There are SUV hybrids out there, but people generally aren't buying them. I drive a hybrid Mecury Mariner (the Mecury version of the Ford Escape) that's been averaging about 28mpg and I'm getting gladder and gladder I bought it.
I meant more we'll end up with thousands of Jewish grandmothers in FL real voting for Buchanan and fake voting for Gore thinking they're doing the opposite.
Most people are morons. You think they're going to be able to handle having to remember the difference between their fake votes and their real votes without getting hopelessly confused?
We're very clear that drivers and software that work on Windows Vista are going to work really well on Windows 7; in fact, they'll work the same Well, which is it? Are they going to work well or are they going to work the same as Vista?
Truly random events wouldn't be free will either... Whether I'm being forced into one action by entirely deterministic laws of physics or being forced into one of several acts by entirely random ones, it's hard to describe either as being intentional.
A proof of the Riemann Hypothesis itself won't have any effect on the security of encryption (if it did, you could compromise the encryption by just assuming the hypothesis is true and your exploit would work in nearly all cases). The only concern is if the process of developing the proof leads to an insight about the nature of prime numbers that weakens encryption in some other manner, but this wouldn't be the result of the Riemann Hypothesis itself.
This system would just lock down more IP in big corporations: they can afford the annual fees to protect their property into perpetuity, but now they can also freely scoop up valuable stuff from all the independents who can't afford to pay for their currently non-commerical work.
>* Have superiority complexes ("I know what's right and all differing opinions are wrong and should be corrected")
What gets engineers this sort of reputation is that unlike most non-technical members of society, engineers don't consider the level of enthusiam someone has for a particular position as evidence in favor of the position. Typical engineer vs. non-techie argument will go something along the lines of:
Non-techie: I believe X.
Engineer: Well I don't believe X because of reasons A, B, and C.
Non-techie: No, I mean I REALLY believe X.
Engineer: Fine, but I still don't believe X.
Non-techie: No, can't you see? I REALLY REALLY REALLY believe X.
Engineer: Fine, but I still don't believe X.
Non-techie: God, you have such a superiority complex. You think you're always right and everyone that disagrees with you is wrong.
The problem is that if we set up a system where after the election I can verify that the vote I cast for a particular person was registered, I can also prove to someone else that I voted a particular way.
Which means it becomes possible to buy and sell votes.
>In machine counted precincts, Clinton beat Obama by almost 5%. In hand counted precincts,
> Obama beat Clinton by over 4%
Districts that have hand count and districts that have machine count weren't randomly distributed over the state. The districts in each group are there because they chose to be, which means the demographics of the two groups will tend to be different.
In this case, the districts with machine counts likely have a higher average income than the ones with hand counts (which is why they were able to afford all the fancy equipment). Polls show that higher income voters leaned Hillary, lower income voters leaned Obama.
>In it he advocates the benefits of Range Voting as a solution to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem.
Uh, there is no 'solution' to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. That's the whole point of the theorem.
Warren Buffet's support for taxes aren't entirely altruistic. Take his support for inheritance taxes: sounds like he's a nice guy--until you find out much of his fortune was amassed by buying up family owned businesses (at fire sale prices) that had to be sold off to pay inheritance taxes when the founder died and then taking them public.
Actually, increasing checkers often leads to MORE bugs getting through. As you increase inspectors, each individual tends to subconciously get less focused as there's now someone else who can catch things if they miss it.
>Of course when astronomers say it's "about to explode," they really mean it probably exploded 6,500 to 7,500 years ago
>and we're awaiting the news
So it's "about to will have had been exploded"?
Slashdot Mirror
There are SUV hybrids out there, but people generally aren't buying them. I drive a hybrid Mecury Mariner (the Mecury version of the Ford Escape) that's been averaging about 28mpg and I'm getting gladder and gladder I bought it.
I meant more we'll end up with thousands of Jewish grandmothers in FL real voting for Buchanan and fake voting for Gore thinking they're doing the opposite.
Most people are morons. You think they're going to be able to handle having to remember the difference between their fake votes and their real votes without getting hopelessly confused?
The problem is that once it becomes possible to verify after the fact that you voted a particular way, it becomes possible to buy and sell votes.
Er... you do realize Iraq is not geographically contiguous to the US and that insurgents don't have to pass through it in order to get here, right?
Damn, who thought this job would be such hard work?
Truly random events wouldn't be free will either... Whether I'm being forced into one action by entirely deterministic laws of physics or being forced into one of several acts by entirely random ones, it's hard to describe either as being intentional.
A proof of the Riemann Hypothesis itself won't have any effect on the security of encryption (if it did, you could compromise the encryption by just assuming the hypothesis is true and your exploit would work in nearly all cases). The only concern is if the process of developing the proof leads to an insight about the nature of prime numbers that weakens encryption in some other manner, but this wouldn't be the result of the Riemann Hypothesis itself.
This system would just lock down more IP in big corporations: they can afford the annual fees to protect their property into perpetuity, but now they can also freely scoop up valuable stuff from all the independents who can't afford to pay for their currently non-commerical work.
>* Have superiority complexes ("I know what's right and all differing opinions are wrong and should be corrected") What gets engineers this sort of reputation is that unlike most non-technical members of society, engineers don't consider the level of enthusiam someone has for a particular position as evidence in favor of the position. Typical engineer vs. non-techie argument will go something along the lines of: Non-techie: I believe X. Engineer: Well I don't believe X because of reasons A, B, and C. Non-techie: No, I mean I REALLY believe X. Engineer: Fine, but I still don't believe X. Non-techie: No, can't you see? I REALLY REALLY REALLY believe X. Engineer: Fine, but I still don't believe X. Non-techie: God, you have such a superiority complex. You think you're always right and everyone that disagrees with you is wrong.
Collective bargaining usually requires a second party. Who exactly would this hypothetical bloggers union be negotiating with?
The problem is that if we set up a system where after the election I can verify that the vote I cast for a particular person was registered, I can also prove to someone else that I voted a particular way.
Which means it becomes possible to buy and sell votes.
>In machine counted precincts, Clinton beat Obama by almost 5%. In hand counted precincts,
> Obama beat Clinton by over 4%
Districts that have hand count and districts that have machine count weren't randomly distributed over the state. The districts in each group are there because they chose to be, which means the demographics of the two groups will tend to be different.
In this case, the districts with machine counts likely have a higher average income than the ones with hand counts (which is why they were able to afford all the fancy equipment). Polls show that higher income voters leaned Hillary, lower income voters leaned Obama.
>In it he advocates the benefits of Range Voting as a solution to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. Uh, there is no 'solution' to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. That's the whole point of the theorem.
Warren Buffet's support for taxes aren't entirely altruistic. Take his support for inheritance taxes: sounds like he's a nice guy--until you find out much of his fortune was amassed by buying up family owned businesses (at fire sale prices) that had to be sold off to pay inheritance taxes when the founder died and then taking them public.
The source code for ICO isn't all that useful unless you also get all the data for the game too.
Without that, Sony is just releasing the code for a uselessly obsolete game engine. Is that really a big deal?
Darn it! I only have implied oral consent.
"Somebody who graduated from M.I.T. is probably a better formal engineer. They can probably recite better than I could. But I have other experience."
Yeah, and when your bridge is collapsing, 'other experience' isn't going to help hold it up.
Or alternately, Nietzsche's version of the same thought:
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster,
and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
Is it still FUD now?
Actually, increasing checkers often leads to MORE bugs getting through. As you increase inspectors, each individual tends to subconciously get less focused as there's now someone else who can catch things if they miss it.
>Of course when astronomers say it's "about to explode," they really mean it probably exploded 6,500 to 7,500 years ago >and we're awaiting the news So it's "about to will have had been exploded"?
Actually, NASA has outsourced the launching of the shuttle:
United Space Alliance
You mean that selling access to a device no one even knows how to begin building ISN'T a great way to make money?