Have a read of Lord Of The Flies for an example of how quickly the acceptal behaviour of a society can change
You realize that novels are about events that didn't actually happen, and thus can't be used as a reliable source of information about the real world other than the imaginations of whatever individuals wrote them?
If you read Aristotle you'll also "learn" that different masses fall at different speeds under gravity and that everything is made out of fire, air, water, earth, and aether. We've actually learned some things over the past 2000 years, and one of those things is that the ancients were wrong more often than they were right.
The price is ASTRONOMICAL especially if you're getting new service and paying out the ass to drop your current contract with a better wireless company to switch. The research is right as $299 is more reasonable than $500+ even with disposable income and the desire for a great wireless device, it's not worth that much to me when I'm locked in to one vendor for at least two years.
This is what Apple always does. This is how the market works. They invent something, sell it at a high price in order to pay for development and pick up the part of the market willing to pay that price, and lower the price later. You'll get your $300 iPhone soon enough.
Total expenses (assuming in-state tuition) for the University of Washington come to about $20,000 annually. Times four years is $80,000. Assuming you pay for that entirely through loans, graduate, and make $40,000 a year and maintain the same standard of living you had in college until your debt is paid off, you have $30,000 per year you can apply towards that debt. That's three years, maybe four considering interest. Less if you make more money or find other ways to help pay for school. And that's with a lot of generous assumptions.
The idea is more that science does more to model our observations than it does to model reality. This has actually been a boon to science, freeing it to use contradictory models (quantum mechanics vs. relativity) when appropriate, without having to worry too much about how reality shouldn't contradict itself.
"the rest of your life"? Maybe if you're bad at restricting your own spending, go to an overly expensive school without scholarships or grants, or do something else like that.
The 767 has a higher fuel capacity, and it's burning jet fuel, not the shock of the initial impact, which caused the collapse. Going by the shock of impact alone, the towers did a great job. As for your other two claims, I would have to see citations (or at least proof that you're some type of structural engineer and not just some sort of nutjob) to take them seriously.
I'm not up on my Parmenides either. That's because I don't bother studying ideas that don't usefully describe the real world. (Okay, I've studied the history of philosophy well enough to have some understanding of both Parmenides and Marx, but I wouldn't say I really care.)
The evil thing to do would be to ruthlessly destroy their entire civilization in retaliation before drawing back and recognizing we were wrong and would leave them alone from them on. Of course, that would only inspire more retaliation. So we do the insidious thing and become cultural imperialists.
You don't have to MELT steel to cause a building collapse. Just soften it enough so it won't support anything above it. The WTC was designed to take hits from smaller aircraft with smaller fuel loads, and was originally designed with asbestos to resist fires. Considering the mass of the WTC, it would take a lot more momentum to literally knock them over sideways. Falling more-or-less straight down is pretty much what the physics would predict--the Boeing 767 wasn't flown until 1981, years after the WTC was completed to say nothing of when it was designed.
Besides, are you saying the U.S. deserved 9/11 and that Spain and England deserved the train bombings?
There's a difference between facts and moral judgments. US, Spanish, and English involvement in the Middle East is a motivation behind those acts of terrorism. That's a fact. Whether or not they deserved to be bombed is a moral judgment that is partially informed by that fact. If these governments were in fact doing absolutely nothing and were bombed without any provocation, that would lead us to one moral judgment. On the other hand, if these governments were systematically destroying their civilization and they had no other way to respond, that would lead us to a very different moral judgment. The facts are as follows: the US, England, Spain, etc. made, were making, have made, and continue to make certain interventions in the Middle East. Al-Qaeda considered those interventions aggressive and decided to strike back. We can sit around all day analyzing what these interventions are and whether they justify the response, but that would make us historians. If we're worried about serving the interests of Americans, Britons, and Spaniards, we have to analyze which is greatest--the cost of continuing to intervene or the cost of not intervening. This is a cost-benefit analysis, and only works with facts, not moral judgments.
As an analogy: if I'm pointing a gun at your face and telling you to give me your wallet, you don't really worry about whether or not the fact you killed my father justifies this. You just weigh the options available to you and do whatever satisfies the end you're trying to achieve (be it justice, your own self-preservation, etc.)
Yeah, we've had sets of Presidents in the same family four times. Out of 43 Presidents. With entire decades usually intervening between the elder president and his younger relation. That's a real "de facto hereditary dictatorship" we've got going on here, especially since the President has the sole power to declare war and assent to legislation.
It could be nicely open sourced, and run via a p2p network
I've seen P2P networks proposed as the solution to everything on Slashdot. Intermittent less-than-1-kilobyte pings carrying a unique user ID are not unmanageable.
The thing is, most of us don't see that as a bad thing, whereas you US folks have this pre-conditioned distrust of Royalty for some unfathomable reason
Could it be because royalty is just hereditary dictatorship in fancy clothes? In your case it's hereditary dictatorship that doesn't do anything useful. And it's not just US folks either. In some countries, like France and Russia, they went and killed all their royalty. I like that idea!
That's a good point, except backing up information in the physical world is also doable. It's best to have a backup of the data in your phone, whether it's in your brain or in your PDA or laptop. The PDA or laptop is just a more efficient place to store it, it seems like.
I know so many otherwise intelligent people who can't remember more than one or two phone numbers now that they have an almost limitless address book in the palm of their hands. They save every number that comes their way but don't know any of them. I don't want to be one of those guys.
Do you have any reason for this other than a vague fear of change? Do you feel compelled to remember the IP address of every server you connect to on the Internet, or do you allow technology to help manage that information for you?
Slashdot Mirror
Why should I care about society?
You realize that novels are about events that didn't actually happen, and thus can't be used as a reliable source of information about the real world other than the imaginations of whatever individuals wrote them?
If you read Aristotle you'll also "learn" that different masses fall at different speeds under gravity and that everything is made out of fire, air, water, earth, and aether. We've actually learned some things over the past 2000 years, and one of those things is that the ancients were wrong more often than they were right.
I would compare your mom to a Cadillac Escalade. She's big and costs way too much money for what she's worth.
This is what Apple always does. This is how the market works. They invent something, sell it at a high price in order to pay for development and pick up the part of the market willing to pay that price, and lower the price later. You'll get your $300 iPhone soon enough.
Total expenses (assuming in-state tuition) for the University of Washington come to about $20,000 annually. Times four years is $80,000. Assuming you pay for that entirely through loans, graduate, and make $40,000 a year and maintain the same standard of living you had in college until your debt is paid off, you have $30,000 per year you can apply towards that debt. That's three years, maybe four considering interest. Less if you make more money or find other ways to help pay for school. And that's with a lot of generous assumptions.
The idea is more that science does more to model our observations than it does to model reality. This has actually been a boon to science, freeing it to use contradictory models (quantum mechanics vs. relativity) when appropriate, without having to worry too much about how reality shouldn't contradict itself.
"the rest of your life"? Maybe if you're bad at restricting your own spending, go to an overly expensive school without scholarships or grants, or do something else like that.
The 767 has a higher fuel capacity, and it's burning jet fuel, not the shock of the initial impact, which caused the collapse. Going by the shock of impact alone, the towers did a great job. As for your other two claims, I would have to see citations (or at least proof that you're some type of structural engineer and not just some sort of nutjob) to take them seriously.
I'm not up on my Parmenides either. That's because I don't bother studying ideas that don't usefully describe the real world. (Okay, I've studied the history of philosophy well enough to have some understanding of both Parmenides and Marx, but I wouldn't say I really care.)
The evil thing to do would be to ruthlessly destroy their entire civilization in retaliation before drawing back and recognizing we were wrong and would leave them alone from them on. Of course, that would only inspire more retaliation. So we do the insidious thing and become cultural imperialists.
You don't have to MELT steel to cause a building collapse. Just soften it enough so it won't support anything above it. The WTC was designed to take hits from smaller aircraft with smaller fuel loads, and was originally designed with asbestos to resist fires. Considering the mass of the WTC, it would take a lot more momentum to literally knock them over sideways. Falling more-or-less straight down is pretty much what the physics would predict--the Boeing 767 wasn't flown until 1981, years after the WTC was completed to say nothing of when it was designed.
There's a difference between facts and moral judgments. US, Spanish, and English involvement in the Middle East is a motivation behind those acts of terrorism. That's a fact. Whether or not they deserved to be bombed is a moral judgment that is partially informed by that fact. If these governments were in fact doing absolutely nothing and were bombed without any provocation, that would lead us to one moral judgment. On the other hand, if these governments were systematically destroying their civilization and they had no other way to respond, that would lead us to a very different moral judgment. The facts are as follows: the US, England, Spain, etc. made, were making, have made, and continue to make certain interventions in the Middle East. Al-Qaeda considered those interventions aggressive and decided to strike back. We can sit around all day analyzing what these interventions are and whether they justify the response, but that would make us historians. If we're worried about serving the interests of Americans, Britons, and Spaniards, we have to analyze which is greatest--the cost of continuing to intervene or the cost of not intervening. This is a cost-benefit analysis, and only works with facts, not moral judgments.
As an analogy: if I'm pointing a gun at your face and telling you to give me your wallet, you don't really worry about whether or not the fact you killed my father justifies this. You just weigh the options available to you and do whatever satisfies the end you're trying to achieve (be it justice, your own self-preservation, etc.)
So does fuzzy logic.
Yeah, we've had sets of Presidents in the same family four times. Out of 43 Presidents. With entire decades usually intervening between the elder president and his younger relation. That's a real "de facto hereditary dictatorship" we've got going on here, especially since the President has the sole power to declare war and assent to legislation.
I've seen P2P networks proposed as the solution to everything on Slashdot. Intermittent less-than-1-kilobyte pings carrying a unique user ID are not unmanageable.
Exactly. Problem solved. As the victim, I don't have any obligation to accomplish anything more than that.
Could it be because royalty is just hereditary dictatorship in fancy clothes? In your case it's hereditary dictatorship that doesn't do anything useful. And it's not just US folks either. In some countries, like France and Russia, they went and killed all their royalty. I like that idea!
That's the point where we all wear Guy Fawkes masks.
...according to the artist's metaphysical value-judgments? Thank you, Ayn Rand!
It is pitiful when you forget your cell phone and end up needing it.
There are actual working iPhones in existence right now (Steve Jobs' personal cell phone being one of them), so it's not quite vaporware.
That's a good point, except backing up information in the physical world is also doable. It's best to have a backup of the data in your phone, whether it's in your brain or in your PDA or laptop. The PDA or laptop is just a more efficient place to store it, it seems like.
The difference is, only one of those two executives actually has a product that good.
Do you have any reason for this other than a vague fear of change? Do you feel compelled to remember the IP address of every server you connect to on the Internet, or do you allow technology to help manage that information for you?