What's the point in publishing a paper that you want no one to cite!? It's point is precisely what everyone hates about academic journals. Gouging taxpayers. The research is done with taxpayers money. The journal will be bought with heavily-subsidized-by-taxpayers tuition money.
First of all, it's not a guy. It's a gal. Quite a cute one, too. So if you haven't noticed that, we know you haven't even clicked on the link before making your statements. Unless... and I do see conspiracies everywhere, you are in fact the owner of the blog making statements as outrageous as you just made anonymously just to provoke this inevitable response.
The first poster in response to her blog is actually on Wiley editorial board. And he agrees with her -- not the company. This is the problem with lawyers running everything. It's very hard to get them to understand the world beyond dollar signs -- most of them just don't have the background.
So, your saying that requiring businesses to do things is not the same as requiring businesses to do thing.
I said nothing of the kind. But it's ok. I am tired of this argument. I'll just go ahead and laugh at you now. I made it pretty certain to make a distinction between a government regulating a business and a government telling a business what type of business to conduct. In some abstract sense there is no difference between a government collecting taxes and a government telling a fork manufacturer to also manufacture spoons. But that abstract sense is not the only view on the world. You try to force your abstraction on this argument. Well, let me explain to you what is an abstraction then. It is a view on a topic that throws away all details that are not pertinent (to the abstraction -- not to the topic). Well, the details that you wish to ignore when you compare regulation vs forcing to conduct business in areas other than those that a business wishes to conduct itself in are in fact pertinent details. They are the details that make the difference between government-imposed slavery and government-imposed regulation.
Pretty sure the bakery store down the corner and the flower shop next to them. And don't try to argue that they are forced to comply with certain government established standards on how to do the business in which they are engaged. That is not the same thing as being forced to engage in business they don't want to be engaged in.
I am sorry, but before making a judgment call "makes no sense" you have to present an argument showing a logical fallacy. Otherwise, it's just name calling. What in my argument does not "make sense"? I.e., what assumptions that I make are false or what logical inconsistencies does the argument contain? I claim that not every business is required to provide a service that it does not explicitly attempts to engage in. I further claim that any business that is forced into such position is being enslaved. I further claim that the only time that's "ok" (acceptable) is when it is done for the direct purpose of saving lives in the immediate situation in which the business is able to do so. I even further claim that you are attempting to enlarge the class of businesses that are treated as slaves by requiring monopolists to engage in business practices which they wish to cease. I make the judgment call that what you propose (increasing slavery) is a "bad thing" (tm). Still doesn't make sense?
I wouldn't say that I am just wrong. I would say that whenever you can force one human being to act in a certain manner (not owe money, but act) you have the power of a master over that human being and he is your slave. Would be interesting to see if anyone has tried this defense to overturn the provision requiring businesses provded handicap access. You can't argue (reasonably) that not providing handicap access is discrimination. In order to discrimante you have to actively exclude access. Not bother to provide access is foregoing on business -- not discriminating. The only possible exception to this rule is requiring doctors to provide life-saving services. I can see why allowing to be a practitioner of medicine would carry with it a requirement to save lives. Anything else is slavery... in limited form, but ability to order people around without their consent is a master/slave relationship. That's just that. So we practice it. What's your point?
Being a monopolist does not mean that you can't close certain parts of your business. It only means that you can't keep operating certain parts of your business. If you could force any business to keep providing a service it doesn't want to provide, it would be called "slavery".
One might argue that America has a legitimate reason to believe it has enemies... So I don't see your point. These enemies may not be Sadam Hussein (tm), but it doesn't mean everyone loves us. Just because law enforcement is successful at preventing terroris attacks, doesn't mean noone is trying to comit them. Viewing US as an enemy of Russia is (economic competition in narrow areas aside) absurd.
First of all, in the US illegal for-profit activities are taxable. Al Capon is the example that people usually use to prove that point. And don't forget that most illegal imigrants who work here illegally pay taxes (they don't have a choice but to sneak around INS, but they wouldn't mess around with the IRS). Second of all, violating a contract is not illegal. It simply exposes you to a lawsuit for the damages the other party has suffered due to nonperformance. So Blizzard can sue you... but mostly it just doesn't have to honor its contract and keep your character around anymore... so they erase characters that do this. Oh, and drug dealers are often wiped out just so... through tax codes. I am not a lawyer.... but I read the paper.
The government can... you know... make laws. Some could make certain contracts illegal. So they can make laws invalidating those parts of the contract.... Especially since there might be money in it for the government.
My turn to appologize for a high-strung tone. I guess my frustration with all this over-hyping of every time physicists come out with a new way to describe data of a flux by the number of independent variables being called "dimensions" in the popular literature is over-mystifying the subject. It makes it sound too religious. Granted my background is much more math than physics, but it is my understanding that at least in the case of relativity you can always normalize all calculations with respect to time... there is a good chance I am wrong on that. But! Isn't all "modern" physics essentially Newtonian physics with added corrections for curvature? And so the "space" is still essentially 3 dimensional. Meaning that it is impossible to traverse the other "dimensions" in both directions. And given that criterion for a "dimension of space" (vs "dimension of data") can it still be claimed that the space is not 3d?
Umm... Ok, time to troll.... Are you serious? You respond to what I said with "I haven't read the paper" and "who knows"? And yet you don't mind telling me that I am wrong? What is this? Politics? You drop the word "tensor" and everything changes and becomes scientific? I am assuming by "fields" you mean "vector fields" and not "fields". Yeah, I am familiar with tensors... on real and p-adic manifolds. You would have to work pretty hard to explain to me why they are anything but a way to represent a certain abstraction of data rather than the actual data.
Especially in the CS crowd. By dimension they don't actually mean that you can move through that space as you do through your familiar Euclidian space. They just mean that there are 4,6 or whatever independent variables describing the conditions of the system... Ever seen a 6 dimensional array? Whohoo.. So that baseball collection you were organizing is also "6-dimensional".
Umm, this was in fact a terrorist act. Whether it stemmed from an organization with agenda or not remains to be seen. But it is very clear that its intent was to terrorize.
Tell me more about how I need self-control. How I can choose not to play WoW 7 hours a day... because I just want to check out on my auction status of that dagger... This is comming from someone who has tried smoking many times and every time was able to just stop... without wanting to smoke. No, I didn't quit smoking many times -- didn't need to "quit" -- just stopped. Everyone has their addiction. Just because you can't appreciate how some people can be addicted to that which you can try for a while and quickly get bored of doesn't mean that their addiction is not real. Yes, really! No, I am not being sarcastic. If you haven't discovered your adiction yet, then consider yourself lucky. If anything, the shock of most of the people on this site is indicative of how adaptable the government of China is being to the changing world... I'd say that says something about the state of our own beuaracracy in the US.
I don't think that many people would argue with taxation at the conversion point. The problem is when killing boars gets you notices by IRS. That's BULLSHIT.
I hate to brake it to all the sports fanatics, but other than endurance tests (suck as track and field) sports are just children's games played by adults.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, it's not a guy. It's a gal. Quite a cute one, too. So if you haven't noticed that, we know you haven't even clicked on the link before making your statements. Unless... and I do see conspiracies everywhere, you are in fact the owner of the blog making statements as outrageous as you just made anonymously just to provoke this inevitable response.
The first poster in response to her blog is actually on Wiley editorial board. And he agrees with her -- not the company. This is the problem with lawyers running everything. It's very hard to get them to understand the world beyond dollar signs -- most of them just don't have the background.
Let me be the first one (I think) to say that this is just another conspiracy to import more programmers to depress domestic programmmers' wages.
I said nothing of the kind. But it's ok. I am tired of this argument. I'll just go ahead and laugh at you now. I made it pretty certain to make a distinction between a government regulating a business and a government telling a business what type of business to conduct. In some abstract sense there is no difference between a government collecting taxes and a government telling a fork manufacturer to also manufacture spoons. But that abstract sense is not the only view on the world. You try to force your abstraction on this argument. Well, let me explain to you what is an abstraction then. It is a view on a topic that throws away all details that are not pertinent (to the abstraction -- not to the topic). Well, the details that you wish to ignore when you compare regulation vs forcing to conduct business in areas other than those that a business wishes to conduct itself in are in fact pertinent details. They are the details that make the difference between government-imposed slavery and government-imposed regulation.
Pretty sure the bakery store down the corner and the flower shop next to them. And don't try to argue that they are forced to comply with certain government established standards on how to do the business in which they are engaged. That is not the same thing as being forced to engage in business they don't want to be engaged in.
I am sorry, but before making a judgment call "makes no sense" you have to present an argument showing a logical fallacy. Otherwise, it's just name calling. What in my argument does not "make sense"? I.e., what assumptions that I make are false or what logical inconsistencies does the argument contain? I claim that not every business is required to provide a service that it does not explicitly attempts to engage in. I further claim that any business that is forced into such position is being enslaved. I further claim that the only time that's "ok" (acceptable) is when it is done for the direct purpose of saving lives in the immediate situation in which the business is able to do so. I even further claim that you are attempting to enlarge the class of businesses that are treated as slaves by requiring monopolists to engage in business practices which they wish to cease. I make the judgment call that what you propose (increasing slavery) is a "bad thing" (tm). Still doesn't make sense?
I wouldn't say that I am just wrong. I would say that whenever you can force one human being to act in a certain manner (not owe money, but act) you have the power of a master over that human being and he is your slave. Would be interesting to see if anyone has tried this defense to overturn the provision requiring businesses provded handicap access. You can't argue (reasonably) that not providing handicap access is discrimination. In order to discrimante you have to actively exclude access. Not bother to provide access is foregoing on business -- not discriminating. The only possible exception to this rule is requiring doctors to provide life-saving services. I can see why allowing to be a practitioner of medicine would carry with it a requirement to save lives. Anything else is slavery... in limited form, but ability to order people around without their consent is a master/slave relationship. That's just that. So we practice it. What's your point?
Being a monopolist does not mean that you can't close certain parts of your business. It only means that you can't keep operating certain parts of your business. If you could force any business to keep providing a service it doesn't want to provide, it would be called "slavery".
Naturally, this posting must cause him some distress. So he must be suing slashdot next.
One might argue that America has a legitimate reason to believe it has enemies... So I don't see your point. These enemies may not be Sadam Hussein (tm), but it doesn't mean everyone loves us. Just because law enforcement is successful at preventing terroris attacks, doesn't mean noone is trying to comit them. Viewing US as an enemy of Russia is (economic competition in narrow areas aside) absurd.
It's good for business... To have phantom enemies.
First of all, in the US illegal for-profit activities are taxable. Al Capon is the example that people usually use to prove that point. And don't forget that most illegal imigrants who work here illegally pay taxes (they don't have a choice but to sneak around INS, but they wouldn't mess around with the IRS). Second of all, violating a contract is not illegal. It simply exposes you to a lawsuit for the damages the other party has suffered due to nonperformance. So Blizzard can sue you... but mostly it just doesn't have to honor its contract and keep your character around anymore... so they erase characters that do this. Oh, and drug dealers are often wiped out just so... through tax codes. I am not a lawyer.... but I read the paper.
The government can... you know... make laws. Some could make certain contracts illegal. So they can make laws invalidating those parts of the contract.... Especially since there might be money in it for the government.
Ooooh... Can they be all called "Smith"?
My turn to appologize for a high-strung tone. I guess my frustration with all this over-hyping of every time physicists come out with a new way to describe data of a flux by the number of independent variables being called "dimensions" in the popular literature is over-mystifying the subject. It makes it sound too religious. Granted my background is much more math than physics, but it is my understanding that at least in the case of relativity you can always normalize all calculations with respect to time... there is a good chance I am wrong on that. But! Isn't all "modern" physics essentially Newtonian physics with added corrections for curvature? And so the "space" is still essentially 3 dimensional. Meaning that it is impossible to traverse the other "dimensions" in both directions. And given that criterion for a "dimension of space" (vs "dimension of data") can it still be claimed that the space is not 3d?
Umm... Ok, time to troll.... Are you serious? You respond to what I said with "I haven't read the paper" and "who knows"? And yet you don't mind telling me that I am wrong? What is this? Politics? You drop the word "tensor" and everything changes and becomes scientific? I am assuming by "fields" you mean "vector fields" and not "fields". Yeah, I am familiar with tensors... on real and p-adic manifolds. You would have to work pretty hard to explain to me why they are anything but a way to represent a certain abstraction of data rather than the actual data.
Especially in the CS crowd. By dimension they don't actually mean that you can move through that space as you do through your familiar Euclidian space. They just mean that there are 4,6 or whatever independent variables describing the conditions of the system... Ever seen a 6 dimensional array? Whohoo.. So that baseball collection you were organizing is also "6-dimensional".
Umm, this was in fact a terrorist act. Whether it stemmed from an organization with agenda or not remains to be seen. But it is very clear that its intent was to terrorize.
Isn't this essentially his engine? Never thought that piece of science fiction would come to life.
they simply kill those who descent too vocally? regardless of whether they are in russia or say... london?
Tell me more about how I need self-control. How I can choose not to play WoW 7 hours a day... because I just want to check out on my auction status of that dagger... This is comming from someone who has tried smoking many times and every time was able to just stop... without wanting to smoke. No, I didn't quit smoking many times -- didn't need to "quit" -- just stopped. Everyone has their addiction. Just because you can't appreciate how some people can be addicted to that which you can try for a while and quickly get bored of doesn't mean that their addiction is not real. Yes, really! No, I am not being sarcastic. If you haven't discovered your adiction yet, then consider yourself lucky. If anything, the shock of most of the people on this site is indicative of how adaptable the government of China is being to the changing world... I'd say that says something about the state of our own beuaracracy in the US.
I don't think that many people would argue with taxation at the conversion point. The problem is when killing boars gets you notices by IRS. That's BULLSHIT.
It's covered in the chapter "arrogance".
I hate to brake it to all the sports fanatics, but other than endurance tests (suck as track and field) sports are just children's games played by adults.