An interesting election would have been if the Republican had put up PowellAnd most interesting would have been the part where he declines the nomination.
Powell might be convinced to run for VP, but I doubt it. He might be convince to take a cabinet post, but I doubt it.
Powell was used and abused by the Bush administration, and I don't believe he wants to go through it again. I also don't believe he'd want to come back out of his (relative) seclusion, and deal with the enormous BS that is now endemic to the office of the executive.
But I could be wrong, since I'm sure I'm projecting.
Complicated projects require both good engineers and good project managers. Even if you call your project manager "Head Engineer of ProjectX", both are required.
And while a good PM listens to (&understands) the engineers on the project, a good PM is also good at herding cats... and let's be honest here, not all engineers play well with others.
Very good point. We can't assume voter turnout for the base is independent of the VP choice. And other ballot issues may be enough to tip the scale, as it was in 2004 in many states (teh ghey marriage issue).
Is it really that hard to think that a company would pull a stunt like that?
Seriously, I know it's tough to handle the thought that the campaign to get profiles reinstated was successful thanks to the efforts of slashdotters and others, but...
Do you really think that Netflix would get rid of one of the major feature advantages they have over their biggest competitor?
Anyway, I know I shouldn't be responding to the fact that I got modded a troll, and maybe I could have phrased the parent better. So whatever, this post should be modded offtopic... I've got the karma to burn.
Any survey that says one of the primary party leaders would be the same person for either party is obviously in error
Why is that? Assume that the party's base is relatively secure. In order to win the election, what is needed is a centrist, who appeals to a lot of voters and has amenable or unknown positions on wedge issues. Lack of a voting record really helps. He is a minority, yet transcends race issues with most voters. He has executive branch experience, yet distanced himself from Bush when it became clear he could not act as a moderating influence on the petrohawks, and when it became clear that he was being used as a puppet. He is seen as a man of integrity by most of the public; most of the people who beleve he was complicit in (and have a problem with) the case for war against Iraq are going to vote Democrat anyway; he doesn't damage the base. Ditto for the Republicans -- few are mad at him for deserting Bush, and those that are will be voting Republican anyway.
The question is whether he would serve, and I would say that's a big fat "NO!".
Seriously, since it's a small percentage of the voters who actually decide an election (the swing voters), is it really surprising that a candidate who appeals strongly to swing voters without alienating extremists would be the best choice for both parties?
Hahahha. Sorry for the laugh, but I thought the whole shebang was a Coke II ploy from the get-go.
I.E., Netflix was never going to cancel profiles. Instead, they pretend they are going to do so, which brings attention to the fact that they offer profiles, unlike one of their competitors.
Just like Coca-Cola introduced the "New Coke" in the 80s simply to draw attention to their brand, meanwhile planning all along to reintroduce "Coke Classic"... which eventually became the only Coke available. (Though I'm still not sure if the switch from cane sugar to corn syrup had anything to do with it.)
Well, what can I say, Netflix... it appears to have worked. As a Blockbuster Online subscriber, I'm thinking of changing to Netflix because of profiles, which I wasn't aware of. It turns out the advantage of Blockbuster (being able to pick up rentals/drop them off at B&M stores) hasn't been heplful to me, so maybe I'll switch over.
But the point is, it isn't pure free market capitalism, because one of the markets involved is monopolized, and any economist will tell you, that undermines the free market in both that market and any tied market
A monopoly does not void a free market. What it does is kill the ideal free market, which is a mythical beast that only exists on paper. While you are in spirit correct, please don't confuse the concepts of free market capitalism, which is an economic policy implementation, and an ideal free market, which is a construct used to build economic models.
With the computer system market, a lot of people buying a system need or want OS X and Apple is the only vendor that sells OS X, so people buy their hardware from Apple, when what they really want is the OS. This is the result of the desktop OS market being monopolized.
Well, the answer there is that those people chose OSX, when they could have chosen a different OS -- one that doesn't have hardware restrictions, for example. If Apple chooses to limit their OS by not allowing 3rd-party hardware, that is their choice. Since they do not have a monopoly on OSs, this is not a problem.
I think you're confusing vendor lock-in with monopoly. There is no monopoly abuse here, because there is no monopoly to be abused. One chooses to use OSX knowing they will be locked in; that is part of the purchase decision for OSX. To choose OSX, then complain about hardware restrictions, is like buying a Ferrari and crying "monopoly" because of the price that a certified Ferrari mechanic charges.
IOW, failure to account for all information available at the time of purchase does not equate being a victim of a monopoly.
Does anyone know if there is one about Orwell? I mean, it's fitting, but we'd be hitting it a lot lately
There's a big difference, though. Godwin's Law is invoked because so many references to Hitler/Nazism are over the top. There is no reason (I'm sure someone will pint out an exception) for Hitler to come up in almost any discussion.
Hoewever, for any thread regarding privacy or the development of a technopolice state, 1984 is relevant.
Sure, the more it gets mentioned, the more apt we are to dismiss it... but it seems to me that as comparisons to 1984 are becoming more valid as time goes on, not less valid.
I also just want to mention a slsahdot sig I saw recently that I agree wholeheartedly with...something along the lines of:
I just wish everyone who makes a comparison to Orwell's 1984 has actually read 1984.
There's some good scifi and fantasy out there that covers this issue, that might trigger some more interesting thoughts on time perspective. Not sure if you've read any...
As for being biologically coded for a certain lifespan, that constraint would I think be negated by our ability to screw with our biology. As I noted in an earlier post in the thread, I think we'd be forced to evolve to suit the long lifetime. We'd have to have some pretty drastic population control measures, and from a preservation standpoint, only those siuted to the long lifespan should be allowed to reproduce. Delaying having children by a couple hundred years ought to do the trick -- anyone incapable of dealing with the timespan would weed themselves out of the genepool.
The way I see it, the value of an "original" is like the value of things like some famous singer's underwear, tulips, and diamonds: irrational, and way above the actual value they would have if evaluated based on the actual usefulness.
I think you're making the mistake of ascribing value only based upon usefulness. This is particularly so for the tulip example you mentioned.
The "tulip craze" was due to speculation. Tulip bulbs, do, in fact, have value, as they can be propagated and sold. People assign value to things that are pretty, which is why there is a market for ornamentals and decorative items. So you don't find them valuable because they are not useful -- so what? Other people do, and having a rare tulip is valuable because showing it to people gives a return.
Market forces apply to tulips, turnips, diamonds, and art. You feel something is overpriced? Fine, your opinion fits into the market.
One thing to note re: diamonds -- the problem is not that people like shiny things (IMO), the problem with diamond prices is the market manipulation by DeBeers.
If the value of a picture is in the image, then we should reproduce it as widely as possible, not get obsessed about the "original".
Why can't we have both? The value of a picture is not just the image. Some people value the original because it gives them a way to show off their wealth. Some people value an original because it allows them to feel closer to the artist. Some people value an original because they are collectors by nature. People like you (and sometimes me) are happy with a reproduction.
True, but I also do not know whether energy output is dependent on mass or on volume, on some combination, or something else entirely.
I would think it's dependent more on mass than on volume, as an equivalent mass in a larger volume should have fewer particle interactions. But I am not a physical chemist or physicist, so I don't know, and am feeling too lazy on a Friday afternoon to look it up.
For all we know, OP could have been referring only to apparent size, which could be affected by lens effects from the atmosphere... but no matter what, his timescale is WAY off.
But 50 years of a 500 year life is not significant compared to 50 years of an 80 year life.
One would think that humans would become more patient; those who are impatient would probably go insane and have to be put down/locked up. If we required, say, 300 years of sane life before having kids (by prophylaxis and by suppressing ovulation so there are eggs left), natural selection might take care of the impatience problem over a few millenia.
A couple hundredths of a percent every decade. So our faith is there. As the sun will grow larger and larger, our planet is going to heat more and more, and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it.
Ah, yes, the sun is growing. A couple hundreds of a percent a decade, you say. Let's assume.02 % per decade. A quick back of the napkin calculation... you're saying that the sun is 4% larger than it was 2000 years ago, and is more than double the size it was 35,000 years ago.
Tell me, where did the mass for that come from?
And why was the planet not covered in ice for the last billion or so years?
They must have been talking to a bunch of asparagus farmers.
Colloqiually, too-alkaline soil is called "salty". Soil with a good pH is "sweet".
One could salt one's fields to make them less acidic, or one could salt someone else's fields to make them overly alkaline, and hence impossible to farm on.
But it's not the fault of the customers, it's the fault of the company. It's their duty to constantly upgrade their network connections. Why else should they charge money.
Oh, I don't know why else they should charge money. Maybe so they csan pay their staff? Maybe so threy can pay overhead? Maybe so they can make a profit? They are a business, after all.
Now, if you want to discuss why they should charge so much money, you may have a point. If you want to discuss tax incentives they've received to build out infrastructure, you may have a point.
But asking why a business would charge money for providing a service is like asking why a raccoon wants to get into your garbage... and I'll give you a hint, it's not to help sort your recycling.
If you think politics move slowly today, just imagine what it would be like if not only politicians are old, but also the majority of their voters.
Playing a bit of de vil's advocate here, but so what? Does it matter that change is slow if we live forever? Why does a fast timescale for change matter?
If anything, taking a long time to make decisions might be a very good thing, so maybe we'd have less knee-jerk legislation.
I know, there is a time for swift action when life is on the line, but if the human race were to become immortal urgency on these issues would decline.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you misspelled "ever".
It's not just about stability, it's also about changes. Staying in beta allows them to increase or shrink the feature set ad hoc.
Complicated projects require both good engineers and good project managers. Even if you call your project manager "Head Engineer of ProjectX", both are required.
And while a good PM listens to (&understands) the engineers on the project, a good PM is also good at herding cats... and let's be honest here, not all engineers play well with others.
What is sad is that I figured I had to provide a link to a Miranda-class vessel, because too many people wouldn't get the joke otherwise.
Too many non-nerds on slashdot these days, I tell you. And I'm not even close to being an oldtimer.
Screw that. I want miranda-class reliability. Just so I can scream "Khaaaaan!" everytime I have a Windows problem.
And by the way, it's not enterprise-class, it's Constitution-class. Sheesh.
Very good point. We can't assume voter turnout for the base is independent of the VP choice. And other ballot issues may be enough to tip the scale, as it was in 2004 in many states (teh ghey marriage issue).
Thanks for making a very good point.
It does, however, draw attention to a feature advantage they have over their competitors :)
Is it really that hard to think that a company would pull a stunt like that?
Seriously, I know it's tough to handle the thought that the campaign to get profiles reinstated was successful thanks to the efforts of slashdotters and others, but...
Do you really think that Netflix would get rid of one of the major feature advantages they have over their biggest competitor?
Anyway, I know I shouldn't be responding to the fact that I got modded a troll, and maybe I could have phrased the parent better. So whatever, this post should be modded offtopic... I've got the karma to burn.
Why is that? Assume that the party's base is relatively secure. In order to win the election, what is needed is a centrist, who appeals to a lot of voters and has amenable or unknown positions on wedge issues. Lack of a voting record really helps. He is a minority, yet transcends race issues with most voters. He has executive branch experience, yet distanced himself from Bush when it became clear he could not act as a moderating influence on the petrohawks, and when it became clear that he was being used as a puppet. He is seen as a man of integrity by most of the public; most of the people who beleve he was complicit in (and have a problem with) the case for war against Iraq are going to vote Democrat anyway; he doesn't damage the base. Ditto for the Republicans -- few are mad at him for deserting Bush, and those that are will be voting Republican anyway.
The question is whether he would serve, and I would say that's a big fat "NO!".
Seriously, since it's a small percentage of the voters who actually decide an election (the swing voters), is it really surprising that a candidate who appeals strongly to swing voters without alienating extremists would be the best choice for both parties?
Hahahha. Sorry for the laugh, but I thought the whole shebang was a Coke II ploy from the get-go.
I.E., Netflix was never going to cancel profiles. Instead, they pretend they are going to do so, which brings attention to the fact that they offer profiles, unlike one of their competitors.
Just like Coca-Cola introduced the "New Coke" in the 80s simply to draw attention to their brand, meanwhile planning all along to reintroduce "Coke Classic"... which eventually became the only Coke available. (Though I'm still not sure if the switch from cane sugar to corn syrup had anything to do with it.)
Well, what can I say, Netflix... it appears to have worked. As a Blockbuster Online subscriber, I'm thinking of changing to Netflix because of profiles, which I wasn't aware of. It turns out the advantage of Blockbuster (being able to pick up rentals/drop them off at B&M stores) hasn't been heplful to me, so maybe I'll switch over.
Good jorb on the marketing ploy.
A monopoly does not void a free market. What it does is kill the ideal free market, which is a mythical beast that only exists on paper. While you are in spirit correct, please don't confuse the concepts of free market capitalism, which is an economic policy implementation, and an ideal free market, which is a construct used to build economic models.
Well, the answer there is that those people chose OSX, when they could have chosen a different OS -- one that doesn't have hardware restrictions, for example. If Apple chooses to limit their OS by not allowing 3rd-party hardware, that is their choice. Since they do not have a monopoly on OSs, this is not a problem.
I think you're confusing vendor lock-in with monopoly. There is no monopoly abuse here, because there is no monopoly to be abused. One chooses to use OSX knowing they will be locked in; that is part of the purchase decision for OSX. To choose OSX, then complain about hardware restrictions, is like buying a Ferrari and crying "monopoly" because of the price that a certified Ferrari mechanic charges.
IOW, failure to account for all information available at the time of purchase does not equate being a victim of a monopoly.
There's a big difference, though. Godwin's Law is invoked because so many references to Hitler/Nazism are over the top. There is no reason (I'm sure someone will pint out an exception) for Hitler to come up in almost any discussion.
Hoewever, for any thread regarding privacy or the development of a technopolice state, 1984 is relevant.
Sure, the more it gets mentioned, the more apt we are to dismiss it... but it seems to me that as comparisons to 1984 are becoming more valid as time goes on, not less valid.
I also just want to mention a slsahdot sig I saw recently that I agree wholeheartedly with...something along the lines of:
There's some good scifi and fantasy out there that covers this issue, that might trigger some more interesting thoughts on time perspective. Not sure if you've read any...
As for being biologically coded for a certain lifespan, that constraint would I think be negated by our ability to screw with our biology. As I noted in an earlier post in the thread, I think we'd be forced to evolve to suit the long lifetime. We'd have to have some pretty drastic population control measures, and from a preservation standpoint, only those siuted to the long lifespan should be allowed to reproduce. Delaying having children by a couple hundred years ought to do the trick -- anyone incapable of dealing with the timespan would weed themselves out of the genepool.
And you're thinking like a young person.
Anyway, I think you're entirely missing my point.
If the timescale of the human life changes, out of necessity our perspective on time will change.
I think you're making the mistake of ascribing value only based upon usefulness. This is particularly so for the tulip example you mentioned.
The "tulip craze" was due to speculation. Tulip bulbs, do, in fact, have value, as they can be propagated and sold. People assign value to things that are pretty, which is why there is a market for ornamentals and decorative items. So you don't find them valuable because they are not useful -- so what? Other people do, and having a rare tulip is valuable because showing it to people gives a return.
Market forces apply to tulips, turnips, diamonds, and art. You feel something is overpriced? Fine, your opinion fits into the market.
One thing to note re: diamonds -- the problem is not that people like shiny things (IMO), the problem with diamond prices is the market manipulation by DeBeers.
It was a poor attempt at a joke.
Rebind the 't' key so when you press it a 'w' registers.
Problem solved, no?
True, but I also do not know whether energy output is dependent on mass or on volume, on some combination, or something else entirely.
I would think it's dependent more on mass than on volume, as an equivalent mass in a larger volume should have fewer particle interactions. But I am not a physical chemist or physicist, so I don't know, and am feeling too lazy on a Friday afternoon to look it up.
For all we know, OP could have been referring only to apparent size, which could be affected by lens effects from the atmosphere... but no matter what, his timescale is WAY off.
But 50 years of a 500 year life is not significant compared to 50 years of an 80 year life.
One would think that humans would become more patient; those who are impatient would probably go insane and have to be put down/locked up. If we required, say, 300 years of sane life before having kids (by prophylaxis and by suppressing ovulation so there are eggs left), natural selection might take care of the impatience problem over a few millenia.
Ah, yes, the sun is growing. A couple hundreds of a percent a decade, you say. Let's assume .02 % per decade. A quick back of the napkin calculation... you're saying that the sun is 4% larger than it was 2000 years ago, and is more than double the size it was 35,000 years ago.
Tell me, where did the mass for that come from?
And why was the planet not covered in ice for the last billion or so years?
On the plus side, the frigid winters meant no malaria (once it had ben introduced to N.A., which was long after the pilgrims, I guess).
Also note that northern waters are much colder, and hence biologically productive, than warm southern waters. The Grand Banks are a great example...
But really, I think the big issue is that the pilgrims did not land in winter. I don't think they knew what they were getting into.
That's poopycock. Keybindings are not hard to change in Windows.
And if changing the keybindings is too much for you, go the other route and try a sharpie and then some whiteout.
I don't know, but you put an extra word in the quote. There is no "fo'".
They must have been talking to a bunch of asparagus farmers.
Colloqiually, too-alkaline soil is called "salty". Soil with a good pH is "sweet".
One could salt one's fields to make them less acidic, or one could salt someone else's fields to make them overly alkaline, and hence impossible to farm on.
Oh, I don't know why else they should charge money. Maybe so they csan pay their staff? Maybe so threy can pay overhead? Maybe so they can make a profit? They are a business, after all.
Now, if you want to discuss why they should charge so much money, you may have a point. If you want to discuss tax incentives they've received to build out infrastructure, you may have a point.
But asking why a business would charge money for providing a service is like asking why a raccoon wants to get into your garbage... and I'll give you a hint, it's not to help sort your recycling.
Playing a bit of de vil's advocate here, but so what? Does it matter that change is slow if we live forever? Why does a fast timescale for change matter?
If anything, taking a long time to make decisions might be a very good thing, so maybe we'd have less knee-jerk legislation.
I know, there is a time for swift action when life is on the line, but if the human race were to become immortal urgency on these issues would decline.