Steve jobs likes to control...because it's made a massive success for him and apple
I think it's more likely that he likes control because he's a control freak. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but I don't think he does it just so he can succeed. He's probably not capable of doing it any other way.
Apple was, is and will continue to be a hardware company that benefits from open standards. They exert a lot of control over their products, but it only goes as far as their products. Apple will never have monopoly control because they only operate in high-end markets.
Sure, but is it necessarily a bad thing? The only problem is that people tend to put too much faith in the one winner and fail to diversify. What you need to do is make sure that you are keeping an eye on these large organizations and hold them accountable for their behavior. And in order to do that, you need to keep and open mind and make sure you have other options than dependance on them. I think maybe I'd better move out to the country and buy a ranch. Get some guns and fortify it in case I need to provide my own defense. Oh great, you just turned me into a nut. Thanks for that.
But the summary seems to imply that they used a different cementing technique in order to overcome the problem. It also says they received the centralizers, so it's not really fair to say it's a lack of foresight. It's just that they thought they'd received the wrong parts and they decided to use a different method rather than wait for replacement parts. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me. Also, we haven't yet determined whether the cementing contributed to the blowout.
You always bid on the best case scenario, then specify that changes will require additional funding. If you do the work you said you'd do, at the cost you said, it's not really true that you've underbid it. The problem is that there are things that are unknowable going in. You could try to account for them by adding 50% or 100% to your bid, but that will put you at a disadvantage to the other bidders, and you'd just be pulling numbers out of your ass anyway.
The bidding process is to select the cheapest/best contractor for the job, not to get a realistic idea of the overall project cost. The bean-counters in Washington know that, but they don't want to put a realistic cost in a bill because they know it won't get funded. Realistically, for this kind of project they should always add 100% or 150% to the bid price to allow for unforeseen problems. Even for a typical infrastructure project they should probably add at least 50% to accommodate change-orders. Then if it's to expensive, they should cancel the project from the start, rather than waiting till they've sunk most of the cost to decide to cancel it.
Or, they could build 5 for about the same cost as 1 (since most of the cost is R&D), and leave 4 of them here on Earth. Then they could fix one on the ground and send it up to replace the one that's out there.
You're commenting about the summary of the report about the report. And I am commenting on your comment about the summary of the report about the report.
Just because other research indicated this might be the case doesn't mean that this was previously known. Do you really think it unnecessary to actually determine if your assumptions are correct? I hope you aren't using and government grant money.
The amazing thing is not that there are mistakes, but the exact same mistakes occur in (almost) every strand of RNA! They aren't random errors, they occur the same way every time!
I don't think big bang theory plays into this scientific investigation at all (it's more of an astronomical theory). The language used in the article is designed so that they lay person may understand why it is relevant.
But my point is that they don't know a lot about the nuclear strong force, that's why these experiments are necessary.
...simply refusing that fact throws out almost our entire understanding of...why the atom's we're composed of don't just fall apart
You just posted this on an article about scientists who are spending billions of dollars trying to figure out why the atom's we're composed of don't just fall apart.
The problem I have with that is that sociopaths don't follow the rules. Also, they are often very good at making it look like they do follow the rules.
Take for example the entire banking industry. They'll happily take your house if you can't pay your mortgage. But what if they can't pay their bills? They get money from the government and all go out any buy brand new yachts. What's wrong with this picture? And what's worse, they did it all while following the rules!
Another example is if there's an armed intruder in your house. Supposedly the police are here to protect us, but will the go in your house to save you? Absolutely not, you are on your own. Their responsibility is filling out the paperwork afterward.
So you can't protect yourself. But the government doesn't do a lot to protect you either. In the meantime they they kill thousands overseas and incarcerate millions at home all for the low price of $2,500,000,000,000 a year. If that's the case it seems a poor bargain to me.
All this is beside the point, of course. Fairness is often in the eye of the beholder because we don't all agree on where our boundaries are. It doesn't seem fair to me that you'd want to pass a law against me when I've done nothing wrong, simply because you believe there's a 1 in 20 chance I may do something wrong. It doesn't seem fair to you that I may refuse to comply with such a law if I don't agree with it. You see, I wouldn't agree with the law even if it were effective (and I really don't think it is anyway) because I'd still think it's unfair to put people under the law if they've not done anything wrong.
I am defending the libertarian viewpoint because you have attacked it unfairly. Every complaint you have against libertarianism applies also to democracy.
I do accept rules, that's why I said "I accept the government simply because I have no other choice, and how far I will let them push me is up to me. I do not owe any kind of special allegiance to it, and I will do things my own way whenever I can." But just because I have to accept them doesn't mean I have to like them. There are a lot of stupid rules out there and more are laid down every day. It's a disagreeable situation to me.
Rules are enforced by the threat of force, yes, but that does not make them any less legitimate.
Indeed, that's only reason they have any legitimacy at all. Hence, "might makes right".
You have a childish view of rules.
The difference between you and me is I don't see that as a bad thing. What is the adult view? I think following rules only because they are enforced by threat of force is intellectually honest. Seeing the way other people seem to unquestioningly accept rules disturbs me, especially since I'm pretty sure they don't really mean it.
Why should you get to set the rules for the majority? That is worse. It is one person saying to many, I do not like your rules, you must my rules, for only my rules are legitimate.
Why should the majority get to set the rules for everybody? I only want to set the rules for myself, and I'm a good guy so I wish you and everyone else would trust me that far.
Now you and people like you want to own it without playing by the rules we have set up.
A couple things:
First of all, I'm not a libertarian. And I wasn't whining about the rules. But you have the wrong idea about libertarians and I was hoping I could shed some light on that movement.
Second of all, I live here. You did not build the US and you don't have any special entitlement to it, no matter how many other people think the way you do. You do not own me simply because I live here, and I have not signed any special contract or agree to give my life or any part of if to you or democratic rule or whatever. And even if I had, I wouldn't keep my agreement.
I accept the government simply because I have no other choice, and how far I will let them push me is up to me. I do not owe any kind of special allegiance to it, and I will do things my own way whenever I can.
I have a natural right to be here on account of being present here and not really being able to leave. The only way you can deny me that right it to take it by force, either kill me or lock me up, or try to coerce me by some other means. That's what rules and government are all about. And yes, that's what property is all about. You can try to dress it up by putting it on a pedestal of high ideals like fairness and democracy and the common good, but at the end of the day it's really just about pushing people around and getting your way. I can't hold to that ideal.
And you, sir, are no better than any of the libertarians you love to criticize. In a lot of ways, it sounds like you push people around more than they do, really. So if you're not going to listen to what I have to say, I'm going to stop trying to reason with you. Sorry to have wasted your time.
Don't you see that you're playing the same game you are accusing the libertarians of playing? If I don't like it I can just go fuck myself? Isn't that the same as a landlord demanding you pay rent? How are you justified in critisizing others for what you do yourself? Just because it's you and a bunch of other people doesn't make it anymore right. You are a hypocrite.
You are the one who is dictating what I can and cant do. If you think it's fair to tell someone to leave the country of their birth just so you and your friends won't push them around, then you have no idea what it means to be fair. You are the one whose advocating might makes right, not me. Just look at what you've written here. When have I ever told you what you can and can't do? And yet you think it's fair to force compliance from me. Think about that for a moment.
No one reaches agreement through compromise. In compromise no one gets what they want, when people agree they all get what they want. The two are basically the opposite of each other.
We don't want "The State" to take care of us. We are the state, and we formed it to keep assholes from getting their way.
You are not the state. The state is comprised of individuals, yes, but that doesn't make them one and the same. You can't take everyones opinions and average them together in an election, and say that the result represents the views of the individual. Also, in saying that "we formed it to keep assholes from getting their way." aren't you saying you want the state to take care of you? At the very least you are saying that you want them to protect you, which is the same thing to me, but you have to admit it's at least similar.
Libertarians do not believe in might makes right, everyone else does. That's why they say you need the state to take care of you, because they believe nothing else is possible. Libertarians perfer ownership to rent, and agreement to compromise. You say that makes them bad people, but I prefer an honest asshole to a dishonest good citizen.
I don't get the whole job thing. Very few people want to work their whole lives for someone else's benefit, and that's all a job is. The problem is a lack of other opportunities for productive work.
As far as you WAR comments, what do you propose to do about it? People are too invested in the system right now to view it as a problem. In a couple years our unsustainable economic policies will finally finish collapsing on themselves. It's already to the point where a young man has no hope of earning a retirement and little hope of earning enough money to buy a house. It's only a matter of time before people finally figure out the american dream isn't worth working for.
I guess what I'm really asking is: how can we speed that up? and what will we do when it finally happens?
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's more likely that he likes control because he's a control freak. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but I don't think he does it just so he can succeed. He's probably not capable of doing it any other way.
Apple was, is and will continue to be a hardware company that benefits from open standards. They exert a lot of control over their products, but it only goes as far as their products. Apple will never have monopoly control because they only operate in high-end markets.
Sure, but is it necessarily a bad thing? The only problem is that people tend to put too much faith in the one winner and fail to diversify. What you need to do is make sure that you are keeping an eye on these large organizations and hold them accountable for their behavior. And in order to do that, you need to keep and open mind and make sure you have other options than dependance on them. I think maybe I'd better move out to the country and buy a ranch. Get some guns and fortify it in case I need to provide my own defense. Oh great, you just turned me into a nut. Thanks for that.
But the summary seems to imply that they used a different cementing technique in order to overcome the problem. It also says they received the centralizers, so it's not really fair to say it's a lack of foresight. It's just that they thought they'd received the wrong parts and they decided to use a different method rather than wait for replacement parts. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me. Also, we haven't yet determined whether the cementing contributed to the blowout.
You always bid on the best case scenario, then specify that changes will require additional funding. If you do the work you said you'd do, at the cost you said, it's not really true that you've underbid it. The problem is that there are things that are unknowable going in. You could try to account for them by adding 50% or 100% to your bid, but that will put you at a disadvantage to the other bidders, and you'd just be pulling numbers out of your ass anyway.
The bidding process is to select the cheapest/best contractor for the job, not to get a realistic idea of the overall project cost. The bean-counters in Washington know that, but they don't want to put a realistic cost in a bill because they know it won't get funded. Realistically, for this kind of project they should always add 100% or 150% to the bid price to allow for unforeseen problems. Even for a typical infrastructure project they should probably add at least 50% to accommodate change-orders. Then if it's to expensive, they should cancel the project from the start, rather than waiting till they've sunk most of the cost to decide to cancel it.
Or, they could build 5 for about the same cost as 1 (since most of the cost is R&D), and leave 4 of them here on Earth. Then they could fix one on the ground and send it up to replace the one that's out there.
You're commenting about the summary of the report about the report. And I am commenting on your comment about the summary of the report about the report.
Yes, isn't that how conspiracy theories work? Come to think of it, most human thought works this way. . .
Of course, he hasn't physically done anything. It'd be different if he bludgeoned someone to death and then claimed he was only kidding.
RTFA. These are not errors. They happen the same way in every strand of RNA.
Just because other research indicated this might be the case doesn't mean that this was previously known. Do you really think it unnecessary to actually determine if your assumptions are correct? I hope you aren't using and government grant money.
The amazing thing is not that there are mistakes, but the exact same mistakes occur in (almost) every strand of RNA! They aren't random errors, they occur the same way every time!
It is well measured, not well understood.
I don't think big bang theory plays into this scientific investigation at all (it's more of an astronomical theory). The language used in the article is designed so that they lay person may understand why it is relevant.
But my point is that they don't know a lot about the nuclear strong force, that's why these experiments are necessary.
You just posted this on an article about scientists who are spending billions of dollars trying to figure out why the atom's we're composed of don't just fall apart.
Of course, the blades on the propeller are at an angle to the wind. . .
The problem I have with that is that sociopaths don't follow the rules. Also, they are often very good at making it look like they do follow the rules.
Take for example the entire banking industry. They'll happily take your house if you can't pay your mortgage. But what if they can't pay their bills? They get money from the government and all go out any buy brand new yachts. What's wrong with this picture? And what's worse, they did it all while following the rules!
Another example is if there's an armed intruder in your house. Supposedly the police are here to protect us, but will the go in your house to save you? Absolutely not, you are on your own. Their responsibility is filling out the paperwork afterward.
So you can't protect yourself. But the government doesn't do a lot to protect you either. In the meantime they they kill thousands overseas and incarcerate millions at home all for the low price of $2,500,000,000,000 a year. If that's the case it seems a poor bargain to me.
All this is beside the point, of course. Fairness is often in the eye of the beholder because we don't all agree on where our boundaries are. It doesn't seem fair to me that you'd want to pass a law against me when I've done nothing wrong, simply because you believe there's a 1 in 20 chance I may do something wrong. It doesn't seem fair to you that I may refuse to comply with such a law if I don't agree with it. You see, I wouldn't agree with the law even if it were effective (and I really don't think it is anyway) because I'd still think it's unfair to put people under the law if they've not done anything wrong.
I am defending the libertarian viewpoint because you have attacked it unfairly. Every complaint you have against libertarianism applies also to democracy.
I do accept rules, that's why I said "I accept the government simply because I have no other choice, and how far I will let them push me is up to me. I do not owe any kind of special allegiance to it, and I will do things my own way whenever I can." But just because I have to accept them doesn't mean I have to like them. There are a lot of stupid rules out there and more are laid down every day. It's a disagreeable situation to me.
Indeed, that's only reason they have any legitimacy at all. Hence, "might makes right".
The difference between you and me is I don't see that as a bad thing. What is the adult view? I think following rules only because they are enforced by threat of force is intellectually honest. Seeing the way other people seem to unquestioningly accept rules disturbs me, especially since I'm pretty sure they don't really mean it.
Why should the majority get to set the rules for everybody? I only want to set the rules for myself, and I'm a good guy so I wish you and everyone else would trust me that far.
A couple things:
First of all, I'm not a libertarian. And I wasn't whining about the rules. But you have the wrong idea about libertarians and I was hoping I could shed some light on that movement.
Second of all, I live here. You did not build the US and you don't have any special entitlement to it, no matter how many other people think the way you do. You do not own me simply because I live here, and I have not signed any special contract or agree to give my life or any part of if to you or democratic rule or whatever. And even if I had, I wouldn't keep my agreement.
I accept the government simply because I have no other choice, and how far I will let them push me is up to me. I do not owe any kind of special allegiance to it, and I will do things my own way whenever I can.
I have a natural right to be here on account of being present here and not really being able to leave. The only way you can deny me that right it to take it by force, either kill me or lock me up, or try to coerce me by some other means. That's what rules and government are all about. And yes, that's what property is all about. You can try to dress it up by putting it on a pedestal of high ideals like fairness and democracy and the common good, but at the end of the day it's really just about pushing people around and getting your way. I can't hold to that ideal.
And you, sir, are no better than any of the libertarians you love to criticize. In a lot of ways, it sounds like you push people around more than they do, really. So if you're not going to listen to what I have to say, I'm going to stop trying to reason with you. Sorry to have wasted your time.
Don't you see that you're playing the same game you are accusing the libertarians of playing? If I don't like it I can just go fuck myself? Isn't that the same as a landlord demanding you pay rent? How are you justified in critisizing others for what you do yourself? Just because it's you and a bunch of other people doesn't make it anymore right. You are a hypocrite.
You are the one who is dictating what I can and cant do. If you think it's fair to tell someone to leave the country of their birth just so you and your friends won't push them around, then you have no idea what it means to be fair. You are the one whose advocating might makes right, not me. Just look at what you've written here. When have I ever told you what you can and can't do? And yet you think it's fair to force compliance from me. Think about that for a moment.
No one reaches agreement through compromise. In compromise no one gets what they want, when people agree they all get what they want. The two are basically the opposite of each other.
You are not the state. The state is comprised of individuals, yes, but that doesn't make them one and the same. You can't take everyones opinions and average them together in an election, and say that the result represents the views of the individual. Also, in saying that "we formed it to keep assholes from getting their way." aren't you saying you want the state to take care of you? At the very least you are saying that you want them to protect you, which is the same thing to me, but you have to admit it's at least similar.
Libertarians do not believe in might makes right, everyone else does. That's why they say you need the state to take care of you, because they believe nothing else is possible. Libertarians perfer ownership to rent, and agreement to compromise. You say that makes them bad people, but I prefer an honest asshole to a dishonest good citizen.
There are a lot of good ideas that haven't received $100,000,000,000 of development. How much of a chance does this thing need?
I don't get the whole job thing. Very few people want to work their whole lives for someone else's benefit, and that's all a job is. The problem is a lack of other opportunities for productive work.
As far as you WAR comments, what do you propose to do about it? People are too invested in the system right now to view it as a problem. In a couple years our unsustainable economic policies will finally finish collapsing on themselves. It's already to the point where a young man has no hope of earning a retirement and little hope of earning enough money to buy a house. It's only a matter of time before people finally figure out the american dream isn't worth working for.
I guess what I'm really asking is: how can we speed that up? and what will we do when it finally happens?