For projects where international collaboration is required, sure, agree a standard up-front, and it might as well be SI. Likewise for scientific and engineering applications, everyone is a professional and can agree to use SI. But for day to day life?
Isn't that the point? Isn't it impractical to have different set of units for day-to-day life and for everything scientific, technical, or international? It certainly feels like over time our daily life is getting more technical, and more international.
Economists still believe in infinite growth in a finite world.
I don't think they do. It's just that many of them (the ones we hear about most, too) don't concern themselves enough with the long term that finite natural resources become a serious issue.
This is unfortunate, and it's all the more unfortunate that such "long term" issues are now not so long-term anymore, to say nothing of those that are hitting us right now.
"Sustainability" has been a key word in several areas of macroeconomics for decades. Unfortunately not in all areas of economics. Also, it was long taken in a narrow, technical meaning.
You're so right. It did seem strange when I read it, but then I was in a hurry to get this posted and go back to something resembling work, so I must have turned my critical thinking off.
The letters IHS were the first three letters of the Greek name of Jesus IHSOYS, which stood for Yahweh. They could also be the abbreviation of ‘Iesus Hominum Salvator’, Jesus the Saviour of Mankind. The use of these letters as symbols of Christ may have originated with Saint Bernardino of Siena (1380-1444) who made a plaque in Volterra with these letters inscribed, surrounded by rays of light.
So for clarity, they should have written:
Of the 20 million consumer devices estimated to have shipped in 2013 with wireless charging capabilities, nearly all were built with the Qi specification, according to Jesus, the Saviour of Mankind.
Indeed, in the grand scheme, you are suggesting that we take guns out of the hands of the individual, and put them solely in the hands of the State; that sounds like a transfer of power from the Weak to the Strong...
Try to use your firearm against the power of the US government or its agents, and then come tell us how that went.
That power was transfered in its entirety long ago. Here I'm merely paraphrasing Bruce's argument above, btw.
GP says: "eventually, they'll set the minimum and maximum wages to the same levels" Obama said: "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."
and you say (of GP): "His argument would only be fallacious if it weren't exactly what is being proposed by the left today"
Do you stand by that comment? Can you see the nuance between the two statements quoted above?
Do you think saying "some people have earnings that are unreasonably low / high" (respectively 7$ an hour, a bazillion an hour), is exactly the same as saying "everybody should earn the same?". Because that's what you just wrote.
You know, with this little jab you probably hit the nail on the head (that must hurt, btw). One thing is the intrinsic properties of a given trade, and how they play with sex-dependent preferences, and another is the group culture that builds up within a trade. That very much depends on history, and... the gender ratio of that field, to begin with.
“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring
The very same quote popped up in my mind immediately. However strange it may feel to refer to Tolkien on this issue, this particular quote has something unusually profound and humane to it. I ascribe it to Tolkien's experience in world war I, when death must have become very real and familiar to him.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. You want people to remain ignorant so that they can trick themselves into thinking homeopathic treatments work. I'm too terrified by the prospect to even come up with a clever insult.
Maybe that's just as well, and there's no need for insults. It's not such a bad idea. We'd need precise data to decide it, but as far as myths go, homeopathy could be a myth with some social value - that is, if you get significant results with innocuous and inexpensive treatment. As this friend of mine said, the placebo effect is strong with this one...
The main thing is, information is and should be freely available. Anyone who can read can spend some time on the internet and find out the scientific viewpoint on homeopathy. That, of course, is very important. But for those who don't, why rub it in their face?
Yes, at an incrediby slow pace, and only until you reach the same partial pressure of helium inside and outside the container. Which will give you a ridiculously small amount of helium after a huge wait. That's why no one does that.
Nice job quoting sources. Try reading them next time.
From TFwikiA:
That statement, however, occurs nowhere in the book (...) Dworkin rejected the interpretation that "All heterosexual intercourse is rape" as a grave misunderstanding of her work.
Does the Consitution's "equal protection" clause imply that siblings can marry?
That's an interesting one. So far, no, because of the extraordinary risk to potential children, plus the cultural taboo of incest. Over long times, taboos change though.
Does is imply polygamy and polyandry?
It might eventually, provided that that you can properly document the consent of all parties, and that no one is getting abused in the process. There is also a cultural component to it.
How about rape, since I have a sexual urges to many women who aren't interested in me, but married people have conjugal rights?
That is clearly violating someone else's basic rights.
If I can find a willing mare in heat, do I we have an equal-protection right to marriage?
I don't think you can document the mare's consent, plus, it (she?) can probably not fulfill a number of legal responsibilities. Basically, it's not much of a citizen.
You can address all these questions. Some are trivial, some are much more subtle. But the ones that are actually at stake in the political debate these days are mostly on the simpler side of the spectrum.
When someone pushes a new law about polygamy, I expect to read some interesting arguments. The reason it's not going to happen soon is that there is very little interest for it in society, so it stays mercifully out of public debate.
This dialogue is very much to the point (probably despite its author's intentions). If you just grant lesbian and gay couples the *right* to have babies, there are plenty of ways they can have them. Like adopting them. The same way straight couples who can't make their own babies for medical reasons often find ways around that, and that is their right under the law.
I found the book "In the Belly of the Beast" very enlightening on solitary confinement.
One impression one gets from it is that given sufficient time in prison, many initially sane people may end up suffering from mental illness. At which point they become all the more "eligible" to solitary confinement.
Slashdot Mirror
For projects where international collaboration is required, sure, agree a standard up-front, and it might as well be SI. Likewise for scientific and engineering applications, everyone is a professional and can agree to use SI. But for day to day life?
Isn't that the point? Isn't it impractical to have different set of units for day-to-day life and for everything scientific, technical, or international? It certainly feels like over time our daily life is getting more technical, and more international.
Economists still believe in infinite growth in a finite world.
I don't think they do. It's just that many of them (the ones we hear about most, too) don't concern themselves enough with the long term that finite natural resources become a serious issue.
This is unfortunate, and it's all the more unfortunate that such "long term" issues are now not so long-term anymore, to say nothing of those that are hitting us right now.
"Sustainability" has been a key word in several areas of macroeconomics for decades. Unfortunately not in all areas of economics. Also, it was long taken in a narrow, technical meaning.
Indeed, and mouse click events will be tweeted individually. The client can access them by "following" the relevant window!
Along the same line, framebuffers will be replaced with tumblr accounts.
The only people who are literally too stupid to live are the people who can't remember how to breathe.
And even then, we put those on breathing machines.
At this point what we are stuck with is a bunch of people who are too stupid to die.
You're so right. It did seem strange when I read it, but then I was in a hurry to get this posted and go back to something resembling work, so I must have turned my critical thinking off.
And who or what is IHS?
Oh, that one's easy: it's Jesus. It's been a shorthand for his name since the 14th century.
See for example this:
The letters IHS were the first three letters of the Greek name of Jesus IHSOYS, which stood for Yahweh. They could also be the abbreviation of ‘Iesus Hominum Salvator’, Jesus the Saviour of Mankind. The use of these letters as symbols of Christ may have originated with Saint Bernardino of Siena (1380-1444) who made a plaque in Volterra with these letters inscribed, surrounded by rays of light.
So for clarity, they should have written:
Of the 20 million consumer devices estimated to have shipped in 2013 with wireless charging capabilities, nearly all were built with the Qi specification, according to Jesus, the Saviour of Mankind.
FTFY.
Indeed, in the grand scheme, you are suggesting that we take guns out of the hands of the individual, and put them solely in the hands of the State; that sounds like a transfer of power from the Weak to the Strong...
Try to use your firearm against the power of the US government or its agents, and then come tell us how that went.
That power was transfered in its entirety long ago. Here I'm merely paraphrasing Bruce's argument above, btw.
GP says:
"eventually, they'll set the minimum and maximum wages to the same levels"
Obama said:
"I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."
and you say (of GP):
"His argument would only be fallacious if it weren't exactly what is being proposed by the left today"
Do you stand by that comment? Can you see the nuance between the two statements quoted above?
Do you think saying "some people have earnings that are unreasonably low / high" (respectively 7$ an hour, a bazillion an hour), is exactly the same as saying "everybody should earn the same?". Because that's what you just wrote.
First you get (...) Then, when that's done, they move on to (...) Then, of course, they'll have to (...) Then, eventually, they'll (...)
Thank you for a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy.
Just kidding, those are so common as to be plain boring these days.
Or, if marketing to some segments of the population: "our cars are motherfuckers".
Agreed, "our cars are tits" doesn't sound that good.
Having lived on both shores of the Atlantic, I very much believe that both systems would have a lot to learn from each other.
That is, if there was a substantial discussion instead of all the name-calling.
I know, this is slashdot, but in real life it's not that much better.
You know, with this little jab you probably hit the nail on the head (that must hurt, btw). One thing is the intrinsic properties of a given trade, and how they play with sex-dependent preferences, and another is the group culture that builds up within a trade. That very much depends on history, and... the gender ratio of that field, to begin with.
“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring
The very same quote popped up in my mind immediately. However strange it may feel to refer to Tolkien on this issue, this particular quote has something unusually profound and humane to it. I ascribe it to Tolkien's experience in world war I, when death must have become very real and familiar to him.
It gets clearer if you flip a couple pages of the magazine and read the "In this issue" box:
Before you write to comment on our cover's "unusual" design approach (created by artist Robert Tinney), keep in mind the proximity of April 1st.
Healthcare (...) is available for all. It does not come cheap
You understand that the second statement might be perceived as conflicting with the first one. Or maybe plain cynical.
Caviar is available for all, too.
I work under tight labour laws, and if you insist on calling that tyranny, then yes, I am perfectly okay with at least this much tyranny.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. You want people to remain ignorant so that they can trick themselves into thinking homeopathic treatments work. I'm too terrified by the prospect to even come up with a clever insult.
Maybe that's just as well, and there's no need for insults. It's not such a bad idea. We'd need precise data to decide it, but as far as myths go, homeopathy could be a myth with some social value - that is, if you get significant results with innocuous and inexpensive treatment. As this friend of mine said, the placebo effect is strong with this one...
The main thing is, information is and should be freely available. Anyone who can read can spend some time on the internet and find out the scientific viewpoint on homeopathy. That, of course, is very important. But for those who don't, why rub it in their face?
Yes, at an incrediby slow pace, and only until you reach the same partial pressure of helium inside and outside the container. Which will give you a ridiculously small amount of helium after a huge wait. That's why no one does that.
Andrea Dworkin "all heterosexual intercourse is rape"
Nice job quoting sources. Try reading them next time.
From TFwikiA:
That statement, however, occurs nowhere in the book (...) Dworkin rejected the interpretation that "All heterosexual intercourse is rape" as a grave misunderstanding of her work.
Religious nutters tend to be unintelligent.
I wish they all were, I really wish. The problem would be so much easier to deal with.
Does the Consitution's "equal protection" clause imply that siblings can marry?
That's an interesting one. So far, no, because of the extraordinary risk to potential children, plus the cultural taboo of incest. Over long times, taboos change though.
Does is imply polygamy and polyandry?
It might eventually, provided that that you can properly document the consent of all parties, and that no one is getting abused in the process. There is also a cultural component to it.
How about rape, since I have a sexual urges to many women who aren't interested in me, but married people have conjugal rights?
That is clearly violating someone else's basic rights.
If I can find a willing mare in heat, do I we have an equal-protection right to marriage?
I don't think you can document the mare's consent, plus, it (she?) can probably not fulfill a number of legal responsibilities. Basically, it's not much of a citizen.
You can address all these questions. Some are trivial, some are much more subtle. But the ones that are actually at stake in the political debate these days are mostly on the simpler side of the spectrum.
When someone pushes a new law about polygamy, I expect to read some interesting arguments. The reason it's not going to happen soon is that there is very little interest for it in society, so it stays mercifully out of public debate.
This dialogue is very much to the point (probably despite its author's intentions). If you just grant lesbian and gay couples the *right* to have babies, there are plenty of ways they can have them. Like adopting them. The same way straight couples who can't make their own babies for medical reasons often find ways around that, and that is their right under the law.
I found the book "In the Belly of the Beast" very enlightening on solitary confinement.
One impression one gets from it is that given sufficient time in prison, many initially sane people may end up suffering from mental illness. At which point they become all the more "eligible" to solitary confinement.
I believe you meant to say "At what pint does the brawl start?"
Doesn't matter, it's pronounced the same in Ireland.
"Siri...write a program to do X."
Did you mean: "Sbaitso...write a program to do X."