed anyone complaining about them:)
Firstly, always a pleasure to encounter a fellow appreciator of the correct way to punctuate lists. Secondly, I think it was a really bad choice of date. On a heavy travel day, when people are travelling to see family and friends, the last thing they want to do is get involved in more delays, even if they agree with the principle.
That said, I think the aim was met; security theatre is now a mainstream discussion issue, rather than something us Schneier-reading-subversives mutter darkly about.
Can you prove empirically that it is more efficient, in terms of energy consumed, to produce your "knick-knacks" locally at all points on the planet? And if it is, it is presumably cheaper, so why don't we?
Ethics are a difficult area, mode more difficult by the fact everyone has an opinion and no idea how to derive them or from what axioms and what the relative merits of each are. I don't have an answer either, except the enforced teaching of philosophy to all schoolkids.
It's a seriously sad day when shit like this gets modded insightful on here. Yes, parts of the Muslim world are in a serious mess, partly due to Western interference. But claiming they are somehow the opposite of civilisation (as if that even made sense) is just utter bullshit.
And in the NEXT shot it shows each and everyone of them killed... somehow people always forget this.
Which is rather the point, is it not? If what Chambers did was wrong, then all the re-tweeters should be punished. Somehow I think that might just show up the stupidity of the original prosecution - which was not a bomb threat. It was a stupid joke. A stern talking-to would be one thing: bending the machinery of the state over it is just wrong.
It has nothing to do with the planes. If it did, they would be dropping out the sky like flies. The reason is it wreaks havoc on the cells on the ground - handing over from cell to cell incurs an overhead and several hundred phones hitting a new cell every ten seconds causes the networks serious problems.
Frankly the NHS needs some sabotage. It absorbs vast amounts of money for very little return; despite the increases under Labour, the NHS's real outputs have not improved in the last ten years. Calling someone moronic, by the way, suggests that you don't want to discuss the issues, but instead wish to shout about your (apparently daft) point of view.
It wasn't a flame, it was a gentle needle. We're supposed to have a grasp of basic numberistics here. And no, I don't get the informative mods either, but the ways of/. are subtle and quick to anger.
Apart from the fact that a key plank of their campaign was that they would not cut the NHS budget and despite a clear rationale to do so they have not. However, I commiserate with the fact that the political wind is not blowing in your favourite direction at the moment; I had to put up with it from 1997.
Life expectancy is quite a complex beast (trust me, I'm an actuary...). It is quite possible for life expectancy at zero to be longer for one group, but life expectancy at age 60 to be longer for the other group.
It is funny, but it's also a serious problem - life expectancy is becoming more and more difficult to predict. Fifty years ago, it was quite easier: improving economy, better diet, healthcare, and work environments drove life expectancy upwards. Now we have multiple lifestyle health issues, all sorts of geriatric healthcare issues that just didn't appear on the radar until recently, plus the wildcard that is the invention of the pill that extends your lifespan by fifty years (which would instantly bankrupt all life offices).
If you get five more weeks with 10% more vacation, I'll bid 89% of your current salary to do your job, because fifty weeks holiday a year still sounds pretty sweet to me.
One easy answer to the question of how to make hard things happen (for example, making sure people run secure computers) is to mandate insurance for it. It's not a particularly liberal system, but if you can demonstrate to an insurer how you have mitigated the risk you are insuring against, you get a lower rate. Insert obligatory car analogy here.
Slashdot Mirror
You're free to say what you like. Amazon is free to not repeat whatever *you* have to say if you choose not to. End of, really.
If you want to be taken seriously hen discussing economics, displaying some knowledge of the fundamentals of the processes you are talking about might be a start. Here is your first clue: quantitative easing does not involve physically printing any money.
I thought he'd been sacked. I don't have him filtered (I like them where I can see them) and I haven't seen his stories for ages, or indeed anyone complaining about them :)
Completely ignoring the widespread evidence from a number of other countries that do exactly this - you does it. Well done.
That said, I think the aim was met; security theatre is now a mainstream discussion issue, rather than something us Schneier-reading-subversives mutter darkly about.
Can you prove empirically that it is more efficient, in terms of energy consumed, to produce your "knick-knacks" locally at all points on the planet? And if it is, it is presumably cheaper, so why don't we?
Trolling, I know, but this is emphatically not my experience. On a Samsung N150, Windows 7 is pretty tedious. On Ubuntu, it flies.
Yes, the Beatles start to expire in the UK in a couple of years. This is a good thing.
Now compare the demographics. What's the market share of young people with disposable incomes? And how are they changing?
Wouldn't be difficult. Silverstripe is something of a pile of steaming.
...you're looking for Rossum's Universal Robots, which I am disappointed to note no-one has yet brought up.
Dude, if that's the kind of spam you get, I have like no sympathy for you whatsoever. Deal with it.
Doesn't sound so different to the Holy Roman Empire to me.
Ethics are a difficult area, mode more difficult by the fact everyone has an opinion and no idea how to derive them or from what axioms and what the relative merits of each are. I don't have an answer either, except the enforced teaching of philosophy to all schoolkids.
It's a seriously sad day when shit like this gets modded insightful on here. Yes, parts of the Muslim world are in a serious mess, partly due to Western interference. But claiming they are somehow the opposite of civilisation (as if that even made sense) is just utter bullshit.
Which is rather the point, is it not? If what Chambers did was wrong, then all the re-tweeters should be punished. Somehow I think that might just show up the stupidity of the original prosecution - which was not a bomb threat. It was a stupid joke. A stern talking-to would be one thing: bending the machinery of the state over it is just wrong.
It has nothing to do with the planes. If it did, they would be dropping out the sky like flies. The reason is it wreaks havoc on the cells on the ground - handing over from cell to cell incurs an overhead and several hundred phones hitting a new cell every ten seconds causes the networks serious problems.
Frankly the NHS needs some sabotage. It absorbs vast amounts of money for very little return; despite the increases under Labour, the NHS's real outputs have not improved in the last ten years. Calling someone moronic, by the way, suggests that you don't want to discuss the issues, but instead wish to shout about your (apparently daft) point of view.
It wasn't a flame, it was a gentle needle. We're supposed to have a grasp of basic numberistics here. And no, I don't get the informative mods either, but the ways of /. are subtle and quick to anger.
Apart from the fact that a key plank of their campaign was that they would not cut the NHS budget and despite a clear rationale to do so they have not. However, I commiserate with the fact that the political wind is not blowing in your favourite direction at the moment; I had to put up with it from 1997.
Life expectancy is quite a complex beast (trust me, I'm an actuary...). It is quite possible for life expectancy at zero to be longer for one group, but life expectancy at age 60 to be longer for the other group.
It is funny, but it's also a serious problem - life expectancy is becoming more and more difficult to predict. Fifty years ago, it was quite easier: improving economy, better diet, healthcare, and work environments drove life expectancy upwards. Now we have multiple lifestyle health issues, all sorts of geriatric healthcare issues that just didn't appear on the radar until recently, plus the wildcard that is the invention of the pill that extends your lifespan by fifty years (which would instantly bankrupt all life offices).
If you get five more weeks with 10% more vacation, I'll bid 89% of your current salary to do your job, because fifty weeks holiday a year still sounds pretty sweet to me.
One easy answer to the question of how to make hard things happen (for example, making sure people run secure computers) is to mandate insurance for it. It's not a particularly liberal system, but if you can demonstrate to an insurer how you have mitigated the risk you are insuring against, you get a lower rate. Insert obligatory car analogy here.
And, of course, how to get your stuff done.