...do not always have a camera in them. They work on the same principle of providing the possibility that you're being watched.
The effectiveness is probably going to drop significantly when the watched know they outnumber the watchers to such a degree that there's no way to track them all even if they're in view. Whether or not this is useful in a prison would really depend on the cost of implementing this centralized mass-surveillance over adding guards(who would also be on hand to stop what's being seen as well).
Finding a place to study in college during finals took some legwork. Can't study in the room because other people also live there who aren't studying. All 4 floors of the library had every seat occupied. However, you could usually find a place to park your butt in a classroom when there isn't a class going on. If you're studying with friends and will need to discuss the subject you could be walking a good 1-2 hours before you find a place to settle in.
Yeah, while other people kept trynig to take late classes and getting mixed schedules, due to what seemed to be a terribly early schedule one semester(and the recollection of 4 years of highschool), I realized early on that it's better to take the earliest classes for all your courses and waking up early everyday means you never have one day where you wake up 2 hours earlier than what your body expects.
Throughout highschool you'd be in class by 8-8:30 and feel fine. In college you're half-dead in a 10am class, the difference was that it was 8-8:30 everyday.
It's conceivable to maintain the varying schedule and just waking early anyway to study if the class is later on, but I found it damned hard to wake up if the first thing on my agenda was to crack open a textbook.
Me and my roommate have the same habit. We turn on downloaded episodes on our computers and fall asleep to their background noise(this way loud commercials don't jump in). I find that it takes louder noises to wake me if I fall asleep against certain level of noise. Screensaver kicks in at the conclusion followed by sleep mode.
I've just reached the end of a 2-3 month crunch period in my job(at least I hope so) and I've noticed the same things. I'd become intensely pessimisic, anti-social, and depressed. In the back of my mind I'm watching myself and wondering what the hell is wrong with me.
Part of me was aware that this really wasn't how I should be feeling and acting. My life wasn't a horrible mess like my anxiety kept telling me, if I could just dial down for a good night's sleep everything would be turned around the next day. Knowing that didn't make me feel any better though. I kept most of it internalized, so that the actual effect of being so fucked up on the inside would be minimal once the phase had passed. But I continually tendered thoughts of flipping out on people at work and quitting my job to leave the company to handle the mess I had been shielding them from with my consecutive 60-hour no-overtimepay work weeks.
It was unnerving to see how easily my personality could be subverted by a simple lack of sleep.
Doesn't fit the profile of a small group up against overwhelming odds.
Sunni(The larger muslim sect) blowing people up at a Shia(smaller sect) wedding(what symbol are they trying to destroy there?) in Iraq.
I can understand that many "terrorists" in Iraq are really just "resistance" or "freedom fighters", but sometimes, a terrorist is really just a terrorist.
The time spent raising and training is shouldered by someone else. The terrorists are only interested in acquiring the end product. They only need to feed extremist dogma at people angry or stupid enough to be susceptible to listening to their violent version of Islam, and then they just have to provide explosives or teach them how to get their own.
Just put the bomb on a person. It works now, and they have no need or reason to stop. Using robots for terrorism is unnecessarily expensive and complicated. Much cheaper for them to use people.
On a similar note: even if an AK-slinging fanatic is stopped by multimillion dollar munitions(and all the work behind fielding the munitions) we end up losing anyway since we lose far more money than they invested.
There's more than the two possible systems. The value of waiting vs. fast-food establishments is blurred by the discrepancy of the foods being served.
It's just that the two most common systems are cheap food with no service, or good food with service.
There is still the possibility of good food with no service(priced accordingly), which is what the GP wishes for. It occurs here and there in varying forms(buffets, order&pick-up diners), and the GP's desire is shared by others who have lamented the tip-based system.
A system without waiters also has the added benefit of determining your own level of self-service. If you want water, you don't have to wait for someone to come around until you can drink, you can just get up and get some yourself immediately. Ready to order? Then go ahead and order.
It's not a binary decision, there are other possibilities. However, having a different protocol for dining in every restaurant would have inevitable bouts of confusion for first-time customers. There are network-effects for those that adhere to the common guidelines. Just like the popularity of Windows as an OS, is it the best choice because it's the best system or because it's too inconvenient to deviate from the standard?
Perhaps they could declare revoke all protection of MS's software licenses and allow anyone anywhere to do with it as they please. Really not something MS would want.
I'd imagine that it's easier to intercept something at that speed and destroying it, relative to intercepting it and throwing it away intact. Might be doable, but it's probably not worth the extra hassle.
Gold is tangible, gold is scarce, but valuable? The high value of gold is built on intangible desires just like the value of paper and ink that we place on money. It's metal. I don't have gold, I don't have any use for it, and I don't want the metal. I want the cash value of gold though.
A gold standard is just changing one object for another as a unit of exchange. You can use deer skins, rocks with holes in them, it's still money. If you want serious value behind the unit of exchange, exchange a valuable unit like a car or piece of machinery. Except those don't fit so well into a pocket. So you exchange cash. But cash makes your pocket fat, so we carry credit cards.
The real goal of a gold standard is to combat uncontrolled money expansion. There are a number of ways to accomplish that without arbitrarily pivoting on some random and irrelevant metal.
Ron Paul has some good ideas I'd support, but the gold standard isn't one of them.
XP-> Vista, the names of icons changed. Had to go into the "options" at the top of the control panel(where options always sits) and change it to classic view. The Vista layout change was neither necessary nor useful. But it was trivial to change it back to something that worked.
Tried Linux a few months ago and Linux's GUI in my opinion almost immediately struck me as superior to XP and Vista, doing everything Windows could do, but with more options. Similar enough to XP that I had no problems finding what I wanted on my own without needing help.
However, I am not interested in using Linux on my primary machine, because while the GUI was no problem, CLI was DEFINITELY A PROBLEM. I would be willing to suffer minor inconvenience for major benefits, but memorizing all those text commands is a major inconvenience and the benefit is minor when the OS is pre-installed or pirated. Pirated OS market share is still market share that Linux needs to compete with in getting support. Pirated windows is a valid obstacle to free Linux.
While the CLI allowed for a number of interesting and useful operations, it required a non-trivial time investment to research. Yes I found the answer, but I'm not looking to start studying in order to get the computer to work, I'd rather just make it work through the methods I'm already equipped with in Windows. If a feature in a GUI moves, that's fine, I'll look around for a few seconds until I find the new path to the feature. When things have to get done through a CLI you can't just stumble across the answer, you have to look up every answer.
Yes, windows users needed to invest some time to learn how to use windows, but windows users have already put in that time investment. They need a good reason to invest time in learning to do the same things on another platform. For a specific example, install the "Extended Preferences" plugin for Pidgin so that you can minimize Pidgin to the systray instead of the bar. Double-click the installer if you're using windows. But otherwise there are 4 seperate sets of instructions for Linux distros, and I needed to use a 5th set of instructions to compile the damn thing with a compiler I don't have and the compiler still didn't work when installed through Synaptic and the CLI. So this minor plugin was installed with a double-click, and I can't even get it to work in Linux. I'm sure it's possible, but the time investment is not worth it.
If a feature in command line is not already known to the user, I need to go reference the internet or a guide to find the correct text syntax to get things done.
And dependency is not something I want to deal with.
Plus Windows has network effects going in its favor. I can't force all my friends to stop using Ventrilo, I can only ask. Mumble and Teamspeak support linux, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm cut off from using Ventrilo(There is limited support in Ubuntu using Wine, but it ceases to work with reset every 5 minutes)
There will of course be compatibility issues on Windows, but there are relatively fewer for the average user since installers are targeted towards this single platform, even if this single platform is full of inefficiency and error, it has the advantage of being a well-recognized platform. And just one major loss like the ability to voicechat with friends on a windows program like Ventrilo is a very real reason not to switch to Linux. The fault is not necessarily with Linux, and Windows doesn't necessarily deserve any praise for their network effect, but the reality is still there.
That's pretty neat and it's nice to have a wide-range of response options.
It'd sure be nice if we had better targeting tech though, hitting things from 220 miles away isn't that useful unless you're hitting the right things. For example, hitting an insurgent in a city full of civilians? Then there's the even trickier part of only hitting the right thing and nothing else. Then there's the problem of hitting the right thing, nothing else, and doing it affordably. Killing 2 madrasa-educated extremists equipped with rags and AKs by using multi-million dollar munitions seems like a Phyrric victory.
The railgun is impressive like many other tools in a nation's arsenal of big boomy-ness, but we're at the point where we'd lose a war fought with any nation that required the use of such weaponry. Everybody involved would lose that war. The world is still an unfriendly place of course, and there will be threats that require a just military response. It seems like focusing on expanding our abilities in small localized confrontations makes for a more useful "stick" to wield.
Further to the above, an efficient and optimal distribution of scarce resources still requires guidelines for the resulting production package to present the "optimal"(used as a subjective term in this case as opposed to an economic term).
Using market forces are great, but free market capitalism isn't necessarily better(and there aren't any for this reason).
Pure capitalism is without heart or consideration for humanity. That's why we have regulation in public and private forms. A product is meaningless until it's assigned its human value. What's more valuable? 5 tons of food in one man's warehouse or 1 ton in starving bellies. Depends if you ask the starving people, or the man you just took that food from. Economics doesn't pretend to know which is better, it needs information(as referenced in parent post) regarding guidelines to efficiently meet targets.
A balance would need to be struck between consumption and investment and 100% investment leaves 0% consumption and plenty of starving people. Economics can supply the Consumption and investment curve, regulation helps adjust the point on the curve that an economy lies, and it takes the input(information) of people to decide where we should be.
And as parent mentioned, it takes informed and rational people to make a good decision. Free market can't handle this on its own.
Slashdot Mirror
Monopolies are not illegal, anti-competitive practices are.
I heard they even exhale CO2.
Well, does the box have airholes?
What's a begonia?
Hmm, I should google it...
...do not always have a camera in them. They work on the same principle of providing the possibility that you're being watched.
The effectiveness is probably going to drop significantly when the watched know they outnumber the watchers to such a degree that there's no way to track them all even if they're in view. Whether or not this is useful in a prison would really depend on the cost of implementing this centralized mass-surveillance over adding guards(who would also be on hand to stop what's being seen as well).
Was it peer-reviewed?
Finding a place to study in college during finals took some legwork. Can't study in the room because other people also live there who aren't studying. All 4 floors of the library had every seat occupied. However, you could usually find a place to park your butt in a classroom when there isn't a class going on. If you're studying with friends and will need to discuss the subject you could be walking a good 1-2 hours before you find a place to settle in.
Yeah, while other people kept trynig to take late classes and getting mixed schedules, due to what seemed to be a terribly early schedule one semester(and the recollection of 4 years of highschool), I realized early on that it's better to take the earliest classes for all your courses and waking up early everyday means you never have one day where you wake up 2 hours earlier than what your body expects.
Throughout highschool you'd be in class by 8-8:30 and feel fine. In college you're half-dead in a 10am class, the difference was that it was 8-8:30 everyday.
It's conceivable to maintain the varying schedule and just waking early anyway to study if the class is later on, but I found it damned hard to wake up if the first thing on my agenda was to crack open a textbook.
Me and my roommate have the same habit. We turn on downloaded episodes on our computers and fall asleep to their background noise(this way loud commercials don't jump in). I find that it takes louder noises to wake me if I fall asleep against certain level of noise. Screensaver kicks in at the conclusion followed by sleep mode.
I've just reached the end of a 2-3 month crunch period in my job(at least I hope so) and I've noticed the same things. I'd become intensely pessimisic, anti-social, and depressed. In the back of my mind I'm watching myself and wondering what the hell is wrong with me.
Part of me was aware that this really wasn't how I should be feeling and acting. My life wasn't a horrible mess like my anxiety kept telling me, if I could just dial down for a good night's sleep everything would be turned around the next day. Knowing that didn't make me feel any better though. I kept most of it internalized, so that the actual effect of being so fucked up on the inside would be minimal once the phase had passed. But I continually tendered thoughts of flipping out on people at work and quitting my job to leave the company to handle the mess I had been shielding them from with my consecutive 60-hour no-overtimepay work weeks.
It was unnerving to see how easily my personality could be subverted by a simple lack of sleep.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/10/31/iraq-violence.html
Doesn't fit the profile of a small group up against overwhelming odds.
Sunni(The larger muslim sect) blowing people up at a Shia(smaller sect) wedding(what symbol are they trying to destroy there?) in Iraq.
I can understand that many "terrorists" in Iraq are really just "resistance" or "freedom fighters", but sometimes, a terrorist is really just a terrorist.
The time spent raising and training is shouldered by someone else. The terrorists are only interested in acquiring the end product. They only need to feed extremist dogma at people angry or stupid enough to be susceptible to listening to their violent version of Islam, and then they just have to provide explosives or teach them how to get their own.
It can be done.
But it won't be done.
Just put the bomb on a person. It works now, and they have no need or reason to stop. Using robots for terrorism is unnecessarily expensive and complicated. Much cheaper for them to use people.
On a similar note: even if an AK-slinging fanatic is stopped by multimillion dollar munitions(and all the work behind fielding the munitions) we end up losing anyway since we lose far more money than they invested.
There's more than the two possible systems. The value of waiting vs. fast-food establishments is blurred by the discrepancy of the foods being served.
It's just that the two most common systems are cheap food with no service, or good food with service.
There is still the possibility of good food with no service(priced accordingly), which is what the GP wishes for. It occurs here and there in varying forms(buffets, order&pick-up diners), and the GP's desire is shared by others who have lamented the tip-based system.
A system without waiters also has the added benefit of determining your own level of self-service. If you want water, you don't have to wait for someone to come around until you can drink, you can just get up and get some yourself immediately. Ready to order? Then go ahead and order.
It's not a binary decision, there are other possibilities. However, having a different protocol for dining in every restaurant would have inevitable bouts of confusion for first-time customers. There are network-effects for those that adhere to the common guidelines. Just like the popularity of Windows as an OS, is it the best choice because it's the best system or because it's too inconvenient to deviate from the standard?
Perhaps they could declare revoke all protection of MS's software licenses and allow anyone anywhere to do with it as they please. Really not something MS would want.
If you have a good enough grasp of what an exchange rate is to include the word "current" in the subject line, why are you asking this question?
It's likely the fine shown in Euro (as shown in the summary) will have to be paid in Euro.
Let me be the first to suggest:
"Skynet"
I'd imagine that it's easier to intercept something at that speed and destroying it, relative to intercepting it and throwing it away intact. Might be doable, but it's probably not worth the extra hassle.
Exactly!
Easy!
Gold is tangible, gold is scarce, but valuable? The high value of gold is built on intangible desires just like the value of paper and ink that we place on money. It's metal. I don't have gold, I don't have any use for it, and I don't want the metal. I want the cash value of gold though.
A gold standard is just changing one object for another as a unit of exchange. You can use deer skins, rocks with holes in them, it's still money. If you want serious value behind the unit of exchange, exchange a valuable unit like a car or piece of machinery. Except those don't fit so well into a pocket. So you exchange cash. But cash makes your pocket fat, so we carry credit cards.
The real goal of a gold standard is to combat uncontrolled money expansion. There are a number of ways to accomplish that without arbitrarily pivoting on some random and irrelevant metal.
Ron Paul has some good ideas I'd support, but the gold standard isn't one of them.
I just watched Dexter season 1 and enjoyed it. A serial killer makes for an interesting and unusual protagonist.
XP-> Vista, the names of icons changed. Had to go into the "options" at the top of the control panel(where options always sits) and change it to classic view. The Vista layout change was neither necessary nor useful. But it was trivial to change it back to something that worked.
Tried Linux a few months ago and Linux's GUI in my opinion almost immediately struck me as superior to XP and Vista, doing everything Windows could do, but with more options. Similar enough to XP that I had no problems finding what I wanted on my own without needing help.
However, I am not interested in using Linux on my primary machine, because while the GUI was no problem, CLI was DEFINITELY A PROBLEM. I would be willing to suffer minor inconvenience for major benefits, but memorizing all those text commands is a major inconvenience and the benefit is minor when the OS is pre-installed or pirated. Pirated OS market share is still market share that Linux needs to compete with in getting support. Pirated windows is a valid obstacle to free Linux.
While the CLI allowed for a number of interesting and useful operations, it required a non-trivial time investment to research. Yes I found the answer, but I'm not looking to start studying in order to get the computer to work, I'd rather just make it work through the methods I'm already equipped with in Windows. If a feature in a GUI moves, that's fine, I'll look around for a few seconds until I find the new path to the feature. When things have to get done through a CLI you can't just stumble across the answer, you have to look up every answer.
Yes, windows users needed to invest some time to learn how to use windows, but windows users have already put in that time investment. They need a good reason to invest time in learning to do the same things on another platform. For a specific example, install the "Extended Preferences" plugin for Pidgin so that you can minimize Pidgin to the systray instead of the bar. Double-click the installer if you're using windows. But otherwise there are 4 seperate sets of instructions for Linux distros, and I needed to use a 5th set of instructions to compile the damn thing with a compiler I don't have and the compiler still didn't work when installed through Synaptic and the CLI. So this minor plugin was installed with a double-click, and I can't even get it to work in Linux. I'm sure it's possible, but the time investment is not worth it.
If a feature in command line is not already known to the user, I need to go reference the internet or a guide to find the correct text syntax to get things done.
And dependency is not something I want to deal with.
Plus Windows has network effects going in its favor. I can't force all my friends to stop using Ventrilo, I can only ask. Mumble and Teamspeak support linux, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm cut off from using Ventrilo(There is limited support in Ubuntu using Wine, but it ceases to work with reset every 5 minutes)
There will of course be compatibility issues on Windows, but there are relatively fewer for the average user since installers are targeted towards this single platform, even if this single platform is full of inefficiency and error, it has the advantage of being a well-recognized platform. And just one major loss like the ability to voicechat with friends on a windows program like Ventrilo is a very real reason not to switch to Linux. The fault is not necessarily with Linux, and Windows doesn't necessarily deserve any praise for their network effect, but the reality is still there.
That's pretty neat and it's nice to have a wide-range of response options.
It'd sure be nice if we had better targeting tech though, hitting things from 220 miles away isn't that useful unless you're hitting the right things. For example, hitting an insurgent in a city full of civilians? Then there's the even trickier part of only hitting the right thing and nothing else. Then there's the problem of hitting the right thing, nothing else, and doing it affordably. Killing 2 madrasa-educated extremists equipped with rags and AKs by using multi-million dollar munitions seems like a Phyrric victory.
The railgun is impressive like many other tools in a nation's arsenal of big boomy-ness, but we're at the point where we'd lose a war fought with any nation that required the use of such weaponry. Everybody involved would lose that war. The world is still an unfriendly place of course, and there will be threats that require a just military response. It seems like focusing on expanding our abilities in small localized confrontations makes for a more useful "stick" to wield.
The wire isn't so complicated, running it through a jockstrap over the boxers would be enough to keep it from shuffling inside the pants.
But having a wire pressed up against your gooch for long periods of time will definitely become a drain on the user's patience.
Further to the above, an efficient and optimal distribution of scarce resources still requires guidelines for the resulting production package to present the "optimal"(used as a subjective term in this case as opposed to an economic term).
Using market forces are great, but free market capitalism isn't necessarily better(and there aren't any for this reason).
Pure capitalism is without heart or consideration for humanity. That's why we have regulation in public and private forms. A product is meaningless until it's assigned its human value. What's more valuable? 5 tons of food in one man's warehouse or 1 ton in starving bellies. Depends if you ask the starving people, or the man you just took that food from. Economics doesn't pretend to know which is better, it needs information(as referenced in parent post) regarding guidelines to efficiently meet targets.
A balance would need to be struck between consumption and investment and 100% investment leaves 0% consumption and plenty of starving people. Economics can supply the Consumption and investment curve, regulation helps adjust the point on the curve that an economy lies, and it takes the input(information) of people to decide where we should be.
And as parent mentioned, it takes informed and rational people to make a good decision. Free market can't handle this on its own.