You're completely off base in re: the EC system. Actually, I suspect you are way off base in re: the Founding Fathers' thoughts on representative government. It's not "one man one vote" and it's not "don't let the little guy get trampled" -- it's "each state has electory power proportional to their population."
The tyranny of the masses or 'mob rule' is a problem -- but it's to be fixed at the state level, not the national. The reason NYers' votes count less is not to prevent the trampling of rights of the rancher -- it's because the distribution of electoral votes have been skewed. The original intent was to ensure elective power is relative to population. This is a direct result of the 2-votes-per-state in the Senate, not that there is anything wrong with that.
The root problem with the tyranny of the majority wrt the Executive would disappear if the Executive were as limited in power as was originally construed. You can't have a tyranny of the majority if there is not the possibility of electing someone with the power to be a tyrant.
I firmly believe the bicameral Congress holds the key to preventing the tyranny of the majority -- that's why we have non-proportional voting power in the Senate. Now if only we could put the chains back on the Executive Branch...
It's not an instantaneous process, as you point out. But operational costs are a *big* deal to a lot of people and companies.
And, out of curiousity, any idea of what the market share of these extremely high-powered cards are? I'm pretty sure it's relatively insignificant in terms of total power used.
It's not just semantics. It's counter to the very idea of States' rights. While the EC was meant to approximate the elective power of each state according to their population, it reserves the right of each state to allot their votes as they choose. Most states have a winner-take-all system, but at least one state splits its EC votes according to the popular vote in that state.
The author of this idea should focus on convincing states to implement a better system for assigning the votes of their electoral college reps. Taking the power of this choice from the states is just one more way that we're seeing a homogenization of states that, IMO, benefits only the majority.
'They're completely abusing the system,' Hogan says. Although expecting to pay well over $100,000 to defend himself, he claims 'I would spend well into the millions on this.'
If he really wanted to defend the practice of downloading copies of what you purchased on DVD, he would need to spend millions. I think it's great that he's taking a stand, but defending *himself* ain't gonna do jack for the rest of us -- since most of us still can't afford a law team for penny-ante BS like this.
When it comes to gaming etc, price and performance will always be considered more important than power saving (except for battery devices).
Until prominently labeling approximated cost of power consumption is mandated by law, that is. When people are blatantly shown the cost to their pocket, they'll wisen up. It's working for appliances (well, at the mid and upper income ranges, anyway).
For people who don't pay for their electricity directly (like most college students) this won't be as big a factor, but for the rest of us...
Is it a missile? How about a manned (what it carries), sub-orbital (altitude envelope), ballistic (flight profile), missile (type of vehicle)?
Well, 'missile' sounds so, I dunno, war-like. Why not call it a Manned Extra-Mesospheric Projectile (Sub-Orbital Ballistic). Or that MEMP Son-of-a-bitch?
It isn't an airplane - by your analogy, I should be an airplane, as I live in the air (I spend more time in the air than in the water)... but I don't have wings or propellors/turbojet...
Umm, no. You'd be a creature of the surface, if you choose to extend the analogy.
It would be like calling an electric car that can only do 150 miles not a "real car" because it can't travel 400 miles like my Saturn can...
Gotta disagree again. Since when does the criteria for 'car' include travel distance of 400 mi?
In the context of the OP, what is it that differentiates 'spaceship' from 'spaceplane' from 'airplane' from 'rocket'?
'Rocket' is a propulsion system, or a term used to describe a vehicle that uses a rocket propulsion system. Airplanes can be rockets. Hell, cars can be rockets (Remember the Darwin award for the guy who strapped one to his car and is now embedded in a cliffside?).
A 'plane' describes a fixed-wing vehicle. An airplane would be a fixed-wing vehicle that operates in the atmosphere; a spaceplane would be a fixed-wing vehicle that operates in space. I'd say Bezos's craft operates predominantly in the atmosphere, thus I'd call it an airplane.
You all love technology, but hate the consequences. Technology has made it easier to do your job from India. Technology has made it easier to eliminate cashiers (union or not, they don't get paid that much). Even the public library has self-checkout. Throw in everyone's desire for "low low prices (TM)", and you have the present situation. We all are getting exactly what we deserve.
No one likes being forced to adapt. Ideally, if we're freeing up labor from pretty much zero-gain jobs, this would benefit everyone in the long run. That labor could be better utilized doing something else. That's from the perspective that more-production-is-always-good.
From a moral standpoint, I'd say that those getting these outsourced jobs often are benefited more by the job than those who lost those jobs when they were outsourced. I can't value the humanity of someone more than someone else based solely on where they live.
It's basically just nimbyism in a different form... sure, the benefits to society are there, but some individuals will be negatively affected. Most people have no problem with this until they are personally one of the ones negatively affected.
I'll have to set up a dummy email account then -- guess I was being lazy. There's no way I'm sending an email from any of my normal accounts to someone I don't know who frequents slashdot:)
this craft is intended to go no higher than 62 miles, is this a spaceship, or a space plane?
Neither. Here's a rather dull/akward metaphor:
If a (flying) bird is a creature of the air, and a swimming fish is a creature of the water, what do you call a fish that can momentarily break the surface of the water?
I'd still call it a creature of the water.
Similarly, I'd call Bezos's craft a VTOL airplane -- though I might give it an asterisk -- VTOL airplane*.
*capable of reaching super-mesospheric** altitude.
**Where super-mesospheric*** means above 99.9999% of the atmospheric mass.
***Though at the the time of the X-15 flight (1963) the US considered 50 miles**** (~80km) to be the boundary of space.
****But the significance of the 100km boundary is that it is the approximate altitude of the turbopause, below which turbulent mixing***** of the atmosphere predominates; above this, molecular diffusion dominates.
*****Speaking of which, it's time to get another cup of coffee (with milk, turbulently mixed) before the asterisks really get out of hand.
I've disputed my cable internet charges with Cablevision. The offer I signed up for was 6 months of discounted service and free installation if I got a cable/internet package. Their tech came and set it up when he set up our regular cable -- some lines had to be run. Three months later, they raised my rates.
Upon calling, Cablevision told me that the ocntract terms I had agreed to had a discounted rate for only three months -- yet I never saw the terms I was 'agreeing to.' The tech did the click-through, and didn't print a copy of the agreement.
Since the tech doesn't work for Cablevision, but is a contractor (who technically was employed by me, according to Cablevision), apparently I authorized him to accept the contract on my behalf... despite the fact that I signed nothing until after the installation was complete. Never mind the fact that he would only have the authority to enter me into a contract if I gave him Power of Attorney, which I most definitely did not.
End result? I threatened to switch to DSL (not a bluff) and they've given me another year of discounted service.
Besides the fact that this shows they know how expensive it is to replace a customer, it also shows how valuable competition in the field is. I didn't "win" my dispute -- but I did, in the end, get what I was after by taking a different tack.
What's next, stores that make you stock their shelves?
What do you think warehouse-style stores are? Like Costco, etc.?
Besides the bulk discount, there is a significant discount because they don't have to stock shelves -- you're purchasing directly from their 'storage' facility.
A no-go in my office -- we're too close to the business end and the marketing and advertising departments. Heaven forbid a client sees a less-than-professional poster (and this at a 'creative' company). Plus, it might crash with the Warhols up on the walls:)
If you've got a good design team, they can do a funny poster professionally -- not sure if the impersonality of a professional-looking poster might reduce how many people adhere to what it says... something to think about.
There are plenty of sewing machine treadles in the world, too -- I hope someone can figure out a way to combine them with the new design.
That gives me an idea -- I'm going to ride the technology wave by converting all the 8-year-old sewing-machine-treadle-operators in my sweatshops into 8-year-old server-farm-power-treadle-treadlers.
To anyone who objects, please note that this is a carbon-neutral technology and therefore won't contribute to global warming except for the hot air from 'activists.' The Free Market -- gotta love it!
Perhaps, although they still have one huge advantage over Vista - they've both been released. Microsoft is settling into the role of Sisyphus, and every time they get close to the release date, their giant stone goes rolling back down the hill for months of additional changes
I prefer to think of MS in the role of Prometheus -- that is, every night MS tries to fix all its security holes and the latest Vista build problems, whilst every day the malware writers and *nix enthusiasts tear out and eat its liver.
I would agree with you. My only addition is that this is the kind of project I'd farm out to an intern -- too time-intensive for management or regular staff to be doing.
At my company I've talked to the art & production departments to have their interns collaborate with mine to get very professional looking reference pieces done.
Well, the article says that recent research shows that reach-and-grasp did not evolve at the same time as the better vision, which makes it unlikely that they evolved for the same purpose. I'm not sold on this, as competitive advantage in food-gathering would still exist, IMO.
It's not obvious why our lineage would co-evolve with snakes any more than any other mammalian lineage would.
One obvious reason to me would be habitat. Maybe the primate lineage occupied the same areas as snakes? Maybe other mammals developed other strategies (like giantism or fecundity)?
The key to TFA is recent research that demonstrates that reach-and-grasp didn't evolve alongside 3D vision. So the question this theory attempts to answer is, "Why did early primates evolve advanced, close-up, 3D vision?"
As with most things, the simplest answer is usually the best. While predator evasion could very likely be part of it, there is also an advantage in food gathering -- and while this good vision didn't co-evolve with reach-and-grasp ability, it's quite possible that once reach-and grasp evolved, better eyesight was the 'next step' in better food gathering.
I'm guessing here, but I find it likely that good close-up vision proved advantageous in more than just evading snakes, and I think it's a little simplistic to say that evolutionary one-upmanship with snakes is the sole cause of our (primates) excellent up-close vision.
IANAEB (evolutionary biologist) so I may be completely incorrect...
Well, acceptable usage of purpose in this construct would hold one of two definitions, both of which pose problems with that interpretation:
The first would be 'purpose' as in 'raison d'etre' -- and the problem with this is that it implies either (1) human characteristics to the console, so that it could determine its purpose, or (2) an omnipotent being or force that determines the destiny of the console.
The second would be 'purpose' as in the intended result of its existence, which is the usage I inferred.
Part of it is grammatical. It is quite possible the author meant purpose as in an end result, in which case the consoles served the purpose; however, in that case, the purpose is not 'of the console' but instead 'of the $[market|industry]'.
But I'd definitely disagree with you on whether better hardware has led to innovation. The bar has been raised, and a lot of the games of yesteryear do not come close to today's games in terms of gameplay. Some places where hardware has led to improvements:
(1) AI -- in a HUGE way (2) Immersion (partly due to graphics and sound) (3) Physics (as you mention)
I'll agree that a game hardware system is nothing without games that utilize the hardware. But so much of what we now expect and demand from games requires good hardware, and I don't see that trend abating.
I certainly agree, but the issue I have is when people base a console solely be its processing power (Re: "despite the inferiority of their machine"). The general public has been duped into believing that more polygons=better system.
Obviously there's more to a system than processor speed, but what is possible for a console game depends a lot of the processer speeds. I would say that a slower console IS inferior[1], because I'm judging by potential (as one has to when the life-cycle isn't complete yet). However, as you point out, it does not mean that the gaming experience derived from the console will not be as good.
[1] This does preclude ease-of-development when considering quality of the console, but I was writing from the consumer standpoint.
Slashdot Mirror
You're completely off base in re: the EC system. Actually, I suspect you are way off base in re: the Founding Fathers' thoughts on representative government. It's not "one man one vote" and it's not "don't let the little guy get trampled" -- it's "each state has electory power proportional to their population."
The tyranny of the masses or 'mob rule' is a problem -- but it's to be fixed at the state level, not the national. The reason NYers' votes count less is not to prevent the trampling of rights of the rancher -- it's because the distribution of electoral votes have been skewed. The original intent was to ensure elective power is relative to population. This is a direct result of the 2-votes-per-state in the Senate, not that there is anything wrong with that.
The root problem with the tyranny of the majority wrt the Executive would disappear if the Executive were as limited in power as was originally construed. You can't have a tyranny of the majority if there is not the possibility of electing someone with the power to be a tyrant.
I firmly believe the bicameral Congress holds the key to preventing the tyranny of the majority -- that's why we have non-proportional voting power in the Senate. Now if only we could put the chains back on the Executive Branch...
It's not an instantaneous process, as you point out. But operational costs are a *big* deal to a lot of people and companies.
And, out of curiousity, any idea of what the market share of these extremely high-powered cards are? I'm pretty sure it's relatively insignificant in terms of total power used.
It's not just semantics. It's counter to the very idea of States' rights. While the EC was meant to approximate the elective power of each state according to their population, it reserves the right of each state to allot their votes as they choose. Most states have a winner-take-all system, but at least one state splits its EC votes according to the popular vote in that state.
The author of this idea should focus on convincing states to implement a better system for assigning the votes of their electoral college reps. Taking the power of this choice from the states is just one more way that we're seeing a homogenization of states that, IMO, benefits only the majority.
If he really wanted to defend the practice of downloading copies of what you purchased on DVD, he would need to spend millions. I think it's great that he's taking a stand, but defending *himself* ain't gonna do jack for the rest of us -- since most of us still can't afford a law team for penny-ante BS like this.
For people who don't pay for their electricity directly (like most college students) this won't be as big a factor, but for the rest of us...
Gotta disagree again. Since when does the criteria for 'car' include travel distance of 400 mi?
In the context of the OP, what is it that differentiates 'spaceship' from 'spaceplane' from 'airplane' from 'rocket'?
'Rocket' is a propulsion system, or a term used to describe a vehicle that uses a rocket propulsion system. Airplanes can be rockets. Hell, cars can be rockets (Remember the Darwin award for the guy who strapped one to his car and is now embedded in a cliffside?).
A 'plane' describes a fixed-wing vehicle. An airplane would be a fixed-wing vehicle that operates in the atmosphere; a spaceplane would be a fixed-wing vehicle that operates in space. I'd say Bezos's craft operates predominantly in the atmosphere, thus I'd call it an airplane.
From a moral standpoint, I'd say that those getting these outsourced jobs often are benefited more by the job than those who lost those jobs when they were outsourced. I can't value the humanity of someone more than someone else based solely on where they live.
It's basically just nimbyism in a different form... sure, the benefits to society are there, but some individuals will be negatively affected. Most people have no problem with this until they are personally one of the ones negatively affected.
I'll have to set up a dummy email account then -- guess I was being lazy. There's no way I'm sending an email from any of my normal accounts to someone I don't know who frequents slashdot :)
Just wanted to mention that your sig is fantastic. Scary, but true.
If a (flying) bird is a creature of the air, and a swimming fish is a creature of the water, what do you call a fish that can momentarily break the surface of the water?
I'd still call it a creature of the water.
Similarly, I'd call Bezos's craft a VTOL airplane -- though I might give it an asterisk -- VTOL airplane*.
*capable of reaching super-mesospheric** altitude.
**Where super-mesospheric*** means above 99.9999% of the atmospheric mass.
***Though at the the time of the X-15 flight (1963) the US considered 50 miles**** (~80km) to be the boundary of space.
****But the significance of the 100km boundary is that it is the approximate altitude of the turbopause, below which turbulent mixing***** of the atmosphere predominates; above this, molecular diffusion dominates.
*****Speaking of which, it's time to get another cup of coffee (with milk, turbulently mixed) before the asterisks really get out of hand.
I've disputed my cable internet charges with Cablevision. The offer I signed up for was 6 months of discounted service and free installation if I got a cable/internet package. Their tech came and set it up when he set up our regular cable -- some lines had to be run. Three months later, they raised my rates.
Upon calling, Cablevision told me that the ocntract terms I had agreed to had a discounted rate for only three months -- yet I never saw the terms I was 'agreeing to.' The tech did the click-through, and didn't print a copy of the agreement.
Since the tech doesn't work for Cablevision, but is a contractor (who technically was employed by me, according to Cablevision), apparently I authorized him to accept the contract on my behalf... despite the fact that I signed nothing until after the installation was complete. Never mind the fact that he would only have the authority to enter me into a contract if I gave him Power of Attorney, which I most definitely did not.
End result? I threatened to switch to DSL (not a bluff) and they've given me another year of discounted service.
Besides the fact that this shows they know how expensive it is to replace a customer, it also shows how valuable competition in the field is. I didn't "win" my dispute -- but I did, in the end, get what I was after by taking a different tack.
Besides the bulk discount, there is a significant discount because they don't have to stock shelves -- you're purchasing directly from their 'storage' facility.
A no-go in my office -- we're too close to the business end and the marketing and advertising departments. Heaven forbid a client sees a less-than-professional poster (and this at a 'creative' company). Plus, it might crash with the Warhols up on the walls :)
If you've got a good design team, they can do a funny poster professionally -- not sure if the impersonality of a professional-looking poster might reduce how many people adhere to what it says... something to think about.
To anyone who objects, please note that this is a carbon-neutral technology and therefore won't contribute to global warming except for the hot air from 'activists.' The Free Market -- gotta love it!
I would agree with you. My only addition is that this is the kind of project I'd farm out to an intern -- too time-intensive for management or regular staff to be doing.
At my company I've talked to the art & production departments to have their interns collaborate with mine to get very professional looking reference pieces done.
Maybe I was unclear -- the conclusion that they did not evolve for the same purpose comes from TFA, not from me. I agree with you.
Well, the article says that recent research shows that reach-and-grasp did not evolve at the same time as the better vision, which makes it unlikely that they evolved for the same purpose. I'm not sold on this, as competitive advantage in food-gathering would still exist, IMO.
It's not obvious why our lineage would co-evolve with snakes any more than any other mammalian lineage would.
One obvious reason to me would be habitat. Maybe the primate lineage occupied the same areas as snakes? Maybe other mammals developed other strategies (like giantism or fecundity)?
The key to TFA is recent research that demonstrates that reach-and-grasp didn't evolve alongside 3D vision. So the question this theory attempts to answer is, "Why did early primates evolve advanced, close-up, 3D vision?"
As with most things, the simplest answer is usually the best. While predator evasion could very likely be part of it, there is also an advantage in food gathering -- and while this good vision didn't co-evolve with reach-and-grasp ability, it's quite possible that once reach-and grasp evolved, better eyesight was the 'next step' in better food gathering.
I'm guessing here, but I find it likely that good close-up vision proved advantageous in more than just evading snakes, and I think it's a little simplistic to say that evolutionary one-upmanship with snakes is the sole cause of our (primates) excellent up-close vision.
IANAEB (evolutionary biologist) so I may be completely incorrect...
Well, acceptable usage of purpose in this construct would hold one of two definitions, both of which pose problems with that interpretation:
The first would be 'purpose' as in 'raison d'etre' -- and the problem with this is that it implies either (1) human characteristics to the console, so that it could determine its purpose, or (2) an omnipotent being or force that determines the destiny of the console.
The second would be 'purpose' as in the intended result of its existence, which is the usage I inferred.
Part of it is grammatical. It is quite possible the author meant purpose as in an end result, in which case the consoles served the purpose; however, in that case, the purpose is not 'of the console' but instead 'of the $[market|industry]'.
I feel nostalgic for old games, too.
But I'd definitely disagree with you on whether better hardware has led to innovation. The bar has been raised, and a lot of the games of yesteryear do not come close to today's games in terms of gameplay. Some places where hardware has led to improvements:
(1) AI -- in a HUGE way
(2) Immersion (partly due to graphics and sound)
(3) Physics (as you mention)
I'll agree that a game hardware system is nothing without games that utilize the hardware. But so much of what we now expect and demand from games requires good hardware, and I don't see that trend abating.
[1] This does preclude ease-of-development when considering quality of the console, but I was writing from the consumer standpoint.