If this is true, it must mean that all countries except USA and Israel are muslim, since those are almost exclusively the ones targeted by islamic terrorists.
...try to be at least one blast radius away from the computer this was posted from within 2 hours, OK? There is no time to explain why, just get going.
True, but the other side of it is that Bill has so much more to lose. I'm sure the government would really, really like to get hold of his billions, and will do that if they get a chance.
So to summarize, he has both much less and much more to worry about than you and me.
It's way overdue that we get some market economy on the roads. The current Soviet style system and it's Soviet style lines and shortages has got to go.
Producing goods by tax money and handing it out for free to everyone doesn't work any better for roads than for any other good or service. I guess the reason people don't see that is that "we've always done roads this way".
Yes, I'm shamelessly pushing my political agenda here. Is that so wrong?
Video compression is done largely by storing only what is different for each frame compared to the previous one. And obviously, the more frames per second you have, the more identical to each other they will look.
So I suspect even a frame rate doubling will not have more than a 5-10% effect on file size. Just a laymans opinion, but still.
And with the same disclaimer, I'm pretty sure you can get much better than 5:1 compression.
I really like how this is an EFF case where they are on the knee jerk conservative side of things. They're not supporting some drug crazed anarchists here, but ultra wholesome Mormons. That can only help.
One thing to note is that harvesting of aquarium fish is wreaking enormous havoc on the ecosystems of the oceans right now. Primarily on the coral reefs of the planet.
If genetically engineered fish bred in captivity can outcompete some of that trade, it would be a good thing.
I think you vastly overestimate the chances of GM species (1) outperforming wild species evolution wise at the same time as (2) inflicting some real damage to human health. I think that would be a very difficult task to accomplish even for some evil scientist who tried to do it. But that's an other discussion.
Having the entire population breaking the law every day is the oldest and easiest way to establish a police state, since it means that the authorities can arrest whoever they want whenever they want.
If the populace thinks it's just an unfortunate legislative mistake it makes things that much easier for them.
As a MacOS X user and very frequent web browser, I can assure you that there are plenty of sites that will look awful or simply not even work in any other browser (Camino & Safari) than IE for MacOS X.
I don't see it as too much of a problem though, since IE will keep existing in its present form even when M$ stops developing new versions. It would be nice to be able to use only one browser, but I can live with this.
Why the US fought Hitler
on
A Mighty Wind
·
· Score: 1, Informative
The US didn't enter WW2 to stop the Holocaust or stop Hitler from getting a nuke. It entered because it was attacked by Japan in Pearl Harbor, followed by an immediate declaration of war from Germany.
For as long as it had a choice, the US chose to stay out of the war.
That's a common argument, and sounds very compelling at first look. It has some big problems if you look more closely at it though.
1. Even in Europe, it is predominanlty children of well off academic families that use this free education. If you do the math, you will find that this subsidy is a pretty substantial net transfer of money from lower income earners to higher income earners! While in the US the rich parents at least have to finance their kids own first rate education from their own pockets. And very talented poor kids have lots of scholarship options, if they want to go to university.
2. I don't have an online reference, but all the research I've seen indicates that in reality, the US has far more social mobility than Europe. In other words, if you're born poor in the US, you are more likely to end up as a rich adult than if you're born poor in Europe.
And that is the best way I know of measuring actual equality of opportunity.
M$ can not sell their products for "too much", since that is an abuse of their monopoly. And they can not sell them for "too little", since that is also an abuse of their monopoly.
So does their prices have to be set by some government competition commision then? Some capitalism...
and the fact that these events are mentioned at all means, sometime in the past, they probably did.
Possibly, but I'm more inclined to believe that they put in anything that they can possibly think of that could cause liability problems. That way, if something does actually happen, they can point to the how they warned people, so it's not their fault.
You know, when travelling was a hard earned privilege in the old Soviet Union, US conservatives found that an awful denial of civil liberties. Or when the communist government was tapping every phone call and other communication of their citizens.
It seems the problem wasn't so much that the government could decide who got to travel inside and outside the country etc, but that it wasn't a conservative government making those decisions.
That is the most common understanding of how free trade works. It is also quite wrong, but unfortunately the explanation of why is very hard to fit into a 10 second sound bite and will probably never be commonly accepted. Especially since a lot of very powerful lobby interests are aligned against it.
Milto Friedman explains it better than I can and in good detail in the excellent Free to Choose.
In short, since both parties benefit from trade, a country is always better off with no trade restrictions, even if other countries restrict some of your trade with them. "Retaliating" will hurt the other country, but also yourself, so you're better off doing nothing.
To show that this is not just some theoretical model, it is pretty easy to establish that the most prosperous countries in any era are those with the fewest trade restrictions, not those that "cheat" and impose more trade restrictions than the others, as you would expect if your 'prisoners dilemma' model was correct.
The 'self defence' defence would be credible if any of those actions took place on American soil. But in reality every single one of them involved US forces travelling to foreign countries to attack them. In cases of real self defence you don't have to travel to find the enemy, they come to you when they attack you.
I notice that when you say 'people die and go to jail' in the drug trade, you only refer to Americans as 'people'.
You need to read up on your Somali history. In the famous 'Black Hawk Down' incident, where according to US media 18 people were killed, there were actually about 1000 people killed, if you count Somalis. Most of them civilian bystanders, not child rapists as you would have us believe. And those helicopters were on a mission to capture Somali politicians the US disapproved of, not on any mission to feed people.
So the way it's set up it will create an enormous incentive for the government to make false and misleading accusations against telemarketers in order to get the fine money.
The government is also made up entirely of people, you know.
I include killed Iraqi soldiers in my numbers. Your answers illustrates the deeply disturbing but very common American view that they were not even people. I'm not aware of any serious attempts to keep track of them, but around 25000 seems like a reasonable number.
The IraqBodyCount.com numbers are pretty solidly documented, and only includes those occasions when a journalist were present, so I would think the real number is quite a bit higher.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting about how to count the prisoners and children. Should anyone killed by Saddam's regime be subtracted from the numbers of killed by the invasion forces? That's not factual reporting.
I think most everyone cares about the Iraqi suffering, and even the worst critics of the war are happy that at least one good thing came out of it.
As you describe yourself, the process of stealing a car would be quite a bit more complicated and risky under this system than at present. You have to get a set of non suspicious plates from somewhere, stop and switch plates somewhere, without arising suspicion, and then stop using the car before your stolen plates have been reported etc.
With any fake plates you would probably have to make sure that the number is registered to a car of similar color and model, or the system would be able to see that something was very wrong with your vehicle.
And this just deals with car theft. Any other criminal with a known car would have to take the same precautions constantly when travelling.
There is a lot of space between "nothing" and "everything". This system would not make it impossible to steal cars etc, but would make it much harder and less attractive and undoubtedly make it easier for the police to catch people they want to catch. If that is a good thing or not is an other issue alltogether...
Slashdot Mirror
If this is true, it must mean that all countries except USA and Israel are muslim, since those are almost exclusively the ones targeted by islamic terrorists.
Do you really believe that?
Even sadder when humans aren't considered to represent humanity.
...try to be at least one blast radius away from the computer this was posted from within 2 hours, OK? There is no time to explain why, just get going.
True, but the other side of it is that Bill has so much more to lose. I'm sure the government would really, really like to get hold of his billions, and will do that if they get a chance.
So to summarize, he has both much less and much more to worry about than you and me.
It's way overdue that we get some market economy on the roads. The current Soviet style system and it's Soviet style lines and shortages has got to go.
Producing goods by tax money and handing it out for free to everyone doesn't work any better for roads than for any other good or service. I guess the reason people don't see that is that "we've always done roads this way".
Yes, I'm shamelessly pushing my political agenda here. Is that so wrong?
That happens to everyone when they get a bit older. It did to me in the mid 80s. It's not necessarily the fault of the RIAA.
Video compression is done largely by storing only what is different for each frame compared to the previous one. And obviously, the more frames per second you have, the more identical to each other they will look.
So I suspect even a frame rate doubling will not have more than a 5-10% effect on file size. Just a laymans opinion, but still.
And with the same disclaimer, I'm pretty sure you can get much better than 5:1 compression.
I really like how this is an EFF case where they are on the knee jerk conservative side of things. They're not supporting some drug crazed anarchists here, but ultra wholesome Mormons. That can only help.
One thing to note is that harvesting of aquarium fish is wreaking enormous havoc on the ecosystems of the oceans right now. Primarily on the coral reefs of the planet.
If genetically engineered fish bred in captivity can outcompete some of that trade, it would be a good thing.
I think you vastly overestimate the chances of GM species (1) outperforming wild species evolution wise at the same time as (2) inflicting some real damage to human health. I think that would be a very difficult task to accomplish even for some evil scientist who tried to do it. But that's an other discussion.
Having the entire population breaking the law every day is the oldest and easiest way to establish a police state, since it means that the authorities can arrest whoever they want whenever they want.
If the populace thinks it's just an unfortunate legislative mistake it makes things that much easier for them.
Killing someone with your gun isn't wrong because of what you do with your gun, but because of what you do with the other person.
Perhaps the original point would have been better made as "If I OWN something, I can do whatever the fuck I want to it. Period."
As a MacOS X user and very frequent web browser, I can assure you that there are plenty of sites that will look awful or simply not even work in any other browser (Camino & Safari) than IE for MacOS X.
I don't see it as too much of a problem though, since IE will keep existing in its present form even when M$ stops developing new versions. It would be nice to be able to use only one browser, but I can live with this.
The US didn't enter WW2 to stop the Holocaust or stop Hitler from getting a nuke. It entered because it was attacked by Japan in Pearl Harbor, followed by an immediate declaration of war from Germany.
For as long as it had a choice, the US chose to stay out of the war.
That's a common argument, and sounds very compelling at first look. It has some big problems if you look more closely at it though.
1. Even in Europe, it is predominanlty children of well off academic families that use this free education. If you do the math, you will find that this subsidy is a pretty substantial net transfer of money from lower income earners to higher income earners! While in the US the rich parents at least have to finance their kids own first rate education from their own pockets. And very talented poor kids have lots of scholarship options, if they want to go to university.
2. I don't have an online reference, but all the research I've seen indicates that in reality, the US has far more social mobility than Europe. In other words, if you're born poor in the US, you are more likely to end up as a rich adult than if you're born poor in Europe.
And that is the best way I know of measuring actual equality of opportunity.
M$ can not sell their products for "too much", since that is an abuse of their monopoly. And they can not sell them for "too little", since that is also an abuse of their monopoly.
So does their prices have to be set by some government competition commision then? Some capitalism...
and the fact that these events are mentioned at all means, sometime in the past, they probably did.
Possibly, but I'm more inclined to believe that they put in anything that they can possibly think of that could cause liability problems. That way, if something does actually happen, they can point to the how they warned people, so it's not their fault.
You know, when travelling was a hard earned privilege in the old Soviet Union, US conservatives found that an awful denial of civil liberties. Or when the communist government was tapping every phone call and other communication of their citizens.
It seems the problem wasn't so much that the government could decide who got to travel inside and outside the country etc, but that it wasn't a conservative government making those decisions.
That is the most common understanding of how free trade works. It is also quite wrong, but unfortunately the explanation of why is very hard to fit into a 10 second sound bite and will probably never be commonly accepted. Especially since a lot of very powerful lobby interests are aligned against it.
Milto Friedman explains it better than I can and in good detail in the excellent Free to Choose.
In short, since both parties benefit from trade, a country is always better off with no trade restrictions, even if other countries restrict some of your trade with them. "Retaliating" will hurt the other country, but also yourself, so you're better off doing nothing.
To show that this is not just some theoretical model, it is pretty easy to establish that the most prosperous countries in any era are those with the fewest trade restrictions, not those that "cheat" and impose more trade restrictions than the others, as you would expect if your 'prisoners dilemma' model was correct.
That's gotta have some real big pixels. My 23" Apple LCD has 1920x1200!
The 'self defence' defence would be credible if any of those actions took place on American soil. But in reality every single one of them involved US forces travelling to foreign countries to attack them. In cases of real self defence you don't have to travel to find the enemy, they come to you when they attack you.
I notice that when you say 'people die and go to jail' in the drug trade, you only refer to Americans as 'people'.
You need to read up on your Somali history. In the famous 'Black Hawk Down' incident, where according to US media 18 people were killed, there were actually about 1000 people killed, if you count Somalis. Most of them civilian bystanders, not child rapists as you would have us believe. And those helicopters were on a mission to capture Somali politicians the US disapproved of, not on any mission to feed people.
So the way it's set up it will create an enormous incentive for the government to make false and misleading accusations against telemarketers in order to get the fine money.
The government is also made up entirely of people, you know.
I include killed Iraqi soldiers in my numbers. Your answers illustrates the deeply disturbing but very common American view that they were not even people. I'm not aware of any serious attempts to keep track of them, but around 25000 seems like a reasonable number.
The IraqBodyCount.com numbers are pretty solidly documented, and only includes those occasions when a journalist were present, so I would think the real number is quite a bit higher.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting about how to count the prisoners and children. Should anyone killed by Saddam's regime be subtracted from the numbers of killed by the invasion forces? That's not factual reporting.
I think most everyone cares about the Iraqi suffering, and even the worst critics of the war are happy that at least one good thing came out of it.
Why would this matter, to you or to anyone else?
Because GWB and his hawks claimed that they knew Iraq had WMD, and led their nation to war on that ground. It seems clear that was a lie.
This wasn't any little white lie either, tens of thousands of people were killed as a result of it.
1 mile = 1.6 km. You were multiplying with 0.8 it seems.
As you describe yourself, the process of stealing a car would be quite a bit more complicated and risky under this system than at present. You have to get a set of non suspicious plates from somewhere, stop and switch plates somewhere, without arising suspicion, and then stop using the car before your stolen plates have been reported etc.
With any fake plates you would probably have to make sure that the number is registered to a car of similar color and model, or the system would be able to see that something was very wrong with your vehicle.
And this just deals with car theft. Any other criminal with a known car would have to take the same precautions constantly when travelling.
There is a lot of space between "nothing" and "everything". This system would not make it impossible to steal cars etc, but would make it much harder and less attractive and undoubtedly make it easier for the police to catch people they want to catch. If that is a good thing or not is an other issue alltogether...