I'll have to test this when I get home--mostly replying to cancel my mismoderation.
I will check the problem later on.
As a side not--when will Excel allow for arbitrary base conversion as a standard conversion. I've found several VBS functions that will allow this up to base 36 (which is good for all numbers+letters in standard English), but I'd really like to permit this up to base 60 (suggestions on appropriate characters post 35 would be nice). I have a few things that I'm trying to do that would be nice if I could do base conversions easily
Yes, but if we can do that, then maybe we'll figure out how to jump up into the subspace bands that Weber keeps harping on about. Which honestly, if something like that existed, would be the best solution to our FTL problems with interstellar travel. Of course, Weber's only an astrophysicist, so who knows what we'll really find on our way to interstellar travel.
Unless, of course, said deity saw that, if done correctly, attending regular worship services could help people to be nicer to each other--and said deity also knew that it would only do that if those worship services were teaching certain specific bits of information. Furthermore, if the deity was really smart, said deity might also want people to know about its true nature before it revealed itself to them. So, there just might be a reason to be religious after all.
Oh, and perhaps there are some other reasons for going to church that you just haven't thought of. One of the neat things about postulating an omniscient being is that it is smarter than you are.
I am a die-hard theist. Anyone can read my posting history and see quite clearly that I believe in God. Christianity and all that.
Now that that's out of the way, let's get something straight. There are very few serious thinkers in religious circles that really believe that God literally created the world in 6 24-hour time periods then took a single 24-hour break. There is very little reason for anyone to think that, even if you take a literalist interpretation of the Bible, which is probably not a good idea.
My personal beliefs are this: first, if you are atheist, why do you care if someone else believes in God as long as their behavior and decisions either do not impact you or do not adversely impact you or the world; that is, if someone's belief in God encourages them to do good things, why is that a problem.
Second, the world was (in my view) created by God in the sense that He guided the formation to produce a world that would support a very specific type of life, and would allow humans to live and survive. He then, somehow, developed/placed/evolved humans so that we would possess certain characteristics. I tend to favor a certain set of features for all critters being developed at once and being planned so that humanity would have certain resources needed to improve their life, but that's pretty esoteric in many ways.
Third, based on the second point, IF you could do what you suggest and use a black hole to look at the earth from 100,000 years ago, I don't think that has any bearing on the validity of the Bible as a description of the creation of the world. After all, there is nothing in the sequence of events listed that is truly problematic (unless you try to interpret them as saying the earth was created before the sun, but that might be argued both ways; I personally don't think it really indicates that, although I will admit that it is unclear at best).
Ultimately the real question is this: if you had two worlds, both with roughly equal animals and plants, one of which was designed and 'created' and the other which developed 'naturally', do you think that you could really which one was which? I think that in order for a world to be created and to work, it would need to exactly resemble the natural one. Thus the question of the formation of the world and of evolution do not have any bearing on the extremists (on both sides) arguing about the existence of God--even if they say otherwise.
Christianity has bigger problems to fry, honestly. To me the biggest problem facing Christianity is not the evolution debate, but rather the problems with how so many people are failing to live according to the major principles of the system. That is, people who are famous Christians, are failing to act in a way consistent with the teachings of the New Testament. That whole business about charity, forgiveness, loving your neighbors and your enemies, and generally trying to care about and help the people around you (and complete strangers) was important. Regardless of your faith (or beliefs about religion in general), it is fairly easy to see that those behaviors are beneficial to the world at large, and ultimately to the person doing those things. But I'm rambling.
Oh, BTW, don't bother responding--these days I'm only here for one-off comments, and I'm gone.
The trouble is that intelligence may not 'obey' a Gaussian distribution. Frankly, you find me a room full of psychologists (we're the ones who mainly study this) who can agree 100% on a meaningful definition and measure of intelligence as THE definition, and I'll be shocked. As in drop over dead.
Beyond that, most intelligence tests are normalized to fit the Gaussian distribution, so while the statistics are nice, it ain't necessarily that simple in reality. If you want an excellent review of why, then read Stephen J. Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" for a good treatment of the subject.
Above that, the largest segment of the population is not stupid people--see your own comment about normal distributions. The largest segment is, rather, those individuals within one or two standard deviations of the mean (assuming normality). Thus appealing to the 'average viewer' is not the same as appealing to stupid people (and if you claim it is, then I am assuming that you are comparing them to yourself, in which case evidence that you are actually more intelligent than the 'average' person--say with an IQ 1.5 standard deviations above the mean--which would be 122.5 or above). I'm not saying you're dumb, or that you aren't smart, but that is the impression you seem to be giving.
I am guessing that most slashdottians are thinking that they are in the upper 25% or even higher in terms of IQ, but the truth is simply that programming ability is not necessarily tied to IQ, nor is the ability to work with computers. Frankly, cognitive ability tests are imperfect, and while most people here are probably quite good and capable at what they do, it doesn't mean that people who are NOT good at those things are less intelligent (a common fallacy).
As for the TV execs--they are good at one thing: making money off of TV. Some of them may have technical abilities as well, but not all of them. They will try to appeal to the largest market with an interest in their product. In the case of the Sci-fi channel, this means that they have to figure out what appeals the most to people who are into sci-fi. Frankly, at the moment they seem to be seriously screwing the pooch on this score. First SG-1, now BSG? Next they are going to quit carrying Dr. Who, Torchwood, and Atlantis all at once, start airing Gilmore girls reruns and eventually become nothing more than "Lifetime--IN THE FUTURE!!!!". The wrestling, while sometimes interesting, is more of a thing for SpikeTV. What we need is a well-funded sci-fi channel that continuously shows original and interesting sci-fi in addition to picking up excellent shows like stargate, BSG and Dr. Who.
Not this again. Let me give you the rebuttal in short:
There are good reasons to think that Deci & Ryan have an axe to grind and that the research that they use is somewhat flawed. Gary Latham (now President-Elect of SIOP, and HIGHLY respected psyhochologist) writes about it in his 2007 book "Work Motivation". Essentially (and I am heavily condensing here), there are good reasons to believe that rewarding people does not undermine motivation the way Deci argues. One of the reasons is that this conclusion is based on the idea that removing a reward results in a reduction of the desired behavior, but the removal of the reward is not a neutral event, which undermines Deci's Self-Determination Theory. In short (and I know the area reasonably well), this is hardly an area that is settled. Deci makes some bold claims, Cameron & Pierce disagree, as do lots of other well-respected psychologists.
Tell me the difference between 'positive feedback' and 'rewards', and we can discuss this more.
Actually there is one comment above that I have to disagree with. If you don't like what Google does, you may not want to do business with them, but you don't really have a choice--if you are depending on your site for revenue, then you absolutely MUST be concerned with Google, even if you never purchase advertising from them. In other words, you can't ignore Google, even if you absolutely despise them.
If someone comes up with a better search engine that also gains equal or near-equal footing with Google, then you can worry less about them, but I think it will be a VERY long time before anyone doing business on the internet can afford to ignore Google.
So while a business as a whole might decide not to purchase advertising via Google, and may not use Adsense, very few businesses can afford to ignore the monster that is Google.
I don't have an Uncle Fred (and I've got 8 or so uncles, so if anybody would, I should, statistically speaking--I think), but if I did, and he said he saw God, and he was the same type of person that saw God in the Bible (plus a few other variables I don't care to list), I would consider believing him.
Personally, however, I think that anyone today that saw God wouldn't say much about it. Theophanies are exceptionally rare in scripture, largely, I think, because it is such a personal and private event that most wouldn't really talk about it. Not that I would know. But based on the spiritual experiences I have had, I prefer to keep that sort of thing to myself. It's just bad form to do anything else, and I firmly believe that unless you are directly told to talk about it, spiritual experiences should remain under your hat. I *might* share something like that with my wife, but I'm not even sure about that. I think the most truly spiritual individuals are also fairly quiet about the actual experiences, while encouraging others to get to a point where those experiences might be possible.
Of course, I also believe in God, so the atheists around here are just going to flame me for that. Before they do, I'd just like to say this: if you deny the possibility of God, then you are not being scientific. If you are denying the existence of evidence for God, and feel that there cannot be any evidence of God, then that's the same thing--non-scientific. If, however, you deny that there is credible evidence, but that there could be some evidence if there is a God, then you are being much more scientific. Of course it is also possible to say that a particular definition of God cannot possibly present evidence (some versions of the Christian Trinity are likely in this category), but to say that there isn't a definition that could present evidence, and use that as a basis for logical non-cognitivism is disingenuous, and lacks logical basis.
As for aliens--I'd love to meet aliens too. What if we meet aliens and they look just like us? What would you say then? You do realize that while it is probable that certain characteristics would be necessary for matching capabilities, the probability that aliens would look like us at all is quite low--unless you posit a common seed/creator. Thus, while I suspect that aliens will look like us (and even have very similar DNA), if you are an atheist, then you pretty much have to bet against that. Evolution is irrelevant in this case--if you believe that Humans were created in God's image in a literal sense, then you will probably want to believe that aliens would be too. On the other hand, if I say that I am seriously contemplating this crap at 12:54 or so in the morning, you should probably ask me what I'm doing up still.
No, there wasn't a gun involved, but there might as well have been.
If you are trying to make a living by writing and selling music, then you have essentially three choices--market it on your own, make it free and try to make money touring (if you can get noticed); or you might be able to secure an independent label contract, market it essentially on your own, and hope to make money touring; or, if you get lucky, you can get noticed, sign a major label (read: RIAA) contract, and be stuck with whatever terms they offer, because while some people are good enough to have multiple labels clamoring over their stuff, this is unusual. Instead most bands are lucky to have any label be willing to sign them and there are always others willing to take your place.
The result is that RIAA labels, in effect, have huge amounts of buying power when it comes to negotiating artist contracts. These contracts are typically draconian in nature, and leave most bands actually losing money for a while, although the label is raking in lots of cash.
Now, if you go with an independent label, you just have to HOPE that you get famous and make money. The same is true of no label deals, and in all cases you are expected to tour relentlessly and hope for the best. NPR did a fluff piece on the Dresden Dolls a while back that talks about how the band was making less money than the people they had to hire to make the tour work! Sad.
The point is that being an artist isn't easy, and the RIAA does NOTHING to make it easier for the vast majority. Only a very few actually get deals that reward them in line with the amount of CDs they sell relative to the amount of work it requires from the artist.
I have no expectation of free music, but I DO expect that the price I pay get passed mostly on to the artist with only a small percentage going to the label and distributors (including the retailer). This isn't what happens, and I know why people are pissed.
I doubt that it is the arithmetic that is what bothers him. It may be mathematically valid, but that doesn't mean that it has jack to do with the way the world, especially the USA or the IRS is actually structured. In this case, unless the numbers are derived from available data, the 'proof' in a mathematical sense is absolute worthless.
It is NOT a matter of 'agreeing with their math', but a matter of whether or not their assumptions are valid, which, as other posters have demonstrated, is not not necessarily the case. I make up any numbers I want to 'prove' that we should only tax the bottom 60% of wage earners, but that would be stupid.
The truth is, the largest burden of the tax will ALWAYS be supported by top wage earners, even if we go to a fixed 10% tax (or something similar). I personally support such a move, or the Fair Tax plan (I'm not picky), because, if for no other reason, it would reduce the complexity of the tax code, and make it very easy to reduce the amount of money spent on the business of collecting taxes.
Is it 'unfair' to tax those who make more money more heavily (e.g., a progressive tax)? Perhaps, perhaps not. Of course, there are some individuals who get around this--the classic example being Steve Jobs with his infamous $1/year salary (yes, it's true). Such individuals are massively rich, make plenty of money, but not in salary, so their income tax is not very large. Yet if they paid a national sales tax on their goods, they would end up supporting a much larger portion of the taxes than they currently do.
I think you've got it. Think about this--since launch they have sold >6 MILLION units. That's a lot of frickin' Wiis. Per day, that means they've sold on the order of 77,000 units (from launch till they hit the 6 million mark). I don't know how long they had before launch to build inventory, but it couldn't have been THAT long--no one sits on much inventory when they could be making money--I'd fire a manager who did that. But even if it was two or three months, that still puts them making >30,000/day, plus all the accessories (figure 2-3x the number of controllers & slightly less than that for certain other items).
I say that they can't meet demand, and unless people just plain give up, I don't see that changing for quite a while. Even my wife, who is as non-gamer as they come, thinks it looks like fun. We'll buy one when we have the cash and can get it reasonably easy.
Part of the reason is that so many people who teach evolution insist on making the debate about evolution into one about the nature or existence of deity, or about the creation of the world or something like that. As long as that is the case, it will continue to push those that are highly religious away from the idea.
I don't care if you disagree about deity. It is NOT the place of those working in a government school to attempt to change an adolescent's beliefs about religion. The idea that evolution is contrary to the scriptures, or that it somehow proves that there is no deity is sheer idiocy. The idea that you must accept both ideas simultaneously is exactly the reason so many people disbelieve.
I am a reasonably religious person. I know of nothing in my religion that says that animals and plants and people cannot evolve. I, like many others, am not convinced that humans are related to other species, but neither do I think it ultimately matters. I believe God took a hand in the formation of this planet, and in the creation of life hereon. I don't know anything about how that would have happened, except that it is most decidedly not ex nihilo as some idiots believe. Other than that, it really doesn't matter if life evolved or was created. Evolution is only useful as a tool to either explain why certain species are the way they are, or to explain how things might change in the future. That is all
Please expound on this--I've never heard this particular accusation, and I would like to know more. Since you've already been labeled troll, I need to state that I'm serious about wanting to know more. Reliable sources please.
In case you aren't paying attention, ubuntu seems to be traversing the alphabet with release names. Breezy Badger, ?????, Dapper Drake, Edgy Eft, Feisty Fawn, Garbled Groundhog, Hungry Hippo, etc.
(Well, maybe not the Garbled Groundhog or Hungry Hippo yet, but you get the picture--although it would be WAY cool if they used Hungry Hippo!).
Don't have children if you are not prepared to be responsible for them for a couple of decades. And just exactly WHERE do you propose to place that warning label? And once you've got that idea, HOW do you plan to make sure that every device that would be used to produce children has the label?
You are misinterpreting what he said. He stated: Consider a law that says any person who kills another person shall be sentenced to death. Now consider Joe accidentally kill Bill. Under such a law, Joe is clearly guilty. However, a jury could look at the law and decide Joe doesn't deserve to be convicted and refuse to render a guilty verdict.
Implicit in this is the proof that Joe killed Bill. This is a fact and not in dispute. As a matter of practicality, lets say the accident in which Bill was killed by Joe occurred in broad daylight with thousands of onlookers and hundreds of cameras. The law, as described, would require Joe be sentenced to death--regardless of the accidental nature of the situation.
The jury, under the law, would have to render a guilty verdict (Joe killed Bill), but if you allow for jury nullification (and this is what I think we all agree on), the jury can refuse to render a guilty verdict, even though the law says Joe should be sentenced to death. The jury then is not saying that Joe is not guilty, but is saying that the law is unjust. What they actually tell the judge may be that they do not believe, despite all evidence, that Joe is guilty, but the message is that the law is unjust. This is a big difference.
Although if manufacturers and admins were really working together and really smart, Wake on LAN would become the new way to to remote upgrades and still allow the machine to shutdown for the night.
I see this scenario: Admin approves a patch/upgrade Admin pushes patch to server Server uses smart scheduling to push upgrade to machine to avoid work conflicts Machine is off/doesn't respond Server sends WAKEUP code to machine Machine boots and (as default booting solution) sends ready signal to server Server pushes patch to machine Machine is updated and turns itself back off. Repeat ad nauseum
This, or some variant, would solve most of the problems you describe. Now if I only could code...
Slashdot Mirror
I'll have to test this when I get home--mostly replying to cancel my mismoderation.
I will check the problem later on.
As a side not--when will Excel allow for arbitrary base conversion as a standard conversion. I've found several VBS functions that will allow this up to base 36 (which is good for all numbers+letters in standard English), but I'd really like to permit this up to base 60 (suggestions on appropriate characters post 35 would be nice). I have a few things that I'm trying to do that would be nice if I could do base conversions easily
Yes, but if we can do that, then maybe we'll figure out how to jump up into the subspace bands that Weber keeps harping on about. Which honestly, if something like that existed, would be the best solution to our FTL problems with interstellar travel. Of course, Weber's only an astrophysicist, so who knows what we'll really find on our way to interstellar travel.
that is just bad...
seriously, just stop.
Unless, of course, said deity saw that, if done correctly, attending regular worship services could help people to be nicer to each other--and said deity also knew that it would only do that if those worship services were teaching certain specific bits of information. Furthermore, if the deity was really smart, said deity might also want people to know about its true nature before it revealed itself to them. So, there just might be a reason to be religious after all.
Oh, and perhaps there are some other reasons for going to church that you just haven't thought of. One of the neat things about postulating an omniscient being is that it is smarter than you are.
Not this again.
I am a die-hard theist. Anyone can read my posting history and see quite clearly that I believe in God. Christianity and all that.
Now that that's out of the way, let's get something straight. There are very few serious thinkers in religious circles that really believe that God literally created the world in 6 24-hour time periods then took a single 24-hour break. There is very little reason for anyone to think that, even if you take a literalist interpretation of the Bible, which is probably not a good idea.
My personal beliefs are this: first, if you are atheist, why do you care if someone else believes in God as long as their behavior and decisions either do not impact you or do not adversely impact you or the world; that is, if someone's belief in God encourages them to do good things, why is that a problem.
Second, the world was (in my view) created by God in the sense that He guided the formation to produce a world that would support a very specific type of life, and would allow humans to live and survive. He then, somehow, developed/placed/evolved humans so that we would possess certain characteristics. I tend to favor a certain set of features for all critters being developed at once and being planned so that humanity would have certain resources needed to improve their life, but that's pretty esoteric in many ways.
Third, based on the second point, IF you could do what you suggest and use a black hole to look at the earth from 100,000 years ago, I don't think that has any bearing on the validity of the Bible as a description of the creation of the world. After all, there is nothing in the sequence of events listed that is truly problematic (unless you try to interpret them as saying the earth was created before the sun, but that might be argued both ways; I personally don't think it really indicates that, although I will admit that it is unclear at best).
Ultimately the real question is this: if you had two worlds, both with roughly equal animals and plants, one of which was designed and 'created' and the other which developed 'naturally', do you think that you could really which one was which? I think that in order for a world to be created and to work, it would need to exactly resemble the natural one. Thus the question of the formation of the world and of evolution do not have any bearing on the extremists (on both sides) arguing about the existence of God--even if they say otherwise.
Christianity has bigger problems to fry, honestly. To me the biggest problem facing Christianity is not the evolution debate, but rather the problems with how so many people are failing to live according to the major principles of the system. That is, people who are famous Christians, are failing to act in a way consistent with the teachings of the New Testament. That whole business about charity, forgiveness, loving your neighbors and your enemies, and generally trying to care about and help the people around you (and complete strangers) was important. Regardless of your faith (or beliefs about religion in general), it is fairly easy to see that those behaviors are beneficial to the world at large, and ultimately to the person doing those things. But I'm rambling.
Oh, BTW, don't bother responding--these days I'm only here for one-off comments, and I'm gone.
The trouble is that intelligence may not 'obey' a Gaussian distribution. Frankly, you find me a room full of psychologists (we're the ones who mainly study this) who can agree 100% on a meaningful definition and measure of intelligence as THE definition, and I'll be shocked. As in drop over dead.
Beyond that, most intelligence tests are normalized to fit the Gaussian distribution, so while the statistics are nice, it ain't necessarily that simple in reality. If you want an excellent review of why, then read Stephen J. Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" for a good treatment of the subject.
Above that, the largest segment of the population is not stupid people--see your own comment about normal distributions. The largest segment is, rather, those individuals within one or two standard deviations of the mean (assuming normality). Thus appealing to the 'average viewer' is not the same as appealing to stupid people (and if you claim it is, then I am assuming that you are comparing them to yourself, in which case evidence that you are actually more intelligent than the 'average' person--say with an IQ 1.5 standard deviations above the mean--which would be 122.5 or above). I'm not saying you're dumb, or that you aren't smart, but that is the impression you seem to be giving.
I am guessing that most slashdottians are thinking that they are in the upper 25% or even higher in terms of IQ, but the truth is simply that programming ability is not necessarily tied to IQ, nor is the ability to work with computers. Frankly, cognitive ability tests are imperfect, and while most people here are probably quite good and capable at what they do, it doesn't mean that people who are NOT good at those things are less intelligent (a common fallacy).
As for the TV execs--they are good at one thing: making money off of TV. Some of them may have technical abilities as well, but not all of them. They will try to appeal to the largest market with an interest in their product. In the case of the Sci-fi channel, this means that they have to figure out what appeals the most to people who are into sci-fi. Frankly, at the moment they seem to be seriously screwing the pooch on this score. First SG-1, now BSG? Next they are going to quit carrying Dr. Who, Torchwood, and Atlantis all at once, start airing Gilmore girls reruns and eventually become nothing more than "Lifetime--IN THE FUTURE!!!!". The wrestling, while sometimes interesting, is more of a thing for SpikeTV. What we need is a well-funded sci-fi channel that continuously shows original and interesting sci-fi in addition to picking up excellent shows like stargate, BSG and Dr. Who.
Wait, there's pot-flavored candy? Oh crap, I know some people who are going to be buying a ton of that...
Personally, I think that marijuana is just as dumb as the rest of the drugs--if you need chemical alterations to enjoy life, then you need help.
Not this again. Let me give you the rebuttal in short:
There are good reasons to think that Deci & Ryan have an axe to grind and that the research that they use is somewhat flawed. Gary Latham (now President-Elect of SIOP, and HIGHLY respected psyhochologist) writes about it in his 2007 book "Work Motivation". Essentially (and I am heavily condensing here), there are good reasons to believe that rewarding people does not undermine motivation the way Deci argues. One of the reasons is that this conclusion is based on the idea that removing a reward results in a reduction of the desired behavior, but the removal of the reward is not a neutral event, which undermines Deci's Self-Determination Theory. In short (and I know the area reasonably well), this is hardly an area that is settled. Deci makes some bold claims, Cameron & Pierce disagree, as do lots of other well-respected psychologists.
Tell me the difference between 'positive feedback' and 'rewards', and we can discuss this more.
Actually there is one comment above that I have to disagree with. If you don't like what Google does, you may not want to do business with them, but you don't really have a choice--if you are depending on your site for revenue, then you absolutely MUST be concerned with Google, even if you never purchase advertising from them. In other words, you can't ignore Google, even if you absolutely despise them.
If someone comes up with a better search engine that also gains equal or near-equal footing with Google, then you can worry less about them, but I think it will be a VERY long time before anyone doing business on the internet can afford to ignore Google.
So while a business as a whole might decide not to purchase advertising via Google, and may not use Adsense, very few businesses can afford to ignore the monster that is Google.
I don't have an Uncle Fred (and I've got 8 or so uncles, so if anybody would, I should, statistically speaking--I think), but if I did, and he said he saw God, and he was the same type of person that saw God in the Bible (plus a few other variables I don't care to list), I would consider believing him.
Personally, however, I think that anyone today that saw God wouldn't say much about it. Theophanies are exceptionally rare in scripture, largely, I think, because it is such a personal and private event that most wouldn't really talk about it. Not that I would know. But based on the spiritual experiences I have had, I prefer to keep that sort of thing to myself. It's just bad form to do anything else, and I firmly believe that unless you are directly told to talk about it, spiritual experiences should remain under your hat. I *might* share something like that with my wife, but I'm not even sure about that. I think the most truly spiritual individuals are also fairly quiet about the actual experiences, while encouraging others to get to a point where those experiences might be possible.
Of course, I also believe in God, so the atheists around here are just going to flame me for that. Before they do, I'd just like to say this: if you deny the possibility of God, then you are not being scientific. If you are denying the existence of evidence for God, and feel that there cannot be any evidence of God, then that's the same thing--non-scientific. If, however, you deny that there is credible evidence, but that there could be some evidence if there is a God, then you are being much more scientific. Of course it is also possible to say that a particular definition of God cannot possibly present evidence (some versions of the Christian Trinity are likely in this category), but to say that there isn't a definition that could present evidence, and use that as a basis for logical non-cognitivism is disingenuous, and lacks logical basis.
As for aliens--I'd love to meet aliens too. What if we meet aliens and they look just like us? What would you say then? You do realize that while it is probable that certain characteristics would be necessary for matching capabilities, the probability that aliens would look like us at all is quite low--unless you posit a common seed/creator. Thus, while I suspect that aliens will look like us (and even have very similar DNA), if you are an atheist, then you pretty much have to bet against that. Evolution is irrelevant in this case--if you believe that Humans were created in God's image in a literal sense, then you will probably want to believe that aliens would be too. On the other hand, if I say that I am seriously contemplating this crap at 12:54 or so in the morning, you should probably ask me what I'm doing up still.
Ack! I need more sleep.
No, there wasn't a gun involved, but there might as well have been.
If you are trying to make a living by writing and selling music, then you have essentially three choices--market it on your own, make it free and try to make money touring (if you can get noticed); or you might be able to secure an independent label contract, market it essentially on your own, and hope to make money touring; or, if you get lucky, you can get noticed, sign a major label (read: RIAA) contract, and be stuck with whatever terms they offer, because while some people are good enough to have multiple labels clamoring over their stuff, this is unusual. Instead most bands are lucky to have any label be willing to sign them and there are always others willing to take your place.
The result is that RIAA labels, in effect, have huge amounts of buying power when it comes to negotiating artist contracts. These contracts are typically draconian in nature, and leave most bands actually losing money for a while, although the label is raking in lots of cash.
Now, if you go with an independent label, you just have to HOPE that you get famous and make money. The same is true of no label deals, and in all cases you are expected to tour relentlessly and hope for the best. NPR did a fluff piece on the Dresden Dolls a while back that talks about how the band was making less money than the people they had to hire to make the tour work! Sad.
The point is that being an artist isn't easy, and the RIAA does NOTHING to make it easier for the vast majority. Only a very few actually get deals that reward them in line with the amount of CDs they sell relative to the amount of work it requires from the artist.
I have no expectation of free music, but I DO expect that the price I pay get passed mostly on to the artist with only a small percentage going to the label and distributors (including the retailer). This isn't what happens, and I know why people are pissed.
If I'm not mistaken, that's pretty obscure as a reference.
The Gods Must Be Crazy--right?
Good flick, but hardly mainstream.
I doubt that it is the arithmetic that is what bothers him. It may be mathematically valid, but that doesn't mean that it has jack to do with the way the world, especially the USA or the IRS is actually structured. In this case, unless the numbers are derived from available data, the 'proof' in a mathematical sense is absolute worthless.
It is NOT a matter of 'agreeing with their math', but a matter of whether or not their assumptions are valid, which, as other posters have demonstrated, is not not necessarily the case. I make up any numbers I want to 'prove' that we should only tax the bottom 60% of wage earners, but that would be stupid.
The truth is, the largest burden of the tax will ALWAYS be supported by top wage earners, even if we go to a fixed 10% tax (or something similar). I personally support such a move, or the Fair Tax plan (I'm not picky), because, if for no other reason, it would reduce the complexity of the tax code, and make it very easy to reduce the amount of money spent on the business of collecting taxes.
Is it 'unfair' to tax those who make more money more heavily (e.g., a progressive tax)? Perhaps, perhaps not. Of course, there are some individuals who get around this--the classic example being Steve Jobs with his infamous $1/year salary (yes, it's true). Such individuals are massively rich, make plenty of money, but not in salary, so their income tax is not very large. Yet if they paid a national sales tax on their goods, they would end up supporting a much larger portion of the taxes than they currently do.
I think you've got it. Think about this--since launch they have sold >6 MILLION units. That's a lot of frickin' Wiis. Per day, that means they've sold on the order of 77,000 units (from launch till they hit the 6 million mark). I don't know how long they had before launch to build inventory, but it couldn't have been THAT long--no one sits on much inventory when they could be making money--I'd fire a manager who did that. But even if it was two or three months, that still puts them making >30,000/day, plus all the accessories (figure 2-3x the number of controllers & slightly less than that for certain other items).
I say that they can't meet demand, and unless people just plain give up, I don't see that changing for quite a while. Even my wife, who is as non-gamer as they come, thinks it looks like fun. We'll buy one when we have the cash and can get it reasonably easy.
I did the same thing--and was going to write about it until I saw your comment. Thanks.
Part of the reason is that so many people who teach evolution insist on making the debate about evolution into one about the nature or existence of deity, or about the creation of the world or something like that. As long as that is the case, it will continue to push those that are highly religious away from the idea.
I don't care if you disagree about deity. It is NOT the place of those working in a government school to attempt to change an adolescent's beliefs about religion. The idea that evolution is contrary to the scriptures, or that it somehow proves that there is no deity is sheer idiocy. The idea that you must accept both ideas simultaneously is exactly the reason so many people disbelieve.
I am a reasonably religious person. I know of nothing in my religion that says that animals and plants and people cannot evolve. I, like many others, am not convinced that humans are related to other species, but neither do I think it ultimately matters. I believe God took a hand in the formation of this planet, and in the creation of life hereon. I don't know anything about how that would have happened, except that it is most decidedly not ex nihilo as some idiots believe. Other than that, it really doesn't matter if life evolved or was created. Evolution is only useful as a tool to either explain why certain species are the way they are, or to explain how things might change in the future. That is all
Please expound on this--I've never heard this particular accusation, and I would like to know more. Since you've already been labeled troll, I need to state that I'm serious about wanting to know more. Reliable sources please.
In case you aren't paying attention, ubuntu seems to be traversing the alphabet with release names. Breezy Badger, ?????, Dapper Drake, Edgy Eft, Feisty Fawn, Garbled Groundhog, Hungry Hippo, etc.
(Well, maybe not the Garbled Groundhog or Hungry Hippo yet, but you get the picture--although it would be WAY cool if they used Hungry Hippo!).
You saw it here first.
Oh, sure. We are supposed to believe that somehow you have special and unique insight into the inner cognitions of the POTUS? Don't think so.
That said, please, for the sake of all that's holy, tell us what we should be doing RIGHT NOW!
Hydrogen is a solution. Maybe not the best--I don't really know, but it is a solution.
Please enlighten us.
Try this: the cheat sheets on this site are generally quite good.c heat-sheet/
http://www.ilovejackdaniels.com/cheat-sheets/php-
Enjoy
Somehow, this is the most interesting and unique response to the article I've seen.
That is really fast. So, now use your mad math skills, how fast would it travel if it was 3.5 inches in diameter?
You, sir, (and I mean this in the nicest way possible) are an idiot.
First, the "problems as to where you draw the line" are so big as to be impossible to overcome.
Second, even if you could draw the line, what makes it ethically reasonable to do that.
Third, it is spelled "per se", not "persay".
Good Luck!
You are misinterpreting what he said. He stated:
Consider a law that says any person who kills another person shall be sentenced to death. Now consider Joe accidentally kill Bill. Under such a law, Joe is clearly guilty. However, a jury could look at the law and decide Joe doesn't deserve to be convicted and refuse to render a guilty verdict.
Implicit in this is the proof that Joe killed Bill. This is a fact and not in dispute. As a matter of practicality, lets say the accident in which Bill was killed by Joe occurred in broad daylight with thousands of onlookers and hundreds of cameras. The law, as described, would require Joe be sentenced to death--regardless of the accidental nature of the situation.
The jury, under the law, would have to render a guilty verdict (Joe killed Bill), but if you allow for jury nullification (and this is what I think we all agree on), the jury can refuse to render a guilty verdict, even though the law says Joe should be sentenced to death. The jury then is not saying that Joe is not guilty, but is saying that the law is unjust. What they actually tell the judge may be that they do not believe, despite all evidence, that Joe is guilty, but the message is that the law is unjust. This is a big difference.
Although if manufacturers and admins were really working together and really smart, Wake on LAN would become the new way to to remote upgrades and still allow the machine to shutdown for the night.
I see this scenario:
Admin approves a patch/upgrade
Admin pushes patch to server
Server uses smart scheduling to push upgrade to machine to avoid work conflicts
Machine is off/doesn't respond
Server sends WAKEUP code to machine
Machine boots and (as default booting solution) sends ready signal to server
Server pushes patch to machine
Machine is updated and turns itself back off.
Repeat ad nauseum
This, or some variant, would solve most of the problems you describe. Now if I only could code...