Just make computer-related material copyright last only a year (and ban software patents), and that will solve most of the problems.
Random thought for the day: Patents and Copyright are Fascism (state ownership of the means of production, in that the state claims a monopoly on anything produced as described in the patent or copyright).
Don't complain, these guys are training your future minions. You know, for all the easy to do but time-consuming and boring as heck tasks. You know you want a minion.
What if you put a large, flat solar panel such that the rest of the satellite is permanently in the shade? Also, make the edges super black. Then all the light gets reflected back toward the sun. It could still occasionally flare, if the panels are aimed slightly towards the earth or aren't smooth, but that could be solved by aiming the panels slightly away from earth. (Or, of course, we could let the astronomers worry about it -- they are predictable after all)
Uh...unable to control their "willpower" when buying a car?
Someone I know buys cars "because the salesman talks so nice". She sometimes goes to those things where dealers give free stuff, but sometimes says she's afraid to go because she might end up buying a car. Occasionally, she hands the phone to me and asks me to tell the salesman on the phone "no" for her, because she doesn't want to be rude.
You could tax the fuel. Then distribute the tax revenue equally among all citizens. Then, anyone who uses more fuel than average loses out, but anyone who uses less fuel than average gains a source of income. This will totally screw anyone who uses lots of gasoline, but that kind of is the point. You could partially deduct fuel expense necessary for business to focus more of the impact on recreational or inefficient use. If you think it still hits the poor too hard, you can distribute it based on income.
This is known as "motivated skepticism". If [benefit of solution] - [cost of solution] is low, then there is little gain from working on the solution. And acknowledging the problem gives political support to any proposed solution, as well as increasing the chance that you will spend resources on the problem.
Sure, I understand that a fuel tax will hit the poor the hardest. However, it is also possible to have a fuel tax without it hurting the poor -- simply redistribute the money from the fuel tax back to the population. The result will be a decrease in fuel usage, and the side effects resulting from that.
You act as if the only people who will end up paying taxes are low income Americans. Yes, eventually all taxes are paid by individuals but some of them are foreign investors, and some of them are rich people who will not decrease their consumption just because of a little more tax. Besides this, a tax on petroleum specifically will reduce the money we send to our friends in the Middle East for their oil.
You can shape the economy based on who you tax -- the more tax burden on the rich, the less investment, while the more tax burden on the poor, the less consumption. Besides this, it also affects the production of rich kid toys, vs basic necessities. And the level of unrest. And a whole bunch of other factors.
Just because a door is unlocked does not mean you may walk inside, even if it is to tell the owner their door is unlocked.
If we're doing a door analogy, this is like if people's locks came with a default key where everybody who bought the same brand door could open your door. On the lock installation instructions, it tells you how to randomize your key but most users just use the default. Obviously, the purpose of the lock and key is exactly so that other people can't open your door. And then when you show them how anyone at all could open their door they accuse you of lockpicking.
If a lock company did this, they be out of business in no time. There's no reason people who make network devices shouldn't use randomized passwords the same way locks come already randomized.
Indeed. We have enough trouble finding certain DNA-based life forms. Plenty of life forms we only know about because we leaned how to copy DNA, and started grinding up samples and amplifying the DNA. Many of those refuse to grow in petri dishes and don't cause diseases, and would no doubt be unknown to this day if they didn't contain DNA.
I think there's a fairly low chance that Earth has life that doesn't use DNA/RNA but if there is and it minds its own business, it could be decades or more before we discover them.
In the old days of Aristotle, the theory was that the universe always existed and would always continue. No beginning means no creation event which means no cause, nothing to explain. Each event was caused by a previous event etc back to infinity, with nothing special just the same rules as today. The ones who didn't believe in infinity or needed an excuse to insert something special, a First Cause that is not itself caused. Both are logically consistent (albeit the First Cause case additionally assumes that the law of cause and effect was itself created). Theists would have their favorite god either as the First Cause, or as eternal (no need for a cause since not created), or as being born (and possibly dying) from a lineage of gods.
Then we learned a few things about the universe: the Big Bang, and also the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This put an end to the steady state universe; there was a beginning to the universe as we know it, and it will end. As for how that affects the law of cause and effect: it changes nothing. We must still have an eternal universe, either our own cycling in a Big Crunch and Big Bang, or an eternal meta-universe that caused our Big Bang and most likely several others; or we can have a First Cause (now with the difference that we are comfortable with infinite, but since time is part of our universe's spacetime a beginning to the law of cause and effect is also more acceptable). Theists additionally insist that the eternal meta-universe which caused the Big Bang has the same traits as their favorite god.
In short, there is no paradox. This is the same things that were already discussed thousands of years ago, only with different details.
I'd like some software that will tell me how likely my company is to give me a raise vs tell me to get lost. This would be especially nice when it comes to companies I'm considering applying to.
As for the software under discussion, it is obvious that it will be used to deny raises to anyone except those who are both marked as willing to leave the company and whom the company sufficiently values (and by values I mean that it would cost the company more to replace them than to give them a raise).
Our allies can legally spy on your meeting with your lawyer, and then they can tell the relevant government what they learned. Same as with spying on the general population, we can't do it but our allies can do it and tell us all about it.
At some point maybe we should start being concerned that the government is treating the Constitution as a hostile document to be worked around.
I don't see why that can't be a completely separate service. It should be perfectly legal to trade one coin for another, and it is legal to value your privacy. Suspicious, perhaps, given that everyone's been giving up all their personal info left and right, but legal. Am I wrong?
Why are so many people so adamant about the notion that consciousness can't come from the physical brain?
Noooo! Answer me this Mr Smartypants: If spirits don't exist, how come activating this spirit detection equipment allows you to sense them? This research proves that spirits exist, and soon it will be scientifically proven that God exists and is exactly as described in the Bible.
Why should the U.S. be entitled to taxes on non-U.S. earnings?
Why shouldn't I be able to declare my residence a PO Box in Luxembourg, and work in the US but deduct the majority of my earnings as licensing fees to my other headquarters (and so earned there rather than here), thus only paying a fraction of the taxes I would otherwise? And then receive government services and aid due to my low income? That's the sort of thing corporations do.
And actually I might be able to pull this off, if I create a company elsewhere, hire myself at my company at low wage, and offer the services of my company's employees (ie me) for top dollar, payed to the company. Though I have a sneaking suspicion that this isn't allowed for the little guy.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow... lots of incredibly defensive responses. Almost as if these people feel threatened by someone with 3 months of education in their field.
Just to clarify, the minions are for menial programming tasks, not to do automated tasks that would be better done by a script.
Just make computer-related material copyright last only a year (and ban software patents), and that will solve most of the problems.
Random thought for the day: Patents and Copyright are Fascism (state ownership of the means of production, in that the state claims a monopoly on anything produced as described in the patent or copyright).
Don't complain, these guys are training your future minions. You know, for all the easy to do but time-consuming and boring as heck tasks. You know you want a minion.
No.
What if you put a large, flat solar panel such that the rest of the satellite is permanently in the shade? Also, make the edges super black. Then all the light gets reflected back toward the sun. It could still occasionally flare, if the panels are aimed slightly towards the earth or aren't smooth, but that could be solved by aiming the panels slightly away from earth. (Or, of course, we could let the astronomers worry about it -- they are predictable after all)
Uh...unable to control their "willpower" when buying a car?
Someone I know buys cars "because the salesman talks so nice". She sometimes goes to those things where dealers give free stuff, but sometimes says she's afraid to go because she might end up buying a car. Occasionally, she hands the phone to me and asks me to tell the salesman on the phone "no" for her, because she doesn't want to be rude.
You could tax the fuel. Then distribute the tax revenue equally among all citizens. Then, anyone who uses more fuel than average loses out, but anyone who uses less fuel than average gains a source of income. This will totally screw anyone who uses lots of gasoline, but that kind of is the point. You could partially deduct fuel expense necessary for business to focus more of the impact on recreational or inefficient use. If you think it still hits the poor too hard, you can distribute it based on income.
This is known as "motivated skepticism". If [benefit of solution] - [cost of solution] is low, then there is little gain from working on the solution. And acknowledging the problem gives political support to any proposed solution, as well as increasing the chance that you will spend resources on the problem.
Sure, I understand that a fuel tax will hit the poor the hardest. However, it is also possible to have a fuel tax without it hurting the poor -- simply redistribute the money from the fuel tax back to the population. The result will be a decrease in fuel usage, and the side effects resulting from that.
Soon (if not already) individuals will be able to afford their own personal spy satellites.
You act as if the only people who will end up paying taxes are low income Americans. Yes, eventually all taxes are paid by individuals but some of them are foreign investors, and some of them are rich people who will not decrease their consumption just because of a little more tax. Besides this, a tax on petroleum specifically will reduce the money we send to our friends in the Middle East for their oil.
You can shape the economy based on who you tax -- the more tax burden on the rich, the less investment, while the more tax burden on the poor, the less consumption. Besides this, it also affects the production of rich kid toys, vs basic necessities. And the level of unrest. And a whole bunch of other factors.
It's time to reach for the stars like it's 1783.
Cause rocket science is hard.
We found it in a lab.
Come back to me when they actually find something that uses a sixth nucleotide.
Here you go.
http://motherboard.vice.com/re...
Well, it's more like "created" than "discovered", but it is does have 6 base pairs in its DNA (and replicates them).
Where's the video of Zuckerberg saying that Facebook will be mostly video?
Just because a door is unlocked does not mean you may walk inside, even if it is to tell the owner their door is unlocked.
If we're doing a door analogy, this is like if people's locks came with a default key where everybody who bought the same brand door could open your door. On the lock installation instructions, it tells you how to randomize your key but most users just use the default. Obviously, the purpose of the lock and key is exactly so that other people can't open your door. And then when you show them how anyone at all could open their door they accuse you of lockpicking.
If a lock company did this, they be out of business in no time. There's no reason people who make network devices shouldn't use randomized passwords the same way locks come already randomized.
Indeed. We have enough trouble finding certain DNA-based life forms. Plenty of life forms we only know about because we leaned how to copy DNA, and started grinding up samples and amplifying the DNA. Many of those refuse to grow in petri dishes and don't cause diseases, and would no doubt be unknown to this day if they didn't contain DNA.
I think there's a fairly low chance that Earth has life that doesn't use DNA/RNA but if there is and it minds its own business, it could be decades or more before we discover them.
No, causality is not a problem for this.
In the old days of Aristotle, the theory was that the universe always existed and would always continue. No beginning means no creation event which means no cause, nothing to explain. Each event was caused by a previous event etc back to infinity, with nothing special just the same rules as today. The ones who didn't believe in infinity or needed an excuse to insert something special, a First Cause that is not itself caused. Both are logically consistent (albeit the First Cause case additionally assumes that the law of cause and effect was itself created). Theists would have their favorite god either as the First Cause, or as eternal (no need for a cause since not created), or as being born (and possibly dying) from a lineage of gods.
Then we learned a few things about the universe: the Big Bang, and also the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This put an end to the steady state universe; there was a beginning to the universe as we know it, and it will end. As for how that affects the law of cause and effect: it changes nothing. We must still have an eternal universe, either our own cycling in a Big Crunch and Big Bang, or an eternal meta-universe that caused our Big Bang and most likely several others; or we can have a First Cause (now with the difference that we are comfortable with infinite, but since time is part of our universe's spacetime a beginning to the law of cause and effect is also more acceptable). Theists additionally insist that the eternal meta-universe which caused the Big Bang has the same traits as their favorite god.
In short, there is no paradox. This is the same things that were already discussed thousands of years ago, only with different details.
How big are the out of network charges for health insurance for space tourists?
I'd like some software that will tell me how likely my company is to give me a raise vs tell me to get lost. This would be especially nice when it comes to companies I'm considering applying to.
As for the software under discussion, it is obvious that it will be used to deny raises to anyone except those who are both marked as willing to leave the company and whom the company sufficiently values (and by values I mean that it would cost the company more to replace them than to give them a raise).
So quantum fluctuations are "nothing" then?
You have to be an expert in quantum mechanics to really know nothing.
Our allies can legally spy on your meeting with your lawyer, and then they can tell the relevant government what they learned. Same as with spying on the general population, we can't do it but our allies can do it and tell us all about it.
At some point maybe we should start being concerned that the government is treating the Constitution as a hostile document to be worked around.
I don't see why that can't be a completely separate service. It should be perfectly legal to trade one coin for another, and it is legal to value your privacy. Suspicious, perhaps, given that everyone's been giving up all their personal info left and right, but legal. Am I wrong?
Dualists are still staggeringly common.
Why are so many people so adamant about the notion that consciousness can't come from the physical brain?
Noooo! Answer me this Mr Smartypants: If spirits don't exist, how come activating this spirit detection equipment allows you to sense them? This research proves that spirits exist, and soon it will be scientifically proven that God exists and is exactly as described in the Bible.
Why should the U.S. be entitled to taxes on non-U.S. earnings?
Why shouldn't I be able to declare my residence a PO Box in Luxembourg, and work in the US but deduct the majority of my earnings as licensing fees to my other headquarters (and so earned there rather than here), thus only paying a fraction of the taxes I would otherwise? And then receive government services and aid due to my low income? That's the sort of thing corporations do.
And actually I might be able to pull this off, if I create a company elsewhere, hire myself at my company at low wage, and offer the services of my company's employees (ie me) for top dollar, payed to the company. Though I have a sneaking suspicion that this isn't allowed for the little guy.