I'm confused.. I thought recycling was supposed to save energy and reduce costs.. hence 'they' should pay you for your junk.. if recycling costs so much, maybe we shouldn't be doing it at all. (if you operate under the assumption, as I do, that cost is a reasonable proxy for resources consumed) (or is it disposal that costs this much?)
Re:In a word - "Yes". In two, "Not Yet".
on
Are CRTs History?
·
· Score: 1
First of all, it's probably windex on MgF or some other antireflection coating (which may or may not be windex reactive) So you should be using water on your CRT. Second of all, what are you getting on your LCD that requires more than warm water to remove?
Which begs an interesting point: Lcd screens rely on the polarization of light to achieve their effect. Look at a LCD screen with polarized sunglasses and (if the sunglass manufacturer was telling the truth) you'll be albe to find the angle that makes the screen dark. so query: Is it possible to have rows of pixels in an LCD screen which have the opposite polarization to the row next to them? If so, the poster's problem is solved, much more elegantly i might add since there would be no expensive shutter glasses anymore, just cheap polarized movie theater glasses.
Your razer blade would last three years if you maintained it properly. It's just that no one takes the time to run it over a leather strop a buncha times before shaving anymore.
ahh.. seems like the perfect application of P2P.. or at least massive mirroring: make the postfix clients aware of each other (or a bunch of their nearest neighbors) and mirror the list. If one goes down, send the request to another one. Check all neighbors for updates and new neighbors every so often and merge the new data into the local list, deleting expired changes. New addresses could get pushed to the web by simply ammending their own list, when their neighbors d/l it they will propogate the changes. It doesn't matter if everyone has the whole list at any point, as long as the lists propogating through are reasonably complete.
especially when taxes on feul go to pay for roads.
The whole point of privatization is that government wouldn't be spending money on them. or collecting money for them. so your taxes on fuel should go down.
well they would if they were really for roads. They're not. Notice how taxes on things with inelastic demand tend to be higher and go up faster than taxes on things with elastic demand curves? For instance, gasoline and cigarettes vs. melons and shirts. Taxes are higher on fuel because they can be without affecting the market. (of course it affects other markets since the capital is being spent on gasoline taxes...)
The profile thing is something that should be entered into the debate, but it may be that others would be willing to put up with the potential profiling problem in exchange for only paying for roads they use (and those roads consequently being well maintained).
So you're refuting my claim that the government should avoid competing directly with private industry unless necessary with three examples of activities which would be harmful to put solely in the hands of private industry?
BTW paying a company to do something is not the same as privatizing that thing.
Why do you think they would be any less pro-life? Can't you open your mind for one minute to the possibility that people's motivations are less sinister than you currently believe? People who are "foes of private health care decisions" are so because they believe that we shouldn't make "private health decisions" for people other then our own private selves. Ironically, its the exactly the position that people in FAVOR of "private health care decisions" have taken. The "only" differnece (it's a big difference really) is that they don't believe that fetuses are just a part of the parent, they believe the fetus is its own organism worthy of the rights to self-determining health care decisions as everyone else. Since it won't be able understand that decision, let alone make it, for at least a decade, someone must be its guardian.
Lest I be accused of trying to disguise my position, I really should be putting 'us' where I put 'they.' I did not want to put my position in the mouths of everyone who holds a similar position: I also believe that those rights should extend up to the fertalized egg, because I can't think of any point other than that where we can definatively say, it wasn't a human before this event, but after this event (that we can measure) it is. I think that this is the only point about which we should frame the debate. I think we can all agree that it is immoral to murder a human being and that if human, a fetus has commited no crime and presents no threat to national security and commits none of the other offenses for which lethal force is usually warranted. The only thing left to disagree on is, "Is a fetus a human being?"
If the genetic test for homosexuality is found it would raise a number of issues, all extending from the proof that homosexuality is genetic. (I would guess such a test would be difficult to find since a homosexuality gene probably has to be linked to other valuable genes or it would be selected out. I can't imagine it will be easy to differentiate between the valuable trait and the valuable trait with homosexuality expressed)
The people who are going to abort homosexual fetus are the same as the people who would abort the autistic or blind. They are the people who believe that society benefits by ending pregnancies. Why to kick that straw man AC.
If you're proposing that those things even can be privatized (well maybe roads) then sure why should the government do it if private industry has a solution?
All the private roads I've been on have been far better maintained than the public ones. The tolls have been annoying, but in the era of fastpass, i'm sure we can make it unobtrusive. This has the benefit of only charging people who actually use the roads.
I'm stymied as to how to privatize the military and courts though. To be effective, it really needs to be a pool of all the tiny private armies that would be possible. Also it would be nice to protect all the citizens rather than just the few who could afford a roving band of mercenaries. I can't imagine a pricing plan for "ArmyCorp" if we were to have one. On the other hand, maybe we'd finally get some troops on border patrol.
Same thing with the courts, without the force of the military or some armed enforcer (police) the courts decisions would be meaningless, but we probably don't want privately owned police forces (the point of the public justice system is to discourage escalation of violence, private police would probably result in right o' vengance style of justice which would not be justice at all)
So, IMO, courts, law enforcement, military probably can't be reasonably privatized at this time. Roads probably could be, so we should decide as a society if we want to continue to keep them on the list of public activities. Certainly we should be very wary of adding new and previously unneeded things to that list.
and yet those "one or two volvanic eruptions" have put more "greenhouse gasses" and other noxious fumes into the atmosphere than all of industrial history.
The "public business" need not care about customer service. The revinue comes at gunpoint from the affected market whether the members are customers or not. Since they are paying for it anyway, it will not make sense to switch to the less buggy private service as long as the municipal service provides the absolute minimum level of acceptable service. There is no incentive for imporvement beyond that level. In fact, it could be argued that improvement beyond the minimum level would be a disservice to taxpayers since it would cost them more, but the improvements would not show what the benefit is in terms of number of users.
This is the beast FDR struggled with in implimenting the Tennessee Valley Authority (the only depression-era make-work program that successfully improved the local economy in a measureable way) Government should never compete with private businesses to provide necessary services if at all possible. Only in the event that those services are both too unprofitable for the private industry and vital to the municipality should ideas of government projects be entertained.
It's more complicated to that. In those societies where the elderly are cared for at home, generally they also have many children to do the taking care of. In the US, we have decided that it is better to accumulate wealth by having few children.(fewer than 2 per woman on average) Combined with the increasing lifespan, this results in more elderly per person to take care of. The amount of care required, especially with advancing age, essencially mandates that an economy of scale be sought - nursing homes and retirement comunities - or the economy as a whole would be injured.
Since having fewer children results in a greater burden on those children (in care and SSI) and is generally done to maintain greater wealth for the parents (or non-childrearing couple), it could be argued that the "baby-boomer" generation is the most selfish generation yet (in the short term) and therefore does not deserve the benefits we have decreed for their parents (who won the greatest war yet in the history of modern civilization)
I was hoping someone would mention that. The particular existance after they recharged battery did not make sense assuming the robots were compassionate and wanted to make the boy comfortable. His experience post "temporary reincarnation" would be hell to me. I'm not sure if it was intentional though. So many times, authors put stuff like that in to lighten up a dark film without really thinking it through. I just thought that the ressurecting robots were unnecessary to the plot. "conflict, climax, and resolution" had already occured and the end robots thing was really another story altogether.
If they were intentionally torturing him though.. why?
AI was a decent movie.. until the half hour deus ex machina (or machina-deus ex machina?) at the end. It would've been a great (but sad) film if they'd stopped when his 'battery' died.
Moviemakers used to put really fake sounding riccochet sounds whenever bullets were fired in films. eventually everyone saw through it and now you very rarely see the same.
At one time, it was thought that especially serious movies should have some kind of comic relief, either a character that's so stupid you wonder how he breathes or some kind of happy fun dance at the end. This appears campy by today's standards.
Today films have ever more realistic special effects and are getting better at avoiding the pitfals of terminally stupid characters. (except lucas;pasdlkfja)
The fad today seems to be 'Accessable language' no attempt is made at proper english (USAian or UKian). Instead, popular idioms are used who's meaning is obvious and far from deep. One half expected yoda to say, "Palpatine, grass your ass is" Which sounds forceful and meaningful the first time around, but leaves a sour taste in the mouth on further viewings. Padme talking to anikin about stress is another. It only served to remind me how much better Lady Macbeth's dialog was in shakespeare's play. Yes, real people talk like that all the time, but real people also go to bars and talk about 'them titties' that just walked by. Neither is good storytelling.
My only real complaint with ep III was the horrible dialog. It would almost be better to watch the film karaoke style than listen to the meaningless drivel that spews from apparantly intelligent mouths. (You expect JarJar to speak ignorantly, but the leader of the Jedi Council?)
I definately agree that the "first three" serve to make the universe and events of the "original three" seem smaller and less significant.
7) No ads, no bots, no scams. You are permitted to promote your entry however you see fit, with three exceptions: You may not use paid advertisements, automated processes that fake traffic, or scams that produce traffic without people actually seeing your content. Most other stuff is fair game.
emphasis mine.
It seems that by posting to slashdot, they have violated the rules.
What are you talking about? the market will decide. Right now there are quite a few browsers available, some of them are free. One of the 'features' that market will 'consider' is the continued interest of the developers. On the microsoft side, this will last as long as they are willing to pay people to work on a product they are giving away for free. On the Firefox/gecko side, this will be as long as they care do do it. Since open source allows anyone to develop, there will be interest in development as long as firefox is useful (or can be useful). As the original developers eventually go on to other projects or retire, marketshare and therefore mindshare become important for attracting the next generation of developers. They will need to have heard of firefox to want to improve it. This is not a probelm for the organization which is paying for its developers. It remains to be seen which is the better allocation of resources, but barring intervention on the part of some government or another, it will eventually be seen.
Wow. I wish I had mod points. Lots of insightful mod points. You've improved on my numerical observation with a working theory that sounds extremely plausible. Kudos.
Anyway, I hope something happens soon. I'd really like to see something other than shuttle at this point, but shuttle is better than nothing right?
Every weekend? What websites is his daughter visiting that she gets so much spyware it needs to be dealt with every week? Maybe what he needs is to talk to his daughter.
Yes, but if you make someone else who is just like you and you die, you still die. From the point of view of you, you are dead. From the point of view of everyone else, someone who is exactly like you is alive, so they might as well be you. If you never told them about the copy/death, they'd never even know there could be a difference.
\begin{humor}[dark]But you'd still be dead and another guy would be sleeping with your wife.\end{humor}
Slashdot Mirror
I'm confused.. I thought recycling was supposed to save energy and reduce costs.. hence 'they' should pay you for your junk.. if recycling costs so much, maybe we shouldn't be doing it at all. (if you operate under the assumption, as I do, that cost is a reasonable proxy for resources consumed) (or is it disposal that costs this much?)
First of all, it's probably windex on MgF or some other antireflection coating (which may or may not be windex reactive) So you should be using water on your CRT. Second of all, what are you getting on your LCD that requires more than warm water to remove?
Which begs an interesting point: Lcd screens rely on the polarization of light to achieve their effect. Look at a LCD screen with polarized sunglasses and (if the sunglass manufacturer was telling the truth) you'll be albe to find the angle that makes the screen dark. so query: Is it possible to have rows of pixels in an LCD screen which have the opposite polarization to the row next to them? If so, the poster's problem is solved, much more elegantly i might add since there would be no expensive shutter glasses anymore, just cheap polarized movie theater glasses.
Your razer blade would last three years if you maintained it properly. It's just that no one takes the time to run it over a leather strop a buncha times before shaving anymore.
but he's wrong. Its possessive is "its." Rule two is about as valid as "I before e except after c." Weird.
Wait.. We agree then? Did we agree the whole time? What just happened here? I guess I'll add you to my friends list then.
ahh.. seems like the perfect application of P2P.. or at least massive mirroring: make the postfix clients aware of each other (or a bunch of their nearest neighbors) and mirror the list. If one goes down, send the request to another one. Check all neighbors for updates and new neighbors every so often and merge the new data into the local list, deleting expired changes. New addresses could get pushed to the web by simply ammending their own list, when their neighbors d/l it they will propogate the changes. It doesn't matter if everyone has the whole list at any point, as long as the lists propogating through are reasonably complete.
especially when taxes on feul go to pay for roads.
The whole point of privatization is that government wouldn't be spending money on them. or collecting money for them. so your taxes on fuel should go down.
well they would if they were really for roads. They're not. Notice how taxes on things with inelastic demand tend to be higher and go up faster than taxes on things with elastic demand curves? For instance, gasoline and cigarettes vs. melons and shirts. Taxes are higher on fuel because they can be without affecting the market. (of course it affects other markets since the capital is being spent on gasoline taxes...)
The profile thing is something that should be entered into the debate, but it may be that others would be willing to put up with the potential profiling problem in exchange for only paying for roads they use (and those roads consequently being well maintained).
So you're refuting my claim that the government should avoid competing directly with private industry unless necessary with three examples of activities which would be harmful to put solely in the hands of private industry?
BTW paying a company to do something is not the same as privatizing that thing.
In '86 the flagship space shuttle blew up. I'm pretty sure that put a damper on things for a bit.
Why do you think they would be any less pro-life? Can't you open your mind for one minute to the possibility that people's motivations are less sinister than you currently believe? People who are "foes of private health care decisions" are so because they believe that we shouldn't make "private health decisions" for people other then our own private selves. Ironically, its the exactly the position that people in FAVOR of "private health care decisions" have taken. The "only" differnece (it's a big difference really) is that they don't believe that fetuses are just a part of the parent, they believe the fetus is its own organism worthy of the rights to self-determining health care decisions as everyone else. Since it won't be able understand that decision, let alone make it, for at least a decade, someone must be its guardian.
Lest I be accused of trying to disguise my position, I really should be putting 'us' where I put 'they.' I did not want to put my position in the mouths of everyone who holds a similar position: I also believe that those rights should extend up to the fertalized egg, because I can't think of any point other than that where we can definatively say, it wasn't a human before this event, but after this event (that we can measure) it is. I think that this is the only point about which we should frame the debate. I think we can all agree that it is immoral to murder a human being and that if human, a fetus has commited no crime and presents no threat to national security and commits none of the other offenses for which lethal force is usually warranted. The only thing left to disagree on is, "Is a fetus a human being?"
If the genetic test for homosexuality is found it would raise a number of issues, all extending from the proof that homosexuality is genetic. (I would guess such a test would be difficult to find since a homosexuality gene probably has to be linked to other valuable genes or it would be selected out. I can't imagine it will be easy to differentiate between the valuable trait and the valuable trait with homosexuality expressed)
The people who are going to abort homosexual fetus are the same as the people who would abort the autistic or blind. They are the people who believe that society benefits by ending pregnancies. Why to kick that straw man AC.
If you're proposing that those things even can be privatized (well maybe roads) then sure why should the government do it if private industry has a solution?
All the private roads I've been on have been far better maintained than the public ones. The tolls have been annoying, but in the era of fastpass, i'm sure we can make it unobtrusive. This has the benefit of only charging people who actually use the roads.
I'm stymied as to how to privatize the military and courts though. To be effective, it really needs to be a pool of all the tiny private armies that would be possible. Also it would be nice to protect all the citizens rather than just the few who could afford a roving band of mercenaries. I can't imagine a pricing plan for "ArmyCorp" if we were to have one. On the other hand, maybe we'd finally get some troops on border patrol.
Same thing with the courts, without the force of the military or some armed enforcer (police) the courts decisions would be meaningless, but we probably don't want privately owned police forces (the point of the public justice system is to discourage escalation of violence, private police would probably result in right o' vengance style of justice which would not be justice at all)
So, IMO, courts, law enforcement, military probably can't be reasonably privatized at this time. Roads probably could be, so we should decide as a society if we want to continue to keep them on the list of public activities. Certainly we should be very wary of adding new and previously unneeded things to that list.
and yet those "one or two volvanic eruptions" have put more "greenhouse gasses" and other noxious fumes into the atmosphere than all of industrial history.
The "public business" need not care about customer service. The revinue comes at gunpoint from the affected market whether the members are customers or not. Since they are paying for it anyway, it will not make sense to switch to the less buggy private service as long as the municipal service provides the absolute minimum level of acceptable service. There is no incentive for imporvement beyond that level. In fact, it could be argued that improvement beyond the minimum level would be a disservice to taxpayers since it would cost them more, but the improvements would not show what the benefit is in terms of number of users.
This is the beast FDR struggled with in implimenting the Tennessee Valley Authority (the only depression-era make-work program that successfully improved the local economy in a measureable way) Government should never compete with private businesses to provide necessary services if at all possible. Only in the event that those services are both too unprofitable for the private industry and vital to the municipality should ideas of government projects be entertained.
It's more complicated to that. In those societies where the elderly are cared for at home, generally they also have many children to do the taking care of. In the US, we have decided that it is better to accumulate wealth by having few children.(fewer than 2 per woman on average) Combined with the increasing lifespan, this results in more elderly per person to take care of. The amount of care required, especially with advancing age, essencially mandates that an economy of scale be sought - nursing homes and retirement comunities - or the economy as a whole would be injured.
Since having fewer children results in a greater burden on those children (in care and SSI) and is generally done to maintain greater wealth for the parents (or non-childrearing couple), it could be argued that the "baby-boomer" generation is the most selfish generation yet (in the short term) and therefore does not deserve the benefits we have decreed for their parents (who won the greatest war yet in the history of modern civilization)
I was hoping someone would mention that. The particular existance after they recharged battery did not make sense assuming the robots were compassionate and wanted to make the boy comfortable. His experience post "temporary reincarnation" would be hell to me. I'm not sure if it was intentional though. So many times, authors put stuff like that in to lighten up a dark film without really thinking it through. I just thought that the ressurecting robots were unnecessary to the plot. "conflict, climax, and resolution" had already occured and the end robots thing was really another story altogether.
If they were intentionally torturing him though.. why?
AI was a decent movie.. until the half hour deus ex machina (or machina-deus ex machina?) at the end. It would've been a great (but sad) film if they'd stopped when his 'battery' died.
Considering that terrorism today is a direct result of the events of the conclusion of that war, your comparison is more apt than funny.
Moviemakers used to put really fake sounding riccochet sounds whenever bullets were fired in films. eventually everyone saw through it and now you very rarely see the same.
;pasdlkfja)
At one time, it was thought that especially serious movies should have some kind of comic relief, either a character that's so stupid you wonder how he breathes or some kind of happy fun dance at the end. This appears campy by today's standards.
Today films have ever more realistic special effects and are getting better at avoiding the pitfals of terminally stupid characters. (except lucas
The fad today seems to be 'Accessable language' no attempt is made at proper english (USAian or UKian). Instead, popular idioms are used who's meaning is obvious and far from deep. One half expected yoda to say, "Palpatine, grass your ass is" Which sounds forceful and meaningful the first time around, but leaves a sour taste in the mouth on further viewings. Padme talking to anikin about stress is another. It only served to remind me how much better Lady Macbeth's dialog was in shakespeare's play. Yes, real people talk like that all the time, but real people also go to bars and talk about 'them titties' that just walked by. Neither is good storytelling.
My only real complaint with ep III was the horrible dialog. It would almost be better to watch the film karaoke style than listen to the meaningless drivel that spews from apparantly intelligent mouths. (You expect JarJar to speak ignorantly, but the leader of the Jedi Council?)
I definately agree that the "first three" serve to make the universe and events of the "original three" seem smaller and less significant.
7) No ads, no bots, no scams.
You are permitted to promote your entry however you see fit, with three exceptions: You may not use paid advertisements, automated processes that fake traffic, or scams that produce traffic without people actually seeing your content. Most other stuff is fair game.
emphasis mine.
It seems that by posting to slashdot, they have violated the rules.
What are you talking about? the market will decide. Right now there are quite a few browsers available, some of them are free. One of the 'features' that market will 'consider' is the continued interest of the developers. On the microsoft side, this will last as long as they are willing to pay people to work on a product they are giving away for free. On the Firefox/gecko side, this will be as long as they care do do it. Since open source allows anyone to develop, there will be interest in development as long as firefox is useful (or can be useful). As the original developers eventually go on to other projects or retire, marketshare and therefore mindshare become important for attracting the next generation of developers. They will need to have heard of firefox to want to improve it. This is not a probelm for the organization which is paying for its developers. It remains to be seen which is the better allocation of resources, but barring intervention on the part of some government or another, it will eventually be seen.
And you, being intelligent of course, would choose to watch the informative version?
Wow. I wish I had mod points. Lots of insightful mod points. You've improved on my numerical observation with a working theory that sounds extremely plausible. Kudos.
Anyway, I hope something happens soon. I'd really like to see something other than shuttle at this point, but shuttle is better than nothing right?
I understand he works with Slartibartfast. The fjords in Norway are quite impressive.
Every weekend? What websites is his daughter visiting that she gets so much spyware it needs to be dealt with every week? Maybe what he needs is to talk to his daughter.
Yes, but if you make someone else who is just like you and you die, you still die. From the point of view of you, you are dead. From the point of view of everyone else, someone who is exactly like you is alive, so they might as well be you. If you never told them about the copy/death, they'd never even know there could be a difference.
\begin{humor}[dark]But you'd still be dead and another guy would be sleeping with your wife.\end{humor}