And through the quota his boss is effectively saying, "based on what we know, cast your net this wide."
This is kinda like telling an OCR system to find, in a 1000-letter input, exactly 127 E's, 91 T's, etc.
You've got a passage from Gadsby? If you look hard enough, you'll still find 127 E's.
You're making some interesting assumptions about the structure of this hypothetical democracy. As is, it takes much more than just a simple majority to override the U.S. Constitution (no law, not even a federal law is higher than the Constitution).
It is conceivable that within 4 year to 8 years of becoming a Democracy, this country would degenerate into a Christian Theocracy.
But you must admit that it would be fun to watch the different sects'/synods' disagreements over policy.
In the event of the public being tricked into voting extremely unwisely, (voting for someone that intends to dissolve the government and set up a dictatorship or theocracy for example) there is someone there to make a reality check.
Looks like the system has failed. In most places, it is illegal for an elector to not follow his state's majority vote.
I have heard arguments to the extent that amendments aren't capable of running counter to the content of the body of the constitution
So having a monopoly flush most of our money down the toilet is ok as long as 1% of it is going to a pie in sky research lab?
I don't particularly like this idea myself. I'd rather have the desire for competitive edge fueling research. Since competition these days seems to lead more to undermining the others than improving oneself, it looks like the government is all that's left for research.
Sure, there are times when R&D is used for better competition. For me, AT&T's "Project Lightspeed" comes to mind first since I hear about it so much. However, even this isn't really about improving service -- it's just about breaking into another market, although I expect it to lead to at least slight improvements.
Anyone today with enough smarts to come up with 'the next big thing' can easily support themselves and devote 90% of their life to a project if they choose to do so.
Only if they've already come up with and successfully marketed this next big thing. Otherwise...
One week is 168 hours long:
40 hours working (this is expected in exchange for the amount of money needed to easily support oneself)
40 - 60 hours spent sleeping (this is necessary to remain productive/healthy)
That leaves 68 - 88 hours, some of which will be spent on things like commuting, shopping, eating meals, etc.
This is far from the 90% you suggest. Perhaps 20% is a more realistic figure.
Even so, smart, diligent people can make great use of 20% of their lives.
As for the rest of your post, I have to agree. Innovation has become difficult because building on preexisting ideas requires understanding of them, and there are a lot more preexisting ideas now than there were in the past.
The first course should be a basic course for all engineering disciplines, and then an advanced course dealing with the software that each discipline typically has to use.
My school does this, except there's enough difference between engineering disciplines that most students won't learn much of anything they can use outside that class.
Or perhaps you could be proficient enough in one field (a group of similar technologies, rather than a single technology) that you can easily learn to use the new technologies.
This is assuming you are living by yourself.
Looks like you didn't really read the entire GP post.
Since you didn't, you probably should. Note that "cable tv," "broadband internet," "big house," and "fancy car" don't seem to be on the GP's list of expenses.
I'd also comment on the costs you listed, but it looks like that's been taken care of by a sibling post.
There was also the Freedom of Information Act.
Of course, we could see something similar where many audits are cancelled for "national security" reasons, or (and this would be ironic) "executive privilege."
What you're describing is a kind of price discrimination, and is potentially (not always) illegal in the US.
It also has a tendency to decrease allocative efficiency.
And there's a moral issue with taking the surplus utility away from the consumer and giving it to the monopolist.
Just a B.A. in Psychology and I can inform you that your signature is a cry for help.
Then surely, you must have come across a concept known as "humor." His sig is meant to be funny, not completely true.
Net neutrality would ban that.
That depends on how net neutrality is implemented. You could easily say "no discrimination based on source or destination" and make that the neutrality law. Carriers would be free to make gaming, streaming video/audio, and other such things move more quickly at the expense of something else, like plain old text content.
So why the "communist" bit? Was someone implying that "Europe" is "communist" earlier in the thread?
Not sure if you get this where you live, but that implication is pretty common among our local conservatives, and even more so among the neocons.
If they were to implement this scheme, they would be going out of their way to break the media that you bought.
The issue at hand, though, is whether he bought the media or a license. If he bought the media, then the seller is obviously under no obligation to replace it. However, that doesn't answer the question of how to handle it as a license. If he bought a license, not media, then the seller (or rather licensor) should still be obliged to let him listen to the content on the media. Of course, how they do it is up to them. Of course, this is only my interpretation, and IANAL.
The goal here should be allow the player to play with plot and storyline, rather than ensuring that certain things "happen" to your "character."
This is why Harvest Moon and Animal Crossing are fun. There's a lot more freedom there than in other games. Even many console RPG's these days only give you freedom as to how you accomplish your tasks; it's rare to have any freedom to decide what you want to accomplish.
Sometimes the testers' responses are bug reports, and sometimes they are feature requests. I have to agree with you -- it only makes sense to completely stop testing if all they have left are non-critical bug reports and feature requests.
Sounds like you've never had unnecessary difficulty getting a rebate. Having gotten the rebate run-around too many times, my family no longer shops at Best Buy.
Slashdot Mirror
How capable are you of listing the principles of liberal ideology?
You've got a passage from Gadsby? If you look hard enough, you'll still find 127 E's.
How recently was this change made?
I think the basic idea is this:
1. blame for making a mess
2. blame for not doing enough to clean it up
But you must admit that it would be fun to watch the different sects'/synods' disagreements over policy.
And I have heard of constitutional amendments that run counter to the content of the body of the constitution.
I don't particularly like this idea myself. I'd rather have the desire for competitive edge fueling research. Since competition these days seems to lead more to undermining the others than improving oneself, it looks like the government is all that's left for research.
Sure, there are times when R&D is used for better competition. For me, AT&T's "Project Lightspeed" comes to mind first since I hear about it so much. However, even this isn't really about improving service -- it's just about breaking into another market, although I expect it to lead to at least slight improvements.
Only if they've already come up with and successfully marketed this next big thing. Otherwise...
One week is 168 hours long:
40 hours working (this is expected in exchange for the amount of money needed to easily support oneself)
40 - 60 hours spent sleeping (this is necessary to remain productive/healthy)
That leaves 68 - 88 hours, some of which will be spent on things like commuting, shopping, eating meals, etc.
This is far from the 90% you suggest. Perhaps 20% is a more realistic figure.
Even so, smart, diligent people can make great use of 20% of their lives.
As for the rest of your post, I have to agree. Innovation has become difficult because building on preexisting ideas requires understanding of them, and there are a lot more preexisting ideas now than there were in the past.
Fixed.
The first course should be a basic course for all engineering disciplines, and then an advanced course dealing with the software that each discipline typically has to use.
My school does this, except there's enough difference between engineering disciplines that most students won't learn much of anything they can use outside that class.
Or perhaps you could be proficient enough in one field (a group of similar technologies, rather than a single technology) that you can easily learn to use the new technologies.
Dang... I wanna shop at your grocery store. I can't even get prices that good at Wal-Mart.
This is assuming you are living by yourself.
Looks like you didn't really read the entire GP post.
Since you didn't, you probably should. Note that "cable tv," "broadband internet," "big house," and "fancy car" don't seem to be on the GP's list of expenses.
I'd also comment on the costs you listed, but it looks like that's been taken care of by a sibling post.
And you've also got Research Triangle Park nearby.
Although, we must admit that there is still the occasional porkish idea (coughpeotonecough).
There was also the Freedom of Information Act.
Of course, we could see something similar where many audits are cancelled for "national security" reasons, or (and this would be ironic) "executive privilege."
What you're describing is a kind of price discrimination, and is potentially (not always) illegal in the US.
It also has a tendency to decrease allocative efficiency.
And there's a moral issue with taking the surplus utility away from the consumer and giving it to the monopolist.
Just a B.A. in Psychology and I can inform you that your signature is a cry for help.
Then surely, you must have come across a concept known as "humor." His sig is meant to be funny, not completely true.
Net neutrality would ban that.
That depends on how net neutrality is implemented. You could easily say "no discrimination based on source or destination" and make that the neutrality law. Carriers would be free to make gaming, streaming video/audio, and other such things move more quickly at the expense of something else, like plain old text content.
So why the "communist" bit? Was someone implying that "Europe" is "communist" earlier in the thread?
Not sure if you get this where you live, but that implication is pretty common among our local conservatives, and even more so among the neocons.
If they were to implement this scheme, they would be going out of their way to break the media that you bought.
The issue at hand, though, is whether he bought the media or a license. If he bought the media, then the seller is obviously under no obligation to replace it. However, that doesn't answer the question of how to handle it as a license. If he bought a license, not media, then the seller (or rather licensor) should still be obliged to let him listen to the content on the media. Of course, how they do it is up to them. Of course, this is only my interpretation, and IANAL.
The goal here should be allow the player to play with plot and storyline, rather than ensuring that certain things "happen" to your "character."
This is why Harvest Moon and Animal Crossing are fun. There's a lot more freedom there than in other games. Even many console RPG's these days only give you freedom as to how you accomplish your tasks; it's rare to have any freedom to decide what you want to accomplish.
Sometimes the testers' responses are bug reports, and sometimes they are feature requests.
I have to agree with you -- it only makes sense to completely stop testing if all they have left are non-critical bug reports and feature requests.
It's not like you have to participate to realize it. You've at least lived in a dorm, right?
Didn't Discover do this a couple years back?
Sounds like you've never had unnecessary difficulty getting a rebate. Having gotten the rebate run-around too many times, my family no longer shops at Best Buy.