Oh, I should add that my remarks are a reason why I see no value in the political futures "market," not to be construed as reasons to prohibit such a market. If people want to waste their time and money, who am I to stand in their way?
I am not an economist, but I know there is a fundamental difference between futures markets and gambling. A futures market is for entities that want to buy a commodity anyway, and need a way to manage the risks of price fluctuations. Yes, one can speculate in the futures market, but that's not the reason a futures market exists.
In contrast, I don't see a political "futures market" providing any more economic benefit than betting on sports teams or horse races. I don't think it will make political pundits any more accountable than sports betting makes sports commentators accountable.
The idea that "markets" have a magical ability to predict outcomes is nonsense. If the market really could reliably predict the future, there would be no reason to bet against its "wisdom," and therefore no payoff for betting along with it, either.
As Winston Churchill reputedly once put it, "America can always be relied upon to do the right thing... after exhausting all the alternatives."
It took me about two decades of voting and following US politics to appreciate the full meaning of that. How can something simultaneously fill me with pride and exasperation? (I'll guess find out when I have kids.)
According to Ars Technica, Apple's R&D budget is 3.4 BILLION dollars (3.4x10^9). That's enough money to "explore" all kinds of crazy stuff. Just because they're spending money looking into something, doesn't make it part of their business plan.
A friend of mine is a small-town judge. He's elected, but it's a part-time job (10 hours per week I think). He's judge in the town where he lives and works as an attorney in a neighboring town.
In his small town, my friend got elected because the town councilmen asked him to run. They'd worked with him in his day job (where he was representing a company trying to get permits in the town and whatnot) and thought he was a good guy. This is how things get done on a local level: the local officials say "we need a new judge" (or registrar of deeds or whatnot) and pick someone they think is level-headed and responsible.
What I'm trying to say is that unless you are plugged into local politics, it probably does not make much difference to you whether your new judge is someone the Republicans think is a good guy, or someone the Democrats think is a good guy. You'll get a good guy either way -- unless of course all the members of one party are a bunch of jerks, in which case you don't trust their judgment and want the other guy.
At the local level, some of these positions are just a popularity contest. I usually abstain because I have never lived in one place long enough to know who's who.
By law, US companies don't have to say a word about hacker attacks, regardless of how much it might've cost their bottom line
That claim is only true in a narrow and impractical sense. Several US states have mandatory data-breach reporting laws. A company doing business in those states, generally meaning buying or selling to/from persons or companies in those states, must comply with those laws. Generally they require notifying customers whose personal data is at risk. I have received two such letters myself since my state's law went into effect.
IANAL but really I don't think it takes a lawyer to be aware of these laws. Anyone who is informed about computer security should at least know of their existence, as should any IT manager employed in those states.
Yes, electronics make the world go round, but the IEEE is about the most ineffective organization on the planet. If they are plotting a conspiracy, I assure you, you are perfectly safe.
Unless, of course, you mean that you're unwilling to pay taxes to support such efforts. In which case you'd seem like a selfish bastard but I'd reluctantly agree that human decency should be optional. I would go on to point out that most of the UN's humanitarian programs are financed by voluntary contributions from member states.
Anyone who approaches jury duty with the "I want out of this" attitude should certainly not be sitting on one.
I've only been a juror on one trial, but my impression was that the judge was accepting rather lame excuses from people who wanted to get out. Perhaps he felt the same way you do.
Rational analysis will lead to better outcomes than emotionally driven behavior.
[[citation needed]].
In the absence of a rational analysis supporting your claim, I can only conclude it is purely emotional (wishful thinking). See also a a recent Dilbert cartoon.
I can work out for myself what the decision implies, thanks. I don't know to which TFS gives the bigger insult -- to the integrity of Slashdot, or to its readers' intelligence.
Everyone seems to be jumping to the conclusion that drones will be used for law enforcement. That's a valid concern, of course, but one can imagine legitimate uses of unmanned aircraft:
Not trying to troll, but you guys need to get your priorities straight.
Speaking as an American, I agree wholeheartedly. My problem is, and always has been, getting the other 300 million Americans to agree with my priorities.
I have to side with the French newspapers on this one. They own the copyrights to the material they write, and should be able to (try to) charge for others, including Google, to use that.
As many people have pointed out, it's hard to see how this will work to the newspapers' advantage. They are saying "no" to free advertising. But, if they want to assert their rights and cling to an obsolete 20th-century business model, good luck to 'em. AFAIK the law is on their side.
Now if I were a shareholder in French media companies I might feel this decision was not in my best interest. But, happily, I'm not!
Well, pulling conjectures completely out of my proverbial hat now (this is Slashdot after all), presumably IQ tests look for attributes that are "important" (from the POV of the psychologists who designed the tests). So if the researchers picked the right "important" attributes to test, these are the same attributes that are necessary and useful in their (read, our) environment.
That would suggest these analytical skills are getting pervasive daily exercise just by living in the industrialized world.
I think the definition of "smart" is subjective. As Jerrod Diamond pointed out in his book "Guns, Germs, and Steel," a scientist from California looks "smart" on a university campus, but looks like a complete idiot in the New Guinea jungle, where he struggles to follow a trail or build a shelter or find potable water. Similarly, the New Guinean jungle-dweller can improvise all kinds of things in the jungle but doesn't understand how to cross the street or maybe even turn a doorknob. Going beyond Diamond's point, I would say the New Guinean doesn't *need* abstract reasoning or formal logic, but he does probably need to use his brain power in ways I can't really predict because I'd be an idiot in the jungle, myself. So, who is "smarter?" Their environments require different competencies.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I should add that my remarks are a reason why I see no value in the political futures "market," not to be construed as reasons to prohibit such a market. If people want to waste their time and money, who am I to stand in their way?
I am not an economist, but I know there is a fundamental difference between futures markets and gambling. A futures market is for entities that want to buy a commodity anyway, and need a way to manage the risks of price fluctuations. Yes, one can speculate in the futures market, but that's not the reason a futures market exists.
In contrast, I don't see a political "futures market" providing any more economic benefit than betting on sports teams or horse races. I don't think it will make political pundits any more accountable than sports betting makes sports commentators accountable.
The idea that "markets" have a magical ability to predict outcomes is nonsense. If the market really could reliably predict the future, there would be no reason to bet against its "wisdom," and therefore no payoff for betting along with it, either.
So who gets to decide the difference between a "racist" comment and a generally insulting comment?
Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr's famous "dream" was that [people] will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Many of Obama's critics are doing exactly that.
Disclaimer: I'm a halfhearted Obama supporter in the "lesser of two evils" sense.
As Winston Churchill reputedly once put it, "America can always be relied upon to do the right thing ... after exhausting all the alternatives."
It took me about two decades of voting and following US politics to appreciate the full meaning of that. How can something simultaneously fill me with pride and exasperation? (I'll guess find out when I have kids.)
I disapprove of gratuitous F-bombs, but +1 anyway.
In fact, discovery of a new dinosaur would be proof that the dinosaur bones have been faked all along. :-)
I find it hard to wrap my mind around calling a 95 million year old fossil "new."
I call them "bookmarks." I've been using them for years.
According to Ars Technica, Apple's R&D budget is 3.4 BILLION dollars (3.4x10^9). That's enough money to "explore" all kinds of crazy stuff. Just because they're spending money looking into something, doesn't make it part of their business plan.
Because if the devices all work, the cabling is not a problem; and if you do not see the cabling, the cabling does not *look* like a problem.
I bought a cable tray that mounts under the desk for about $10 at Ikea. That and some cable ties & shorteners was all it took for me.
A friend of mine is a small-town judge. He's elected, but it's a part-time job (10 hours per week I think). He's judge in the town where he lives and works as an attorney in a neighboring town.
In his small town, my friend got elected because the town councilmen asked him to run. They'd worked with him in his day job (where he was representing a company trying to get permits in the town and whatnot) and thought he was a good guy. This is how things get done on a local level: the local officials say "we need a new judge" (or registrar of deeds or whatnot) and pick someone they think is level-headed and responsible.
What I'm trying to say is that unless you are plugged into local politics, it probably does not make much difference to you whether your new judge is someone the Republicans think is a good guy, or someone the Democrats think is a good guy. You'll get a good guy either way -- unless of course all the members of one party are a bunch of jerks, in which case you don't trust their judgment and want the other guy.
At the local level, some of these positions are just a popularity contest. I usually abstain because I have never lived in one place long enough to know who's who.
And I should add that when I say "several," I mean *forty-six*. Out of fifty.
That claim is only true in a narrow and impractical sense. Several US states have mandatory data-breach reporting laws. A company doing business in those states, generally meaning buying or selling to/from persons or companies in those states, must comply with those laws. Generally they require notifying customers whose personal data is at risk. I have received two such letters myself since my state's law went into effect.
IANAL but really I don't think it takes a lawyer to be aware of these laws. Anyone who is informed about computer security should at least know of their existence, as should any IT manager employed in those states.
Yes, electronics make the world go round, but the IEEE is about the most ineffective organization on the planet. If they are plotting a conspiracy, I assure you, you are perfectly safe.
I fail to see how the world food programme, the construction of refugee camps, malaria and AIDS prevention, child protection and education are bad for anyone, let alone "the rest of us."
Unless, of course, you mean that you're unwilling to pay taxes to support such efforts. In which case you'd seem like a selfish bastard but I'd reluctantly agree that human decency should be optional. I would go on to point out that most of the UN's humanitarian programs are financed by voluntary contributions from member states.
I've only been a juror on one trial, but my impression was that the judge was accepting rather lame excuses from people who wanted to get out. Perhaps he felt the same way you do.
[[citation needed]].
In the absence of a rational analysis supporting your claim, I can only conclude it is purely emotional (wishful thinking). See also a a recent Dilbert cartoon.
I can work out for myself what the decision implies, thanks. I don't know to which TFS gives the bigger insult -- to the integrity of Slashdot, or to its readers' intelligence.
Speaking as an American, I agree wholeheartedly. My problem is, and always has been, getting the other 300 million Americans to agree with my priorities.
I have to side with the French newspapers on this one. They own the copyrights to the material they write, and should be able to (try to) charge for others, including Google, to use that.
As many people have pointed out, it's hard to see how this will work to the newspapers' advantage. They are saying "no" to free advertising. But, if they want to assert their rights and cling to an obsolete 20th-century business model, good luck to 'em. AFAIK the law is on their side.
Now if I were a shareholder in French media companies I might feel this decision was not in my best interest. But, happily, I'm not!
Well, pulling conjectures completely out of my proverbial hat now (this is Slashdot after all), presumably IQ tests look for attributes that are "important" (from the POV of the psychologists who designed the tests). So if the researchers picked the right "important" attributes to test, these are the same attributes that are necessary and useful in their (read, our) environment.
That would suggest these analytical skills are getting pervasive daily exercise just by living in the industrialized world.
Interesting point. So perhaps the explanation is simple: the Lake Wobegon effect.
I think the definition of "smart" is subjective. As Jerrod Diamond pointed out in his book "Guns, Germs, and Steel," a scientist from California looks "smart" on a university campus, but looks like a complete idiot in the New Guinea jungle, where he struggles to follow a trail or build a shelter or find potable water. Similarly, the New Guinean jungle-dweller can improvise all kinds of things in the jungle but doesn't understand how to cross the street or maybe even turn a doorknob. Going beyond Diamond's point, I would say the New Guinean doesn't *need* abstract reasoning or formal logic, but he does probably need to use his brain power in ways I can't really predict because I'd be an idiot in the jungle, myself. So, who is "smarter?" Their environments require different competencies.