Basically they said that in a crowded condition, one bad decision can domino up to a traffic jam. Obviously, if there is sufficient space between the cars, this doesn't happen, (one domino does not 'hit' the other if it is far enough away). The original problem was one car cutting off another, not coming to a full stop.
If were were being totally honest with each other, the fact that humans had problems stopping in this situation means they were ALREADY driving too close to each other for the speed they were going. As such, this was a 'supersaturated' solution of cars in the road, just waiting to crystalize into a traffic jam. You could in fact say that that the jam already existed, it was just a matter of being triggered by either a safe slow down or an accident.
We could in fact THANK the one obnoxious driver that cut off people, because his actions safely crystalized the road into a traffic jam instead of experience a catastrophic crystalilization called a multi-car pile-up.
The proper solution to removing the jam is not to blame or eliminate the obnoxious driver, but instead to limit the number of people getting on the road once it has reached the super-saturated state.
Put up walls on the bridge and in the "narrowing" area, at the edge of the shoulder away from the cars.
Paint the walls so that from far away it looks like the road/bridge has a larger shoulder, but up close it is obviously a wall.
If done correctly, the up close view prevents people from 'straying' into the false shoulder. You could even make the wall cushioned.
I bet it would be safer and also reduce the traffic jam, without costing huge amounts of money.
It would be the same if you could go out and buy a WII in a store. Instead, Wii is sold out in the USA.
As such, money becomes less rellevant.
The fact that people are advertising a trade of PS3 in order to convince people to give up the rare, hard to get Wii, indicates that the Wii is not only sold out, but that people like it better than the PS3, despite the price differential.
Otherwise, people would be advertising to trade a Wii plus cash for a PS3 instead of the other way around.
Not all child abusers have tumors. More importantly, not all people with tumors become child abusers. We don't know the tumor "forced" him to become a child abuser. It almost certinaly made him ENJOY abusing children. Sure he may say "he could not resist", but that may simply have been his personal weak will. This is a pretty weak evidence.
I see the following possiblities:
1) All Human desires and activities are controlled by things like this tumor. No one had free will, everyone does what the secret biochemical commands tell us to.
2) Someone with that particular tumor loses their free will and is forced to abuse children. If you get it, you will abuse them, no matter what. This would not mean that normal humans don't have free will, just those with that tumor
3) Someone with that particular tumor is subject to strong, but resistable biochemical commands to abuse children. If you get it and are not strong willed, you will abuse them. You have Free Will still, but are going to find out how strong a person you really are.
4) Someone with that particular tumor enjoys abusing children, but has no 'biochemical command' to abuse them. If you get it, you only abuse the children only if you are weak willed. This is no different than what happens when you find a briefcase of money. Some will keep it, others with more ethics will turn it it. Why? Because both people have free will.
Without a lot more evidence, this incident says little about free will. Assuming that the worst case #1 is true is ridiculous. There is zero evidence to indicate it is true. My experience in the real world indicates that #3 is most likely to be the case.
The original 'innovation' for Palm was the fact that it had a modular bay allowing accessories to be added to it. Things like GPS units, cameras, more memory, etc.
The OS was just something they wrote because there was no other good OS for a PDA.
They made the EXACT same mistake that IBM did - thinking that their hardware was the important thing, not the software.
When I give company A permission to examine my email and categorize it for me, that in no way gives company A permission to show the email to anyone that does not work for company A.
Your argument would be similar to someone claiming "The fact that you paid the dry cleaner to clean your clothing grants the government the right to take your clothing and run tests to see if it had any blood stains on the clothing."
Such an argument is not what a court would call reasonable.
For a single floor, a non-rotating core makes sense. It minimizes friction surface, and eliminates complications. Also, you can put all the water and hookups in the core, negating the need for the funnel/low friction water tight seal.
For a whole building that is rotating, it is a different thing. Then, you need to deliver and retrieve water to the entire building, not simply the core. Also, the additional surface area goes from being negligble to significant.
1) The building does NOT keep one side at the sun all the time.
It rotates a little bit all the time, giving everyone a changing view. The solar powered bit is on the ROOF, not the side.
2) The amount of power needed to rotate the building, assuming it is round, is fairly low. You are just paying for the friction, which unless you are a fool, is almost all on the ground floor, where it meets the non-rotating base. There is no 'core' that does not rotate, - that would just create more problems, starting with increased friction.
3) New York City (and many other major cities) has several buildings with a rotating top floor that does this already. They usually contain restaurants, complete with full water and electricity.
4) Electrical hookups are simple. They work fine on a brush contact, again only on the BOTTOM floor.
5) Sewer hookups are also simple. In the bottom floor, there is a large pipe. Beneath the pipe is a gigantic inverse ring, that funnels to a pipe. It does not matter that most of the time the inverse ring is open, stuff falls down into it.
6) The only problem is the water intake, to get water to the building. This can most easily be done in the center of the building, with a pipe connection that is water tight, but low friction seal, allowing rotation. The problem factor is keeping friction down, not the water tight + allowing rotation.
It did not discuss the "remote on" issue at all. (When your TV, Stereo, etc. has a remote control that lets it turn on, that means it is really ALWAYS on, just in a kind of 'sleep' mode, draining some power, costing your money)
He also failed to give real numbers and total things up. Sure, maybe the electric clothes dryer is an energy hog as compared to say the a computer. But it does not let us know if the dryer is twice as bad as a computer, 10x, or 100x. If you have say 3 computers up and running constantly, then it still makes sense to unplug them instead of 'the energy hog' dryer, if the dryer only uses up twice the power of a single computer. I would have loved to know relative strengths, such as 1 electric stove = 7 laptops.
If you let it be too efficient, then they do things like round up all the gays, communists, jews, and anyone else they dislike and throw them in jail.
One of the major reasons the US is so sucessfull is that it created multiple layers of bureaucracy (Senate, House, Executive Branch, Legal system, State governments, etc.) instead of making one thing that just works well.
Fast governments do things without thinking, ignoring the wisdom of "hey, maybe we ought to stop and think about it before we make abortion illegal", and just go ahead and passes laws that people think they want when they are scared and terrified, instead of thinking long and hard about the long term consequences of it.
Yes, they do that. And we expect them to survive. Your point is?
How do you tell a good company from a bad company?
The bad company tells their customers what to do with the stuff they buy, and yells at them when they complain.
The good company pays attention to what their customers do with their purchases and upgrades so that the next version will be able to do it better.
That does NOT only mean 'more memory'. It also means shock resistant case and water proofing, and batteries that don't wear out (or explode).
Sony took the conservative route, using the same old selling tactics that have worked in the past.
Nintendo went for the radical chance route. It will either sell HUGE, making a mockery of PS3, or flop.
I am betting on huge. Granted, much will depend on the quality of the games that Nintendo can get out there quick.
But the honest truth is that current video games suffer from fat-slob-with-tired-thumb. It is not just a stereotype, there is some truth to it.
The Wii has the possibility of changing that. People's ARMS are getting sore, instead of thumbs. They may actually get exercise. This could just change the game radically, forever.
Imagine the day when everyone's picture of a gamer is someone with bulging arm muscles instead of bulging bellies.
Gyms could buy them and put in huge screens.
Hot cheerleaders might actually go for the gamers. A guy can dream...
I agree with this statement.
I would add other things as well. Java like to be very flexible, putting listeners, bars, and buttons as seperate items. You reall don't need all that flexibility.
If you REALLY want to reuse code and simplify your life, try making a single object that incorporates all three things. It is not that hard to have method on your bar type object auto-create a button and and a listener, and require you to implement an action for what happens when you click the button.
With a line like container_object.new ("Caption","method_goes_here"), it all gets created. It adds a new button called Caption, with the word Caption being displayed, when it gets clicked, method_goes_here gets triggered.
1) The states do NOT have the sole right to control gambling. Instead they have the sole right to control gambling internal to that state.
2) The act in question is about Internet gambling, which clearly falls under the national acts, as it almost always crosses state bounds. The US federal government has the right to pass laws about it. Note the Supreme Court has already ruled that things that are almost always inter-state, but may occasionally be interanl to a state still qualify as Inter-state. That is, even if you live in Vegas and are gambling on a web site owned by a Vegas company, it still falls under federal jurisdiction, because most such gambling would not be solely in Vegas.
3)When I said the US government has the right to pass such laws, I did not say Federal Governement. US government includes both state and Federal. Therefore my original argument stands. As such, internet gambling is DEFINITELY a federal issue, not a state issue.
I said US government. The US is a country. It is composed of many parts, including both local and national governments. I did not say US federal government. The US government applies to both state and federal. The states have the right to make it illegal to engagne in gambling within them, the federal government has the right to make it illegal to engage in interstate of inter-country gambling.
Which is exactly what has happend.
Your argument, is entirely foolish, founded on things that did not happen. The Federal Government did not in any way violate the 10th amendment.
I said US government. I did not say US federal government. The US government applies to both state and federal. The states have the right to make it illegal to engagne in gambling within them, the federal government has the right to make it illegal to engage in interstate of inter-country gambling.
I do understand. What you said "technically" was exactly what I meant. Billing you is no problem, it is done the exact same way you get billed if you buy something overseas.
1) The US government clearly has the authority to make it illegal for a US citizen, inside the US to gamble, on or off the internet. Such laws already exist and have existed for MANY decades.
2) The act in question does not do that at all. Instead it makes it illegal for US credit card companies to send payments to Internet Gambling sites. Again, this is entirely legal for the US to do. It is not a free trade issue at all. In fact, it gives a HUGE advantage to non-US companies. Foreign Credit card companies are happy, they may break into the US market. If you get a European Credit Card, even when in the US, you may use your European Credit Card to pay gambling debts to Internet gambling sites, because the European Credit Card company is not subject to US laws.
3) The problem that Antigua is claiming is that the US does allow certain types of Internet gambling, and therefore under WTO agreements, it must allow all. The WTO has offered the US to either fully ban all internet gamblign of any kind, or to let all in. The US has not yet decided which to do. The WTO would be fine if the US banned everything.
4) The problem has NOTHING at all to do with the recently passed Act, the Antigua law suit was begun in 2003, the Act passed in 2006.
5) I think the idea that Antigua would violate patents and copyrights more than it already does is silly. The US has so many, many, ways, far short of violence to punish Antigua, such as cutting off ALL payments of any kind to any company based in Antigua, that it would stupid for Antigua to do this. Instead, they will do something smarter, like impose a Tax on US services.
Tesla also invented the Radio, even though Marconi industrilized it (and tried to steal credit - but he lost the law suit and Tesla officially invented it).
1) This is not a new area. There have been many studies on this, empirical studies. As in, they test people that use cellphones vs those that don't, so it would not matter if we understood the theory or not. His argument about initial studies is foolish.
2) With so many studies, random chance means a couple are going to falsely show a non-existant risk.
3) General studies on radiation (not restricted to cell phones show that low level radiation in fact will DECREASE your chance of cancer. Most scientists believe this happens by attacking 'weaker' DNA before they develop, but being low power enough not to affect strong DNA. They still do not recommend low radiation doses.
4)Wording like 2 or 3 times risk is often used to hide really bad, unimportant results. As in, they did the study on 5,000 people, among the cell phone users 5 people got cancer, among the non-users, 2 people got it. Without hearing either the exact numbers, or the Statistical Deviation, 2x or 3x risk are words that raise a red flag meaning "This study is bullcrap"
You have it backwards. I did not attempt to prove anything, so I don't have to offer any evidence. I am not claiming that he is wrong, just that what he wrote is worthless and foolish..
I am perfectly willing to admit (for the sake of argument) that global warming may not be happening. But his article was still a piece of crap.
He made a classic error, attacking the arguments instead of attacking the theory. If you don't believe that Global Warming is happening, then you have to show that it is getting colder, or at the very least, that the amount of warming is statistically insignificant, or possibly that the warming is directly caused by things unrelated to human existence.
That would be convincing. But he did NOT even make a single claim along those lines. There was no claim "it is colder", there was no statistical analysis showing how the temperature changes are within the norms, and he made no attempt to show how X,Y, or Z, all of which are unrelated to humans, could be causing the warming.
As such, his article was moronic and foolish, not convincing.
Slashdot Mirror
Step 2. Reformat Hard Drive.
Step 3. Install Linux or whatever other Os of your choice.
Basically they said that in a crowded condition, one bad decision can domino up to a traffic jam. Obviously, if there is sufficient space between the cars, this doesn't happen, (one domino does not 'hit' the other if it is far enough away). The original problem was one car cutting off another, not coming to a full stop.
If were were being totally honest with each other, the fact that humans had problems stopping in this situation means they were ALREADY driving too close to each other for the speed they were going. As such, this was a 'supersaturated' solution of cars in the road, just waiting to crystalize into a traffic jam. You could in fact say that that the jam already existed, it was just a matter of being triggered by either a safe slow down or an accident.
We could in fact THANK the one obnoxious driver that cut off people, because his actions safely crystalized the road into a traffic jam instead of experience a catastrophic crystalilization called a multi-car pile-up.
The proper solution to removing the jam is not to blame or eliminate the obnoxious driver, but instead to limit the number of people getting on the road once it has reached the super-saturated state.
Paint the walls so that from far away it looks like the road/bridge has a larger shoulder, but up close it is obviously a wall.
If done correctly, the up close view prevents people from 'straying' into the false shoulder. You could even make the wall cushioned. I bet it would be safer and also reduce the traffic jam, without costing huge amounts of money.
It would be the same if you could go out and buy a WII in a store. Instead, Wii is sold out in the USA.
As such, money becomes less rellevant.
The fact that people are advertising a trade of PS3 in order to convince people to give up the rare, hard to get Wii, indicates that the Wii is not only sold out, but that people like it better than the PS3, despite the price differential.
Otherwise, people would be advertising to trade a Wii plus cash for a PS3 instead of the other way around.
I see the following possiblities:
1) All Human desires and activities are controlled by things like this tumor. No one had free will, everyone does what the secret biochemical commands tell us to.
2) Someone with that particular tumor loses their free will and is forced to abuse children. If you get it, you will abuse them, no matter what. This would not mean that normal humans don't have free will, just those with that tumor
3) Someone with that particular tumor is subject to strong, but resistable biochemical commands to abuse children. If you get it and are not strong willed, you will abuse them. You have Free Will still, but are going to find out how strong a person you really are.
4) Someone with that particular tumor enjoys abusing children, but has no 'biochemical command' to abuse them. If you get it, you only abuse the children only if you are weak willed. This is no different than what happens when you find a briefcase of money. Some will keep it, others with more ethics will turn it it. Why? Because both people have free will.
Without a lot more evidence, this incident says little about free will. Assuming that the worst case #1 is true is ridiculous. There is zero evidence to indicate it is true. My experience in the real world indicates that #3 is most likely to be the case.
The OS was just something they wrote because there was no other good OS for a PDA.
They made the EXACT same mistake that IBM did - thinking that their hardware was the important thing, not the software.
When I give company A permission to examine my email and categorize it for me, that in no way gives company A permission to show the email to anyone that does not work for company A.
Your argument would be similar to someone claiming "The fact that you paid the dry cleaner to clean your clothing grants the government the right to take your clothing and run tests to see if it had any blood stains on the clothing."
Such an argument is not what a court would call reasonable.
For a whole building that is rotating, it is a different thing. Then, you need to deliver and retrieve water to the entire building, not simply the core. Also, the additional surface area goes from being negligble to significant.
It rotates a little bit all the time, giving everyone a changing view. The solar powered bit is on the ROOF, not the side.
2) The amount of power needed to rotate the building, assuming it is round, is fairly low. You are just paying for the friction, which unless you are a fool, is almost all on the ground floor, where it meets the non-rotating base. There is no 'core' that does not rotate, - that would just create more problems, starting with increased friction.
3) New York City (and many other major cities) has several buildings with a rotating top floor that does this already. They usually contain restaurants, complete with full water and electricity.
4) Electrical hookups are simple. They work fine on a brush contact, again only on the BOTTOM floor.
5) Sewer hookups are also simple. In the bottom floor, there is a large pipe. Beneath the pipe is a gigantic inverse ring, that funnels to a pipe. It does not matter that most of the time the inverse ring is open, stuff falls down into it.
6) The only problem is the water intake, to get water to the building. This can most easily be done in the center of the building, with a pipe connection that is water tight, but low friction seal, allowing rotation. The problem factor is keeping friction down, not the water tight + allowing rotation.
The hot air can be generated using a solar power generator, one such device for hot air balloons already exists.
For this reason, your cost caluclation is entirely not relevant to using the method proposed in this thread.
He also failed to give real numbers and total things up. Sure, maybe the electric clothes dryer is an energy hog as compared to say the a computer. But it does not let us know if the dryer is twice as bad as a computer, 10x, or 100x. If you have say 3 computers up and running constantly, then it still makes sense to unplug them instead of 'the energy hog' dryer, if the dryer only uses up twice the power of a single computer. I would have loved to know relative strengths, such as 1 electric stove = 7 laptops.
If you let it be too efficient, then they do things like round up all the gays, communists, jews, and anyone else they dislike and throw them in jail.
One of the major reasons the US is so sucessfull is that it created multiple layers of bureaucracy (Senate, House, Executive Branch, Legal system, State governments, etc.) instead of making one thing that just works well.
Fast governments do things without thinking, ignoring the wisdom of "hey, maybe we ought to stop and think about it before we make abortion illegal", and just go ahead and passes laws that people think they want when they are scared and terrified, instead of thinking long and hard about the long term consequences of it.
How do you tell a good company from a bad company?
The bad company tells their customers what to do with the stuff they buy, and yells at them when they complain.
The good company pays attention to what their customers do with their purchases and upgrades so that the next version will be able to do it better. That does NOT only mean 'more memory'. It also means shock resistant case and water proofing, and batteries that don't wear out (or explode).
PS3 went for "Blu-ray" + "High end chips"
Sony took the conservative route, using the same old selling tactics that have worked in the past.
Nintendo went for the radical chance route. It will either sell HUGE, making a mockery of PS3, or flop.
I am betting on huge. Granted, much will depend on the quality of the games that Nintendo can get out there quick.
But the honest truth is that current video games suffer from fat-slob-with-tired-thumb. It is not just a stereotype, there is some truth to it.
The Wii has the possibility of changing that. People's ARMS are getting sore, instead of thumbs. They may actually get exercise. This could just change the game radically, forever.
Imagine the day when everyone's picture of a gamer is someone with bulging arm muscles instead of bulging bellies.
Gyms could buy them and put in huge screens.
Hot cheerleaders might actually go for the gamers. A guy can dream...
I agree with this statement. I would add other things as well. Java like to be very flexible, putting listeners, bars, and buttons as seperate items. You reall don't need all that flexibility. If you REALLY want to reuse code and simplify your life, try making a single object that incorporates all three things. It is not that hard to have method on your bar type object auto-create a button and and a listener, and require you to implement an action for what happens when you click the button. With a line like container_object.new ("Caption","method_goes_here"), it all gets created. It adds a new button called Caption, with the word Caption being displayed, when it gets clicked, method_goes_here gets triggered.
1) The states do NOT have the sole right to control gambling. Instead they have the sole right to control gambling internal to that state.
2) The act in question is about Internet gambling, which clearly falls under the national acts, as it almost always crosses state bounds. The US federal government has the right to pass laws about it. Note the Supreme Court has already ruled that things that are almost always inter-state, but may occasionally be interanl to a state still qualify as Inter-state. That is, even if you live in Vegas and are gambling on a web site owned by a Vegas company, it still falls under federal jurisdiction, because most such gambling would not be solely in Vegas.
3)When I said the US government has the right to pass such laws, I did not say Federal Governement. US government includes both state and Federal. Therefore my original argument stands. As such, internet gambling is DEFINITELY a federal issue, not a state issue.
I said US government. The US is a country. It is composed of many parts, including both local and national governments. I did not say US federal government. The US government applies to both state and federal. The states have the right to make it illegal to engagne in gambling within them, the federal government has the right to make it illegal to engage in interstate of inter-country gambling.
Which is exactly what has happend.
Your argument, is entirely foolish, founded on things that did not happen. The Federal Government did not in any way violate the 10th amendment.
I said US government. I did not say US federal government. The US government applies to both state and federal. The states have the right to make it illegal to engagne in gambling within them, the federal government has the right to make it illegal to engage in interstate of inter-country gambling.
I do understand. What you said "technically" was exactly what I meant. Billing you is no problem, it is done the exact same way you get billed if you buy something overseas.
2) The act in question does not do that at all. Instead it makes it illegal for US credit card companies to send payments to Internet Gambling sites. Again, this is entirely legal for the US to do. It is not a free trade issue at all. In fact, it gives a HUGE advantage to non-US companies. Foreign Credit card companies are happy, they may break into the US market. If you get a European Credit Card, even when in the US, you may use your European Credit Card to pay gambling debts to Internet gambling sites, because the European Credit Card company is not subject to US laws.
3) The problem that Antigua is claiming is that the US does allow certain types of Internet gambling, and therefore under WTO agreements, it must allow all. The WTO has offered the US to either fully ban all internet gamblign of any kind, or to let all in. The US has not yet decided which to do. The WTO would be fine if the US banned everything.
4) The problem has NOTHING at all to do with the recently passed Act, the Antigua law suit was begun in 2003, the Act passed in 2006.
5) I think the idea that Antigua would violate patents and copyrights more than it already does is silly. The US has so many, many, ways, far short of violence to punish Antigua, such as cutting off ALL payments of any kind to any company based in Antigua, that it would stupid for Antigua to do this. Instead, they will do something smarter, like impose a Tax on US services.
Have you heard of Global Warming? While it may not be true now (as more people are debating it), what you propose is to do it on purpose.
Whether it will be worth the time and money involved, well, that is another question.
Tesla also invented the Radio, even though Marconi industrilized it (and tried to steal credit - but he lost the law suit and Tesla officially invented it).
1) This is not a new area. There have been many studies on this, empirical studies. As in, they test people that use cellphones vs those that don't, so it would not matter if we understood the theory or not. His argument about initial studies is foolish.
2) With so many studies, random chance means a couple are going to falsely show a non-existant risk.
3) General studies on radiation (not restricted to cell phones show that low level radiation in fact will DECREASE your chance of cancer. Most scientists believe this happens by attacking 'weaker' DNA before they develop, but being low power enough not to affect strong DNA. They still do not recommend low radiation doses.
4)Wording like 2 or 3 times risk is often used to hide really bad, unimportant results. As in, they did the study on 5,000 people, among the cell phone users 5 people got cancer, among the non-users, 2 people got it. Without hearing either the exact numbers, or the Statistical Deviation, 2x or 3x risk are words that raise a red flag meaning "This study is bullcrap"
I am perfectly willing to admit (for the sake of argument) that global warming may not be happening. But his article was still a piece of crap.
He made a classic error, attacking the arguments instead of attacking the theory. If you don't believe that Global Warming is happening, then you have to show that it is getting colder, or at the very least, that the amount of warming is statistically insignificant, or possibly that the warming is directly caused by things unrelated to human existence.
That would be convincing. But he did NOT even make a single claim along those lines. There was no claim "it is colder", there was no statistical analysis showing how the temperature changes are within the norms, and he made no attempt to show how X,Y, or Z, all of which are unrelated to humans, could be causing the warming.
As such, his article was moronic and foolish, not convincing.