The net allows people of like minds to come together on a narrow set of web sites that cater to their beliefs. Unfortunately it doesn't make them go to other web sites so that they have to get a balanced argument/information. But for better or worse, that is the price of freedom. Anyway, I think it is fair to say that people tend to gather in tribes and silo themselves; it is human nature. In that regard it makes people dumber since they tune out wider sources of information that force one to think about all sides of an issue. Further, I think that being able to lock oneself into a community tends to make one believe more that their groups viewpoint is the only correct one. The 'truthers' is one group. I think the religious right is another. Animal rights groups. Anti G20 anarchists, etc. etc. etc. It could be one of the foundations behind the polarization that we see in America lately. I'm sure if you visit this list of web sites that back my view you will see it is all true...
It's OK, the right wing Republicans have God on their side. He'll tell them the weather if they just read their bible enough times. And we all know that God is on the side of capitalism, big oil, and Rush Limbaugh. No need to worry about global warming, it doesn't exist.
This assumes you do not have to share the roads with pedestrians.
Yes, especially when I say the words: interstate, autobahn, and highways that are like interstates. These are mostly if not all limited access roads. i.e. Cars only. Pedestrians are not allowed on these roads... at least anywhere I've ever lived or driven; and I've driven in 44 of the 50 American states, 6 of the 10 Canadian provinces, and Austria and Germany.
this religious obsession for a piece of paper is the product of demented minds
Let me fix this for you...
this religious obsession for a piece of paper is the product of people who already obsess with pieces of paper that are slightly under 2000 years old, and some more paper that are a few milenia older than that... and believe every word in them are literal instructions... i.e. don't want to think for themselves
Nothing against religion. I'm religious. I just don't shut my mind off and believe everything that I read that is written by men (or women). We don't always take dictation correctly. Or translate correctly. Or pass stories without changes over thousands of years.
What is the difference in payload size and weight of the soyuz versus the dragon? Do you know? Given the size of the rockets I get the impression the soyuz will be needed for really big payloads for a while. Or is it because the soyuz capsule is just really heavy itself. Not sure if you know, but...
Conditions and vehicle types would be better for determining speed than set limits. Really, limits should be posted only as advisories for curves or for when bad weather sets in, or for when traffic congestion is high. For example, on an off ramp (slip way to some Europeans), I might be safe going round at 40 MPH in a car. On my motorbike I can do that at 60 MPH easily... in control. That is why many speeds posted for off ramps are suggested speeds. If you have traveled much, you might notice that many of the interstate highways in the U.S. and many highways in Canada are no different than the autobahns in Germany, many of which have unlimited speed. And, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Germany's accident rate is no higher than North America's, and may be less. Most accidents are caused by poor, rude, and aggressive drivers, including those that are constantly changing lanes and cutting people off. Oh, and those who text or talk on their cell phones, or refuse to pull off the road when they are sleepy. All in all, irresponsible drivers. I refrain from those activities. If traffic is heavy I drive with the traffic. Tailgating and constantly changing lanes I find doesn't do much good, so why not relax and take it easy. Anyway, if the police would target drivers who drive dangerously (i.e. poor driving habits I have already outlined), they would do more to stop accidents than targeting those who exceed the speed limits.
I think the OP was talking about red light cameras that take pictures of your license plate if you run the red light, so that they can ticket you with a traffic offense. Like photo radar. He's not talking about traffic timing.
For those who don't know, Missouri has a nice lawyer scam where you give your speeding ticket to a lawyer and they plead it to a non-moving violation (equivalent to a parking ticket). You avoid points on your license but you still have to pay the cost of the ticket plus the lawyer's fees. Kind of makes a mockery of the deterrent factor of getting a ticket. I worry more about the points as that affects how much my insurance will cost me. If I can afford the fine and there are no points involved, I speed.
A comment posted with TFA is quite insightful with this regard (I believe his handle was 'visrey'):
So now an officer can stop you any time they want and just say you looked like you were speeding. At that point they can ticket you for other secondary infractions that require a moving violation in order for them to stop you. Good job guys.
So you think it is pedantic if someone desires the correct use of a word? Do you walk around and call black things white, and then look smug when people don't know what you're talking about? I'm not sure I understand people like you.
So what happens when popular usage removes the ability to communicate important concepts like 'begging the question' since people cannot be bothered to understand the original meaning, as in Aristotle's usage? Do we have to start speaking Latin? For example, it is still important to be able to identify a logical fallacy and why it is so without having to resort to long explanations or speaking a dead language. However if people only understand the popular usage, popular because of ignorance to its real meaning (ignorance meaning just not knowing... not people being unintelligent), then we are left with the long explanations and dead language.
And while the government of Canada's web sites look OK, the page flows are obviously designed by bureaucrats. Even using the search engine, you can't find anything useful.
The problem with this phrase is that there are really no others to communicate that what someone is doing is forming some hypothesis and then framing a question to prove it... which is a kind of fallacy. It is not circular reasoning, which is using a proof for an issue to prove another issue is true, but which itself relies on the first problem to be its proof.. So by usurping its use for 'raises the question' it removes a clear avenue for it original purpose. Sometimes generally accepted doesn't make something right. Kind of like the way everyone calls a van dyke beard style a goatee.:-D Just because a lot of folks say it's so, doesn't make it so.;)
Improper use of 'begs the question'. Begging the question is when you have already assumed an answer and are looking for the question for your assumed answer. It is not a question leading from the answer to another question. In that case it is better to use the phrase, 'it raises the question'. Take that grammar nazis!
I agree. If all countries had a 'buck stops here' type of law, with heavy jail time penalties, we wouldn't see shite like this happening. The CEO of BP should be thrown in jail for ten years without parole. Figure out a charge and make it stick. When CEO's see jail time for them as a option for bad or negligent behaviour by their company, new rules will go in to make sure bad or negligent behaviour doesn't happen. And if they do, and someone below the CEO is to blame (lies about a risk assessment for example), that person can take a vacation in the crow bar hotel. But the buck has to stop somewhere and ultimately the CEO should have to fall on his sword if they can't pin it anywhere else. After all they get huge bonuses for doing basically fuck all that others could do for a lot less. There should be another side to the job if they fuck up.
Hyper parents who teach children that they don't have to respect others, not take responsibility for their own actions (after all their child never does anything wrong), or never let their children do things on their own to learn how to learn from mistakes and failures... they're to blame. When things go wrong, when we make mistakes, or are allowed to make mistakes and have to own up to them... to have to eat a bit of humble pie... that makes us a bit more human and better able to empathize with others. Being coddled until you are 30, having your parents 'protect' you from life means kids grow up with some sort of unrealistic sense of entitlement and 'why the fuck should I worry about the next guy' attitude and don't take responsibility for the own actions because their parents always come to their aid, and accuse others of the problem when their kid is ultimately to blame. Parents who want to be their children's friends first and their parents second need to get their heads out of their arses for the sake of their children, and the people who have to work with their children later. Being a parent means teaching their children life (and it isn't always rosy), not living it for them.
So are you saying patents shouldn't be granted if the research it is based on is actually an illegal activity (given that you said war driving is illegal in some countries)?
BTW, I think if this is not covered by prior art (the practice of war driving), it is for sure an obvious extension of it.
What you are condoning is very close to slavery. You can't work for anyone else in your field because the company is blocking you. Then the company can start to abuse you because basically they own you. You seem to think that corporations are more important than the people who work for them. Software jobs are more niche marketed than you seem to think. Why do you think people who make news from switching from one company to another invariably move to a similar job to their last at the new company?
This is good. When threat of litigation intrudes enough, people will vote for or otherwise influence politicians to change the laws on litigation to be more reasonable. Otherwise they get what they deserve.
According to Robert McNamara (Secretary of Defense for both JF Kennedy and Johnson) in the documentary 'The Fog of War', Kennedy wanted to bring any and all American troops in Vietnam in 1963 back home. He was having McNamara figure out how to exit Vietnam. Then when Johnson came to office after the assassination of Kennedy, and against the advice of McNamara, he began escalating America's involvement in Vietnam. Nixon began the reduction and eventual exit. Of interest is an interview with Nixon done at least a decade after he left office. They asked him if he had any regrets about the war. He said only one: that he stopped the bombing (apparently the bombing was so effective the North Vietnamese were on the verge of surrendering when it was stopped... so they didn't have to surrender).
Slashdot Mirror
The net allows people of like minds to come together on a narrow set of web sites that cater to their beliefs. Unfortunately it doesn't make them go to other web sites so that they have to get a balanced argument/information. But for better or worse, that is the price of freedom. Anyway, I think it is fair to say that people tend to gather in tribes and silo themselves; it is human nature. In that regard it makes people dumber since they tune out wider sources of information that force one to think about all sides of an issue. Further, I think that being able to lock oneself into a community tends to make one believe more that their groups viewpoint is the only correct one. The 'truthers' is one group. I think the religious right is another. Animal rights groups. Anti G20 anarchists, etc. etc. etc. It could be one of the foundations behind the polarization that we see in America lately. I'm sure if you visit this list of web sites that back my view you will see it is all true...
So at $55M a pop, this could really be disruptive to the whole space industry.
It's OK, the right wing Republicans have God on their side. He'll tell them the weather if they just read their bible enough times. And we all know that God is on the side of capitalism, big oil, and Rush Limbaugh. No need to worry about global warming, it doesn't exist.
Yes, especially when I say the words: interstate, autobahn, and highways that are like interstates. These are mostly if not all limited access roads. i.e. Cars only. Pedestrians are not allowed on these roads... at least anywhere I've ever lived or driven; and I've driven in 44 of the 50 American states, 6 of the 10 Canadian provinces, and Austria and Germany.
Let me fix this for you...
Nothing against religion. I'm religious. I just don't shut my mind off and believe everything that I read that is written by men (or women). We don't always take dictation correctly. Or translate correctly. Or pass stories without changes over thousands of years.
What is the difference in payload size and weight of the soyuz versus the dragon? Do you know? Given the size of the rockets I get the impression the soyuz will be needed for really big payloads for a while. Or is it because the soyuz capsule is just really heavy itself. Not sure if you know, but...
Burning up on reentry is always a possibility. Oh never mind, they're too dense.
Conditions and vehicle types would be better for determining speed than set limits. Really, limits should be posted only as advisories for curves or for when bad weather sets in, or for when traffic congestion is high. For example, on an off ramp (slip way to some Europeans), I might be safe going round at 40 MPH in a car. On my motorbike I can do that at 60 MPH easily... in control. That is why many speeds posted for off ramps are suggested speeds. If you have traveled much, you might notice that many of the interstate highways in the U.S. and many highways in Canada are no different than the autobahns in Germany, many of which have unlimited speed. And, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Germany's accident rate is no higher than North America's, and may be less. Most accidents are caused by poor, rude, and aggressive drivers, including those that are constantly changing lanes and cutting people off. Oh, and those who text or talk on their cell phones, or refuse to pull off the road when they are sleepy. All in all, irresponsible drivers. I refrain from those activities. If traffic is heavy I drive with the traffic. Tailgating and constantly changing lanes I find doesn't do much good, so why not relax and take it easy. Anyway, if the police would target drivers who drive dangerously (i.e. poor driving habits I have already outlined), they would do more to stop accidents than targeting those who exceed the speed limits.
Or maybe... late night :/
I think the OP was talking about red light cameras that take pictures of your license plate if you run the red light, so that they can ticket you with a traffic offense. Like photo radar. He's not talking about traffic timing.
For those who don't know, Missouri has a nice lawyer scam where you give your speeding ticket to a lawyer and they plead it to a non-moving violation (equivalent to a parking ticket). You avoid points on your license but you still have to pay the cost of the ticket plus the lawyer's fees. Kind of makes a mockery of the deterrent factor of getting a ticket. I worry more about the points as that affects how much my insurance will cost me. If I can afford the fine and there are no points involved, I speed.
So you think it is pedantic if someone desires the correct use of a word? Do you walk around and call black things white, and then look smug when people don't know what you're talking about? I'm not sure I understand people like you.
So what happens when popular usage removes the ability to communicate important concepts like 'begging the question' since people cannot be bothered to understand the original meaning, as in Aristotle's usage? Do we have to start speaking Latin? For example, it is still important to be able to identify a logical fallacy and why it is so without having to resort to long explanations or speaking a dead language. However if people only understand the popular usage, popular because of ignorance to its real meaning (ignorance meaning just not knowing... not people being unintelligent), then we are left with the long explanations and dead language.
And while the government of Canada's web sites look OK, the page flows are obviously designed by bureaucrats. Even using the search engine, you can't find anything useful.
They'll be cheap. They'll build them in China. Now what that means when we really have to do something about North Korea or Taiwan is another matter.
The problem with this phrase is that there are really no others to communicate that what someone is doing is forming some hypothesis and then framing a question to prove it... which is a kind of fallacy. It is not circular reasoning, which is using a proof for an issue to prove another issue is true, but which itself relies on the first problem to be its proof.. So by usurping its use for 'raises the question' it removes a clear avenue for it original purpose. Sometimes generally accepted doesn't make something right. Kind of like the way everyone calls a van dyke beard style a goatee. :-D Just because a lot of folks say it's so, doesn't make it so. ;)
Improper use of 'begs the question'. Begging the question is when you have already assumed an answer and are looking for the question for your assumed answer. It is not a question leading from the answer to another question. In that case it is better to use the phrase, 'it raises the question'. Take that grammar nazis!
I agree. If all countries had a 'buck stops here' type of law, with heavy jail time penalties, we wouldn't see shite like this happening. The CEO of BP should be thrown in jail for ten years without parole. Figure out a charge and make it stick. When CEO's see jail time for them as a option for bad or negligent behaviour by their company, new rules will go in to make sure bad or negligent behaviour doesn't happen. And if they do, and someone below the CEO is to blame (lies about a risk assessment for example), that person can take a vacation in the crow bar hotel. But the buck has to stop somewhere and ultimately the CEO should have to fall on his sword if they can't pin it anywhere else. After all they get huge bonuses for doing basically fuck all that others could do for a lot less. There should be another side to the job if they fuck up.
Hyper parents who teach children that they don't have to respect others, not take responsibility for their own actions (after all their child never does anything wrong), or never let their children do things on their own to learn how to learn from mistakes and failures... they're to blame. When things go wrong, when we make mistakes, or are allowed to make mistakes and have to own up to them... to have to eat a bit of humble pie... that makes us a bit more human and better able to empathize with others. Being coddled until you are 30, having your parents 'protect' you from life means kids grow up with some sort of unrealistic sense of entitlement and 'why the fuck should I worry about the next guy' attitude and don't take responsibility for the own actions because their parents always come to their aid, and accuse others of the problem when their kid is ultimately to blame. Parents who want to be their children's friends first and their parents second need to get their heads out of their arses for the sake of their children, and the people who have to work with their children later. Being a parent means teaching their children life (and it isn't always rosy), not living it for them.
So are you saying patents shouldn't be granted if the research it is based on is actually an illegal activity (given that you said war driving is illegal in some countries)?
BTW, I think if this is not covered by prior art (the practice of war driving), it is for sure an obvious extension of it.
Pretty funny if you ask me. All the others who knock it likely have other issues... like being to hip for the room.
What you are condoning is very close to slavery. You can't work for anyone else in your field because the company is blocking you. Then the company can start to abuse you because basically they own you. You seem to think that corporations are more important than the people who work for them. Software jobs are more niche marketed than you seem to think. Why do you think people who make news from switching from one company to another invariably move to a similar job to their last at the new company?
This is good. When threat of litigation intrudes enough, people will vote for or otherwise influence politicians to change the laws on litigation to be more reasonable. Otherwise they get what they deserve.
According to Robert McNamara (Secretary of Defense for both JF Kennedy and Johnson) in the documentary 'The Fog of War', Kennedy wanted to bring any and all American troops in Vietnam in 1963 back home. He was having McNamara figure out how to exit Vietnam. Then when Johnson came to office after the assassination of Kennedy, and against the advice of McNamara, he began escalating America's involvement in Vietnam. Nixon began the reduction and eventual exit. Of interest is an interview with Nixon done at least a decade after he left office. They asked him if he had any regrets about the war. He said only one: that he stopped the bombing (apparently the bombing was so effective the North Vietnamese were on the verge of surrendering when it was stopped... so they didn't have to surrender).