Partial ACK. Although today's computers are capable of more than they do, they are not fully exploited. But IMHO it's rather the software engineer's arrogance towards hardware. There is is ugly concept of... e.g. JAVA. Your average computer science guy will tell you: hey, if I code my quicksort in C or if I code it in JAVA, that doesn't matter because both run in O(n log n) on average - but he abstracted that the JAVA code is 30x slower because it interpreted. It's that problem. Thinking too much in O-notations. JAVA is not entirely bad and it surely has it's applications, but rather as an high-level "scripting" language. There are people who do *numerics* in JAVA or paint pixels in JAVA and that really hurts.
Yes, of course I support your opinion in general. But this problem is not only one of the insurance companies.
If you get an insurance, you pay for being insured. Not less not more. In this case, there is no "money- back-gurantee" if there is no car crash/whatsoever in the time you pay.
The problem is, that insurance companies see so much fraud. I've spoke to too many people how are convinced that, because they paid for their insurance, they have the *right* to get something back. Not all of them are fraudsters, but surely some of them will try to get "their" money "back".
People are not getting a grip on the basic idea of an insurance.
From the iraqbodycount-Project (quote from a news site because they updated their page and the quote disappeared):
The B-2 bomber carries sixteen 2'000 lb. JDAM bombs. If all goes 100% as planned (the bomb does not fall outside of its specified margin of error of 13 meters, and the GPS guidance system is not foiled by a $50 radio jammer kit, easily purchased), then here is what one such bomb does:
everyone within a 120 meter radius is killed;
to be safe from serious shrapnel damage, a person must be at least 365 meters away;
to be really safe from all effects of fragmentation, a person must be 1000 meters away, according to Admiral Stufflebeem.
The B-2s will be used upon targets within Baghdad. -Prof Marc W. Herold, IBC Project Consultant
Work should make life easier and if innovation makes work more and more superfluous, why not reduce work for all? I said reduce, not abolish.
I've come across mainly two opinions about unemployment: They are lazy and/or superfluous humans, so they deserve no right to live (a bit exaggerated, but the maxime is this) and: we have no work left, so we should all get lazy and do nothing, world is a paradise.
IMHO, they are both wrong. But I'm more in favor less work, less economic effience, more social peace than the general public seems to want. I have no solution, but this is my feeling.
I know that this sounds like old-fashioned shit. Yes, I know that.
But you have to include the unemployed people in your equation, you get bloody revolutions in the worst scenario. In history there were these high unemployment rates and many "redundant" people, dictatorships arose from this. In a economic sense, more and more people really get superfluous. They don't have an adequate education to be enough productive. Maybe you can get them to be productive. Maybe not. But who pays if there are enough replacements "available"? You can switch off the robots and let people do their work. Just to get more jobs. But isn't that a step backwards? The current economic system is in some kind of runaway-condition that got us where we are now. Good. But now there are more and more people who are not productive any more. I don't know the golden path out of this mess. But I surely know that adapt or die is a bit to simple for this problem.
In an economic sense, mentally retarded people are superfluous. People with IQ 100 are superfluous. Ill people are superfluous. Social darwinism. If you are ok at it, good for you. But I can say for sure that many people are neither adapted enough nor willing to support such a "solution".
You are probably right if you are considering "effective" in the pure economic way. I meant effective as "to catch as many criminals as possible whilst being as most non-intrusive as possible."
Your post seems to be a good argument why worker unions still have some fights left, contrary to popular belief. There seem to be things still unclear to some people and there seem to be an erosion of rights for employees. These are new areas of problems in employment, this total control, and obviously, looking at your opinion, there have to be laws to enforce human, and also productive working conditions.
> Or a novel idea, turn the phone off! This may sound easier than it seems. The boss/your wife/... may ask you later: Why have you switched off your phone at that time?! Do you have anything to hide??
And if a phone doesn't support switchting of the location-service you have to explain it, because they may have called you and not tracked you down. (At least, they could say that).
Social pressure may build up to use such a "service".
Why was the poster of the story so easily deceived by the company's advertisement and differentiated between "suspicious bosses" and "unauthorized spying". Brain-wash at work.
Yes, but there is the whole transmission line from the scanner to the counter that can be observed. And then some secret service people asking you some not-so-nice questions afterwards, if you wrote "wrong"...
I don't want to show my vote to a machine, either. That is as bad as showing it to a human.
Until someone has an idea how one can safely suppress the personal information at the man-machine interface and only give the machine statistical information (Like if you throw the vote into a box with a hundred other votes!), electronic voting is a bad idea.
Throw the paper votes into a box, let it scan them after the box is *full* and then recheck them by a human, that would be ok. But this has no advantages over the current system.
Are there open standards for voting machines and transmission protocols you can adhere to? If not, it's pretty complicated for an open source alternative to be successful. It's B2G (business-to-government) or how it's called nowaydays. They sell the government a "solution" and if it's closed source, it will be so from the top to the bottom.
The point is that media may have an opinion and they may express their opinion and print stories supporting their opinion. But they should make things clear. They should not try to hide that.
BTW: As a liberal left-winger, I only see the (neo)conservative, and far right-wing deceiving people by manipulating media, voting machines etc. by the quiet method. Often, not really legal. Contrary, very leftish people get their attention more by exaggerating facts and then believing in them. Some kind of stupidity.
Yes, and to give further arguments: - there are no reasons for a military force, acting as a police force (or wanting to be seen as such) to develop nuclear weapons further. The US military is doing this. - nuclear weapons are "problematic" if it comes to false alarms:
Putting it that extreme way is short sighted, to be polite.
Having not total control over every citizen almost certainly leads to more crime by the people, but that is the cost of more freedom. More control to the government and you have almost certainly more crimes by the government/and or companies.
And they will probably hurt us citizens more in the long term. Want examples? Google for yourself, or ask. But I'm too lazy to write them all down here.
IMHO law enforcement should be more effective and should not work by gathering information about everyone and then doing some data mining.
Right, and to ask the grandparent further: What is wrong with the RPM (un)install process??! It works, it keeps your system clean and, different to windows, it's something like a standard. The same about.debs. There are still many many installers and uninstallers for windows, all doing their own stuff, having their own interface and requiring their own space on the hdd.
Re:... at the same time as the IPv6 upgrade! ???
on
Replacing SMTP?
·
· Score: 1
Maybe you're right and it takes very long to replace SMTP and the like. But there is a difference - it is software, so it should be more easily replaced?
- Im not an US citizen. - I think it's still possible. You have to gain enough attention, then the money will flow. (If Joe Sickpack isn't completely lost)
Yes, you are right. If noone wants democracy and wants to fight for it, it will not last very long. But 1 is still a point, although I would it express in another form: "The fight for laws that deny others the possibility to exploit oneself."
Yes, you have to hold a balance. This complicated, for sure, but maybe worth the effort. Yes, I'm also not sure that it is the best thing to do, but it stood in balance for now 50+ years here.
Let me correct you at one point: > After all, I could say that German democracy sucks because it voted Hitler into power in the first place. And German free speech is terrible because it gave Hitler a platform. Would I be carted off to jail? This was in the short period of democracy, the "Weimarer Republik" in the 1920-1930s.In that time, there were no such a law.
Slashdot Mirror
Partial ACK.
Although today's computers are capable of more than they do, they are not fully exploited.
But IMHO it's rather the software engineer's arrogance towards hardware. There is is ugly concept of... e.g. JAVA. Your average computer science guy will tell you: hey, if I code my quicksort in C or if I code it in JAVA, that doesn't matter because both run in O(n log n) on average - but he abstracted that the JAVA code is 30x slower because it interpreted.
It's that problem. Thinking too much in O-notations. JAVA is not entirely bad and it surely has it's applications, but rather as an high-level "scripting" language. There are people who do *numerics* in JAVA or paint pixels in JAVA and that really hurts.
Yes, of course I support your opinion in general. But this problem is not only one of the insurance companies.
If you get an insurance, you pay for being insured. Not less not more. In this case, there is no "money- back-gurantee" if there is no car crash/whatsoever in the time you pay.
The problem is, that insurance companies see so much fraud. I've spoke to too many people how are convinced that, because they paid for their insurance, they have the *right* to get something back. Not all of them are fraudsters, but surely some of them will try to get "their" money "back".
People are not getting a grip on the basic idea of an insurance.
> A sizable percentage of Slashdot is rabidly anticonsumerist. :)
Yes, if coffee mugs, air blast cannons and HDDs do not count
From the iraqbodycount-Project (quote from a news site because they updated their page and the quote disappeared):
The B-2 bomber carries sixteen 2'000 lb. JDAM bombs. If all goes 100% as planned (the bomb does not fall outside of its specified margin of error of 13 meters, and the GPS guidance system is not foiled by a $50 radio jammer kit, easily purchased), then here is what one such bomb does:
everyone within a 120 meter radius is killed;
to be safe from serious shrapnel damage, a
person must be at least 365 meters away;
to be really safe from all effects of
fragmentation, a person must be 1000 meters away, according to Admiral Stufflebeem.
The B-2s will be used upon targets within Baghdad.
-Prof Marc W. Herold, IBC Project Consultant
Work should make life easier and if innovation makes work more and more superfluous, why not reduce work for all? I said reduce, not abolish.
I've come across mainly two opinions about unemployment: They are lazy and/or superfluous humans, so they deserve no right to live (a bit exaggerated, but the maxime is this) and: we have no work left, so we should all get lazy and do nothing, world is a paradise.
IMHO, they are both wrong. But I'm more in favor less work, less economic effience, more social peace than the general public seems to want. I have no solution, but this is my feeling.
I know that this sounds like old-fashioned shit. Yes, I know that.
But you have to include the unemployed people in your equation, you get bloody revolutions in the worst scenario. In history there were these high unemployment rates and many "redundant" people, dictatorships arose from this.
In a economic sense, more and more people really get superfluous. They don't have an adequate education to be enough productive. Maybe you can get them to be productive. Maybe not. But who pays if there are enough replacements "available"?
You can switch off the robots and let people do their work. Just to get more jobs. But isn't that a step backwards?
The current economic system is in some kind of runaway-condition that got us where we are now. Good. But now there are more and more people who are not productive any more. I don't know the golden path out of this mess.
But I surely know that adapt or die is a bit to simple for this problem.
In an economic sense, mentally retarded people are superfluous. People with IQ 100 are superfluous. Ill people are superfluous. Social darwinism. If you are ok at it, good for you. But I can say for sure that many people are neither adapted enough nor willing to support such a "solution".
Emm, think of this:
He bought his burner via credit card. Oops!
Now they have direct link between his name and the burned CDs.
Another idea:
Stack multiple displays after each other and you have real 3D.
Of course, the resolution in z axis is poor, but anyway...
You are probably right if you are considering "effective" in the pure economic way. I meant effective as "to catch as many criminals as possible whilst being as most non-intrusive as possible."
Your post seems to be a good argument why worker unions still have some fights left, contrary to popular belief. There seem to be things still unclear to some people and there seem to be an erosion of rights for employees. These are new areas of problems in employment, this total control, and obviously, looking at your opinion, there have to be laws to enforce human, and also productive working conditions.
> Or a novel idea, turn the phone off!
This may sound easier than it seems. The boss/your wife/... may ask you later:
Why have you switched off your phone at that time?!
Do you have anything to hide??
And if a phone doesn't support switchting of the location-service you have to explain it, because they may have called you and not tracked you down. (At least, they could say that).
Social pressure may build up to use such a "service".
Maybe this is trollish, but I have just to say
ACK.
Why was the poster of the story so easily deceived by the company's advertisement and differentiated between "suspicious bosses" and "unauthorized spying".
Brain-wash at work.
Yes, but there is the whole transmission line from the scanner to the counter that can be observed. And then some secret service people asking you some not-so-nice questions afterwards, if you wrote "wrong"...
I don't want to show my vote to a machine, either. That is as bad as showing it to a human.
Until someone has an idea how one can safely suppress the personal information at the man-machine interface and only give the machine statistical information (Like if you throw the vote into a box with a hundred other votes!), electronic voting is a bad idea.
Throw the paper votes into a box, let it scan them after the box is *full* and then recheck them by a human, that would be ok. But this has no advantages over the current system.
Are there open standards for voting machines and transmission protocols you can adhere to?
If not, it's pretty complicated for an open source alternative to be successful.
It's B2G (business-to-government) or how it's called nowaydays. They sell the government a "solution" and if it's closed source, it will be so from the top to the bottom.
The point is that media may have an opinion and they may express their opinion and print stories supporting their opinion. But they should make things clear. They should not try to hide that.
BTW: As a liberal left-winger, I only see the (neo)conservative, and far right-wing deceiving people by manipulating media, voting machines etc. by the quiet method. Often, not really legal.
Contrary, very leftish people get their attention more by exaggerating facts and then believing in them. Some kind of stupidity.
Yes, and to give further arguments:
u re /mar00/earlsb1.htmlw board/messages/43.htm lp ect rum-ews.htm9 0/j90/j90vonh ippel.htmlo rt/news/may2 0/nuclear520.html
- there are no reasons for a military force, acting as a police force (or wanting to be seen as such) to develop nuclear weapons further. The US military is doing this.
- nuclear weapons are "problematic" if it comes to false alarms:
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeat
http://politicaltexan.com/ww
http://www.armscontrol.ru/start/publications/s
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/19
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/rep
Scary. Shouldn't be nuclear weapons considered a relict from the cold war and be abolished?
Putting it that extreme way is short sighted, to be polite.
Having not total control over every citizen almost certainly leads to more crime by the people, but that is the cost of more freedom. More control to the government and you have almost certainly more crimes by the government/and or companies.
And they will probably hurt us citizens more in the long term. Want examples? Google for yourself, or ask. But I'm too lazy to write them all down here.
IMHO law enforcement should be more effective and should not work by gathering information about everyone and then doing some data mining.
At least, naming such a monster "the Matrix" is honest. Or, at least, kind of.
Yes, and I hope that linux new installatations will skyrocket after that :)
Right, and to ask the grandparent further: What is wrong with the RPM (un)install process??! .debs.
It works, it keeps your system clean and, different to windows, it's something like a standard. The same about
There are still many many installers and uninstallers for windows, all doing their own stuff, having their own interface and requiring their own space on the hdd.
Maybe you're right and it takes very long to replace SMTP and the like.
But there is a difference - it is software, so it should be more easily replaced?
- Im not an US citizen.
- I think it's still possible. You have to gain enough attention, then the money will flow. (If Joe Sickpack isn't completely lost)
Hmm, maybe you should start a campaign with only one special goal:
- To stop funding of politicians by donations.
Yes, you are right. If noone wants democracy and wants to fight for it, it will not last very long. But 1 is still a point, although I would it express in another form: "The fight for laws that deny others the possibility to exploit oneself."
Yes, you have to hold a balance. This complicated, for sure, but maybe worth the effort. Yes, I'm also not sure that it is the best thing to do, but it stood in balance for now 50+ years here.
Let me correct you at one point:
> After all, I could say that German democracy sucks because it voted Hitler into power in the first place. And German free speech is terrible because it gave Hitler a platform. Would I be carted off to jail?
This was in the short period of democracy, the "Weimarer Republik" in the 1920-1930s.In that time, there were no such a law.