An informal survey done my one of my coworkers at a party with his fiance's family and coworkers (a group largely composed of doctors and lawyers -- she's doing her residency) found that only 25% of the doctors would do it again (given the costs and stresses involved); many indicated they'd have stayed in medicine, but have gone for a cheaper job title (such as FNP). For the lawyers, the would-do-it-again ratio was closer to 50%.
Policies of this kind, by increasing the marginal cost of each mile, make alternatives to driving cheaper by comparison.
So -- it becomes more cost-efficient to consolidate your shopping runs and maybe go to Costco every _two_ weeks, to use alternative transportation (I recently switched to commuting with an electric-assist bicycle -- it's great exercise, much more time-efficient than driving and then later going to the gym), or to otherwise take actions which reduce your "constant" mileage level.
The car/truck has nothing to do with the moron driver.
But it does have something to do with the accident rate.
Maybe more aggressive people tend to buy a certain kind of vehicle.
Maybe some vehicles are more prone to flipping over in accidents.
Maybe some vehicles have lower accident rates on account of their anti-lock brakes and other safety features.
Insurance companies study these things, and their differences in rates are based on statistics. If they knew the future and could predict with perfect accuracy your future driving record, they could find the right rate for you personally every time -- but since they aren't omniscient, statistics are what we've got.
If it's too far or too long of a commute to ride a conventional bike, get an electric bike that makes you pedal. I recently started commuting with an Optibike, made by a company in Colorado -- it's electric-assist, sure, but I still have a heart rate in the 170-180 range (and maintain a 75-85 cadence on the flats and uphill sections, which I hope to get higher) for my 20-mile round-trip commute... while getting each way in only about twice the time it took me to drive. The Opti is geared such that the motor isn't running efficiently unless you're maintaining a pretty quick cadence, so you can't just sit back and coast without pedaling if you want to go fast -- so there's plenty of motivation to get your exercise.
So -- it's good exercise and low-impact on your time; the only place where it's higher-impact is the wallet... but if you're working so many hours you can't find time to exercise anywhere, you ought to be bringing home some good dough, right?
Certainly, there's big money on both sides -- but one of these positions is certainly more consumer-friendly than the other: One which allows new and innovative products to be introduced to the marketplace; the other extends an already substantial set of monopoly powers.
Also, no, the Supreme Court did not already rule; the Federal Circuit court did, and the Supreme Court is deciding whether to consider accepting the appeal.
It takes only a single counterexample to shed doubt on a standing theory and suggest new research is needed. Read the introductory chapter of Phantoms in the Brain for more discussion of the usefulness of single, exceptional cases (and the rest of the book -- it's an interesting read!).
Hmm -- I'll grant that there's ambiguity, but I read the article as being principally about Windows licensing, with the hardware discussion as secondary.
How is qualia evidence of anything at all, other than an interesting emergent behavior deriving from the way more recently-evolved high-level facilities interact with more longstanding ones?
It's quite straightforward to track down pathways in the brain responsible for making individual aspects of our perceptions available to the conscious mind -- disrupt the portions responsible for motion and you see the world as a series of stop-gap images, with no idea how fast anything moves; disrupt vision from reaching that portion at all and you can see nothing consciously, but can still grab a pencil someone holds in front of you or navigate a room full of obstructions -- with no idea how you did either of those things.
V.S. Ramachandran's "Phantoms in the Brain" is interesting reading, as is (from a more abstract perspective) Douglas Hofstader's Godel, Escher, Bach.
Netbooks may not be software, but netbook operating systems (which is the topic of discussion) are. "Lucerative netbook market" is a phrase uttered in this context -- it's the netbook market for operating systems, in just the way that in a discussion of auto sales the rental business market would be a market for cars sold to rental businesses, not the selling of car rental businesses themselves.
Because the "moderates" view the actual content of the bible as not important.
While there certainly exist parties whose views are that extreme, I worry about those with more severely traditionalist views lumping those with whom they disagree into the category unfairly. That said -- while we may disagree about where exactly to place the line, I think you've given an entirely fair and reasonable answer to my questions on this subject; thank you.
The global warming craze, was ironically preceede by a global cooling craze and will make way for the next idiocy once unmasked for the idiocy that it is.
Funny thing about weather -- it tends to defy attempts at short-term prediction. If (as opposed to cherry-picking a small subset of data selected to make one's point) one uses an adequately-sized dataset, the trends are quite clear. Moreover, as opposed to overstating the effects of climate change in the last few years, the IPCC's estimates for both sea level increase and reduction in mass of the ice sheets of Greenland and Antartica have been far less than what is actually observed.
A basic respect of science would make them at least explain, honestly, exactly how their scheme differs from that in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and the many European states where it's collapsing.
The United States healthcare system is doing horribly in terms of both average life expectancy and annual per-capital expenditure (or, if you prefer, total healthcare expenses as a percentage of GDP). Japan has a universal healthcare system which costs less than half the per-capita spend of the current privatized US system, and almost a full five extra years of average life expectancy.
You speak of applying scientific principals to political decisions; reproducing the Japanese experiment is an action which would do us all quite a bit of good.
How literal of a reading do you need to take before you're no longer a poseur?
Clearly, you don't believe the Pope to be genuinely religious -- he believes that Genesis was described in terms its audience could comprehend rather than trying to feed them the literal truth, and that the age of the earth can't be measured in tens of centuries. There must be a dividing line somewhere; where is it?
(On a side note, if you take the Bible to be completely without error, this means that any discrepancy whatsoever topples it totally; how do you justify the discrepancies between the accounts of Judas's death in Matthew 27:3-10 and Acts 1:18? One can be strong like steel, which is able to flex and give and thus remain intact, or strong like carbon fiber, which despite its greater nominal strength cracks or shatters when forced to move; "religious moderates" are those who take the former path, and whose core beliefs are thus able to survive and persist in a changing world).
I don't hold modern-day Christians or Jews accountable for the crimes committed by their old-testament forefathers, or self-reported instances of mass murder committed by their deity (see: Sodom, Gomorrah). Why would you expect Muslims to be held to a different and higher standard?
Anyone can sue for anything, but if you don't want it to get thrown out immediately, you have to have standing -- so the copyright owner, or someone to whom they've delegated their rights.
Talk about an uncomfortable truth. And then the real shocker : "say, how does this apply to islam ?". Boy, I wouldn't want to expose a "liberal" mind to that one.
Liberal mind here, and I don't find your question uncomfortable in the least -- as modern interpretations of Islam (as opposed to those promoted by extremists) do not lead to a fully integrated war effort, and indeed, we do not see such efforts in practice. If the civilian population of Iraq were fully aligned against us, for instance, there would be no base from which to form and arm the "citizens' protection groups" who are reasonably effective at protecting their individual neighborhoods. If Iran's culture were sufficiently unified, there would be no moderate opposition party which wishes to become a good citizen of the world.
There simply is no evidence bearing out your implied suppositions.
Usually, I've seen people cry "censorship" at any attempt to limit them from saying exactly what they want to say, when they want to say it and who they want to say it to. Thats why I requested an example. I don't think there is one that REMOTELY links to this youtube case.
There are plenty of them; look at China: Content posted to the Internet is proactively monitored, and substantial infrastructure is in place to tie activities to a Real-Life identity such that the jackboots can show up at your door if you (1) post such content as this to YouTube, (2) inform others of the existence of such content, etc. Further, infrastructure is in place to block access to locations known to host such politically sensitive content.
Now, let's back away from China, and look at Australia. A blacklist of sites is maintained by a government-affiliated organization with no oversight, putatively for the purpose of limiting access to content which is illegal for highly defensible purposes (ie. child porn) -- but that blacklist also contains sites which have posted legal correspondence with the entity overseeing the blacklist.
Now, let's move from Australia to the UK, in which legal and physical infrastructure is being put in place to record the headers of all electronic communications. In such a case, the party posting the YouTube video could be identified, as could those who inform others about its existence, those who repost it in the event of a takedown, etc. Even in the absence of jackboots -- an absence which cannot be guaranteed to persist -- are the chilling effects not clear, particularly in the case of content which purports to demonstrate that those in power will gladly resort to murder to cover up things they would prefer remain unknown?
I agree that movie ratings, as voluntarily enforced by private entities, are not censorship, and are indeed an aid (albeit a minor one) to good parenting.
The concern here is about putting tools in the hand of governments, not restricting private entities' ability to control to whom they disseminate information within the bounds of their own property.
Which is why this guy had no right to take a picture there without the consent of REI, who owns the store.
This gives REI grounds to ask him to leave, and to have him arrested for trespassing should he fail to do so. It does not give them grounds to have him arrested.
Slashdot Mirror
Digital Fortress has nothing to do with actual cryptography, as any reader with even the most remote amount of background knowledge could attest.
I had the misfortune to read that worthless dreck, which permanently cured me of any desire to purchase or read another book by Dan Brown.
Hmm -- maybe that gives it at least some worth.
An informal survey done my one of my coworkers at a party with his fiance's family and coworkers (a group largely composed of doctors and lawyers -- she's doing her residency) found that only 25% of the doctors would do it again (given the costs and stresses involved); many indicated they'd have stayed in medicine, but have gone for a cheaper job title (such as FNP). For the lawyers, the would-do-it-again ratio was closer to 50%.
I think we engineers have it good.
...which doesn't mean they aren't successful at finding the best rates possible given the factors they are permitted to rely on.
In other words: Your point?
Policies of this kind, by increasing the marginal cost of each mile, make alternatives to driving cheaper by comparison.
So -- it becomes more cost-efficient to consolidate your shopping runs and maybe go to Costco every _two_ weeks, to use alternative transportation (I recently switched to commuting with an electric-assist bicycle -- it's great exercise, much more time-efficient than driving and then later going to the gym), or to otherwise take actions which reduce your "constant" mileage level.
But it does have something to do with the accident rate.
Maybe more aggressive people tend to buy a certain kind of vehicle.
Maybe some vehicles are more prone to flipping over in accidents.
Maybe some vehicles have lower accident rates on account of their anti-lock brakes and other safety features.
Insurance companies study these things, and their differences in rates are based on statistics. If they knew the future and could predict with perfect accuracy your future driving record, they could find the right rate for you personally every time -- but since they aren't omniscient, statistics are what we've got.
Hey, Deci -- sure you want to go down that route? :)
(...by way of pretending to stay on-topic, my $.02: Mice are for the weak! Also, Vimperator is the One True Firefox interface!)
If it's too far or too long of a commute to ride a conventional bike, get an electric bike that makes you pedal. I recently started commuting with an Optibike, made by a company in Colorado -- it's electric-assist, sure, but I still have a heart rate in the 170-180 range (and maintain a 75-85 cadence on the flats and uphill sections, which I hope to get higher) for my 20-mile round-trip commute... while getting each way in only about twice the time it took me to drive. The Opti is geared such that the motor isn't running efficiently unless you're maintaining a pretty quick cadence, so you can't just sit back and coast without pedaling if you want to go fast -- so there's plenty of motivation to get your exercise.
So -- it's good exercise and low-impact on your time; the only place where it's higher-impact is the wallet... but if you're working so many hours you can't find time to exercise anywhere, you ought to be bringing home some good dough, right?
Pardon?
Certainly, there's big money on both sides -- but one of these positions is certainly more consumer-friendly than the other: One which allows new and innovative products to be introduced to the marketplace; the other extends an already substantial set of monopoly powers.
Also, no, the Supreme Court did not already rule; the Federal Circuit court did, and the Supreme Court is deciding whether to consider accepting the appeal.
It takes only a single counterexample to shed doubt on a standing theory and suggest new research is needed. Read the introductory chapter of Phantoms in the Brain for more discussion of the usefulness of single, exceptional cases (and the rest of the book -- it's an interesting read!).
Hmm -- I'll grant that there's ambiguity, but I read the article as being principally about Windows licensing, with the hardware discussion as secondary.
Two questions:
How is qualia evidence of anything at all, other than an interesting emergent behavior deriving from the way more recently-evolved high-level facilities interact with more longstanding ones?
It's quite straightforward to track down pathways in the brain responsible for making individual aspects of our perceptions available to the conscious mind -- disrupt the portions responsible for motion and you see the world as a series of stop-gap images, with no idea how fast anything moves; disrupt vision from reaching that portion at all and you can see nothing consciously, but can still grab a pencil someone holds in front of you or navigate a room full of obstructions -- with no idea how you did either of those things.
V.S. Ramachandran's "Phantoms in the Brain" is interesting reading, as is (from a more abstract perspective) Douglas Hofstader's Godel, Escher, Bach.
Sure, there's context -- the article we're all commenting on is context.
Netbooks may not be software, but netbook operating systems (which is the topic of discussion) are. "Lucerative netbook market" is a phrase uttered in this context -- it's the netbook market for operating systems, in just the way that in a discussion of auto sales the rental business market would be a market for cars sold to rental businesses, not the selling of car rental businesses themselves.
While there certainly exist parties whose views are that extreme, I worry about those with more severely traditionalist views lumping those with whom they disagree into the category unfairly. That said -- while we may disagree about where exactly to place the line, I think you've given an entirely fair and reasonable answer to my questions on this subject; thank you.
Funny thing about weather -- it tends to defy attempts at short-term prediction. If (as opposed to cherry-picking a small subset of data selected to make one's point) one uses an adequately-sized dataset, the trends are quite clear. Moreover, as opposed to overstating the effects of climate change in the last few years, the IPCC's estimates for both sea level increase and reduction in mass of the ice sheets of Greenland and Antartica have been far less than what is actually observed.
The United States healthcare system is doing horribly in terms of both average life expectancy and annual per-capital expenditure (or, if you prefer, total healthcare expenses as a percentage of GDP). Japan has a universal healthcare system which costs less than half the per-capita spend of the current privatized US system, and almost a full five extra years of average life expectancy.
You speak of applying scientific principals to political decisions; reproducing the Japanese experiment is an action which would do us all quite a bit of good.
So -- Human interpretations and understandings of the Bible are fallable, and prone to revision over time.
How exactly does this differ from the "religious moderates" position?
How literal of a reading do you need to take before you're no longer a poseur?
Clearly, you don't believe the Pope to be genuinely religious -- he believes that Genesis was described in terms its audience could comprehend rather than trying to feed them the literal truth, and that the age of the earth can't be measured in tens of centuries. There must be a dividing line somewhere; where is it?
(On a side note, if you take the Bible to be completely without error, this means that any discrepancy whatsoever topples it totally; how do you justify the discrepancies between the accounts of Judas's death in Matthew 27:3-10 and Acts 1:18? One can be strong like steel, which is able to flex and give and thus remain intact, or strong like carbon fiber, which despite its greater nominal strength cracks or shatters when forced to move; "religious moderates" are those who take the former path, and whose core beliefs are thus able to survive and persist in a changing world).
I don't hold modern-day Christians or Jews accountable for the crimes committed by their old-testament forefathers, or self-reported instances of mass murder committed by their deity (see: Sodom, Gomorrah). Why would you expect Muslims to be held to a different and higher standard?
Anyone can sue for anything, but if you don't want it to get thrown out immediately, you have to have standing -- so the copyright owner, or someone to whom they've delegated their rights.
Liberal mind here, and I don't find your question uncomfortable in the least -- as modern interpretations of Islam (as opposed to those promoted by extremists) do not lead to a fully integrated war effort, and indeed, we do not see such efforts in practice . If the civilian population of Iraq were fully aligned against us, for instance, there would be no base from which to form and arm the "citizens' protection groups" who are reasonably effective at protecting their individual neighborhoods. If Iran's culture were sufficiently unified, there would be no moderate opposition party which wishes to become a good citizen of the world.
There simply is no evidence bearing out your implied suppositions.
There are plenty of them; look at China: Content posted to the Internet is proactively monitored, and substantial infrastructure is in place to tie activities to a Real-Life identity such that the jackboots can show up at your door if you (1) post such content as this to YouTube, (2) inform others of the existence of such content, etc. Further, infrastructure is in place to block access to locations known to host such politically sensitive content.
Now, let's back away from China, and look at Australia. A blacklist of sites is maintained by a government-affiliated organization with no oversight, putatively for the purpose of limiting access to content which is illegal for highly defensible purposes (ie. child porn) -- but that blacklist also contains sites which have posted legal correspondence with the entity overseeing the blacklist.
Now, let's move from Australia to the UK, in which legal and physical infrastructure is being put in place to record the headers of all electronic communications. In such a case, the party posting the YouTube video could be identified, as could those who inform others about its existence, those who repost it in the event of a takedown, etc. Even in the absence of jackboots -- an absence which cannot be guaranteed to persist -- are the chilling effects not clear, particularly in the case of content which purports to demonstrate that those in power will gladly resort to murder to cover up things they would prefer remain unknown?
I agree that movie ratings, as voluntarily enforced by private entities, are not censorship, and are indeed an aid (albeit a minor one) to good parenting.
The concern here is about putting tools in the hand of governments, not restricting private entities' ability to control to whom they disseminate information within the bounds of their own property.
The argument is that the tools put in place for the latter purpose can also be used for the former.
Who doesn't want grandchildren?
(Now, requiring some external stimulus -- say, a hormone injection -- before being able to reproduce... that would be a nice enhancement!)
This gives REI grounds to ask him to leave, and to have him arrested for trespassing should he fail to do so. It does not give them grounds to have him arrested.