The problem here is that people fail to realize that the internet isn't a preexisting place, but rather it is system build and operated by people. Those people need to be able to set rules, such as prohibiting cybersquatting, in order to continue to offer a useful service. If someone types in RonPaul into their browser, they are probably looking for Ron Paul's website. Sending them to a fan site or a site belonging to someone else degrades the quality of the service.
Bandwidth literally refers to the width of band of radio spectrum, which can be measured in units of length. The term has continued to be used in communications for similar purposes since then. Cyberspace has never been a space, neither by the conventional definition, nor the mathematical definition, nor any other definition I am aware of.
Obviously, none of the metaphors that come to mind when we are talking about a conventional "space" apply when you're talking about communications and networking. It's a different concept entirely.
What you've done here is construct a straw-man argument. The conventional definition of a lobbyist is someone who is employed to persuade legislators to vote for legislation that favors the lobbyist's employer. By bringing up the origin of the word and pretending that I was arguing against that, you have defeated an argument that only existed in your own twisted mind.
While insurance functions the same way as a Ponzi scheme, insurance does not claim to be like a savings account, retirement plan, or investment. People don't pay into an insurance plan expecting it to pay out. People who pay into an insurance plan usually do so hoping they will not find themselves in a situation where it will pay out (and if that's not true, they are probably defrauding their insurance provider).
On the other hand, Social Security will send you a statement claiming you have certain benefits to which you are entitled after a period of time. Any money which you will receive will be paid into the system at a later date, and does not represent assets that exist today. Note that proponents of social security will point to the social security trust fund, which is essentially money the government has borrowed from social security over the years, as an asset that exists today, even though that money will be repaid from the general fund (taxes) at a later date, and so is subject to the same uncertainties as the rest of the program.
While Social Security certainly does not qualify as a Ponzi scheme, it is still a dangerously ill-concieved social program that destined to collapse down the road unless reforms are made in the near future.
If universities are so suited to the task of educating people, why do they routinely fail to do so? Because they're not, they're basically a "money for degrees" scam, even by your own admission. They are ill-suited to meet the needs of society today. You are basically staring at a mountain of evidence that proves this and saying "if only the students wanted to learn, this would work." It's the logical equivalent of saying "if only elephants were purple, they could fly." You can't prove it's false. Since students need to be able to get a good job after they earn their degree in order to pay back their student loans, of course they will be primarily interested in using the university as a job-training program. It couldn't possibly happen any other way.
You've got it backwards. The parent is saying that old-school colleges have not adapted to modern society and are largely useless as a result. For example, you said "the university system is exactly cut out for today's needs...people with little grasp on critical thinking, literature, culture, history, logic and reasoning, writing, debate" but most people who do work in ID have university degrees. If colleges did what you claim they are meant to do, the problems you are citing wouldn't exist. In fact, they do not. That is why the parent has said "The old college system is not cut out for today's needs and today's tech / IT settings." You seem to think that colleges and universities are actually the standard bearers of society, which is what they aspire to be and claim to be, when they are actually just degree factories that are required for a well-paying job but teach you very little.
There's a video of it pushing an experimental apparatus, so it's definitely not an instrumentation thing. I'm not saying it works, I'm just saying that's definitely not it.
A ballistic missile is not cheap. It may sound reasonable to say they can "barrage you with cheap munitions" but there really is no such thing. Sure, you can save some money by not putting a nuclear warhead on it, but the missile is still going to be the most expensive part of it.
The processes used to manufacture microelectronics have gone through many fundamental changes in recent years. Just because they're still used to make transistors doesn't mean they aren't important fundamental changes. If someone invented an economical industrial process to produce gasoline from the air, would you say that's unimportant because we can already make gasoline? Probably not.
Besides, there have been many breakthroughs in quantum computing in that time, you just haven't noticed because they have yet to result in a working quantum computer. Again, it doesn't mean breakthroughs aren't happening, it just means you haven't noticed them.
That's why I'm concerned by these "training exercises." I don't think there are any unique skills they could be learning. They are just trying to get the soldiers comfortable with shooting at civilians.
At the time the second amendment was debated, it was meant to prohibit the federal government from passing gun control laws as a means of controlling the states. But the person you are replying to is wrong in that he says "That right, as it exists today, is granted by a later court interpretation of the 2nd amendment." In fact, it was the fourteenth amendment which conferred those rights on individuals at the end of the civil war, to prevent them from oppressing their citizens. Of course, at the time they were thinking about ex-slaves, but anyone can be subjected to oppression by the government. It was a fairly recent court case in which the Supreme Court upheld that this was the case, but it's actually pretty hard to read the Fourteenth amendment any other way.
currently the top 100 richest people have enough money to be able to solve world poverty four times.
No they don't. Poverty isn't caused by a lack of money. Money is only representative of value. The richest 100 probably don't consume enough rice to feed the worlds starving (I certainly hope not, anyway). And even if they did, there is little reason to believe taking it from them would mean being able to give it to the poor.
If you were to take all the money from the richest 100, and give it to the poor, or spend it on the poor, or whatever, all you would get is rampant inflation.
The point is that it's better for worker morale if they know the products they're working will actually be produced, as opposed to getting axed down the road. If you kill it when it's still in the conceptualization stage, it doesn't matter.
Some problems, especially manufacturing defects, only manifest themselves with a large enough sample size. Presumably none of the aircraft they used for certification encountered this particular problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that the complaint against Top Gear was wrong, but their case against the NYT seems pretty solid.
The problem here is that people fail to realize that the internet isn't a preexisting place, but rather it is system build and operated by people. Those people need to be able to set rules, such as prohibiting cybersquatting, in order to continue to offer a useful service. If someone types in RonPaul into their browser, they are probably looking for Ron Paul's website. Sending them to a fan site or a site belonging to someone else degrades the quality of the service.
Bandwidth literally refers to the width of band of radio spectrum, which can be measured in units of length. The term has continued to be used in communications for similar purposes since then. Cyberspace has never been a space, neither by the conventional definition, nor the mathematical definition, nor any other definition I am aware of.
Obviously, none of the metaphors that come to mind when we are talking about a conventional "space" apply when you're talking about communications and networking. It's a different concept entirely.
What you've done here is construct a straw-man argument. The conventional definition of a lobbyist is someone who is employed to persuade legislators to vote for legislation that favors the lobbyist's employer. By bringing up the origin of the word and pretending that I was arguing against that, you have defeated an argument that only existed in your own twisted mind.
It's hard to get rid of the lobbyists, but at least you should be able to get rid of the corrupt MEPs who listen to them.
While insurance functions the same way as a Ponzi scheme, insurance does not claim to be like a savings account, retirement plan, or investment. People don't pay into an insurance plan expecting it to pay out. People who pay into an insurance plan usually do so hoping they will not find themselves in a situation where it will pay out (and if that's not true, they are probably defrauding their insurance provider).
On the other hand, Social Security will send you a statement claiming you have certain benefits to which you are entitled after a period of time. Any money which you will receive will be paid into the system at a later date, and does not represent assets that exist today. Note that proponents of social security will point to the social security trust fund, which is essentially money the government has borrowed from social security over the years, as an asset that exists today, even though that money will be repaid from the general fund (taxes) at a later date, and so is subject to the same uncertainties as the rest of the program.
While Social Security certainly does not qualify as a Ponzi scheme, it is still a dangerously ill-concieved social program that destined to collapse down the road unless reforms are made in the near future.
If universities are so suited to the task of educating people, why do they routinely fail to do so? Because they're not, they're basically a "money for degrees" scam, even by your own admission. They are ill-suited to meet the needs of society today. You are basically staring at a mountain of evidence that proves this and saying "if only the students wanted to learn, this would work." It's the logical equivalent of saying "if only elephants were purple, they could fly." You can't prove it's false. Since students need to be able to get a good job after they earn their degree in order to pay back their student loans, of course they will be primarily interested in using the university as a job-training program. It couldn't possibly happen any other way.
You've got it backwards. The parent is saying that old-school colleges have not adapted to modern society and are largely useless as a result. For example, you said "the university system is exactly cut out for today's needs...people with little grasp on critical thinking, literature, culture, history, logic and reasoning, writing, debate" but most people who do work in ID have university degrees. If colleges did what you claim they are meant to do, the problems you are citing wouldn't exist. In fact, they do not. That is why the parent has said "The old college system is not cut out for today's needs and today's tech / IT settings." You seem to think that colleges and universities are actually the standard bearers of society, which is what they aspire to be and claim to be, when they are actually just degree factories that are required for a well-paying job but teach you very little.
There's a video of it pushing an experimental apparatus, so it's definitely not an instrumentation thing. I'm not saying it works, I'm just saying that's definitely not it.
They say the existing unit uses about half as much power to produce 4 times the thrust of the ion drive.
It doesn't sound very sophisticated, are there plans anywhere so I can build one and see for myself?
Not only will it indicate poor penmanship, but it will exacerbate it as well! I guess it couldn't make my handwriting any worse.
50 pairs of shoes may seem unreasonable to you, but it's a pretty reasonable number to someone who is trying to match their shoes to their wardrobe.
It's not ironic at all. Social spending killed to USSR too. Money can't bring an end to social ills.
A ballistic missile is not cheap. It may sound reasonable to say they can "barrage you with cheap munitions" but there really is no such thing. Sure, you can save some money by not putting a nuclear warhead on it, but the missile is still going to be the most expensive part of it.
The processes used to manufacture microelectronics have gone through many fundamental changes in recent years. Just because they're still used to make transistors doesn't mean they aren't important fundamental changes. If someone invented an economical industrial process to produce gasoline from the air, would you say that's unimportant because we can already make gasoline? Probably not.
Besides, there have been many breakthroughs in quantum computing in that time, you just haven't noticed because they have yet to result in a working quantum computer. Again, it doesn't mean breakthroughs aren't happening, it just means you haven't noticed them.
Everybody's on Facebook, so it's much easier for your users to find their friends if your app is integrated with Facebook.
That's why I'm concerned by these "training exercises." I don't think there are any unique skills they could be learning. They are just trying to get the soldiers comfortable with shooting at civilians.
At the time the second amendment was debated, it was meant to prohibit the federal government from passing gun control laws as a means of controlling the states. But the person you are replying to is wrong in that he says "That right, as it exists today, is granted by a later court interpretation of the 2nd amendment." In fact, it was the fourteenth amendment which conferred those rights on individuals at the end of the civil war, to prevent them from oppressing their citizens. Of course, at the time they were thinking about ex-slaves, but anyone can be subjected to oppression by the government. It was a fairly recent court case in which the Supreme Court upheld that this was the case, but it's actually pretty hard to read the Fourteenth amendment any other way.
No they don't. Poverty isn't caused by a lack of money. Money is only representative of value. The richest 100 probably don't consume enough rice to feed the worlds starving (I certainly hope not, anyway). And even if they did, there is little reason to believe taking it from them would mean being able to give it to the poor.
If you were to take all the money from the richest 100, and give it to the poor, or spend it on the poor, or whatever, all you would get is rampant inflation.
The poor can be reimbursed for their consumption taxes, if reducing impact on them is desired.
It's always better to simply not take their money in the first place.
The point is that it's better for worker morale if they know the products they're working will actually be produced, as opposed to getting axed down the road. If you kill it when it's still in the conceptualization stage, it doesn't matter.
Some problems, especially manufacturing defects, only manifest themselves with a large enough sample size. Presumably none of the aircraft they used for certification encountered this particular problem.
That's not what tech support is.