This is much more characteristic of Microsoft's (a convicted monopolist) anti-competitive practices having something to do with open standards and embrace and extend. I'd finish the thought, but I think everyone knows where I'm going with this one.
Would it be possible to build a system where you first vote as normal, and enter a decryption code. The machine then asks you if you want a secondary false decryption key. If you answer yes, you enter the votes you want the false decryption key to return.
This way, you can verify your vote with the real decryption key, and if your vote has been coerced or sold you can show that person what they want to see.
The thing about stargate is they explain everything, but I've always preferred hand waving to technobabble when something is clearly impossible. The glowing eyes is a perfect example. Don't even bother trying to explain it, because then you're left with the obvious question about radioactive materials in something wrapped around your spinal column managed cause visible florescence through just the eyes.
I don't mind too much when a electronic system picks up. I already know if my question can be answered by a human or a computer. If I need a human I pound zero until I get someone (and the wait is invariably shorter than companies that send you straight to hold.)
I know everybody thinks this idea is idiotic, and I'll admit, that was my first thought as well. But if this is done right I think it could be a good thing.
I think the first indication that this isn't going to be done right is according to TFTitle high schoolers are going to be forced to pick a major - that is idiotic. However, if it were an option, to pick a major if you were interested, and if you were guaranteed to get a well rounded education regardless of your decision, and if there was little to no penalty for switching majors, this could be a good tool for keeping kids engaged.
I went to a college prep high school, so I didn't have as many choices when choosing my classes as those in public schools (no shop, no home economics, and would have had to travel to a different school for art), in fact I didn't get to make any choices about my curriculum until I was a junior (aside from choosing which of 2 math courses to take at the sophomore level) but even still I conscientiously steered myself towards physics and math, and avoided classes like geography, criminal justice, and psychology. But I knew by the time I was a junior that I wanted to be an engineer, and I never did change my major in college.
So, I essentially choose pre-engineering anyway. If this plan is a way of telling kids, "Hey, these classes are great for people with your interest!" Well then great. If it's a way to tell kids you have choose what classes you're going to be taking in four years now, or worse, you better figure out what you want to do with your life, then this is doomed to failure.
I'm confused, because according to the Ars article:
because the BBC's offering is expected to be so popular, ISPs are now concerned that iPlayer traffic will degrade the experience for all users of their networks.
Doesn't sound as doom and gloom as the summary makes it out to be. Sounds like someone rallying support for their pet cause.
But hey, we might get a good illustration of net nuetrality in action. Also according to Ars:
UK ISPs, which banded together to tell the BBC that the ISPs would start to throttle the Corporation's new iPlayer service because it could overwhelm their networks. Unless the BBC pays up, of course.... If the iPlayer really takes off, consumers accessing the Internet will get very slow service and call their ISPs to complain."
And if the BBC doesn't pay up, and the iPlayer service is abysmal, then who do you think the consumers are going to call? If there were any doubt, the BBC could insert 15 second clips into their programs telling the consumers that any poor quality was the result of an administrative decision by the ISPs to not allow their product to work as intended.
To a certain extent, this is another aspect of the tyranny of choice
Personally, I think it's the tyranny of Clear Channel (and corporate media in general) that's the problem. Whenever I'm in a market with an independent rock station, I always know that I need to buy some new CDs. Funny, I don't have that feeling as often in the Philly area, which for it's size, is remarkable devoid of decent radio.
Stealing corporate secrets is also wrong if you stole them.
If someone w/o a NDA breaks into a system (physically or electronically) and steals information not under copyright (say the process for manufacturing a pharmaceutical) not only is the break in wrong, but the use or distribution of the data by a third party is also wrong.
God forbid I do the speed limit, and don't park my ass in the passing lane when I'm not passing someone (that would be my second pet peeve).
I'm not tailgating the guy in front of me, and I'll move over if I can. Regardless I'll leave you space to merge in front of me, but you damn well better get up to speed and not cause me to brake.
If there's a semi in front of you that's a different story, and if there is an old person in your way, my beef is with them, but if it's just you, find the freaking accelerator.
Here's an interesting thought. Marx made extensive use of Kantian dialectics, in which you have the thesis battling the antithesis until the synthesis arose.
I've always wondered if Marx really thought that communism was the synthesis to the decadence of the bourgeoisie and the plight of the proletariat, or really recognized that it was a antithesis to capitalism and was merely promoting it to spur the development of a more amenable synthesis.
Everything that exists, exists in the universe by virtue of your circular definition. Yes, we are speaking from different ontologies, and yes I still disagree with you.
Mathematics and logic do not have any measurable or causal effect, they simply offer excellent explanatory power. I can use Newton to explain the trajectory of a projectile in advance, but that does not mean that there is a causal relationship.
We can imagine a universe in which any or all of the fundamental constants differ. We can even do the math to determine, for instance, what a universe with a different fine structure constant, or with the fundamental particles having different masses would look like. We have no way to explain what how a universe could exist where 1+1!=2 nor a universe where non-contradiction doesn't apply, which seems, to me, to imply that mathematics and logic are (to coin a phrase) extra-natural.
All natural things exist within the universe. Metaphysical things, thought, reason, logic, mathematics, and God do not. In fact some natural things don't even exist in the universe, such as the virtual particles associated with Hawking radiation and the casimir effect. Further, we can point to a black hole, and accurately say that the universe does not exist there. So existence, seems only rather loosely tied to the universe.
If you can explain to me how logic exists in a natural state, and demonstrate its measurable effects, I'd be happy to explain how God exists in a natural state. Otherwise, it would seem that non-natural things can in fact exist.
That's precisely the point. The phrase "outside the universe", like the word "God" has no scientific meaning. It's akin to supernatural.
If you force the "god theory" to be natural you're using a strawman to create a circular argument. A natural god theory will always be inferior to a natural science theory, but a natural science theory and a supernatural God theory are two different things, not at odds with each other
That's all well and good in our parts of the world, but lots of people are still being subjected to selection criteria (i.e. dying from things) such as malaria, typhus, and dysentery.
The point isn't whether we have a theory that explains the natural world perfectly, it is that we can never (by definition) have a scientific theory that explains the metaphysical (to wit why does intelligent life exists, how are we supposed to live)
If you allow your definition of a supernatural entity to be a causal factor in unknown natural phenomena, then you truly are playing a dangerous game with a god of the gaps. However, for those questions not addressed by the natural world, it would be silly to seek an answer in science.
Funny, at my school, I was taught about the scientific method, evolution, and that we should try to get along with our differently minded neighbors. FWIW my school was run by these guys
Slashdot Mirror
With funny mods. Always with funny mods.
Seriously.
This is much more characteristic of Microsoft's (a convicted monopolist) anti-competitive practices having something to do with open standards and embrace and extend. I'd finish the thought, but I think everyone knows where I'm going with this one.
Alternatively, this is like a car...
It's a thing that varies state to state. In some states (Ohio) new teachers end up subing for years waiting for a full time position to open up.
Would it be possible to build a system where you first vote as normal, and enter a decryption code. The machine then asks you if you want a secondary false decryption key. If you answer yes, you enter the votes you want the false decryption key to return.
This way, you can verify your vote with the real decryption key, and if your vote has been coerced or sold you can show that person what they want to see.
The thing about stargate is they explain everything, but I've always preferred hand waving to technobabble when something is clearly impossible. The glowing eyes is a perfect example. Don't even bother trying to explain it, because then you're left with the obvious question about radioactive materials in something wrapped around your spinal column managed cause visible florescence through just the eyes.
I agree.
I don't mind too much when a electronic system picks up. I already know if my question can be answered by a human or a computer. If I need a human I pound zero until I get someone (and the wait is invariably shorter than companies that send you straight to hold.)
I think Matel agrees.
As often as they blame a "rogue supplier" everybody is still going to blame them for lack of oversight, and rightfully so.
I know everybody thinks this idea is idiotic, and I'll admit, that was my first thought as well. But if this is done right I think it could be a good thing.
I think the first indication that this isn't going to be done right is according to TFTitle high schoolers are going to be forced to pick a major - that is idiotic. However, if it were an option, to pick a major if you were interested, and if you were guaranteed to get a well rounded education regardless of your decision, and if there was little to no penalty for switching majors, this could be a good tool for keeping kids engaged.
I went to a college prep high school, so I didn't have as many choices when choosing my classes as those in public schools (no shop, no home economics, and would have had to travel to a different school for art), in fact I didn't get to make any choices about my curriculum until I was a junior (aside from choosing which of 2 math courses to take at the sophomore level) but even still I conscientiously steered myself towards physics and math, and avoided classes like geography, criminal justice, and psychology. But I knew by the time I was a junior that I wanted to be an engineer, and I never did change my major in college.
So, I essentially choose pre-engineering anyway. If this plan is a way of telling kids, "Hey, these classes are great for people with your interest!" Well then great. If it's a way to tell kids you have choose what classes you're going to be taking in four years now, or worse, you better figure out what you want to do with your life, then this is doomed to failure.
Doesn't sound as doom and gloom as the summary makes it out to be.
Sounds like someone rallying support for their pet cause.
But hey, we might get a good illustration of net nuetrality in action. Also according to Ars: And if the BBC doesn't pay up, and the iPlayer service is abysmal, then who do you think the consumers are going to call? If there were any doubt, the BBC could insert 15 second clips into their programs telling the consumers that any poor quality was the result of an administrative decision by the ISPs to not allow their product to work as intended.
Personally, I think it's the tyranny of Clear Channel (and corporate media in general) that's the problem. Whenever I'm in a market with an independent rock station, I always know that I need to buy some new CDs. Funny, I don't have that feeling as often in the Philly area, which for it's size, is remarkable devoid of decent radio.
Methinks theres a pattern here:
Win95 - compelling reason to upgrade
Win98 - pass
Win2000 - compelling upgrade
WinME - hahahaha
WinXp - compelling upgrade
WinVista - Jury's still out, but probably pass
Stealing corporate secrets is also wrong if you stole them.
If someone w/o a NDA breaks into a system (physically or electronically) and steals information not under copyright (say the process for manufacturing a pharmaceutical) not only is the break in wrong, but the use or distribution of the data by a third party is also wrong.
God forbid I do the speed limit, and don't park my ass in the passing lane when I'm not passing someone (that would be my second pet peeve).
I'm not tailgating the guy in front of me, and I'll move over if I can. Regardless I'll leave you space to merge in front of me, but you damn well better get up to speed and not cause me to brake.
If there's a semi in front of you that's a different story, and if there is an old person in your way, my beef is with them, but if it's just you, find the freaking accelerator.
Here's an interesting thought. Marx made extensive use of Kantian dialectics, in which you have the thesis battling the antithesis until the synthesis arose.
I've always wondered if Marx really thought that communism was the synthesis to the decadence of the bourgeoisie and the plight of the proletariat, or really recognized that it was a antithesis to capitalism and was merely promoting it to spur the development of a more amenable synthesis.
If you have a hot daughter odds are you already had a traveling salesman problem, you just didn't know about it.
True, but catalysts can be poisoned by trace impurities, and natural gas has lots of trace impurities.
This is why we don't use leaded gasoline anymore.
Slow drivers cause accidents when they don't understand how a merge or yield functions (which I believe was the GP's point)
Few things piss me off as much while driving as heading down the highway at 65, and seeing someone "merge" into my lane from the on ramp doing 45.
Everything that exists, exists in the universe by virtue of your circular definition. Yes, we are speaking from different ontologies, and yes I still disagree with you.
Mathematics and logic do not have any measurable or causal effect, they simply offer excellent explanatory power. I can use Newton to explain the trajectory of a projectile in advance, but that does not mean that there is a causal relationship.
We can imagine a universe in which any or all of the fundamental constants differ. We can even do the math to determine, for instance, what a universe with a different fine structure constant, or with the fundamental particles having different masses would look like. We have no way to explain what how a universe could exist where 1+1!=2 nor a universe where non-contradiction doesn't apply, which seems, to me, to imply that mathematics and logic are (to coin a phrase) extra-natural.
All natural things exist within the universe. Metaphysical things, thought, reason, logic, mathematics, and God do not. In fact some natural things don't even exist in the universe, such as the virtual particles associated with Hawking radiation and the casimir effect. Further, we can point to a black hole, and accurately say that the universe does not exist there. So existence, seems only rather loosely tied to the universe.
If you can explain to me how logic exists in a natural state, and demonstrate its measurable effects, I'd be happy to explain how God exists in a natural state. Otherwise, it would seem that non-natural things can in fact exist.
That's precisely the point. The phrase "outside the universe", like the word "God" has no scientific meaning. It's akin to supernatural.
If you force the "god theory" to be natural you're using a strawman to create a circular argument. A natural god theory will always be inferior to a natural science theory, but a natural science theory and a supernatural God theory are two different things, not at odds with each other
That's all well and good in our parts of the world, but lots of people are still being subjected to selection criteria (i.e. dying from things) such as malaria, typhus, and dysentery.
Only if you want to strawman the God theory.
A better phrasing would be, some thing, outside of the universe, did something that caused the universe to exist.
The point isn't whether we have a theory that explains the natural world perfectly, it is that we can never (by definition) have a scientific theory that explains the metaphysical (to wit why does intelligent life exists, how are we supposed to live)
If you allow your definition of a supernatural entity to be a causal factor in unknown natural phenomena, then you truly are playing a dangerous game with a god of the gaps. However, for those questions not addressed by the natural world, it would be silly to seek an answer in science.
Funny, at my school, I was taught about the scientific method, evolution, and that we should try to get along with our differently minded neighbors. FWIW my school was run by these guys
Remember kids, always keep your units when doing unit conversions.
1/1277 = 0.0008
0.0008*(100%/1)=0.08%
so
1/1277=0.08%
See proof positive that the internet is educational.