Are you suggesting that the democratic experiment be abandoned and we go back to having a distant remote dictator decide how things should be?
No, did you even read what I said? It's as if I said, "I wish it weren't quite so cold today" and you came back with "So you would prefer to be in Antarctica"? Of course not, that's the exact opposite of what I want.
When my only say in government is "I hope this guy represents me", then I have a few problems: 1) "this guy" may not become elected despite your vote for him; 2) "this guy" may represent your will for some things but not others; and 3) "this guy" may have completely lied to you and not represent your will at all. Typically you have to live with those issues until the next election cycle, often years away. But the trade-off, what makes it better than direct democracy, is that I don't have to be at every meeting and vote on every little issue.
What could work then? I'm not certain but one idea is direct democracy with an appointed representative in my absence. It solves all of those problems:
1) your representative is appointed rather than elected, meaning you aren't part of the (sometimes large) minority whose representative was defeated
2) and 3) you vote directly on issues you care most about, and leave the other less-important issues to your representative
It's not without problems of its own (mostly logistical), but technology is advancing to the point that perhaps this barrier is eroding.
Probably. But I would love an unlimited-but-slow switch on my phone, where it doesn't count against the data cap. (Particularly if I could use it anytime, not just once I hit the data cap.)
If anyone has a problem with Obama, it really should be this. He's not evil and trying to change the US into some caliphate... no, he's a politician. While "style over substance" is basically part of the job description, Obama is especially open about it and unashamed. He wanted to be in the history books as the first black president (despite being biracial) and wanted his name on the sweeping healthcare reform that would also become historical.
Democracy doesn't equal the will of the people. I can vote someone into office because of their general stance on some things, but later I might be appalled by what they are doing with regard to broadband regulation. Or I might vote for them despite that because the other guy isnt any better, or is worse.
Unless I have a direct say in the matter, it isn't truly democracy anyway.
Mainly, stop with the laws that favor a single provider. Stop granting monopolies. Use laws to encourage others to enter each market instead of the reverse.
The solution is competition, not municipal broadband. Sure, municipal happens to be the only competition in some cases (and that's why is seems good). But it wouldn't be necessary if there was competition to begin with.
Democrats generally don't have great ideas, and their best ones are generally mediocre. (Not to say Republicans are any better.) And Republicans spend money just as bad as the Dems.
My point is, stop comparing bad and bad, and start opening the conversation up about how to get rid of both. Our voting system is one reason we are stuck in the two-party system that makes us vote against the worst instead of for the best: http://www.cgpgrey.com/politic...
So all that was your roundabout way of agreeing with me?
No, that one paragraph was my way of saying you lose credibility by falsifying data. I am not in agreement with you; minimum wage does not need to be increased, but rather replaced by a direct wealth redistribution system (such as a progressive tax that is redistributed to all citizens, not just workers).
There have been 22 increases in the minimum wage.
And not a single one increased the minimum wage by the proposed level of $7.75... WELL above any minimum wage increase in the history of the United States (even when adjusting for inflation).
In fact, history shows exactly the opposite:
"History"? That's one set of state minimum wage increases. And I'm more concerned about federal minimum wage increases, which can't adequately account for local conditions and cost of living which varies tremendously across the country.
There is a lot wrong with that article and the conclusions that it makes. For one, the increases most associated with better unemployment (except 1) were automatic raises with inflation... the best form of minimum wage increase due to being small and easier to plan ahead for. The other 4 states that increased it with legislation had a lower change of unemployment than the average of states that did not increase. (The 1 state I mentioned is Rhode Island, which had the best outcome of the 4 but the smallest increase in minimum wage and smallest population.) Another problem is that the chart doesn't account for population, which is why Rhode Island makes things seem peachier for minimum wage increases than they really are.
Immediately, you are correct. That's because the company has to find a way to continue business while being competitive. Aside from keeping prices low, the number of employees will be reduced. The result is that prices don't double the day the new minimum wage goes into affect, but the quality goes down and more people are out of work. Eventually companies will normalize on higher prices as they all decide that it's better to do good business for more cost than bad business for less.
Look at Seattle, they are raising the MW to $15/hour but they didn't do it all at once. They are doing it in stages, because they realize that a sudden change would cause more problems than most low-wage employers can handle. (Even so, Seattle is already witnessing some of these effects.)
Since a rise in the minimum wage does not immediately raise the wages of ALL non-minimum wage workers,
"Immediately" again being the key word. Skilled workers who are currently making below or near the new minimum wage will demand higher wages. There's no way a cashier at Walmart works hard for years to become a manager making $15.18 an hour, but feels fine when Walmart raises new cashiers to $15 an hour. She will demand a higher wage, or threaten to go back to a less stressful job getting paid essentially the same.
For example, it's been shown that doubling the minimum wage for fast food workers would add about $0.04 to the price of a Big Mac.
Bullshit, you got that number out of your ass. The real numbers paint a picture close to what you are suggesting... hyperbole isn't necessary. Put up real numbers. (Hint: giyf)
By the way, I'm not against the idea of wealth redistribution, so let's go ahead and nip in the bud any response that I'm some ultra-conservative wacko that wants to enslave all the poor so that some fat CEO slob can gobble up all the wealth. I'm actually just in favor of direct across-the-board wealth redistribution instead of ideas that punish market segments which disproportionately involve the poor and unskilled.
Regardless, a minimum wage increase of such proportions will not be the end of the world. At the same time, it will not be a solution that only ends in people being less poor nor will it allow the economy to continue completely unscathed. It will harm the economy (mainly more unemployment and higher costs), it's just a question of whether we feel the cost is justified.
Furthermore, that consideration is also often applied to the standard federal minimum wage. If you require documented workers to make a certain wage, then it will encourage the use of undocumented workers.
At first you made a correct statement: "Finding a body which matches the criteria and then turns out to be either a pair of stars or a brown dwarf with a storm is NOT a false positive".
But then you stated an incorrect definition for false positive: "False positives is if you look at candidates and say 'we have no idea why this is even on the list'". Not only was it incorrect, but in this example it contradicts what you said before. The measurement was correct but we didn't originally know why the star dimmed, so according to your latter definition this was a false positive (a contradiction).
No, not quite. A false positive is a test result or measurement which, erroneously, indicates the presence of the condition where in fact the condition does not exist.
Examples:
- Laboratory results indicate you have a disease. A more in-depth look indicates that you do not have the disease. This is a false positive, because the test result was wrong. - Trillions of calculations are performed on a computer, and a review finds that a few hundred are inaccurate. It seems as though we have no idea why these results have occurred, but after further research a bug is found in the processor (such as the Pentium FDIV bug). This is not a false positive, because the original review (test) was correct with its results despite them being strange.
You are disparaging an OS that allows you to choose between a palette of colors, while appearing to promote in its stead an OS that only allows one color option.
Rear view cameras I'm iffy on, I have one and I don't use it too much.
Most or all only work in reverse, when you're going slowly enough that the risk of a fatal accident is already near zero. The "near" part is mostly about backing over kids or others who don't see your or can't get out of the way in time, where the cameras can help.
I also have a rear view camera, but mine is tiny compared to some I've seen. Combined with the large field of view, it takes a second to adjust your eyes to. Still, I've made an effort to use it whenever I back up just to make sure.
I don't see how that's any worse though. In this system the venue sells the tickets to whoever pays the most. Bots buy all the tickets and sell them to whoever pays the most. The only difference is who gets those profits, the venue or the bots.
But this system could be improved even more than bots. If the venue feels it is important to make it accessible to groups, they can prioritize group seating, e.g. every other row is reserved for groups larger than X. Those rows may discount faster because they probably won't sell as fast. Eventually the rows for groups smaller than X will be sold out and the others will slowly open up.
Even if it's based on the policies of the seller, there is opportunity for law enforcement or the courts to get involved in order to protect the conditions of that particular sale. (If those conditions aren't enforced or cannot be, then they really don't exist.)
But a blanket law? I'm with you, there's really not a need and this is really little different from any case where the seller is providing a limited number of goods/services for a cost that is lower than supply/demand would dictate.
Which makes me ask, why don't they sell the tickets early for a very large cost which is reduced on a schedule until they are either sold out or until the event date? That would mostly get rid of such a market, as the bots would be buying tickets they may not be able to sell for any profit.
It helps developers reach a larger market that includes both Windows phones (which is currently a tiny market) and Windows desktop (which is a much larger market) and in the future even Xbox. If they make money on iOS and want to make more money, they'd do well to at least take a few minutes to try this out.
But let's call this what it is: an attempt to make the Windows ecosystem more relevant in the post-PC era (particularly phones). The more decent apps are available, the more legitimate the Windows store becomes, the more popular the platform becomes. Then developers will begin find it worthwhile to do a full port which will help them take better advantage of OS capabilities, making the Windows store seem even more legitimate and the whole thing snowballs.
That's not what Islandwood does. It is not a binary compatibility runtime and it does not allow you to run apps directly from Apple's app store.
Islandwood lets the developer take his iOS app source code and build a 100% native Windows app from it. All you need to do is copy your Xcode project to your PC, run a simple command-line tool that builds a Visual Studio project around it, and then open that project in Visual Studio where it can be debugged, run on the PC, run in a simulator, or run on a Windows phone. You can go from iOS source code to a running Windows app in about 2 minutes.
The developer is then in control over publishing that app to the Windows store, using the same procedures that any Windows store app developer would use.
The beauty of it is that the Objective-C code is still Objective-C, and the developer still uses the same Cocoa Touch/Media/Core/Kit APIs. A compatibility layer translates those calls to Windows UWP APIs. If desired, the developer can make edits and integrate more richly with Windows APIs, meaning that he isn't stuck with an application that targets a particular device or screen resolution.
That shouldn't be hard. Just put huge spotlights on the other side projecting down toward earth, and harvest the energy with solar panels on the ground.
Right, Project Islandwood (Microsoft's implementation of the iOS frameworks and Obj-C compiler) is looking promising. Microsoft doesn't really need to get both Android and iOS apps on Windows... it just needs one or the other to provide the easy route for most developers. I tend to see more iOS-only apps than Android-only. iOS apps are generally more polished. And Windows apps are conceptually more akin to iOS than to Android.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you suggesting that the democratic experiment be abandoned and we go back to having a distant remote dictator decide how things should be?
No, did you even read what I said? It's as if I said, "I wish it weren't quite so cold today" and you came back with "So you would prefer to be in Antarctica"? Of course not, that's the exact opposite of what I want.
When my only say in government is "I hope this guy represents me", then I have a few problems: 1) "this guy" may not become elected despite your vote for him; 2) "this guy" may represent your will for some things but not others; and 3) "this guy" may have completely lied to you and not represent your will at all. Typically you have to live with those issues until the next election cycle, often years away. But the trade-off, what makes it better than direct democracy, is that I don't have to be at every meeting and vote on every little issue.
What could work then? I'm not certain but one idea is direct democracy with an appointed representative in my absence. It solves all of those problems:
1) your representative is appointed rather than elected, meaning you aren't part of the (sometimes large) minority whose representative was defeated
2) and 3) you vote directly on issues you care most about, and leave the other less-important issues to your representative
It's not without problems of its own (mostly logistical), but technology is advancing to the point that perhaps this barrier is eroding.
I'm not sure what there would be to abuse. Everyone including the carrier would understand it is an unlimited data connection.
Probably. But I would love an unlimited-but-slow switch on my phone, where it doesn't count against the data cap. (Particularly if I could use it anytime, not just once I hit the data cap.)
I never understood this passion for teaching people to code.
The more people who can code, the less worth a coder is. Plenty of companies would like to reduce their software development related costs.
If anyone has a problem with Obama, it really should be this. He's not evil and trying to change the US into some caliphate... no, he's a politician. While "style over substance" is basically part of the job description, Obama is especially open about it and unashamed. He wanted to be in the history books as the first black president (despite being biracial) and wanted his name on the sweeping healthcare reform that would also become historical.
Democracy doesn't equal the will of the people. I can vote someone into office because of their general stance on some things, but later I might be appalled by what they are doing with regard to broadband regulation. Or I might vote for them despite that because the other guy isnt any better, or is worse.
Unless I have a direct say in the matter, it isn't truly democracy anyway.
Mainly, stop with the laws that favor a single provider. Stop granting monopolies. Use laws to encourage others to enter each market instead of the reverse.
The solution is competition, not municipal broadband. Sure, municipal happens to be the only competition in some cases (and that's why is seems good). But it wouldn't be necessary if there was competition to begin with.
Democrats generally don't have great ideas, and their best ones are generally mediocre. (Not to say Republicans are any better.) And Republicans spend money just as bad as the Dems.
My point is, stop comparing bad and bad, and start opening the conversation up about how to get rid of both. Our voting system is one reason we are stuck in the two-party system that makes us vote against the worst instead of for the best: http://www.cgpgrey.com/politic...
A topic about a Democrat or Republican, and nobody mentions the other. Where has one seen this; ever.
So all that was your roundabout way of agreeing with me?
No, that one paragraph was my way of saying you lose credibility by falsifying data. I am not in agreement with you; minimum wage does not need to be increased, but rather replaced by a direct wealth redistribution system (such as a progressive tax that is redistributed to all citizens, not just workers).
There have been 22 increases in the minimum wage.
And not a single one increased the minimum wage by the proposed level of $7.75... WELL above any minimum wage increase in the history of the United States (even when adjusting for inflation).
In fact, history shows exactly the opposite:
"History"? That's one set of state minimum wage increases. And I'm more concerned about federal minimum wage increases, which can't adequately account for local conditions and cost of living which varies tremendously across the country.
There is a lot wrong with that article and the conclusions that it makes. For one, the increases most associated with better unemployment (except 1) were automatic raises with inflation... the best form of minimum wage increase due to being small and easier to plan ahead for. The other 4 states that increased it with legislation had a lower change of unemployment than the average of states that did not increase. (The 1 state I mentioned is Rhode Island, which had the best outcome of the 4 but the smallest increase in minimum wage and smallest population.) Another problem is that the chart doesn't account for population, which is why Rhode Island makes things seem peachier for minimum wage increases than they really are.
Rising wages have a minimal effect on inflation.
Immediately, you are correct. That's because the company has to find a way to continue business while being competitive. Aside from keeping prices low, the number of employees will be reduced. The result is that prices don't double the day the new minimum wage goes into affect, but the quality goes down and more people are out of work. Eventually companies will normalize on higher prices as they all decide that it's better to do good business for more cost than bad business for less.
Look at Seattle, they are raising the MW to $15/hour but they didn't do it all at once. They are doing it in stages, because they realize that a sudden change would cause more problems than most low-wage employers can handle. (Even so, Seattle is already witnessing some of these effects.)
Since a rise in the minimum wage does not immediately raise the wages of ALL non-minimum wage workers,
"Immediately" again being the key word. Skilled workers who are currently making below or near the new minimum wage will demand higher wages. There's no way a cashier at Walmart works hard for years to become a manager making $15.18 an hour, but feels fine when Walmart raises new cashiers to $15 an hour. She will demand a higher wage, or threaten to go back to a less stressful job getting paid essentially the same.
For example, it's been shown that doubling the minimum wage for fast food workers would add about $0.04 to the price of a Big Mac.
Bullshit, you got that number out of your ass. The real numbers paint a picture close to what you are suggesting... hyperbole isn't necessary. Put up real numbers. (Hint: giyf)
By the way, I'm not against the idea of wealth redistribution, so let's go ahead and nip in the bud any response that I'm some ultra-conservative wacko that wants to enslave all the poor so that some fat CEO slob can gobble up all the wealth. I'm actually just in favor of direct across-the-board wealth redistribution instead of ideas that punish market segments which disproportionately involve the poor and unskilled.
Regardless, a minimum wage increase of such proportions will not be the end of the world. At the same time, it will not be a solution that only ends in people being less poor nor will it allow the economy to continue completely unscathed. It will harm the economy (mainly more unemployment and higher costs), it's just a question of whether we feel the cost is justified.
Furthermore, that consideration is also often applied to the standard federal minimum wage. If you require documented workers to make a certain wage, then it will encourage the use of undocumented workers.
I agree, but your previous post was inconsistent.
At first you made a correct statement: "Finding a body which matches the criteria and then turns out to be either a pair of stars or a brown dwarf with a storm is NOT a false positive".
But then you stated an incorrect definition for false positive: "False positives is if you look at candidates and say 'we have no idea why this is even on the list'". Not only was it incorrect, but in this example it contradicts what you said before. The measurement was correct but we didn't originally know why the star dimmed, so according to your latter definition this was a false positive (a contradiction).
No, not quite. A false positive is a test result or measurement which, erroneously, indicates the presence of the condition where in fact the condition does not exist.
Examples:
- Laboratory results indicate you have a disease. A more in-depth look indicates that you do not have the disease. This is a false positive, because the test result was wrong.
- Trillions of calculations are performed on a computer, and a review finds that a few hundred are inaccurate. It seems as though we have no idea why these results have occurred, but after further research a bug is found in the processor (such as the Pentium FDIV bug). This is not a false positive, because the original review (test) was correct with its results despite them being strange.
You are disparaging an OS that allows you to choose between a palette of colors, while appearing to promote in its stead an OS that only allows one color option.
If there is a kid behind you they don't have to get out of the way, you have to yield.
I don't believe I suggested otherwise, did I?
Rear view cameras I'm iffy on, I have one and I don't use it too much.
Most or all only work in reverse, when you're going slowly enough that the risk of a fatal accident is already near zero. The "near" part is mostly about backing over kids or others who don't see your or can't get out of the way in time, where the cameras can help.
I also have a rear view camera, but mine is tiny compared to some I've seen. Combined with the large field of view, it takes a second to adjust your eyes to. Still, I've made an effort to use it whenever I back up just to make sure.
I don't see how that's any worse though. In this system the venue sells the tickets to whoever pays the most. Bots buy all the tickets and sell them to whoever pays the most. The only difference is who gets those profits, the venue or the bots.
But this system could be improved even more than bots. If the venue feels it is important to make it accessible to groups, they can prioritize group seating, e.g. every other row is reserved for groups larger than X. Those rows may discount faster because they probably won't sell as fast. Eventually the rows for groups smaller than X will be sold out and the others will slowly open up.
Even if it's based on the policies of the seller, there is opportunity for law enforcement or the courts to get involved in order to protect the conditions of that particular sale. (If those conditions aren't enforced or cannot be, then they really don't exist.)
But a blanket law? I'm with you, there's really not a need and this is really little different from any case where the seller is providing a limited number of goods/services for a cost that is lower than supply/demand would dictate.
Which makes me ask, why don't they sell the tickets early for a very large cost which is reduced on a schedule until they are either sold out or until the event date? That would mostly get rid of such a market, as the bots would be buying tickets they may not be able to sell for any profit.
You don't seem to be paying attention, or you don't understand how OS/2 and Windows application compatibility worked at all.
It helps developers reach a larger market that includes both Windows phones (which is currently a tiny market) and Windows desktop (which is a much larger market) and in the future even Xbox. If they make money on iOS and want to make more money, they'd do well to at least take a few minutes to try this out.
But let's call this what it is: an attempt to make the Windows ecosystem more relevant in the post-PC era (particularly phones). The more decent apps are available, the more legitimate the Windows store becomes, the more popular the platform becomes. Then developers will begin find it worthwhile to do a full port which will help them take better advantage of OS capabilities, making the Windows store seem even more legitimate and the whole thing snowballs.
That's not what Islandwood does. It is not a binary compatibility runtime and it does not allow you to run apps directly from Apple's app store.
Islandwood lets the developer take his iOS app source code and build a 100% native Windows app from it. All you need to do is copy your Xcode project to your PC, run a simple command-line tool that builds a Visual Studio project around it, and then open that project in Visual Studio where it can be debugged, run on the PC, run in a simulator, or run on a Windows phone. You can go from iOS source code to a running Windows app in about 2 minutes.
The developer is then in control over publishing that app to the Windows store, using the same procedures that any Windows store app developer would use.
The beauty of it is that the Objective-C code is still Objective-C, and the developer still uses the same Cocoa Touch/Media/Core/Kit APIs. A compatibility layer translates those calls to Windows UWP APIs. If desired, the developer can make edits and integrate more richly with Windows APIs, meaning that he isn't stuck with an application that targets a particular device or screen resolution.
That shouldn't be hard. Just put huge spotlights on the other side projecting down toward earth, and harvest the energy with solar panels on the ground.
Right, Project Islandwood (Microsoft's implementation of the iOS frameworks and Obj-C compiler) is looking promising. Microsoft doesn't really need to get both Android and iOS apps on Windows... it just needs one or the other to provide the easy route for most developers. I tend to see more iOS-only apps than Android-only. iOS apps are generally more polished. And Windows apps are conceptually more akin to iOS than to Android.