Game theory is generally about modeling situations where there are winning and losing strategies, so that you can pick the winners. People generally want to be with the winners, it's genetically programmed across millions of years. So to expect people to look use game theory and to expect them not to pick a strategy that puts them ahead on average is naive.
Game theory is about individuals or elitist groups winning. It's not about society as a whole winning. Game theory is what the insurance companies have been using to maximize their profits. It certainly isn't helping the people of society.
Think about this, we force hospitals to accept all at their door - they cannot refuse care if such refusal would result in death or significant injury. So essentially we already have base health care. A single payer system for this level of care would have been good. Note that cancer, aids, any other chronic / terminal disease falls outside this level of care. Costs are well-contained, and relatively easy to estimate. This is what ObamaCare should have addressed at its core. Leave the rest for insurance companies, and don't allow pre-existing conditions. There's a few other things they should have done - posted rates by service providers, no individually negotiated rates - same rate for everyone. That would also go a long way to making healthcare a normal business.
Given the myriad other hazards, and billions of other reasons that stereoscopic vision in hunter-animals evolved, the answer is pretty much No.
Except the primates that humans evolved from weren't predators yet have binocular vision.
But they were tree swinging and jumping, and gauging distances is certainly helped by stereoscopic vision. Being able to discern a branch (or fruit) from a bunch of leaves (pattern) would also be highly useful, and both probably had more to do with our brain development than being able to recognize snakes. It may even have been merely a serendipitous development.
The reason why is as soon as they do - third party vendors can too. Look at what happened when they had "standard" radios, and what's happened to them in the last 15 years. 3rd party car stereos will almost always stick out like a sore thumb now.
Lock-in. Personally, I think there should be a standard mandated connector, like the ODB2, and a simple slide in chassis. After market would be an easy replacement, or with a later year's model if you happen to like some feature that the older one doesn't have.
Capitalism only works under the original auspices that no company is large enough to own a significant portion of a large enough market to prevent others from entering and competing. You need lots of players, or you run into issues. Look at car makers - originally there were literally hundreds, now there's 3-4 mass producers per main producing countries (US, Japan, Germany, Korea) although there the numbers are skewed to a single large producer, with no locally owned major production in most other countries. France has Citroen and Renault, and Italy Fiat, which are still somewhat in the running.
Cars are a bad example though, as there are still enough players to allow some choice, even if the three collude to keep feature parity at a low level. Better examples are for instance sodas - you can buy either Coke or Pepsi products in a lot of places, but no one else. The places that are exclusive are large chains, like McDonalds, Wendy's, Burger King, etc. Also vending machines in areas with captive audiences, like schools and entertainment venues. These practices lockout everyone else, and while there are small vendors that occasionally spring up, the big two companies will buy up any that break through the barrier they've erected. If they weren't allowed to acquire anyone once they owned more than 5-10% of the market, we wouldn't have one 900# gorilla, one 400# gorilla, an almost gorilla and maybe some tiny bottlers here and there. You will see the same thing happening with beer brewers, it just hasn't had a chance to get there yet and additional restrictive laws on advertising and marketing actually slow down this process.
That would be rendering anything in OpenGL. That is a true statement, but not an ops/second type of use case I was looking for, and Linux beats both handily, IIRC. So Windows still isn't a top performer there, either, it merely is better than OSX in that category.
I will admit that on Lion / Mountain Lion, that the GUI seems a little slower and more likely to block. I can't help but think that this is related to the switch to Grand Central and old cold that wasn't properly migrated to the new process. I also know for a fact that slightly misbehaving SMB can completely lockup OSX, I've experienced this personally, but instead of digging for the exact cause, I removed the old Ubuntu box from the network. I also know that VNC occasionally locks up for me. But I have personal known challenges on the machines exhibiting these issues, and cannot say for certain that the problem wholly lies with OSX. Another machine I have exhibits no such issues.
My last go round with W7 didn't leave me with any better impressions though.
While unstated, the implied question was for equivalently optimized code. I would have taken MS SQL vs best in breed on *nix, for example, although I know personally that one doesn't fit the bill. LDAP? Nope. Ray tracing? Nope. Video rendering - nope.
Perhaps they can also ask them at the same time why Windows also performs so poorly on the same hardware in comparison with several other OSes. There's no case I know of where Windows performs more operations per cycle than both Linux and OSX. (I'm waiting for a response here to show some cases where Windows actually is a better performer, it'd be interesting to actually see such a case)
Progreria is not actually an aging process, although it has many of the appearances of aging. It's actually a defective protein encoding that weakens cells and shortens cell lifespans. This is not a process that occurs during normal aging. So the finding confirms what you'd expect to find in the cells of progeria affected individuals.
The creators of the SSN had 2 specific declarations: the SSN was never to be used as an ID, and the SSN was never to be used for any other purpose than SS. When banks, financial institutions, and the gov, started using them for other purposes (Tax IDs anyone?) the entire original use got subsumed and stuff hit the crapper.
I'd give them 1 letter to fix the problem - after that - they can see me in court. I didn't enter into any agreement with them, and they are slandering/libeling me by stating I have bad credit and propagating that out. There are slander / libel laws out there, use them.
Actually, currently, anyone can open it that has access to it, much like the mail. The government sponsored carriers now allow the government to read all - they didn't even dare do that with regular mail.
Regarding wristwatches, they're losing out because how often do you really need to know the time?
All the time. I have places I need to be at a specific time. I also like to know exactly how much time I've wasted posting to/.
I generally already know what time it is when I leave for a place, so I really don't bother looking at the clock while I'm on my way there. It won't help me get there faster, and may cause an accident. I also use alarms (on the phone) for things I can't miss. Most of this happens automatically via calendar events done via my computer(s). My watch can't match this functionality.
People stopped wearing them because they're redundant. I found myself already knowing the time from the last look at my cell,
Isn't that exactly what I said? They're losing their battle to the cellphone which has the time displayed on it's face.
No, what you said was:
because they're more used to doing it that way.
I disagree, it's because they found out they were already aware of the time and they didn't need to check their watch. Hardly ever. A watch is one more thing to carry, to deal with, and manage and maintain. The trouble wasn't worth it as they wore out. I have a couple of nice watches left. Each will cost almost as much as my phone to service. I have already donated the rest.
...I can be in any meeting and manage a quick glance at my watch without anyone noticing. Option 4 is the hardest. It is an obvious action that shows everyone in the room that I'm considering how much time of mine they are wasting. Sometimes that's not a good thing to let them know.
I'm not sure why you care. What's your obsession with time? Will it help the meeting pass faster, get you out earlier, by knowing the time? If you're going to leave anyways, nothing says "you're wasting my time" like getting up in the middle of a meeting and leaving without giving a reason. If you're going to give a reason and leave, then it doesn't matter whether you check your phone or not.
Of course, I have to actually go there, find the one I want (hope it isn't checked out already), wait in line to check it out, and then carry it around for a week while I read it. If I don't get it done, well, too bad, I have to carry it back to the library to turn it back in, or maybe they'll let me check it out for another week.
They do have these wonderful things called websites, where you can search for a book, reserve or hold it, extend your checkout time, and even read reviews about it and see how it compares with other authors you may like. Maybe you should try it out sometime, it's almost like shopping for an e-book.
I don't cart around "pleasure" reading. I generally don't have time for it while I'm out.
And then, when you get to the last page you can immediately move on to the next book. Convenient. Making things inconvenient tends to reduce pleasure, I've found.
It's going to be interesting what you think when you actually start working.
I have, and will always keep, a paper subscription... never carry one with me... I'd lose it or it would get damaged and I'd be out a magazine. Once I started getting ePub versions, I got caught up really quick.
Hmm - seems you're collecting. That is at odds with reading, where things might get bent or used.
Wow. Our worlds are so opposite. For technical books, the clear winner is paper. Random access is so much faster using paper, and the resolution of the printed page is so much better. I can see an entire schematic of something on one page. I can stick my finger in the section I'm reading now and flip to something else to clarify a point so much easier with paper. Then just flip back.
The court needs to understand that proper encryption is similar to those little ink filled theft prevention tags to clothes
I've always thought of encryption as the evolution of the envelope used to snail mail a letter.
That would be encryption with the keys available to everyone. After all, anyone can open an envelope. Hence the reference to a theft prevention device that destroys the intended target, or a safe that potentially cannot be opened in a reasonable amount of time.
It isn't the device, it is your familiarity and comfort with it.
Why do you assume that?
Regarding wristwatches, they're losing out because how often do you really need to know the time? People stopped wearing them because they're redundant. I found myself already knowing the time from the last look at my cell, and never consulted my watch anymore. I think you have to be neurotic or a timekeeper to need to keep an eye on the time to that extent.
My first Sony reader came with my selection of 100 free classics. If I could manage two books a week, it would take a year to read them all. Then I could get another 1000 for free from a lot of places
My local library has 10s of thousands of books, for free, including recent offerings. I can only read 1 book at a time, same as you. What good does it do me to have 100 in my hands at a time? It's irrelevant when pleasure reading
For travel or reference books, it's a different story, then the clear win is for the e-device.
There's something about sitting down with a book that just doesn't work as well with a digital device, at least not yet.
Try kindle or other reader with e-inc screen.
I have and can read on one just fine. In some ways it's better than a book for pleasure reading, in others, it's not. I'll give you an example: you can't rapidly flip through an e-book looking for that one particular section, you know roughly where on the page it is an kind of what it looks like, but not the exact wording. (ie, search is going to take longer because you're going to have to evaluate every single one to see if it's the right section) This is especially true for those with near photographic memories. Also, pleasure reading is usually 1 book at a time, so an e-reader's ability to carry 100s is irrelevant for most time spans spent reading. It is better if you're going on a long trip with lots of down time, for example. In the living room, this generally doesn't matter.
If you still prefer old style books - that is probably because you used to it, in less than 100 years paper books will be no more than curiosity, like scrolls or stone tablets with inscribed symbols. There is certainly something about sitting with stone tablet that just does not work as well with the books,...
Nice extension of my statement. However, I still hold that a newspaper has a better format for skimming the news and getting more out of it than a news website. The latter is more suitable for the most recent news, the most popular, the most.... whatever.
The court needs to understand that proper encryption is similar to those little ink filled theft prevention tags to clothes, that can "only" be removed with a special device, except there exists only 1 such device per subset of tags, and that should one choose to hit the device with a hammer, you run the very real risk of destroying the item you're interested in accessing. So unless they will rule all such devices and mechanism illegal, they will need to realize that some things are beyond their ability to request without cooperation.
While digital formats certainly beat books for a whole host of reasons, pleasure reading is not among them. There's something about sitting down with a book that just doesn't work as well with a digital device, at least not yet. Same with a newspaper - I get more info in 10s with a newspaper than I do on a news website. I can scan the much larger format much faster and focus on what interests me vs having to click multiple links on news websites. I've actually considered going back to getting a paper, it's still up in the air.
Except a lot of modem traffic is now.... IP traffic somewhere along its path. So unless you encrypt it, with known good keys and crypto algorithms, you're still not secure.
Slashdot Mirror
Game theory is generally about modeling situations where there are winning and losing strategies, so that you can pick the winners. People generally want to be with the winners, it's genetically programmed across millions of years. So to expect people to look use game theory and to expect them not to pick a strategy that puts them ahead on average is naive.
Game theory is about individuals or elitist groups winning. It's not about society as a whole winning. Game theory is what the insurance companies have been using to maximize their profits. It certainly isn't helping the people of society.
Think about this, we force hospitals to accept all at their door - they cannot refuse care if such refusal would result in death or significant injury. So essentially we already have base health care. A single payer system for this level of care would have been good. Note that cancer, aids, any other chronic / terminal disease falls outside this level of care. Costs are well-contained, and relatively easy to estimate. This is what ObamaCare should have addressed at its core. Leave the rest for insurance companies, and don't allow pre-existing conditions. There's a few other things they should have done - posted rates by service providers, no individually negotiated rates - same rate for everyone. That would also go a long way to making healthcare a normal business.
Given the myriad other hazards, and billions of other reasons that stereoscopic vision in hunter-animals evolved, the answer is pretty much No.
Except the primates that humans evolved from weren't predators yet have binocular vision.
But they were tree swinging and jumping, and gauging distances is certainly helped by stereoscopic vision. Being able to discern a branch (or fruit) from a bunch of leaves (pattern) would also be highly useful, and both probably had more to do with our brain development than being able to recognize snakes. It may even have been merely a serendipitous development.
The reason why is as soon as they do - third party vendors can too. Look at what happened when they had "standard" radios, and what's happened to them in the last 15 years. 3rd party car stereos will almost always stick out like a sore thumb now.
Lock-in. Personally, I think there should be a standard mandated connector, like the ODB2, and a simple slide in chassis. After market would be an easy replacement, or with a later year's model if you happen to like some feature that the older one doesn't have.
I'd love to, even though it's not a 2013 Toyota, but this applies to everyone.
Capitalism only works under the original auspices that no company is large enough to own a significant portion of a large enough market to prevent others from entering and competing. You need lots of players, or you run into issues. Look at car makers - originally there were literally hundreds, now there's 3-4 mass producers per main producing countries (US, Japan, Germany, Korea) although there the numbers are skewed to a single large producer, with no locally owned major production in most other countries. France has Citroen and Renault, and Italy Fiat, which are still somewhat in the running.
Cars are a bad example though, as there are still enough players to allow some choice, even if the three collude to keep feature parity at a low level. Better examples are for instance sodas - you can buy either Coke or Pepsi products in a lot of places, but no one else. The places that are exclusive are large chains, like McDonalds, Wendy's, Burger King, etc. Also vending machines in areas with captive audiences, like schools and entertainment venues. These practices lockout everyone else, and while there are small vendors that occasionally spring up, the big two companies will buy up any that break through the barrier they've erected. If they weren't allowed to acquire anyone once they owned more than 5-10% of the market, we wouldn't have one 900# gorilla, one 400# gorilla, an almost gorilla and maybe some tiny bottlers here and there. You will see the same thing happening with beer brewers, it just hasn't had a chance to get there yet and additional restrictive laws on advertising and marketing actually slow down this process.
That would imply that everyone works on a standard set of hardware and base software.....
That would be rendering anything in OpenGL. That is a true statement, but not an ops/second type of use case I was looking for, and Linux beats both handily, IIRC. So Windows still isn't a top performer there, either, it merely is better than OSX in that category.
I will admit that on Lion / Mountain Lion, that the GUI seems a little slower and more likely to block. I can't help but think that this is related to the switch to Grand Central and old cold that wasn't properly migrated to the new process. I also know for a fact that slightly misbehaving SMB can completely lockup OSX, I've experienced this personally, but instead of digging for the exact cause, I removed the old Ubuntu box from the network. I also know that VNC occasionally locks up for me. But I have personal known challenges on the machines exhibiting these issues, and cannot say for certain that the problem wholly lies with OSX. Another machine I have exhibits no such issues.
My last go round with W7 didn't leave me with any better impressions though.
While unstated, the implied question was for equivalently optimized code. I would have taken MS SQL vs best in breed on *nix, for example, although I know personally that one doesn't fit the bill. LDAP? Nope. Ray tracing? Nope. Video rendering - nope.
Perhaps they can also ask them at the same time why Windows also performs so poorly on the same hardware in comparison with several other OSes. There's no case I know of where Windows performs more operations per cycle than both Linux and OSX. (I'm waiting for a response here to show some cases where Windows actually is a better performer, it'd be interesting to actually see such a case)
Progreria is not actually an aging process, although it has many of the appearances of aging. It's actually a defective protein encoding that weakens cells and shortens cell lifespans. This is not a process that occurs during normal aging. So the finding confirms what you'd expect to find in the cells of progeria affected individuals.
Nope - not even allowing you to login anonymous is consent.
The creators of the SSN had 2 specific declarations: the SSN was never to be used as an ID, and the SSN was never to be used for any other purpose than SS. When banks, financial institutions, and the gov, started using them for other purposes (Tax IDs anyone?) the entire original use got subsumed and stuff hit the crapper.
I'd give them 1 letter to fix the problem - after that - they can see me in court. I didn't enter into any agreement with them, and they are slandering/libeling me by stating I have bad credit and propagating that out. There are slander / libel laws out there, use them.
Actually, currently, anyone can open it that has access to it, much like the mail. The government sponsored carriers now allow the government to read all - they didn't even dare do that with regular mail.
Regarding wristwatches, they're losing out because how often do you really need to know the time?
All the time. I have places I need to be at a specific time. I also like to know exactly how much time I've wasted posting to /.
I generally already know what time it is when I leave for a place, so I really don't bother looking at the clock while I'm on my way there. It won't help me get there faster, and may cause an accident. I also use alarms (on the phone) for things I can't miss. Most of this happens automatically via calendar events done via my computer(s). My watch can't match this functionality.
People stopped wearing them because they're redundant. I found myself already knowing the time from the last look at my cell,
Isn't that exactly what I said? They're losing their battle to the cellphone which has the time displayed on it's face.
No, what you said was:
because they're more used to doing it that way.
I disagree, it's because they found out they were already aware of the time and they didn't need to check their watch. Hardly ever. A watch is one more thing to carry, to deal with, and manage and maintain. The trouble wasn't worth it as they wore out. I have a couple of nice watches left. Each will cost almost as much as my phone to service. I have already donated the rest.
I'm not sure why you care. What's your obsession with time? Will it help the meeting pass faster, get you out earlier, by knowing the time? If you're going to leave anyways, nothing says "you're wasting my time" like getting up in the middle of a meeting and leaving without giving a reason. If you're going to give a reason and leave, then it doesn't matter whether you check your phone or not.
Of course, I have to actually go there, find the one I want (hope it isn't checked out already), wait in line to check it out, and then carry it around for a week while I read it. If I don't get it done, well, too bad, I have to carry it back to the library to turn it back in, or maybe they'll let me check it out for another week.
They do have these wonderful things called websites, where you can search for a book, reserve or hold it, extend your checkout time, and even read reviews about it and see how it compares with other authors you may like. Maybe you should try it out sometime, it's almost like shopping for an e-book.
I don't cart around "pleasure" reading. I generally don't have time for it while I'm out.
And then, when you get to the last page you can immediately move on to the next book. Convenient. Making things inconvenient tends to reduce pleasure, I've found.
It's going to be interesting what you think when you actually start working.
I have, and will always keep, a paper subscription ... never carry one with me... I'd lose it or it would get damaged and I'd be out a magazine. Once I started getting ePub versions, I got caught up really quick.
Hmm - seems you're collecting. That is at odds with reading, where things might get bent or used.
Wow. Our worlds are so opposite. For technical books, the clear winner is paper. Random access is so much faster using paper, and the resolution of the printed page is so much better. I can see an entire schematic of something on one page. I can stick my finger in the section I'm reading now and flip to something else to clarify a point so much easier with paper. Then just flip back.
The court needs to understand that proper encryption is similar to those little ink filled theft prevention tags to clothes
I've always thought of encryption as the evolution of the envelope used to snail mail a letter.
That would be encryption with the keys available to everyone. After all, anyone can open an envelope. Hence the reference to a theft prevention device that destroys the intended target, or a safe that potentially cannot be opened in a reasonable amount of time.
It isn't the device, it is your familiarity and comfort with it.
Why do you assume that? Regarding wristwatches, they're losing out because how often do you really need to know the time? People stopped wearing them because they're redundant. I found myself already knowing the time from the last look at my cell, and never consulted my watch anymore. I think you have to be neurotic or a timekeeper to need to keep an eye on the time to that extent.
My first Sony reader came with my selection of 100 free classics. If I could manage two books a week, it would take a year to read them all. Then I could get another 1000 for free from a lot of places
My local library has 10s of thousands of books, for free, including recent offerings. I can only read 1 book at a time, same as you. What good does it do me to have 100 in my hands at a time? It's irrelevant when pleasure reading
For travel or reference books, it's a different story, then the clear win is for the e-device.
There's something about sitting down with a book that just doesn't work as well with a digital device, at least not yet.
Try kindle or other reader with e-inc screen.
I have and can read on one just fine. In some ways it's better than a book for pleasure reading, in others, it's not. I'll give you an example: you can't rapidly flip through an e-book looking for that one particular section, you know roughly where on the page it is an kind of what it looks like, but not the exact wording. (ie, search is going to take longer because you're going to have to evaluate every single one to see if it's the right section) This is especially true for those with near photographic memories. Also, pleasure reading is usually 1 book at a time, so an e-reader's ability to carry 100s is irrelevant for most time spans spent reading. It is better if you're going on a long trip with lots of down time, for example. In the living room, this generally doesn't matter.
If you still prefer old style books - that is probably because you used to it, in less than 100 years paper books will be no more than curiosity, like scrolls or stone tablets with inscribed symbols. There is certainly something about sitting with stone tablet that just does not work as well with the books, ...
Nice extension of my statement. However, I still hold that a newspaper has a better format for skimming the news and getting more out of it than a news website. The latter is more suitable for the most recent news, the most popular, the most.... whatever.
The court needs to understand that proper encryption is similar to those little ink filled theft prevention tags to clothes, that can "only" be removed with a special device, except there exists only 1 such device per subset of tags, and that should one choose to hit the device with a hammer, you run the very real risk of destroying the item you're interested in accessing. So unless they will rule all such devices and mechanism illegal, they will need to realize that some things are beyond their ability to request without cooperation.
People like Android. It's not like they're even locked in in any way, as people are with Windows.
Really? What other OS can you run on said phone? What average person can even install an alternate?
While digital formats certainly beat books for a whole host of reasons, pleasure reading is not among them. There's something about sitting down with a book that just doesn't work as well with a digital device, at least not yet. Same with a newspaper - I get more info in 10s with a newspaper than I do on a news website. I can scan the much larger format much faster and focus on what interests me vs having to click multiple links on news websites. I've actually considered going back to getting a paper, it's still up in the air.
Except a lot of modem traffic is now.... IP traffic somewhere along its path. So unless you encrypt it, with known good keys and crypto algorithms, you're still not secure.