The only real good argument for rigid formatting is in the help descriptions for function definitions and variable description when you have an automated help. If a programmer needs a style guide to tell them they shouldn't use a,b,c,d... for variable names, have 100 line functions, have useless comments littered throughout the code, or as you said reinvent the wheel with some minor twist that the developer failed to foresee then they are in the wrong business.
Right, cloning pets is completely different because... pets aren't humans! Humans are special snowflakes, so you shouldn't clone them!
The physiological implications on the clone would be a huge burden, unless you are naive to think that being told you are not unique and just a copy of something unique wouldn't be a serious mind fuck. Cats on the other hand do not care if they are a clone as long as they can sit on a warm laptop they are happy.
The average American one way car commute is 23 minutes the average one way public transit commute is 53. Only in large cities is the car commute longer and public transit commute shorter. The US unlike many European countries is far less dense making public transportation unsustainable in many of its cities. If buses were forced to make stops within a half mile of all places of employment they would be a serious contributor to pollution as they would be running empty the majority of the time.
...because the Japanese force, through fees/fines/whatnot, old cars off the road. It's done mostly to bolster the economy.
The used cars are shipped off throughout Asia. They're just exiting their warranty period, which is about how long the emissions system components are designed to last.
Before China started buying up all the old Japanese cars you used to be able to get Honda motors with less then 40k in miles on them as they were not allowed to be resold in Japan.
Diesel exhaust not only smells noxious, it also causes cancer.
You may think that diesel makes you an environmental superfag, but those of us on the road behind you have to roll up our windows due to pungent smell spewing from the back of your car.
Please take your diesel to a scrap yard or drive it into a tree.
That is only older diesels that don't have all the emissions requirement and are predominately larger vehicles. I'm sure you will be able to get all the semi drivers to stop using their high torque diesel engines for gas all you have to tell then is mister I don't care that you can't haul half the weight you used to and it costs twice as much in gas because gas engines have no torque.
I do have my doubts over how resiliant this technique would be to forgery. If the police can record the hum, so can human beings. Say you wanted to have a conversation with someone verified by police as taking place after it really did. You record the conversation, use live hum data to cancel it out without damaging the audio, then a week later you record and mix in some fresh live hum noise. Can't see any decent sound engineer with the right equipment having any trouble with that, I know a guy who'd have a whale of time with it, and there goes any hope of this evidence ever standing up in court.
I am not familiar with removing noise in the audio spectrum but am in the RF spectrum. If we have a predictable noise source it can be filtered out, the problem is that when you take out the hum you will also take out some of the other noise as well, then when you put the correct hum in it's not interacting with the same noise frequencies, so you are left with nulls in the frequencies you removed the hum from which may be detectable. This eliminates putting the correct hum onto a recording made at a different time. The other method is to dub a voice onto the recording, when you record the person you will also get noise in that recording, noise that has to be eliminated as it will be out of place in the final recording. Again when you remove the noise you will be removing part of the signal that you want to keep which may be detectable. The only real way to isolate the voice from everything else is to record in a quiet room as trying to isolate the signal from the noise becomes difficult, so you would need to get the victim to cooperate. While I agree that it's not impossible to forge a recording, if the listening device is good the noise becomes too hard to forge.
The UT prof may not be the cleanest guy out there, but his accusers are a bunch a fringe leftist hacks.
Who's less ethical: a person motivated by money or a person motivated by what they feel is right?
Are you really that naive? The French Revolution is the perfect example, people doing unspeakable and horrible things all in name of the greater good.
Strawman. What is PAI doing that is comparable to the atrocities committed during the French Revolution?
You missed the point, that doing something that you think is good does not change the ethical nature of what you are doing. Lying for the greater good and lying for money are equally as unethical.
Lets say I'm a member of the Grenadier Guard and you cam by to heckle me by saying you sodomized my mother last night amongst other things. I decided to teach you a lesson, so I go to the security room and copy out whole encounter, I then isolate the noise and mix in you saying I'm going to sodomize the queen tomorrow over what you said about my mother. The noise will be consistent and you will be the one being sodomized.
In today climate if you were just starting out with no degree do you think you would even be considered for an entry level position when you would be competing with people that had a bachelors. It's not that you can't succeed without a formal education there is just a higher probability that you will succeed with one.
Here come the degree snobs.
"You didn't really get an education unless you paid a fortune for it, like me."
Not snobs, just people that realize that they would not be as successful today as they would be without their bachelors degree or higher. On top of that many of the people that visit this site have engineering or science degrees and they know there is absolutely no way that a 2 year program could teach them everything they need in their current position. Associates degrees fall in between liberal arts degrees and science and engineering degrees in terms of actual probability of success in life.
Or would you just prefer that the government owns all assets
Ah score one for the nutball. I like the options you present "un regulated wild west free for all" or "take communism to its illogical conclusion".
You even quoted my other option where the government would decide how often you can trade, and you decided that 10 second increments would fix everything. I never presented unregulated trading just not regulating high frequency trading. The path down communism lane will inevitably end with the government controlling everything to make it fair, there is no way to ensure a "level playing field" without a controlling body to decide what is fair.
When you have hundreds if not thousands of highly educated minds bent on squeezing out the very last drop of speed to facilitate an activity which is right up there with spamming in terms of societal benefit, well it strikes me as a tremendous and tragic waste. And yet this is what pays the bills. So: score it one point for capitalism. Yay.
So what would be your solution, to have the government regulate how often people can trade? I'm sure that there will be no problem with that kind of regulation or that people will find a way around it. Or would you just prefer that the government owns all assets, then nobody has to worry about making profits because the government will make all the right decisions.
I doubt these microscopic robots would be reusable so wouldn't they make more sense to just leave the robots in the heart, you can skip the whole temporary tattoo circuit step. Further unless the circuits are flexible and can stretch without disbonding from the heart they will not work. Temporary motoring of surgical sites organ transplants or other trauma seems like the best application for these.
A saturated field of overqualified candidates for cheap, desperate labor is much more advantageous for employers.
Not really. Overqualified people tend to move on as soon as they get the chance, and are unlikely to develop much loyalty to the employer if they feel they're being exploited.
What you really want (being cynical) are lots of intelligent but grossly underqualified workers who can't realistically better themselves and who are grateful for the money and logical enough to prefer a poor wage to starving, and who will make your fortune for you. AKA early capitalism before the dilution of the pure free market with socialism...
The people in power never really want the masses to be educated, it just makes them ungrateful.
There is so much wrong in this I'll try to address it all. First as long as the field stays saturated with candidates an employer will always have a pool of potential overqualified candidates. Second socialism is exactly what employers want, having the government in charge of planning the economy so that business can't fail and assigning people jobs that they are chained too, see USSR. This notion that the successful business have to exploit their workers to be succeed is nonsense, paying an agreed upon wage to preform a task is not exploitation, if the worker feels his work is worth more the his current wage then he should negotiate it higher.
I think you are a little full of your self, you didn't frighten the shit out of them, they knew or had an good indicators of the shit you admitted to on your poly, that is why they asked those questions. The stuff you admitted to on your poly is why they denied your clearance. They could care less that you kept to yourself that you didn't have hobbies. What they do care about is criminal activity, if you are a spy or terrorist, if you have received gifts from foreign nationals, do you do anything that could be used to blackmail you into divulging secrets, are you having financial difficulties. There are millions of people that get put through these screening processes, some of which are just as reclusive as you. Plane and simple you were not rejected because they had little info on you, you were rejected because of things you have done and admitted to doing.
My guess is that the people promoting this want one thing: cheap, desperate labor, which these dropouts would become, when the majority of them fail to be successful.
A saturated field of overqualified candidates for cheap, desperate labor is much more advantageous for employers. If they are paying $15 an hour regardless of the candidates qualifications it makes more sense that they would choose the one with more education. Getting them cheap and seeing their work ethic for half the price while having a pool of qualified personnel to promote from within is ideal for a company.
Here are the parts you need to add to make this analogy work
a cop kicks a door in to a government owned facility and finds pot.
Cop to judge: "I did it as a private citizen! I just got off duty when I walked by the old janitors closet in the police station and smelled pot"
Judge: "Ok then. This is admissible."
So, I wonder what would happen to me if I shot that cop busting down a door in a government building as a "private citizen"?
It doesn't matter anyway. When it comes to child porn, taxes, drugs or terrorism, you are guilty until proven innocent. Where are the Ben Franklin dressed Teapartiers? Why aren't they out there preaching their message about freedom over this erosion of our liberties? Or it folks are so afraid on being on the side of a consumer of child porn that they won't dare say anything?
Here it is folks the slippery slope and it's happening.
It's government property so there is no expectation of privacy. Every time I log into a government computer I see the warning that I may be monitored. There would be privacy concerns if the computer was sold and this happened, but it was a government computer so there are no privacy issues, even if the FBI's intent was to monitor him it makes no difference.
A 2d printer makes things that change over two dimensions, a 3d printer makes things that change over 3 dimensions. The object does not change as a function of t, the changes are from external forces unrelated to time. Lets say we have a parallel universe in both our object is isolated from all possible external changes except time. In one universe the object is at time = 1 in the other it is at time=1000000000000000, the two objects would be indistinguishable and so F(t)=F(t+1) and the object does not change in the 4th dimension.
Imprisoning a cooperation would just be locking the doors and freezing all assets of the company while they are imprisoned. The government would pay for maintenance on properties and minimal utilities to stop any damage (frozen water pipes).
Slashdot Mirror
The only real good argument for rigid formatting is in the help descriptions for function definitions and variable description when you have an automated help. If a programmer needs a style guide to tell them they shouldn't use a,b,c,d... for variable names, have 100 line functions, have useless comments littered throughout the code, or as you said reinvent the wheel with some minor twist that the developer failed to foresee then they are in the wrong business.
Right, cloning pets is completely different because... pets aren't humans! Humans are special snowflakes, so you shouldn't clone them!
The physiological implications on the clone would be a huge burden, unless you are naive to think that being told you are not unique and just a copy of something unique wouldn't be a serious mind fuck. Cats on the other hand do not care if they are a clone as long as they can sit on a warm laptop they are happy.
The average American one way car commute is 23 minutes the average one way public transit commute is 53. Only in large cities is the car commute longer and public transit commute shorter. The US unlike many European countries is far less dense making public transportation unsustainable in many of its cities. If buses were forced to make stops within a half mile of all places of employment they would be a serious contributor to pollution as they would be running empty the majority of the time.
...because the Japanese force, through fees/fines/whatnot, old cars off the road. It's done mostly to bolster the economy.
The used cars are shipped off throughout Asia. They're just exiting their warranty period, which is about how long the emissions system components are designed to last.
Before China started buying up all the old Japanese cars you used to be able to get Honda motors with less then 40k in miles on them as they were not allowed to be resold in Japan.
Diesel exhaust not only smells noxious, it also causes cancer.
You may think that diesel makes you an environmental superfag, but those of us on the road behind you have to roll up our windows due to pungent smell spewing from the back of your car.
Please take your diesel to a scrap yard or drive it into a tree.
That is only older diesels that don't have all the emissions requirement and are predominately larger vehicles. I'm sure you will be able to get all the semi drivers to stop using their high torque diesel engines for gas all you have to tell then is mister I don't care that you can't haul half the weight you used to and it costs twice as much in gas because gas engines have no torque.
I do have my doubts over how resiliant this technique would be to forgery. If the police can record the hum, so can human beings. Say you wanted to have a conversation with someone verified by police as taking place after it really did. You record the conversation, use live hum data to cancel it out without damaging the audio, then a week later you record and mix in some fresh live hum noise. Can't see any decent sound engineer with the right equipment having any trouble with that, I know a guy who'd have a whale of time with it, and there goes any hope of this evidence ever standing up in court.
I am not familiar with removing noise in the audio spectrum but am in the RF spectrum. If we have a predictable noise source it can be filtered out, the problem is that when you take out the hum you will also take out some of the other noise as well, then when you put the correct hum in it's not interacting with the same noise frequencies, so you are left with nulls in the frequencies you removed the hum from which may be detectable. This eliminates putting the correct hum onto a recording made at a different time. The other method is to dub a voice onto the recording, when you record the person you will also get noise in that recording, noise that has to be eliminated as it will be out of place in the final recording. Again when you remove the noise you will be removing part of the signal that you want to keep which may be detectable. The only real way to isolate the voice from everything else is to record in a quiet room as trying to isolate the signal from the noise becomes difficult, so you would need to get the victim to cooperate. While I agree that it's not impossible to forge a recording, if the listening device is good the noise becomes too hard to forge.
When they claim that every Fracking well is unsafe.
The UT prof may not be the cleanest guy out there, but his accusers are a bunch a fringe leftist hacks.
Who's less ethical: a person motivated by money or a person motivated by what they feel is right?
Are you really that naive? The French Revolution is the perfect example, people doing unspeakable and horrible things all in name of the greater good.
Strawman. What is PAI doing that is comparable to the atrocities committed during the French Revolution?
You missed the point, that doing something that you think is good does not change the ethical nature of what you are doing. Lying for the greater good and lying for money are equally as unethical.
The UT prof may not be the cleanest guy out there, but his accusers are a bunch a fringe leftist hacks.
Who's less ethical: a person motivated by money or a person motivated by what they feel is right?
Are you really that naive? The French Revolution is the perfect example, people doing unspeakable and horrible things all in name of the greater good.
Lets say I'm a member of the Grenadier Guard and you cam by to heckle me by saying you sodomized my mother last night amongst other things. I decided to teach you a lesson, so I go to the security room and copy out whole encounter, I then isolate the noise and mix in you saying I'm going to sodomize the queen tomorrow over what you said about my mother. The noise will be consistent and you will be the one being sodomized.
There has been peace for cats and dogs for quite some time in my household, although it could just be a cease fire.
In today climate if you were just starting out with no degree do you think you would even be considered for an entry level position when you would be competing with people that had a bachelors. It's not that you can't succeed without a formal education there is just a higher probability that you will succeed with one.
Here come the degree snobs. "You didn't really get an education unless you paid a fortune for it, like me."
Not snobs, just people that realize that they would not be as successful today as they would be without their bachelors degree or higher. On top of that many of the people that visit this site have engineering or science degrees and they know there is absolutely no way that a 2 year program could teach them everything they need in their current position. Associates degrees fall in between liberal arts degrees and science and engineering degrees in terms of actual probability of success in life.
Or would you just prefer that the government owns all assets
Ah score one for the nutball. I like the options you present "un regulated wild west free for all" or "take communism to its illogical conclusion".
You even quoted my other option where the government would decide how often you can trade, and you decided that 10 second increments would fix everything. I never presented unregulated trading just not regulating high frequency trading. The path down communism lane will inevitably end with the government controlling everything to make it fair, there is no way to ensure a "level playing field" without a controlling body to decide what is fair.
When you have hundreds if not thousands of highly educated minds bent on squeezing out the very last drop of speed to facilitate an activity which is right up there with spamming in terms of societal benefit, well it strikes me as a tremendous and tragic waste. And yet this is what pays the bills. So: score it one point for capitalism. Yay.
So what would be your solution, to have the government regulate how often people can trade? I'm sure that there will be no problem with that kind of regulation or that people will find a way around it. Or would you just prefer that the government owns all assets, then nobody has to worry about making profits because the government will make all the right decisions.
I doubt these microscopic robots would be reusable so wouldn't they make more sense to just leave the robots in the heart, you can skip the whole temporary tattoo circuit step. Further unless the circuits are flexible and can stretch without disbonding from the heart they will not work. Temporary motoring of surgical sites organ transplants or other trauma seems like the best application for these.
A saturated field of overqualified candidates for cheap, desperate labor is much more advantageous for employers.
Not really. Overqualified people tend to move on as soon as they get the chance, and are unlikely to develop much loyalty to the employer if they feel they're being exploited.
What you really want (being cynical) are lots of intelligent but grossly underqualified workers who can't realistically better themselves and who are grateful for the money and logical enough to prefer a poor wage to starving, and who will make your fortune for you. AKA early capitalism before the dilution of the pure free market with socialism...
The people in power never really want the masses to be educated, it just makes them ungrateful.
There is so much wrong in this I'll try to address it all. First as long as the field stays saturated with candidates an employer will always have a pool of potential overqualified candidates. Second socialism is exactly what employers want, having the government in charge of planning the economy so that business can't fail and assigning people jobs that they are chained too, see USSR. This notion that the successful business have to exploit their workers to be succeed is nonsense, paying an agreed upon wage to preform a task is not exploitation, if the worker feels his work is worth more the his current wage then he should negotiate it higher.
I think you are a little full of your self, you didn't frighten the shit out of them, they knew or had an good indicators of the shit you admitted to on your poly, that is why they asked those questions. The stuff you admitted to on your poly is why they denied your clearance. They could care less that you kept to yourself that you didn't have hobbies. What they do care about is criminal activity, if you are a spy or terrorist, if you have received gifts from foreign nationals, do you do anything that could be used to blackmail you into divulging secrets, are you having financial difficulties. There are millions of people that get put through these screening processes, some of which are just as reclusive as you. Plane and simple you were not rejected because they had little info on you, you were rejected because of things you have done and admitted to doing.
My guess is that the people promoting this want one thing: cheap, desperate labor, which these dropouts would become, when the majority of them fail to be successful.
A saturated field of overqualified candidates for cheap, desperate labor is much more advantageous for employers. If they are paying $15 an hour regardless of the candidates qualifications it makes more sense that they would choose the one with more education. Getting them cheap and seeing their work ethic for half the price while having a pool of qualified personnel to promote from within is ideal for a company.
a cop kicks a door in to a government owned facility and finds pot.
Cop to judge: "I did it as a private citizen! I just got off duty when I walked by the old janitors closet in the police station and smelled pot"
Judge: "Ok then. This is admissible."
So, I wonder what would happen to me if I shot that cop busting down a door in a government building as a "private citizen"?
It doesn't matter anyway. When it comes to child porn, taxes, drugs or terrorism, you are guilty until proven innocent. Where are the Ben Franklin dressed Teapartiers? Why aren't they out there preaching their message about freedom over this erosion of our liberties? Or it folks are so afraid on being on the side of a consumer of child porn that they won't dare say anything?
Here it is folks the slippery slope and it's happening.
It's government property so there is no expectation of privacy. Every time I log into a government computer I see the warning that I may be monitored. There would be privacy concerns if the computer was sold and this happened, but it was a government computer so there are no privacy issues, even if the FBI's intent was to monitor him it makes no difference.
A 2d printer makes things that change over two dimensions, a 3d printer makes things that change over 3 dimensions. The object does not change as a function of t, the changes are from external forces unrelated to time. Lets say we have a parallel universe in both our object is isolated from all possible external changes except time. In one universe the object is at time = 1 in the other it is at time=1000000000000000, the two objects would be indistinguishable and so F(t)=F(t+1) and the object does not change in the 4th dimension.
He is incarcerated for kidnapping and armed robbery from a completely different crime. He did pay and walked free for killing his wife.
Imprisoning a cooperation would just be locking the doors and freezing all assets of the company while they are imprisoned. The government would pay for maintenance on properties and minimal utilities to stop any damage (frozen water pipes).
The finished product does not change in the 4th dimension, it would be like calling a plane 3D because you can change your reference point.