I like Windows 8. I'm typing this post from my laptop with Windows 8 CP, and I have little problem with it. In Windows 7, the start menu makes me click on two buttons and scroll a list, then click another folder and click an icon. In Windows 8, the start screen has large buttons that are easier to hit with a mouse (better for Fitts' law). The Metro-style apps help focus, and the snap view feature helps multitask. Most of the Windows desktop applications have been revamped in a good way. The startup time has improved considerably, and the whole OS seems a bit faster.
While not surprising, it is quite annoying that every post on the internet about changing something in Windows is met with hatred and fear. Get over it, you figured out how to use Windows 95 after the "abomination" of replacing Program Manager. You figured out how to use XP with its colorful toy interface. You figured out that Aero wasn't going to drain all the performance of your computer and slow it to a grinding halt. And now you're going to figure out that really smart geeks knew what they are doing when they put a lot of thought into the design of the Windows 8 UI.
(Not to say that I like everything in Windows 8... for instance, I put my taskbar on the left, so now my Windows 7 work computer has the start button in the upper left, and my Windows 8 laptop activates the start screen from the lower left. The split-thumb keyboard on the tablet interface really needs work. And I am a bit pissed that Microsoft put the snap view cutoff at 1366 px wide, when my laptop display can only do 1280.)
I can now stand the thought of using Windows and Internet Explorer. Not that I do use IE, mind you... just that I wouldn't Hulk up and fling my captor through 3 or 4 cement brick walls to create an escape route.
SMS messages are routed over control channels, which in most cases means that there is practically zero additional cost for the carrier.
So, no, the failure to use text messages doesn't change carrier revenue. The failure to extract money makes a lot of difference for carrier revenue... which is what happens if you no longer get a texting plan, or if like me, never had one and stop sending the ~10 messages per month I have been doing.
For instance? I didn't realize that mathematics had changed all that much since the invention of calculators.
No claim was made that the "more interesting topics" are new. They are perhaps just more advanced, like skipping some of the months of long division to focus earlier on algebra.
It bothers me when a fifth grader knows more about some subject than I do. But the problem isn't that I feel dumb... it's that I know that the fifth grader will one day be in my shoes, and ask, "Why was I put through years of this? I can't remember any of this because I never need it... and I want those years of my life back."
Computers are a tool; let's use them to modernize education and stop promoting the ideals of the 1940s.
I admit that I know little about the delayed quantum eraser experiment (although if I had more time this morning I could read up on it... the first few Google links seem interesting). But from my quick article skimming, I don't see how this precludes the possibility that we are all living in a big computer simulation where God is the operator, stepping through in gdb to read and manipulate values as desired. (Which of course makes him no less of a God in our universe than anything else.)
And just because the laws of physics preclude us from observing and manipulating certain things under certain constraints, doesn't mean that the operator of the universe is similarly restricted. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal and the inability to pass information via quantum entanglement may be artificial (God-made) restrictions to support things like the concept of time without paradox.
Again... just hypothesis, I just like thinking about all the possibilities, and my bias is that I prefer a universe where humanity is special and intended.
Nonsense. He creates the tools. The tools are just a manifestation of how he accomplishes things.
He wants people to stay on a planet, so he creates gravity. He does so in a way that keeps it consistent with all the other laws of physics he creates. Those laws are the tools, and they do not cause one to reject the original hypothesis (his omnipotence).
(To be very clear, my claims are still only personal hypothesis.)
My non-scientific guess is that analytic thinking can decrease belief in anything you haven't analyzed. This doesn't just apply to religion. The same goes for politics, football teams, favorite programming languages, global warming, etc.
As for religion, I'd bet the majority/vast majority really just believe whatever makes their parents or spouse or whoever happy, or whatever makes life easier. No wonder they drop it whenever they discover something that mildly contradicts their barely conceived ideas.
I personally consider the possibility of God in light of discoveries related to quantum physics, relativity, evolution, math and statistics... I don't consider these to contradict the existence of God (since they strictly do not), but to explain how little we still know and to understand the tools God could use to work with.
When making decisions surrounding life and death, I think we need a better standard in determining the point in time that "sperm-egg" suddenly becomes "child". Position in space (inside womb vs. outside) seems arbitrary and irrelevant to the question of life. I think relevant points in time are conception, implantation, and viability outside the womb. I also believe that such a legal standard should not necessarily be one of convenience; however, conception is technologically difficult to measure, and a woman is not typically considered "pregnant" until after implantation, at which time she begins producing hormones to support the pregnancy.
So my personal views (of this moment) are as follows: abortion should be equated with murder after implantation is proven, except in cases of rape and health risk to the mother. Abortion should be equated with murder in the case of rape after viability outside the womb (but not in the case of health risk to the mother).
And of course, unlike the simple-minded laws that have found their way through various state legislatures, I recognize that any analysis that is less than several pages of text is overly simplistic and should consider the possibility of special circumstances that were not previously thought of. I think the woman should have the right to ask permission from a judge in all cases.
So back to why I replied to your post and not the several others. Substitute "8-year" for "8-week" in your post. I know you don't agree with that statement now... but is it because your personal belief conflicts with this assertion? All moral judgments come down to personal beliefs. I just choose morality that holds standards relevant to the topic at hand... not the naïve notion that abortion is always about a small "collection of cells".
I personally like the idea of school vouchers, but some oppose the idea as it provides less accountability to the taxpayer (the private school board is not elected by the public). The GP post provides a workable solution to this problem, as paid taxes never fund a private school.
And if I were to send all zero of my children to private school?
Then you pay full tax. For you, this is no different from today.
My 4-year-old?
The state would only pay for ages allowed in the public system. If your state only funds public kindergarten for ages 5+, you would pay the full tax and private preschool. Think of it like daycare. This is no different from today.
2 out of 5 kids?
It makes sense to give tax credits on a basis of how many of your children are opting out. If 3 out of 5 of your kids go to public school, you pay 60% of the total school tax.
So couldn't there be a compromise system? I mean, I want decent healthcare for everyone AND I want to have cutting-edge techniques.
It seems that 90% of hospitals could of the Canadian style and provide tax-driven healthcare for the masses, and 10% could be of the US style and driven by patients who can afford to pay to dollar in exchange for exceptional care.
I just hate the current US system, where insurers are in bed with your employer and your providers. So if you have condition X, you're either blessed with exceptional care on the cheap if your insurer covers X, or screwed with paying more than you can handle while cutting corners on your health.
Perhaps the windshield is also a problem. NHTSA should require a camera mounted on the front of the vehicle which will render a new image onto an opaque windshield viewscreen every few seconds.
Drivers should not be distracted by any moving imagery.
Visa and other current cashless systems only track who receives the money, not what it is spent on. Some correlations can be made for specialty sellers, but not for eBay and Amazon, etc..
Making arbitrary exceptions to the law is one of the reasons many Americans hate income taxes. If you don't keep up with every tiny thing you did for the past year, you could pay more tax than you owe.
We should make strides to make laws more consistent and to reduce exceptions, wherever possible.
In the current system of use taxes, I have to keep up with what I bought online, whether I paid or did not not pay sales tax, and compare that with how much sales tax I would have paid to my own state.
This legislation seems* like it would add a tiny extra bit of accounting on the part of the seller (who, remember, is already set up for collecting sales taxes)... while freeing every person in the state from needing to keep track of their sales taxes throughout the year.
The seller would happily pass the tiny cost of that burden to the consumer... and the consumer would happily pay an extra penny per transaction (if that much) to ease that burden.
(*Warning... haven't read the article, all assumptions are based on previous posts.)
States cannot enforce taxes on businesses that have no presence in their boundaries.
I always thought sales tax was levied on the seller, and use tax on the consumer. Since the seller is located in some state, shouldn't that state be the one receiving sales tax money?
I don't mind paying a use tax in lieu of a sales tax. But use taxes are usually collected along with the state income tax. I just don't care to burden consumers to keep up yearly records of purchases... I sure don't remember what I bought online vs. in the store this past year, and which was taxed and which wasn't.
It seems only fair that both the state of the seller and the state of the consumer would receive part of the tax on the transaction. Perhaps they could split it (and ideally collect it all from the seller, who would pass it on to the consumer during the transaction).
The assumption is that the carrier has decided to remove the subsidy. Without the subsidy, I wouldn't sign a contract... I'd pay monthly and switch carriers depending on how the wind blows. So then the carrier would want me to sign a contract, and they would offer a discount as incentive.
Your point makes sense without the assumption... but clearly that's not what we're talking about.
Then perhaps, the administrators of the civics tests should be voted in democratically and not subject to regulation or influence by the government.
I'm big into the idea of multiple "government" entities that check each other in this fashion. This is the equivalent of increased competition in the free market. This has worked somewhat for the United States, but could be better (in particular, the states need to convene annually to introduce and vote in constitutional amendments... this has always been legally possible, but it was difficult enough for 13 states to agree to convene in the late 1700s, let alone 50 today).
Even if every retailer on the planet took BitCoin, they'd still be less valuable than whatever the national currency is.
Such a currency would be at least as valuable, because it would be of enough widespread use to be convertible to the national currency. And better, you can follow the financial trends of the day and decide whether to keep your savings in the national currency or the international currency (BitCoin in your example).
There was no such "DVD > Blu Ray". This was remastered from original film stock, not just upscaled to HD resolution. A great deal more effort was put into this conversion than the DVD conversion.
One way to define immorality is the disregard of others out of selfishness. "The rules don't apply to me" is a very selfish way of life.
In theory at least, traffic laws exist to reduce conflicts between people. Red light laws and stop sign laws exist to reduce accidents; the same applies for speed laws, at least in original intent.
I agree that there is perversion of the law, that some laws are set and enforced beyond a reasonable level for the sole purpose of funding government. I'm not in argument there. But when laws are set and enforced at a reasonable level, lawbreakers are risking the livelihoods of other people for their own goals.
Getting to the movie theater faster by risking the lives of other people is definitely immoral. If that type of behavior is correlated with wealth, then wealth is correlated with at least some types of immoral behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
I like Windows 8. I'm typing this post from my laptop with Windows 8 CP, and I have little problem with it. In Windows 7, the start menu makes me click on two buttons and scroll a list, then click another folder and click an icon. In Windows 8, the start screen has large buttons that are easier to hit with a mouse (better for Fitts' law). The Metro-style apps help focus, and the snap view feature helps multitask. Most of the Windows desktop applications have been revamped in a good way. The startup time has improved considerably, and the whole OS seems a bit faster.
While not surprising, it is quite annoying that every post on the internet about changing something in Windows is met with hatred and fear. Get over it, you figured out how to use Windows 95 after the "abomination" of replacing Program Manager. You figured out how to use XP with its colorful toy interface. You figured out that Aero wasn't going to drain all the performance of your computer and slow it to a grinding halt. And now you're going to figure out that really smart geeks knew what they are doing when they put a lot of thought into the design of the Windows 8 UI.
(Not to say that I like everything in Windows 8... for instance, I put my taskbar on the left, so now my Windows 7 work computer has the start button in the upper left, and my Windows 8 laptop activates the start screen from the lower left. The split-thumb keyboard on the tablet interface really needs work. And I am a bit pissed that Microsoft put the snap view cutoff at 1366 px wide, when my laptop display can only do 1280.)
But what if the owner buys it from himself?
I can now stand the thought of using Windows and Internet Explorer. Not that I do use IE, mind you... just that I wouldn't Hulk up and fling my captor through 3 or 4 cement brick walls to create an escape route.
SMS messages are routed over control channels, which in most cases means that there is practically zero additional cost for the carrier.
So, no, the failure to use text messages doesn't change carrier revenue. The failure to extract money makes a lot of difference for carrier revenue... which is what happens if you no longer get a texting plan, or if like me, never had one and stop sending the ~10 messages per month I have been doing.
For instance? I didn't realize that mathematics had changed all that much since the invention of calculators.
No claim was made that the "more interesting topics" are new. They are perhaps just more advanced, like skipping some of the months of long division to focus earlier on algebra.
It bothers me when a fifth grader knows more about some subject than I do. But the problem isn't that I feel dumb... it's that I know that the fifth grader will one day be in my shoes, and ask, "Why was I put through years of this? I can't remember any of this because I never need it... and I want those years of my life back."
Computers are a tool; let's use them to modernize education and stop promoting the ideals of the 1940s.
I admit that I know little about the delayed quantum eraser experiment (although if I had more time this morning I could read up on it... the first few Google links seem interesting). But from my quick article skimming, I don't see how this precludes the possibility that we are all living in a big computer simulation where God is the operator, stepping through in gdb to read and manipulate values as desired. (Which of course makes him no less of a God in our universe than anything else.)
And just because the laws of physics preclude us from observing and manipulating certain things under certain constraints, doesn't mean that the operator of the universe is similarly restricted. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal and the inability to pass information via quantum entanglement may be artificial (God-made) restrictions to support things like the concept of time without paradox.
Again... just hypothesis, I just like thinking about all the possibilities, and my bias is that I prefer a universe where humanity is special and intended.
Nonsense. He creates the tools. The tools are just a manifestation of how he accomplishes things.
He wants people to stay on a planet, so he creates gravity. He does so in a way that keeps it consistent with all the other laws of physics he creates. Those laws are the tools, and they do not cause one to reject the original hypothesis (his omnipotence).
(To be very clear, my claims are still only personal hypothesis.)
My non-scientific guess is that analytic thinking can decrease belief in anything you haven't analyzed. This doesn't just apply to religion. The same goes for politics, football teams, favorite programming languages, global warming, etc.
As for religion, I'd bet the majority/vast majority really just believe whatever makes their parents or spouse or whoever happy, or whatever makes life easier. No wonder they drop it whenever they discover something that mildly contradicts their barely conceived ideas.
I personally consider the possibility of God in light of discoveries related to quantum physics, relativity, evolution, math and statistics... I don't consider these to contradict the existence of God (since they strictly do not), but to explain how little we still know and to understand the tools God could use to work with.
When making decisions surrounding life and death, I think we need a better standard in determining the point in time that "sperm-egg" suddenly becomes "child". Position in space (inside womb vs. outside) seems arbitrary and irrelevant to the question of life. I think relevant points in time are conception, implantation, and viability outside the womb. I also believe that such a legal standard should not necessarily be one of convenience; however, conception is technologically difficult to measure, and a woman is not typically considered "pregnant" until after implantation, at which time she begins producing hormones to support the pregnancy.
So my personal views (of this moment) are as follows: abortion should be equated with murder after implantation is proven, except in cases of rape and health risk to the mother. Abortion should be equated with murder in the case of rape after viability outside the womb (but not in the case of health risk to the mother).
And of course, unlike the simple-minded laws that have found their way through various state legislatures, I recognize that any analysis that is less than several pages of text is overly simplistic and should consider the possibility of special circumstances that were not previously thought of. I think the woman should have the right to ask permission from a judge in all cases.
So back to why I replied to your post and not the several others. Substitute "8-year" for "8-week" in your post. I know you don't agree with that statement now... but is it because your personal belief conflicts with this assertion? All moral judgments come down to personal beliefs. I just choose morality that holds standards relevant to the topic at hand... not the naïve notion that abortion is always about a small "collection of cells".
(Or, your usage of the word OR is based on negating the parent's incorrect usage of AND, which makes your usage also incorrect.)
Notice that your logical usage of the word OR matches the parent's arguably-incorrect usage of the word AND.
...but Dell's shipping at least 10 times more computers than Apple.
Not so. Gartner estimates that Dell shipped a little less than double the number of computers as Apple in 4Q11.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2012/01/12/apple-remains-in-third-place-with-116-us-computer-market/
It's more that Apple's profit margins are multiples of that of other manufacturers:
http://www.kitguru.net/apple/benjamin/apple-pc-profits-are-seven-times-higher-than-hps/
I personally like the idea of school vouchers, but some oppose the idea as it provides less accountability to the taxpayer (the private school board is not elected by the public). The GP post provides a workable solution to this problem, as paid taxes never fund a private school.
And if I were to send all zero of my children to private school?
Then you pay full tax. For you, this is no different from today.
My 4-year-old?
The state would only pay for ages allowed in the public system. If your state only funds public kindergarten for ages 5+, you would pay the full tax and private preschool. Think of it like daycare. This is no different from today.
2 out of 5 kids?
It makes sense to give tax credits on a basis of how many of your children are opting out. If 3 out of 5 of your kids go to public school, you pay 60% of the total school tax.
So couldn't there be a compromise system? I mean, I want decent healthcare for everyone AND I want to have cutting-edge techniques.
It seems that 90% of hospitals could of the Canadian style and provide tax-driven healthcare for the masses, and 10% could be of the US style and driven by patients who can afford to pay to dollar in exchange for exceptional care.
I just hate the current US system, where insurers are in bed with your employer and your providers. So if you have condition X, you're either blessed with exceptional care on the cheap if your insurer covers X, or screwed with paying more than you can handle while cutting corners on your health.
Perhaps the windshield is also a problem. NHTSA should require a camera mounted on the front of the vehicle which will render a new image onto an opaque windshield viewscreen every few seconds.
Drivers should not be distracted by any moving imagery.
Visa and other current cashless systems only track who receives the money, not what it is spent on. Some correlations can be made for specialty sellers, but not for eBay and Amazon, etc..
Making arbitrary exceptions to the law is one of the reasons many Americans hate income taxes. If you don't keep up with every tiny thing you did for the past year, you could pay more tax than you owe.
We should make strides to make laws more consistent and to reduce exceptions, wherever possible.
How is this more complex?
In the current system of use taxes, I have to keep up with what I bought online, whether I paid or did not not pay sales tax, and compare that with how much sales tax I would have paid to my own state.
This legislation seems* like it would add a tiny extra bit of accounting on the part of the seller (who, remember, is already set up for collecting sales taxes)... while freeing every person in the state from needing to keep track of their sales taxes throughout the year.
The seller would happily pass the tiny cost of that burden to the consumer... and the consumer would happily pay an extra penny per transaction (if that much) to ease that burden.
(*Warning... haven't read the article, all assumptions are based on previous posts.)
States cannot enforce taxes on businesses that have no presence in their boundaries.
I always thought sales tax was levied on the seller, and use tax on the consumer. Since the seller is located in some state, shouldn't that state be the one receiving sales tax money?
I don't mind paying a use tax in lieu of a sales tax. But use taxes are usually collected along with the state income tax. I just don't care to burden consumers to keep up yearly records of purchases... I sure don't remember what I bought online vs. in the store this past year, and which was taxed and which wasn't.
It seems only fair that both the state of the seller and the state of the consumer would receive part of the tax on the transaction. Perhaps they could split it (and ideally collect it all from the seller, who would pass it on to the consumer during the transaction).
They will continue their current practices.
The assumption is that the carrier has decided to remove the subsidy. Without the subsidy, I wouldn't sign a contract... I'd pay monthly and switch carriers depending on how the wind blows. So then the carrier would want me to sign a contract, and they would offer a discount as incentive.
Your point makes sense without the assumption... but clearly that's not what we're talking about.
True but I think the carriers would offer a discount on monthly charges for people who sign contracts.
Then perhaps, the administrators of the civics tests should be voted in democratically and not subject to regulation or influence by the government.
I'm big into the idea of multiple "government" entities that check each other in this fashion. This is the equivalent of increased competition in the free market. This has worked somewhat for the United States, but could be better (in particular, the states need to convene annually to introduce and vote in constitutional amendments... this has always been legally possible, but it was difficult enough for 13 states to agree to convene in the late 1700s, let alone 50 today).
Even if every retailer on the planet took BitCoin, they'd still be less valuable than whatever the national currency is.
Such a currency would be at least as valuable, because it would be of enough widespread use to be convertible to the national currency. And better, you can follow the financial trends of the day and decide whether to keep your savings in the national currency or the international currency (BitCoin in your example).
There was no such "DVD > Blu Ray". This was remastered from original film stock, not just upscaled to HD resolution. A great deal more effort was put into this conversion than the DVD conversion.
One way to define immorality is the disregard of others out of selfishness. "The rules don't apply to me" is a very selfish way of life.
In theory at least, traffic laws exist to reduce conflicts between people. Red light laws and stop sign laws exist to reduce accidents; the same applies for speed laws, at least in original intent.
I agree that there is perversion of the law, that some laws are set and enforced beyond a reasonable level for the sole purpose of funding government. I'm not in argument there. But when laws are set and enforced at a reasonable level, lawbreakers are risking the livelihoods of other people for their own goals.
Getting to the movie theater faster by risking the lives of other people is definitely immoral. If that type of behavior is correlated with wealth, then wealth is correlated with at least some types of immoral behavior.