A good capitalist will not, as they will see that the long term value of their life outweighs the profit from the rope.
Rational actors in economics are like Newtonian physics: as long as there's little substance and nothing is happening in a hurry it's a reasonable simplification to assume that every entity knows everything there is to know and can integrate it all to determine its own reactions, but when things start heating up you need more complex models to explain all the seemingly irrational stuff that starts popping up.
Someone pays for bandwidth, and optimal allocation is not currently driven by economics.
I pay for bandwidth. The idea behind these schemes is to first make me pay for bandwidth, and then pay again to actually use it. And, if at all possible, to charge whoever is on the other end again for the same usage.
Dunno what you think the allocation of bandwidth is currently driven if not by economics; perhaps you think that the cruel users are being abusive for actually using the bandwidth they paid for, rather than let it sit unused like the ISP hoped? The poor, naive ISP needs to actually deliver what it sold and invest some of its profits into the infrastructure necessary to do so, rather than pay its CEO bonuses he so richly deserves for reselling the same bandwidth a hundred times over. Oh the humanity!
The idea of having to invade our Northern Corporate Appendage is absurd, and politicians are cheaper to buy than armaments.
So? It's the taxpayers who pay for the armaments, not the overlords. And invading anywhere starts looking perfectly rational once you have a weapons factory.
Health costs are not paid for out of nothing. If a person's living expenses exceed the value of what he produces, he is a net burden on society. He then lives either on charity or theft (one form of theft is getting support from the government.)
And since you are getting support from the government right now, for example in the form of using the Internet which was invented by it, what does that make you?
Superstition is what keeps humans backward. It plays to their most degenerate desires for controlling others on a mental level. It is based on falsehood, and should be constantly scorned and ridiculed in order to reduce the number of new converts.
So, your grand strategy for fighting religion is to simultaneously give the adherents something harmless to feel martyrs over and make the whole thing seem like a cool, dangerous counterculture to potential young recruits?
It takes 15 Terawatts to power the world and each fission reactor apparently provides about 1 gigawatt, so to furnish 50% of the world's energy needs of today with nuclear, we'd need to build 1 billion nuclear fission reactors.
Um, what? One terawatt is 1000 gigawatts, so by your numbers we could cover the world's entire energy need with 15,000 nuclear reactors.
My first guess of how this fire happened is that someone had done some welding in a compartment and something caught fire. Usually the Navy is pretty good about removing flamables in the area. They even go so far to have a "fire watch" for several hours after the welding was done to ensure that nothing catches fire. it will be interesting to hear what the root cause is.
That's standard procedure for welding (mandated by the insurance companies). And welding could well still be the root cause: in one place I worked, a fire broke out after smoldering unnoticed for over eight hours.
Or it could be a short-circuit and we just got lucky that it occurred on a drydock rather than at sea. Or *drumroll* terrorism.
In what way is it dishonest? Where is the deception? Or did you perhaps confuse not meeting your unrealistic expectations with lying?
Nobody forces no one to take a minimal pay job.
Nobody forces no one to offer minimum wage. But economic circumstances - offshoring of real jobs and the plague-like spread of McDonald's, Wal-Mart and their ilk - do indeed force plenty of people to take minimum wage jobs.
You take a job, and you accept the pay, you do the job (I talked from experience since I've flipped burgers for minimum wage.)
You offer minimum wage, you get what you pay for. And your job history of burger flipping is irrelevant to the discussion, unless you are suggesting that the world owes you a debt for your presumably heroic job performance there, and unrelated third parties should thus do more than you pay them for.
What the hell is wrong with you people that you think your duty to do your job is a function of the hourly wage you so willingly accept?
What the hell is wrong with you people that you think you can pay minimum price and get top quality? Are you really so full of yourself that you think a peon who doesn't give his everything for a few crumbs off your table is being "dishonest"? Or are you yet another libertarian defending the right of the powerful to abuse the weak in the name of freedom?
You can have your own usage monitor on your computer or router if you want
That's not good enough, unless you're willing to let my on-desktop usage monitor triumph in court over the ISPs usage monitor - in which case I gurantee mine will read zero usage.
We are talking about a billing meter here. One who's reading determines how much money you owe to another entity. That means it needs to be calibrated, sealed and read by a third party entity to be even remotely trustworthy.
There are plenty of perfectly valid answers. Most policies are fine as long as they are clearly-defined.
And discouraging the people who torrent petabytes just because they can would do no harm.
It would do harm to those people. It would also do harm to anyone who actually needs that data by reducing the number of potential seeds in the swarm. It would do harm to anyone trying to archive data by lessening replication and thus shortening retention.
But that's okay. These aren't important people or usages, according to your judgement, so it's okay to "discourage" them. Just as long as you remember that you and your usage aren't important to someone else, so it's every bit as okay to discourage you.
Oh, sorry. I forgot. You're special, so you, and only you, put the Internet to the proper usage - such as posting to Slashdot - and should thus be left unmolested while everyone else is "discouraged". Sorry. Carry on, then.
Ordinary citizens can set up mesh networking and render the wired service providers damned near obsolete.
Don't worry, we'll just make it a crime to run an open access point since someone might use it to do something bad and not be caught. That'll take care of that.
By far, the predominate OS that FF runs on is Windows. Thus, the developers are concerned about frequent OS crashes.
I dunno, Windows 7 64-bit hasn't actually crashed on me even once in 2 years, and doesn't seem to require restarts (Firefox does) or reinstalls. Sure, Linux is far better - good command line + multiple desktops + an unified software update architecture - but I have to admit, Microsoft finally got their shit together in the minimum acceptable standards department. Even if it took them a quarter of a century.
Not having looked at the source myself, I don't know if it's possible to optimize FF's sync behavior; but I do know that it's impossible to eliminate it.
It is for me. The only time I want synchronization is when I add a bookmark. So, how do I stop Firefox from syncing except when I hit CTRL-D?
I sense an argument along the lines of Kirk > Picard coming up.
No, because Kirk and Picard are both military starship captains; they do the same job and their job performance can be compared. Comparing Ritchie and Tesla to Steven Jobs and Edison would be more like comparing Cochrane to Quark: one or both may or may not be brilliant, but one is a scientist and the other a businessman, so their abilities aren't really comparable.
I see no evidence that the two party system suppresses good people from running or that multiparty systems create great politicians.
What a multi-party system does is give a credible threat of revolution.
In a two-party system your choices are bad and worse (from your point of view), and the parties know this. What do they care about pleasing their base; where is it going to - to the even worse party? No, all that matters are the swing voters and unaligned groups.
On the other hand, in a multi-party system there are always opportunistic smaller parties ready to capitalize on dissatisfaction and welcome defectors. And if there's not, you can simply find one yourself, based on whatever ideals you seem fit.
So, in other words, a multi-party system encourages political involvement by the general public, while a two-party system encourages darkness induced audience apathy. A multi-party system is great if you trust your fellow citizens more than politicians, and a two-party works wonders if you want the plebes to keep their filthy paws off of power while still giving lip service to democracy.
Mine are even better. I've gotten ads for "Bad Girls" (I'm on Slashdot, so I think you can do the math) and local Christian singles (my profile lists my religion as something other than Christian). I've had a few pretty epic failures on Facebook's targeted advertising.
Actually, aren't those epic successes? They're both attempting to sell you something someone else thinks you lack and need. I can easily imagine someone deciding to target pornography for nerds, and certain Christian sects are quite infamous for pathetic conversion attempts.
This, of course, assumes that Facebook was given the desired target demographics for the ads, not just the ads and instructions to show it to the "best candidates, whoever those might be".
Hardly. There are plenty of corporations who hold interests there besides just media corporations. Feds is to moneyed interests like RIAA is to media corporations.
Hmm...so, what country are you in? Would you be willing to accept the package if we dropped off all these terrorist guys into your country? Would that solve things for you?
What, exactly speaking, needs to be "solved" for him? That he has a problem with holding people prisoner indefinitely without trial?
Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration
on
Diablo III Released
·
· Score: 1
Er... the interoperability clause is part of copyright law, so no, it wouldn't be illegal at that point.
But is it legal obviously enough that a court case is dismissed right away? Because otherwise it becomes a matter of who runs out of money first, making it de facto illegal, at least for Joe Average.
When comparing dates, the data type is implicitly some form of timestamp. Whether that is stored on disk as a string with a "YYYY-MM-DD HH:SS" format, or as a UTC integer offset from 1970-01-01 00:00, it doesn't matter. Using the SQLite way, the two can be transparently stored and compared.
But it's not stored as a string or an integer, it's stored as a bit pattern. It's impossible to compare two bit patterns unless you know what they mean (even for equality - for example, the same string could yield two different patterns in two different encodings). In your example, how is the computer supposed to know that you're comparing dates if neither data item is marked as a date, in other words typed?
The GOP has a chance to gain huge momentum by supporting Paul's ideas,
If a political party decides what ideas it supports based on what's likely to get it elected, that rises some questions about what its purpose is in the first place.
That doesnt make it ok. American citizens, who live in another country, should not owe any tax at all, irrespective of if they make millions or thousands.
Why so? They have a country they can move back to at will, which needs to be defended and maintained. That costs money, so why should they not be required to pay their part?
Slashdot Mirror
Rational actors in economics are like Newtonian physics: as long as there's little substance and nothing is happening in a hurry it's a reasonable simplification to assume that every entity knows everything there is to know and can integrate it all to determine its own reactions, but when things start heating up you need more complex models to explain all the seemingly irrational stuff that starts popping up.
I pay for bandwidth. The idea behind these schemes is to first make me pay for bandwidth, and then pay again to actually use it. And, if at all possible, to charge whoever is on the other end again for the same usage.
Dunno what you think the allocation of bandwidth is currently driven if not by economics; perhaps you think that the cruel users are being abusive for actually using the bandwidth they paid for, rather than let it sit unused like the ISP hoped? The poor, naive ISP needs to actually deliver what it sold and invest some of its profits into the infrastructure necessary to do so, rather than pay its CEO bonuses he so richly deserves for reselling the same bandwidth a hundred times over. Oh the humanity!
So? It's the taxpayers who pay for the armaments, not the overlords. And invading anywhere starts looking perfectly rational once you have a weapons factory.
And since you are getting support from the government right now, for example in the form of using the Internet which was invented by it, what does that make you?
So, your grand strategy for fighting religion is to simultaneously give the adherents something harmless to feel martyrs over and make the whole thing seem like a cool, dangerous counterculture to potential young recruits?
Um, what? One terawatt is 1000 gigawatts, so by your numbers we could cover the world's entire energy need with 15,000 nuclear reactors.
Where on Earth did you get the "1 billion" from?
That's standard procedure for welding (mandated by the insurance companies). And welding could well still be the root cause: in one place I worked, a fire broke out after smoldering unnoticed for over eight hours.
Or it could be a short-circuit and we just got lucky that it occurred on a drydock rather than at sea. Or *drumroll* terrorism.
There is no "first integer". Perhaps you meant the first three nonzero natural numbers?
In what way is it dishonest? Where is the deception? Or did you perhaps confuse not meeting your unrealistic expectations with lying?
Nobody forces no one to offer minimum wage. But economic circumstances - offshoring of real jobs and the plague-like spread of McDonald's, Wal-Mart and their ilk - do indeed force plenty of people to take minimum wage jobs.
You offer minimum wage, you get what you pay for. And your job history of burger flipping is irrelevant to the discussion, unless you are suggesting that the world owes you a debt for your presumably heroic job performance there, and unrelated third parties should thus do more than you pay them for.
What the hell is wrong with you people that you think you can pay minimum price and get top quality? Are you really so full of yourself that you think a peon who doesn't give his everything for a few crumbs off your table is being "dishonest"? Or are you yet another libertarian defending the right of the powerful to abuse the weak in the name of freedom?
That's not good enough, unless you're willing to let my on-desktop usage monitor triumph in court over the ISPs usage monitor - in which case I gurantee mine will read zero usage.
We are talking about a billing meter here. One who's reading determines how much money you owe to another entity. That means it needs to be calibrated, sealed and read by a third party entity to be even remotely trustworthy.
So why didn't you clearly define any?
It would do harm to those people. It would also do harm to anyone who actually needs that data by reducing the number of potential seeds in the swarm. It would do harm to anyone trying to archive data by lessening replication and thus shortening retention.
But that's okay. These aren't important people or usages, according to your judgement, so it's okay to "discourage" them. Just as long as you remember that you and your usage aren't important to someone else, so it's every bit as okay to discourage you.
Oh, sorry. I forgot. You're special, so you, and only you, put the Internet to the proper usage - such as posting to Slashdot - and should thus be left unmolested while everyone else is "discouraged". Sorry. Carry on, then.
Don't worry, we'll just make it a crime to run an open access point since someone might use it to do something bad and not be caught. That'll take care of that.
I dunno, Windows 7 64-bit hasn't actually crashed on me even once in 2 years, and doesn't seem to require restarts (Firefox does) or reinstalls. Sure, Linux is far better - good command line + multiple desktops + an unified software update architecture - but I have to admit, Microsoft finally got their shit together in the minimum acceptable standards department. Even if it took them a quarter of a century.
It is for me. The only time I want synchronization is when I add a bookmark. So, how do I stop Firefox from syncing except when I hit CTRL-D?
No, because Kirk and Picard are both military starship captains; they do the same job and their job performance can be compared. Comparing Ritchie and Tesla to Steven Jobs and Edison would be more like comparing Cochrane to Quark: one or both may or may not be brilliant, but one is a scientist and the other a businessman, so their abilities aren't really comparable.
What a multi-party system does is give a credible threat of revolution.
In a two-party system your choices are bad and worse (from your point of view), and the parties know this. What do they care about pleasing their base; where is it going to - to the even worse party? No, all that matters are the swing voters and unaligned groups.
On the other hand, in a multi-party system there are always opportunistic smaller parties ready to capitalize on dissatisfaction and welcome defectors. And if there's not, you can simply find one yourself, based on whatever ideals you seem fit.
So, in other words, a multi-party system encourages political involvement by the general public, while a two-party system encourages darkness induced audience apathy. A multi-party system is great if you trust your fellow citizens more than politicians, and a two-party works wonders if you want the plebes to keep their filthy paws off of power while still giving lip service to democracy.
Actually, aren't those epic successes? They're both attempting to sell you something someone else thinks you lack and need. I can easily imagine someone deciding to target pornography for nerds, and certain Christian sects are quite infamous for pathetic conversion attempts.
This, of course, assumes that Facebook was given the desired target demographics for the ads, not just the ads and instructions to show it to the "best candidates, whoever those might be".
Hardly. There are plenty of corporations who hold interests there besides just media corporations. Feds is to moneyed interests like RIAA is to media corporations.
What, exactly speaking, needs to be "solved" for him? That he has a problem with holding people prisoner indefinitely without trial?
But is it legal obviously enough that a court case is dismissed right away? Because otherwise it becomes a matter of who runs out of money first, making it de facto illegal, at least for Joe Average.
But it's not stored as a string or an integer, it's stored as a bit pattern. It's impossible to compare two bit patterns unless you know what they mean (even for equality - for example, the same string could yield two different patterns in two different encodings). In your example, how is the computer supposed to know that you're comparing dates if neither data item is marked as a date, in other words typed?
No, it's short about 1.4*10^26 tons.
In other words, people should not have anonymous Internet access least they commit a crime. Nice.
If a political party decides what ideas it supports based on what's likely to get it elected, that rises some questions about what its purpose is in the first place.
Why so? They have a country they can move back to at will, which needs to be defended and maintained. That costs money, so why should they not be required to pay their part?