What is increasingly the case is that people are putting off gaining a small benefit now in exchange for an even small benefit later. Sometimes even a small loss later.
Your econ professor was rationalizing his own value. A high school graduate has been in school for 13 years. Upping that to 17 at a very high cost is not a sign of "someone who at least can stick to something long enough to finish it."
This is exactly correct. We have gotten into the crazy position that people with bad decision making skills are being valued over people with good decision making skills.
Are you complaining that the guy who can publicly call out bad behavior by the government is calling them out? Are you suggesting that it would be better if he just quietly availed himself of his preferential status in US society? If he doesn't call out the DHS, who will? Who can?
No, it isn't. It is a case where LOTS of people are abusing their power. This agent is not working in a vacuum. She is working in a framework that was designed by other people who also abused their power. She is supervised by people who are abusing their power. If the boat is returned promptly returned with an apology and the agent fired, then you can legitimatly claim that she was working alone, outside the authority of her position. Until that time, claiming that she was a rogue agent not supported by the full force of the government is nothing but a poor rationalization.
You are fooling yourself. We are not cavemen. Most people have no need to ever handle fire on their own. You don't need it to cook. You don't need it to stay warm. You don't need it for light. In the places that it is used, like inside your engine, there is no reason that your average person needs access to the fire itself.
Fire has the sole purpose of burning. So, what's your point.
That should tell you what the White House actually thinks about the subjects. If a legitimate response can be given to explain what they are doing is available, they will take it. If there is not a legitimate response, they will talk around the subject.
This is actually a good opportunity for Obama. Every single other petition has basically been responded to as you say. Phone unlocking is an issue that hasn't had enough lobbying to get it outlawed specifically. It has only become illegal do to a previous law expiring. So, it is reasonable to think that not much has changed on the lobbying front.
Thus, this is an opportunity for Obama to declare that he "gave considerable thought to this petition, just as he has every other petition", and push through a mandate that makes locking cell phones illegal. For very little political capital, moving forward, every time someone claimed the administration doesn't take the petitions seriously, or doesn't listen to the people, they could trot out the cell phone unlocking petition.
The problem is that the carriers are advertizing that they are "Selling" you the phone. You are right that as the law now stands, customers are only leasing the phone. The carriers should be called to task for this. If they say that you are "buying" a phone, or that they are "selling" you the phone, then they should have no say in what you do with it. If they say that they are "leasing" or "renting" you the phone, then they should be able to lock it.
The problem is that they are saying "Sale" right up until it benefits them to say "you know what we really meant".
Well, not all of their shots. Everyone would be getting their polio vaccine, but they would stop giving children the chicken pox vaccine. That would be reserved for adults who didn't catch it wild.
The problem with a registry is that there really are people (some of them in positions of power) that want a registry specifically for the purpose of taking away guns. I am not saying that everyone that wants a registry is in that group, but it doesn't take everyone. Once the registry is created, there is no undoing it. If there was a way to make sure that the registry was not abuse, you would probably find that a lot more people would support it. Unfortunately, I can't fathom any way to make sure a registry was not abused.
When you compare registering a gun to any of your other examples, consider, how many of the other examples have lots of vocal organizations bent on outlawing the objects.
People have always weighed "Is it worth it". We all have our price. Ask all of your civilized friends if they would spend 6 months in jail if they could walk away with 20 million dollars. Unless you are very wealthy, you will find that most if not all of them would say yes. The problem with wealth disparity is that the rewards for crime keep going up while the penalties stay the same. The larger the wealth disparity, the more people that fall into the "It's worth it" camp.
Around here, you have people who make $20k/year living just a couple of blocks away from people making $500k/year. Really, I am surprised at just how honest most people are, and how few of them turn to crime.
This is why dogs should be treated as weapons. I support people's right to have a dog just as much as I support their right to have a gun, but around here, people constantly take aggressive dogs of for walks without a leash. These people are just as bad the dumb asses that shoot off rounds into the air on New Years. I can't count the number of times I have seen dog owners claim that their dog is haunched down snarling at someone because "That is just how she says hello".
Or, you could teach your kids how to safely handle guns. Turn guns into something they understand instead of some mystery object that works like a cartoon. That way when your kid runs across one outside of your home, they don't try to see the bullets come out by looking down the barrel. You don't get rid of all your fire toys (like candles) when you have a child. You teach your kid not to play with fire only in controlled conditions like at birthdays. Thinking that you can't teach your kid to respect the dangers of a gun is just silly.
Optometrists can get lenses in any shape these days. Many will literally let you bring in any set of frames, including a pair of cheap drug store sunglasses, and they will make your prescription lenses fit.
It is actually neither. What it is is an earned stereotype that has been blown out of proportion and then clung to long after it stopped having any basis in reality. Stereotypes tend to do be this way. The early adopter demographics of bluetooth ear pieces was dominated by douchbags. Today, use of bluetooth earpieces has expanded to other demographics, and many douchbags have moved on to other trappings. But, as stereotypes tend to do, the guy wearing a bluetooth headset being a douch just hangs on in our public consciousness.
how holding your arm out at shoulder level for extended periods and reaching far from your keyboard across your desk to leave fingerprints on a monitor is better somehow than using a mouse with my arm resting comfortably?
I don't know the numbers, but if less carbon is released by the process of making paper than is contained in the paper, you would be wrong. Undecomposed paper in a landfill is sequestered carbon. No matter how many times you reuse the bag, you will never reduce the carbon in the air. In fact, the maintenance of that bag will increase the carbon in the air.
The question is whether the manufacture of paper bags releases more carbon from sequestered sources than is contained in the bag itself.
The cost prevents people from buying it for a good interface. Because of that, MS has tried to force touch on users so that they gain economies of scale. Their way of trying to force the touch screen is to make an awful interface that uses touch anywhere that can, even when inappropriate.
So, I agree entirely with
Touch interfaces are great. Supporting touch interfaces is a great idea. Windows 8 deployment of the idea is awful, however - the interface should augment an existing one not try and replace it.
I am saying that if they made a good touch interface, a lot of people wouldn't feel the benefit was worth the cost, so you wouldn't get everybody to buy one. Thus you wouldn't get the cost reductions that made the cost worth the benefits in a good touch interface.
Slashdot Mirror
What is increasingly the case is that people are putting off gaining a small benefit now in exchange for an even small benefit later. Sometimes even a small loss later.
Your econ professor was rationalizing his own value. A high school graduate has been in school for 13 years. Upping that to 17 at a very high cost is not a sign of "someone who at least can stick to something long enough to finish it."
This is exactly correct. We have gotten into the crazy position that people with bad decision making skills are being valued over people with good decision making skills.
Are you complaining that the guy who can publicly call out bad behavior by the government is calling them out? Are you suggesting that it would be better if he just quietly availed himself of his preferential status in US society? If he doesn't call out the DHS, who will? Who can?
Except this happens all the time to trick people into signing confessions for crimes without support of a lawyer.
Fixed that for you.
No, it isn't. It is a case where LOTS of people are abusing their power. This agent is not working in a vacuum. She is working in a framework that was designed by other people who also abused their power. She is supervised by people who are abusing their power. If the boat is returned promptly returned with an apology and the agent fired, then you can legitimatly claim that she was working alone, outside the authority of her position. Until that time, claiming that she was a rogue agent not supported by the full force of the government is nothing but a poor rationalization.
You are fooling yourself. We are not cavemen. Most people have no need to ever handle fire on their own. You don't need it to cook. You don't need it to stay warm. You don't need it for light. In the places that it is used, like inside your engine, there is no reason that your average person needs access to the fire itself.
Fire has the sole purpose of burning. So, what's your point.
That should tell you what the White House actually thinks about the subjects. If a legitimate response can be given to explain what they are doing is available, they will take it. If there is not a legitimate response, they will talk around the subject.
This is actually a good opportunity for Obama. Every single other petition has basically been responded to as you say. Phone unlocking is an issue that hasn't had enough lobbying to get it outlawed specifically. It has only become illegal do to a previous law expiring. So, it is reasonable to think that not much has changed on the lobbying front.
Thus, this is an opportunity for Obama to declare that he "gave considerable thought to this petition, just as he has every other petition", and push through a mandate that makes locking cell phones illegal. For very little political capital, moving forward, every time someone claimed the administration doesn't take the petitions seriously, or doesn't listen to the people, they could trot out the cell phone unlocking petition.
The problem is that the carriers are advertizing that they are "Selling" you the phone. You are right that as the law now stands, customers are only leasing the phone. The carriers should be called to task for this. If they say that you are "buying" a phone, or that they are "selling" you the phone, then they should have no say in what you do with it. If they say that they are "leasing" or "renting" you the phone, then they should be able to lock it.
The problem is that they are saying "Sale" right up until it benefits them to say "you know what we really meant".
Well, not all of their shots. Everyone would be getting their polio vaccine, but they would stop giving children the chicken pox vaccine. That would be reserved for adults who didn't catch it wild.
The problem with a registry is that there really are people (some of them in positions of power) that want a registry specifically for the purpose of taking away guns. I am not saying that everyone that wants a registry is in that group, but it doesn't take everyone. Once the registry is created, there is no undoing it. If there was a way to make sure that the registry was not abuse, you would probably find that a lot more people would support it. Unfortunately, I can't fathom any way to make sure a registry was not abused.
When you compare registering a gun to any of your other examples, consider, how many of the other examples have lots of vocal organizations bent on outlawing the objects.
People have always weighed "Is it worth it". We all have our price. Ask all of your civilized friends if they would spend 6 months in jail if they could walk away with 20 million dollars. Unless you are very wealthy, you will find that most if not all of them would say yes. The problem with wealth disparity is that the rewards for crime keep going up while the penalties stay the same. The larger the wealth disparity, the more people that fall into the "It's worth it" camp.
Around here, you have people who make $20k/year living just a couple of blocks away from people making $500k/year. Really, I am surprised at just how honest most people are, and how few of them turn to crime.
This is why dogs should be treated as weapons. I support people's right to have a dog just as much as I support their right to have a gun, but around here, people constantly take aggressive dogs of for walks without a leash. These people are just as bad the dumb asses that shoot off rounds into the air on New Years. I can't count the number of times I have seen dog owners claim that their dog is haunched down snarling at someone because "That is just how she says hello".
Why should the govt. tell me how I have to keep my weapons stowed?
So that they can show guns don't protect people???
Or, you could teach your kids how to safely handle guns. Turn guns into something they understand instead of some mystery object that works like a cartoon. That way when your kid runs across one outside of your home, they don't try to see the bullets come out by looking down the barrel. You don't get rid of all your fire toys (like candles) when you have a child. You teach your kid not to play with fire only in controlled conditions like at birthdays. Thinking that you can't teach your kid to respect the dangers of a gun is just silly.
Not a very good degree then was it. I hope you didn't spend too much on it.
ISS has an internal pressurized volume of 32,333 cubic feet, or equal that of a Boeing 747.
Pretty small for a refinery.
I was going to say no because corporations are immortals, but I suppose being buried in a grave and being dead do not always have to go together.
Optometrists can get lenses in any shape these days. Many will literally let you bring in any set of frames, including a pair of cheap drug store sunglasses, and they will make your prescription lenses fit.
It is actually neither. What it is is an earned stereotype that has been blown out of proportion and then clung to long after it stopped having any basis in reality. Stereotypes tend to do be this way. The early adopter demographics of bluetooth ear pieces was dominated by douchbags. Today, use of bluetooth earpieces has expanded to other demographics, and many douchbags have moved on to other trappings. But, as stereotypes tend to do, the guy wearing a bluetooth headset being a douch just hangs on in our public consciousness.
how holding your arm out at shoulder level for extended periods and reaching far from your keyboard across your desk to leave fingerprints on a monitor is better somehow than using a mouse with my arm resting comfortably?
By not doing that.
And there goes "intergenerational and global ethics" out the window. Just the kind response one would expect from a faux-environmentalist.
I don't know the numbers, but if less carbon is released by the process of making paper than is contained in the paper, you would be wrong. Undecomposed paper in a landfill is sequestered carbon. No matter how many times you reuse the bag, you will never reduce the carbon in the air. In fact, the maintenance of that bag will increase the carbon in the air.
The question is whether the manufacture of paper bags releases more carbon from sequestered sources than is contained in the bag itself.
So, I agree entirely with
Touch interfaces are great. Supporting touch interfaces is a great idea. Windows 8 deployment of the idea is awful, however - the interface should augment an existing one not try and replace it.
I am saying that if they made a good touch interface, a lot of people wouldn't feel the benefit was worth the cost, so you wouldn't get everybody to buy one. Thus you wouldn't get the cost reductions that made the cost worth the benefits in a good touch interface.