Most of the "free" world had no idea he was anti-EU currency.
On the other hand, we don't all live in the USA. The inhabitants of that small piece of real estate called the EU were pretty well informed if they cared to read the newspapers.
I agree that arguing with true believers is a waste of time - right up to the moment someone who isn't stops to read or listen to the discussion. I never argue with stubborn people to convince *them*, I argue to convince the 10 bystanders indirectly.
On the arguments about creation: no scientist can accept an idea that cannot be argued with, cannot be amended and cannot be used to predict things. Unless he or she stops being a scientist when leaving the lab. That sort of separation of the personal and the professional is something I see in a lot of people with jobs for money, not in professionals who really have a passion for what they do. It's an attitude you find in all kinds of people, from plumbers to CEO's. Some do it for the money, and some have a trade that happens to bring in money.
While basically you may well be correct, the exact same argument was made for the development of eyes. "It had to be all there at the same time", "it couldn't have evolved piecemeal", etc. etc. The problem was we didn't, at first, knew how it could have been built. But now we have a very good model for how it happens, starting with a few light-sensitive cells.
Same issue here: Intelligent design is not a theory, it doesn't give us falsifiable predictions and it doesn't help our understanding of the world we live in. Even if it were true, it still wouldn't help us in any way.
Now, the hypothesis of the scientists in question is interesting, but given the timescales and the current lack of data going back a few billion years, it's not really a theory. In that I agree. However, it's still a better attempt at one, than intelligent design ever gave us. Because all our theories are flawed (dialectics explicitly states you can't ever have a perfect science where no refinement is possible - given our current history so far,that statement has been holding up pretty good over the last centuries) it's not a problem if some are a bit more flawed then others, as long as you (a) see what the hypothesis was, (b) check the theory and (c) build upon it to improve things. Intelligent Design doesn't allow any of that so it fails in a number of philosophical and scientific ways.
I go to China from time to time, and whenever I do I make it a point to eat Beijing duck. They have some specialized restaurants in Beijing that are fantastic.
Africans like to eat them. That's a problem in the UK - they import them and sell them at markets. Though it's a bonus for people who like to keep them as pets and feel happy about "liberating" one or two.
Another bonus: if they run away, they're easy to catch:)
... so I expect more sensors in the next wave. And improvement in quality of the existing ones.
After that, I expect some work on the API's for these sensors. And I expect to see basically ANY type sensor that can be miniaturized in a cheap and effective package to appear on the phone. I've already seen Geiger counters you can attach to a phone - if you could make them small enough, the Japanese market is yours.
Also nice: - A good (near-medical quality) heartrate monitor is doable right now, but would benefit from better color detection in the camera and for Android, a better API. It only works on iPads right now. - Stereo microphones would help a lot for sensing distance and possibly volume of rooms. - An inbuilt laser for medium distance measurement would combine VERY nicely with a lot of other sensors. - that extreme wideband radar that can see through walls and clothing - infrared sensors
As for other features: apart from the sensors, the communication and the processing power? I think user interface options like laser keyboards. And output options such as the pico-beamers you can already buy. It all needs to become much smaller, but then it would certainly add value.
The main feature: energy storage. We really need better batteries.
The difficult thing with diesel fueled engines is getting them started when things are really cold once they are running there isn't much of an issue. Cold Diesel doesn't flow as well, Cold Engines are harder to turn because the oil is thicker and parts are smaller, cold batteries don't produce as much power.
Two words: Winter Diesel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_diesel_fuel)
Amen to that bit about traffic jams. I have to make around 200 km/day to commute, in one of the worlds most densely populated countries. I first got the automatic transmission for my wife, but after using it for a while, going back to manual is just like suddenly having to double-clutch or crank your engine. Or your windows. Yes, it's possible - but not very comfortable. And I also find that while doing manual shifting is as automatic as steering after a day of practice, it always means one hand off the wheel. I prefer two on the wheel, especially in curves and on snowy roads.
Ofcourse you can't dictate much. But since you have many bosses and there's always another, neither can they. Unless you're starving. Otherwise you negotiate and sometimes put your foot down.
Sorry - was also replying to someone else who thought mandatory abortions were a good idea. The replies got mixed up.
However, being able to basically blackmail a female into either an abortion or possibly outright poverty still doesn't seem remotely like a fair and balanced law. The only case were it might be reasonable would be if you wore a condom and the woman in question removed it without your consent. In all other cases it was pretty obvious in advance what was going to happen (pregnancy) and both parties have a responsibility in that.
The father has several pre-emptive options before sperm gets into the vagina: a condom being the simplest of these. Requiring an abortion because you didn't like the feeling of a condom is just a tad unbalanced, wouldn't you say?
Once you go into the area where your body is no longer yours, but the state determines what to do with it, the doors to Hell open quickly. Do I really need to sketch out what an oppressive state will do to dissident pregnant females with your law? And all legal, too!
Which is an undesired meddling of the state in private affairs IMO. The sooner they got rid of that, the better. A sperm donor is just a donor, and not a parent. Every time the state meddles in one of these affairs and someone turns out to be a sudden parent, it's never to the good of the parties involved.
Forcing her to terminate the pregnancy isn't beyond reason
I'm just thinking about your statement in the context of India: they'd just add the caveat "only if it's a girl" and they'd all agree. So, what's your advice to women who lose their child before birth? "Suck it up, you're being unreasonable"?
The other side of the coin is that the woman could ask you for a vasectomy to prevent mishaps like that from happening again. After all, it's minor surgery. Hardly a problem, right? I consider it more reasonable than forcing someone to get an abortion. After all, if you force her to get an abortion, you only prevent one child. But get a vasectomy and you prevent them all.
I was discussing the standard case. Exceptions like this are exceptions to the rule. And I agree that a donor is not a parent, nor should he be. Beyond donating sperm there should be no impact whatsoever, and no rights either.
The single function of managers is to keep the employees in line. If you slack off as employee you're still abusing their negligence, but the manager should make sure you work. If they fail at that, they fail at their most basic function and need to go.
That is because the integrity of someones body is not for someone else to decide. The body of a woman undergoes many changes, and her health is at risk, from any pregnancy. Historically, childbirth has always been a leading cause of death for women and even today it is most certainly not a risk-free experience. Therefore, the woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy.
The man has no say over the body of a woman - unless we have state-sanctioned slave owners - so he has no rights in the matter. Forcing a woman to become pregnant against her will is rape. Forcing her to terminate a pregnancy is physical abuse, depending on the time of the pregnancy, and would certainly do emotional damage. So once again: no rights for the man in this scenario because the damage to the woman trumps the damage to the ego of the man.
Since the cost of bearing a child falls mostly onto the woman, the father could then basically "freeload" by walking away: the child is there, the woman is now responsible for the cost of raising the child. The father has reproduced and can go on. To prevent such a freeloading scenario and undesired consequences for society, the father has an obligation to support the child after birth.
where politicians are united in their opinion that other countries should do something with anti-global warming efforts
I think that's a better quote. Because whatever they say in public, their actions so far are not impressive. They aren't implementing a single effective law to curb greenhouse emissions.
But the problem with that statement is that often, the fighters are also civilians and live with their wife and children. I know it would be much easier if they would just step aside and put up a large neon sign pointing at them, but it doesn't work that way. Often the claim they were "using civilians for cover" means "they were in bed at home with the family, which made them pretty easy targets".
In my opinion, people who agree with drone strikes or gunships firing on civilians have no moral authority versus terrorists. None.
The Failure Industry Somewhere in the nineties the company Volmac (now Capgemini) carried out a project for the InformatiseringsBank (now the IB Group). This studyloan administration automation project failed and that produced a lot of negative publicity. The huge reputational damage for Volmac was reportedly a major factor in the acquisition of the company by the French Capgemini. And the sad thing was that it was later determined that Volmac had done good work. The failure was the fault of the client. "Helas, du beurre d'peanut" sounded from Paris (Ed: Dutch saying translated literally into French for comic effect,means as much as "too bad!").
Fast forward a decade. ICT projects with the government as client fail almost standard. I do not have to pick this up from the press because I'm in the thick of it. A megaproject fails spectacularly. Damage: nearly 300 million euros plus misery at six million Dutch who receive improper payments. Newspaper articles. Parliamentary debates. The damage to the ICT company behind this modern debacle: negligible.
Basically this means the ICT supplier today has an economic interest in failure. If a project of 8 million is inflated to an estimated 80 million budget then you're better off with a failure than to implement according to plan. A successful project can never compete against ten failing projects, especially when image damage is so very 1995. But wait, a mega-project failure will cause reputational damage to the client and he does not do business with you anymore. Well, from my own experience, I can conclude that this also is no longer true. Worse, while we were busy transforming the fail into a success, there arose a lot of pressure from the client's IT department to once again give the large-therefore-good ICT company a new chance.
[here I have to stop translating due to time pressure. I really should translate this later on. The rest is straight from Google Translate]
Now you should always be reticent about things with which you yourself are involved, but short after
there was an ICT-drama, now with another large ICT company in the lead. And although this ICT debacle caused a lot of ugly publicity, there was proving remarkably mild judgment of the client: "The ICT company had nothing to reproach of the failed project. No, the failure to lay ourselves as client ". Two-zero for failure because this industry business is still whistling around. The argument: "big", "Reliable", "continuity"...
Well were after two mega projects fail ofcourse the heads of the internal IT management are cut off. Yet? Haha just the opposite, of course! With large ICT projects are large budgets from The Hague. When projects get out of hand then just walk supplementary budget. Where commercial companies as office furnisher Samas and Van Lanschot Bank nearly destroyed have gone to the costs of failed ICTprojecten, means a major ICT project in government precisely additional revenue and a fail project much additional revenue. Who that additional money gets is like a hero in the industry.
Failing ICT are heroes precisely because they fail. But fortunately there are still users who have an interest in a working system. Well, that is nuanced. Often at the large government projects to replace rickety and therefore very labor-intensive legacy systems. Replacement by a system that does so than large impact on employment. And if the user organization still a working system would then use another trick. That means that all ICT based tools the i
Slashdot Mirror
Cobol != punch cards.
Most of the "free" world had no idea he was anti-EU currency.
On the other hand, we don't all live in the USA. The inhabitants of that small piece of real estate called the EU were pretty well informed if they cared to read the newspapers.
I agree that arguing with true believers is a waste of time - right up to the moment someone who isn't stops to read or listen to the discussion. I never argue with stubborn people to convince *them*, I argue to convince the 10 bystanders indirectly.
On the arguments about creation: no scientist can accept an idea that cannot be argued with, cannot be amended and cannot be used to predict things. Unless he or she stops being a scientist when leaving the lab. That sort of separation of the personal and the professional is something I see in a lot of people with jobs for money, not in professionals who really have a passion for what they do. It's an attitude you find in all kinds of people, from plumbers to CEO's. Some do it for the money, and some have a trade that happens to bring in money.
While basically you may well be correct, the exact same argument was made for the development of eyes. "It had to be all there at the same time", "it couldn't have evolved piecemeal", etc. etc. The problem was we didn't, at first, knew how it could have been built. But now we have a very good model for how it happens, starting with a few light-sensitive cells.
Same issue here: Intelligent design is not a theory, it doesn't give us falsifiable predictions and it doesn't help our understanding of the world we live in. Even if it were true, it still wouldn't help us in any way.
Now, the hypothesis of the scientists in question is interesting, but given the timescales and the current lack of data going back a few billion years, it's not really a theory. In that I agree. However, it's still a better attempt at one, than intelligent design ever gave us. Because all our theories are flawed (dialectics explicitly states you can't ever have a perfect science where no refinement is possible - given our current history so far,that statement has been holding up pretty good over the last centuries) it's not a problem if some are a bit more flawed then others, as long as you (a) see what the hypothesis was, (b) check the theory and (c) build upon it to improve things. Intelligent Design doesn't allow any of that so it fails in a number of philosophical and scientific ways.
Because, as everyone knows, if you have a dead American ham, it *stays* dead - no matter how long you let it lie somewhere :)
The same place all Nordic countries get it every winter. From the salt mines.
I go to China from time to time, and whenever I do I make it a point to eat Beijing duck. They have some specialized restaurants in Beijing that are fantastic.
Africans like to eat them. That's a problem in the UK - they import them and sell them at markets. Though it's a bonus for people who like to keep them as pets and feel happy about "liberating" one or two.
Another bonus: if they run away, they're easy to catch :)
... so I expect more sensors in the next wave. And improvement in quality of the existing ones.
After that, I expect some work on the API's for these sensors. And I expect to see basically ANY type sensor that can be miniaturized in a cheap and effective package to appear on the phone. I've already seen Geiger counters you can attach to a phone - if you could make them small enough, the Japanese market is yours.
Also nice:
- A good (near-medical quality) heartrate monitor is doable right now, but would benefit from better color detection in the camera and for Android, a better API. It only works on iPads right now.
- Stereo microphones would help a lot for sensing distance and possibly volume of rooms.
- An inbuilt laser for medium distance measurement would combine VERY nicely with a lot of other sensors.
- that extreme wideband radar that can see through walls and clothing
- infrared sensors
As for other features: apart from the sensors, the communication and the processing power? I think user interface options like laser keyboards. And output options such as the pico-beamers you can already buy. It all needs to become much smaller, but then it would certainly add value.
The main feature: energy storage. We really need better batteries.
The cost of diesel fuel is more than the cost of gasoline
Interesting - in the EU, gasoline is usually (much) more expensive than diesel fuel.
> You'd mix kerosene into your diesel for low temperatures
No. Never done that.
You can add kerosene on an older Diesel engine, but on a common rail (CDI) diesel engine, the gasoline will ignite early and blow up the injectors.
The difficult thing with diesel fueled engines is getting them started when things are really cold once they are running there isn't much of an issue. Cold Diesel doesn't flow as well, Cold Engines are harder to turn because the oil is thicker and parts are smaller, cold batteries don't produce as much power.
Two words: Winter Diesel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_diesel_fuel)
Amen to that bit about traffic jams. I have to make around 200 km/day to commute, in one of the worlds most densely populated countries. I first got the automatic transmission for my wife, but after using it for a while, going back to manual is just like suddenly having to double-clutch or crank your engine. Or your windows. Yes, it's possible - but not very comfortable. And I also find that while doing manual shifting is as automatic as steering after a day of practice, it always means one hand off the wheel. I prefer two on the wheel, especially in curves and on snowy roads.
Ofcourse you can't dictate much. But since you have many bosses and there's always another, neither can they. Unless you're starving. Otherwise you negotiate and sometimes put your foot down.
Sorry - was also replying to someone else who thought mandatory abortions were a good idea. The replies got mixed up.
However, being able to basically blackmail a female into either an abortion or possibly outright poverty still doesn't seem remotely like a fair and balanced law. The only case were it might be reasonable would be if you wore a condom and the woman in question removed it without your consent. In all other cases it was pretty obvious in advance what was going to happen (pregnancy) and both parties have a responsibility in that.
The father has several pre-emptive options before sperm gets into the vagina: a condom being the simplest of these. Requiring an abortion because you didn't like the feeling of a condom is just a tad unbalanced, wouldn't you say?
Once you go into the area where your body is no longer yours, but the state determines what to do with it, the doors to Hell open quickly. Do I really need to sketch out what an oppressive state will do to dissident pregnant females with your law? And all legal, too!
Which is an undesired meddling of the state in private affairs IMO. The sooner they got rid of that, the better. A sperm donor is just a donor, and not a parent. Every time the state meddles in one of these affairs and someone turns out to be a sudden parent, it's never to the good of the parties involved.
Forcing her to terminate the pregnancy isn't beyond reason
I'm just thinking about your statement in the context of India: they'd just add the caveat "only if it's a girl" and they'd all agree. So, what's your advice to women who lose their child before birth? "Suck it up, you're being unreasonable"?
The other side of the coin is that the woman could ask you for a vasectomy to prevent mishaps like that from happening again. After all, it's minor surgery. Hardly a problem, right? I consider it more reasonable than forcing someone to get an abortion. After all, if you force her to get an abortion, you only prevent one child. But get a vasectomy and you prevent them all.
I was discussing the standard case. Exceptions like this are exceptions to the rule. And I agree that a donor is not a parent, nor should he be. Beyond donating sperm there should be no impact whatsoever, and no rights either.
The single function of managers is to keep the employees in line. If you slack off as employee you're still abusing their negligence, but the manager should make sure you work. If they fail at that, they fail at their most basic function and need to go.
That is because the integrity of someones body is not for someone else to decide. The body of a woman undergoes many changes, and her health is at risk, from any pregnancy. Historically, childbirth has always been a leading cause of death for women and even today it is most certainly not a risk-free experience. Therefore, the woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy.
The man has no say over the body of a woman - unless we have state-sanctioned slave owners - so he has no rights in the matter. Forcing a woman to become pregnant against her will is rape. Forcing her to terminate a pregnancy is physical abuse, depending on the time of the pregnancy, and would certainly do emotional damage. So once again: no rights for the man in this scenario because the damage to the woman trumps the damage to the ego of the man.
Since the cost of bearing a child falls mostly onto the woman, the father could then basically "freeload" by walking away: the child is there, the woman is now responsible for the cost of raising the child. The father has reproduced and can go on. To prevent such a freeloading scenario and undesired consequences for society, the father has an obligation to support the child after birth.
It's not unjust - there are real differences in the consequences for both parties, hence the differences in their rights and obligations.
where politicians are united in their opinion that other countries should do something with anti-global warming efforts
I think that's a better quote. Because whatever they say in public, their actions so far are not impressive. They aren't implementing a single effective law to curb greenhouse emissions.
But the problem with that statement is that often, the fighters are also civilians and live with their wife and children. I know it would be much easier if they would just step aside and put up a large neon sign pointing at them, but it doesn't work that way. Often the claim they were "using civilians for cover" means "they were in bed at home with the family, which made them pretty easy targets".
In my opinion, people who agree with drone strikes or gunships firing on civilians have no moral authority versus terrorists. None.
It's in Dutch, so I guess that explains it.
It's by Rene Veldwijk, one of the most respected database designers in The Netherlands.
http://www.ockham.nl/ocp/downloads/faalindustrie/columns-1/veldwijk-faalindustrie.pdf
My translation (reworked from Google Translate):
Column - René Veldwijk
Database Magazine - Issue 6 - October 2010
The Failure Industry
Somewhere in the nineties the company Volmac (now Capgemini) carried out a project for the InformatiseringsBank (now the IB Group).
This studyloan administration automation project failed and that produced a lot of negative publicity. The huge reputational damage for Volmac was reportedly a major factor in the acquisition of the company by the French Capgemini. And the sad thing was that it was later determined that Volmac had done good work. The failure was the fault of the client. "Helas, du beurre d'peanut" sounded from Paris (Ed: Dutch saying translated literally into French for comic effect,means as much as "too bad!").
Fast forward a decade. ICT projects with the government as client fail almost standard. I do not have to pick this up from the press because I'm in the thick of it. A megaproject fails spectacularly. Damage: nearly 300 million euros plus misery at six million Dutch who receive improper payments. Newspaper articles. Parliamentary debates. The damage to the ICT company behind this modern debacle: negligible.
Basically this means the ICT supplier today has an economic interest in failure. If a project of 8 million is inflated to an estimated 80 million budget then you're better off with a failure than to implement according to plan. A successful project can never compete against ten failing projects, especially when image damage is so very 1995.
But wait, a mega-project failure will cause reputational damage to the client and he does not do business with you anymore. Well, from my own experience, I can conclude that this also is no longer true. Worse, while we were busy transforming the fail into a success, there arose a lot of pressure from the client's IT department to once again give the large-therefore-good ICT company a new chance.
[here I have to stop translating due to time pressure. I really should translate this later on. The rest is straight from Google Translate]
Now you should always be reticent about things with which you yourself are involved, but short after ...
there was an ICT-drama, now with another large ICT company in the lead. And although this ICT debacle caused a lot of
ugly publicity, there was proving remarkably mild judgment of the client: "The ICT company had nothing to reproach
of the failed project. No, the failure to lay ourselves as client ". Two-zero for failure because this industry business is still whistling around.
The argument: "big", "Reliable", "continuity"
Well were after two mega projects fail ofcourse the heads of the internal IT management are cut off. Yet? Haha just
the opposite, of course! With large ICT projects are large budgets from The Hague. When projects get out of hand
then just walk supplementary budget. Where commercial companies as office furnisher Samas and Van Lanschot Bank
nearly destroyed have gone to the costs of failed ICTprojecten, means a major ICT project in government precisely
additional revenue and a fail project much additional revenue. Who that additional money gets is like a hero in the industry.
Failing ICT are heroes precisely because they fail. But fortunately there are still users who have an interest in a working system.
Well, that is nuanced. Often at the large government projects to replace rickety and therefore very labor-intensive legacy systems.
Replacement by a system that does so than large impact on employment. And if the user organization still a working system would then use another trick. That means that all ICT based tools the i