The funny thing about that idea is that it would actually DRASTICALLY increase the death toll from flying. Putting people under (by any means) has a vastly higher chance of resulting in death than if the airplanes had zero security in the first place.
There are no driving tactics that make driving safer than flying. Period. You think you're in control of the risk when you drive, but you're not. It is an entirely false perception--to the point that if it wasn't so common, it would be considered psychosis. That's how complete the disconnect from reality is.
That's what it boils down to: most people are fucking insane. They don't live in reality (and they don't want to). Sucks for the few that do and have to put up with them.
Ask 10 random people to name a few of the richest people on the planet.
Bill Gates' name will be mentioned, and most people certainly know what he looks like.
Sure they'll name him, but no they don't know what he looks like. That's the part that only the geekier/press-type folks know.
Sorta like I couldn't point out Kanye West in a crowd, but most people could; but, if you ask me to name the top ten douchebags alive today, his name would certainly come up.
Bullshit. Apple is perfectly game friendly. Game developers are not Apple friendly. WoW doesn't work on Macs because Apple did anything special, Blizzard just bothered to write a Mac version.
My guess is that the system has to be trained. As in, it listens to your thoughts while you type out a preset text by hand, and eventually matches the motor impulses that you would normally act out to the keys you would type.
Of course, if you're one of those freaks who can type in Dvorak and QWERTY it might not work so well.
The entirety of our bodies and minds exist solely to pass on our genetic information, making sex our prime directive! There is no way that you can undo 3 billion years of this sort of genetic programming, and I see no good reason that we ought to try.
The problem with pointing this out is that the nutjobs will reject this point too, because Darwin is Satan spelled backwards.
An orbit is a GEODESIC, which is NOT the same thing as a straight line. A straight line is a geodesic (in a flat metric), yes, but the reverse is not true.
It's sort of a 'square is a rectangle, but rectangle is not a square' sort of thing. Straight lines are a subset of geodesics, not equivalent.
It's exactly your example. The blues player isn't being punished at all. Here's a tip: Public Domain works still make money. Hell, I have WALLS covered in them. 14 years later he can still perform that song for new audiences live--unless he's dead, in which case your point is moot, the dead don't need income.
You have this laughable idea that people DESERVE money for a one-off act (and I even LIKE Kind of Blue, but I still don't think it deserves Fuck You Money for life).
Sure, Republicans will call you a communist. Most of my family considers me to be a flaming liberal.
On the other hand, the Democrats I work with think I'm a fascist pig.
I just scratch my head trying to figure out how being so anti-all collections of authority that I'm a borderline anarchist is consistent with either of those.
Way to redefine self-interest completely. The 'normal' meaning in economics and game theory is that you make your decision to optimise your outcome, regardless of the actions of others.
In the case of the tragedy of the commons (which is an uncooperative game), that means taking as much as you can. For any given set of actions by everyone else, taking as much as you can gets you the most possible.
What you are doing is redefining self-interest by breaking down the distinction between cooperative and uncooperative scenarios--and you're making yourself look like an ignoramus doing it.
In the tragedy of the commons (or better, the prisoner's dilemma) when everyone acts in uncooperative self-interest the worst possible outcome is the result.
The prisoner's dilemma is really a better example of the problem that uncooperative self-interest creates--the Nash equilibria theory is better still, though more arcane. Either way, acting in uncooperative self-interest is frequently harmful, but uncooperative self-interest is what is enshrined in libertarian economic theology.
Slashdot Mirror
The funny thing about that idea is that it would actually DRASTICALLY increase the death toll from flying. Putting people under (by any means) has a vastly higher chance of resulting in death than if the airplanes had zero security in the first place.
But that sense of control is completely false.
There are no driving tactics that make driving safer than flying. Period. You think you're in control of the risk when you drive, but you're not. It is an entirely false perception--to the point that if it wasn't so common, it would be considered psychosis. That's how complete the disconnect from reality is.
That's what it boils down to: most people are fucking insane. They don't live in reality (and they don't want to). Sucks for the few that do and have to put up with them.
Hopefully not long. Once the overweight albanian women with excruciating body odor are dead maybe I can stretch out and get comfortable.
Ah, but if said terrorist is HIV positive or a carrier for some better bioweapon...
Ask 10 random people to name a few of the richest people on the planet.
Bill Gates' name will be mentioned, and most people certainly know what he looks like.
Sure they'll name him, but no they don't know what he looks like. That's the part that only the geekier/press-type folks know.
Sorta like I couldn't point out Kanye West in a crowd, but most people could; but, if you ask me to name the top ten douchebags alive today, his name would certainly come up.
Yeah, no idea what you're going for there.
Bullshit. Apple is perfectly game friendly. Game developers are not Apple friendly. WoW doesn't work on Macs because Apple did anything special, Blizzard just bothered to write a Mac version.
Only because you haven't been invited to CowboyNeal's naked moneytub parties. All those ones have to come from somewhere.
When I get my laptop out, it's not like girls sidle up to me and start cooing in my ear or anything.
I had this happen once, but she was...well, unattractive.
There's a difference between getting something for the brand name and getting something for the particular signature style of the brandname.
No, no there isn't.
Except the airport weather one was retarded.
Never shake a clown. It's like getting gremlins wet. Just don't do it.
No, not really. Most people wouldn't have a clue who he is. You don't interact with enough plebes if you think his face is iconic.
My guess is that the system has to be trained. As in, it listens to your thoughts while you type out a preset text by hand, and eventually matches the motor impulses that you would normally act out to the keys you would type.
Of course, if you're one of those freaks who can type in Dvorak and QWERTY it might not work so well.
I almost don't want to explain why your post caused my monitor to soak itself in coffee. I feel like it would ruin the magic.
They've always been at war with Eurasia.
It's more than a little Orwellian.
The entirety of our bodies and minds exist solely to pass on our genetic information, making sex our prime directive! There is no way that you can undo 3 billion years of this sort of genetic programming, and I see no good reason that we ought to try.
The problem with pointing this out is that the nutjobs will reject this point too, because Darwin is Satan spelled backwards.
It's all connected.
No, but it makes it harder to believe the howls coming from the actress. It's my suspension of disbelief that's at stake here.
Well, without porn what else are you going do?
I don't think 'strictly speaking' means what you think it does.
Wrong.
An orbit is a GEODESIC, which is NOT the same thing as a straight line. A straight line is a geodesic (in a flat metric), yes, but the reverse is not true.
It's sort of a 'square is a rectangle, but rectangle is not a square' sort of thing. Straight lines are a subset of geodesics, not equivalent.
It's exactly your example. The blues player isn't being punished at all. Here's a tip: Public Domain works still make money. Hell, I have WALLS covered in them. 14 years later he can still perform that song for new audiences live--unless he's dead, in which case your point is moot, the dead don't need income.
You have this laughable idea that people DESERVE money for a one-off act (and I even LIKE Kind of Blue, but I still don't think it deserves Fuck You Money for life).
Not true.
Sure, Republicans will call you a communist. Most of my family considers me to be a flaming liberal.
On the other hand, the Democrats I work with think I'm a fascist pig.
I just scratch my head trying to figure out how being so anti-all collections of authority that I'm a borderline anarchist is consistent with either of those.
Funny story, that's how Michael Jackson wound up with the publishing rights to the Beatles' catalog.
Way to redefine self-interest completely. The 'normal' meaning in economics and game theory is that you make your decision to optimise your outcome, regardless of the actions of others.
In the case of the tragedy of the commons (which is an uncooperative game), that means taking as much as you can. For any given set of actions by everyone else, taking as much as you can gets you the most possible.
What you are doing is redefining self-interest by breaking down the distinction between cooperative and uncooperative scenarios--and you're making yourself look like an ignoramus doing it.
In the tragedy of the commons (or better, the prisoner's dilemma) when everyone acts in uncooperative self-interest the worst possible outcome is the result.
The prisoner's dilemma is really a better example of the problem that uncooperative self-interest creates--the Nash equilibria theory is better still, though more arcane. Either way, acting in uncooperative self-interest is frequently harmful, but uncooperative self-interest is what is enshrined in libertarian economic theology.