If we give the government the mandate to forcefully inject our bodies with vaccines against measles, then why not against an arbitrary flu. Having the flu causes economic damage, since you will not show up at work.
And, why not have a chip implanted that permanently measures your health, so medical attention can be sought immediately when necessary? Surely you wouldn't want your children to risk being late for cancer treatment?
Oh well, now we have a chip, why not add some more features that are useful for running society more smoothly?
It's a slippery slope and it's bodily integrity that is at stake here.
Hmm, you (or another Anonymous C.) were the one linking this specific pronounciation to Mandarin.
If you would agree that over 99% of Mandarin speaking people are Chinese, wouldn't it be reasonable to say that this should be called making fun of, not an arbitrary, but a Chinese foreign-language speaking person?
'Making fun of' is not necessarily bullying, but it is still racist if it is based on the characteristics of the (Manderin speaking) Chinese.
Accepting them is a "no-brainer" as a donation, there is no loss. But for any other serious financial transaction, well, unless you are a mobster or a dope dealer or otherwise involved in something illegal, the real question is WHY DEAL WITH IT.
There is a (potential) loss. As soon as the Bitcoin collapses, some people will have lost money. And Bitcoin might, in retrospect, be regarded as a pyramid scheme. People will not be happy with any party that has profited from that.
Every Watt spent on Bitcoins is a wasted Watt. (Ok, you can't spend a Watt, a Joule I mean.)
Plus, now we get the environmental burden of producing ASICs, which will be quite worthless in the near future. With the GPUs you could at least organise a fantastic LAN party after the Bitcoin crash.
Irony indeed, you're a bad copycat. Please do see Comboman's previous post:
I wonder how many of the people applauding the limiting of these women's rights to control their own bodies when it puts another life at risk are pro-choice on the topic abortion?
Suppose there's a new vaccin that, if taken by nurses, has been proven to completely rule out any chance of them infecting patients. But, as a side effect, it causes X% of the vaccinated to die instantly. Or, on average, those vaccinated live Y days shorter. How large may X or Y be for you to still be a proponent of obligatory vaccination? (And what if X and Y are unknown?)
What if we not only requite nurses to vaccinate, but also policemen, firemen and teachers? What the hell, why not forcibly vaccinate everyone? That would help stop a flu epidemic.
And while we're at it, why not have everyone implant an RFID and put a halt to terrorism!
How would you explain the huge advantage for early-adopters to latecomers, given that a perfectly natural fair distribution exists, where (proof-of-)work is always rewarded the same number of bitcoins?
I think a cryptocurrency is a good idea, but the current 'money distribution' with an artificial limit will not hold. At least prices will go down therefore, way down. Have a look here for some more critique:
http://www.newbitcoin.org/documents/newbitcoin.pdf
Movie theaters are private businesses (like the whole of the music and film industry). If a private business sells something, the conditions of the sale should be (negotiated and) agreed upon between seller and buyer beforehand, e.g. by the seller handing out his (general) conditions on paper before he sells.
I think it's reasonable if there's laws protecting businesses and consumers in cases where conditions were lacking or outrages.
A law that would allow consumers to end up in jail for filming in a theater, even without proof that the filmed material has been spread, is, let me say 'heavily biased favoring the movie and music industry' instead of straight out 'unreasonably unfair and ridiculous'.
(P) If the cubecrawlers are in A, they have to travel to either B, D or E, which takes one day.
(Q) If the cubecrawlers are in B, D or E (coming from A) they have to travel to either C, F or H (since they may not immediately return to A).
(R) If the cubecrawlers are in C, F or H (coming from B, D or E which is the only way to get there) in 50% of the cases they travel to G where they die and in 50% of the cases they travel back to B, D or E. (Travelling back was not allowed? If they are in C coming from B they travel back to D, if they are in C coming from D they travel back to B. The same reasoning holds for corners F and H.)
(S)If the cubecrawlers are in B, D or E (coming from C, F or H) in 50% of the cases they travel to A and in 50% of the cases they travel back to C, F or H. (Again, by travelling back I mean travelling back to the one other possible corner.)
This is a great puzzle. STOP READING if you don't want to know the answer.
The solution rests with the fact that there must be some a priori bounded probability distribution of the offered amounts of gold; it can't be infinitely variable. (Similar to how you can't "choose an integer at random," with uniform distribution, without first specifying a range.) If the amount on the knight's piece of paper is within a factor of two of the upper limit, he can only lose (a large amount) by switching. And if it's within a factor of two of the lower limit, he can only gain (a small amount) by switching. These endpoints exactly cancel the roughly 25% expected gain from switching from amounts in between. Since the knight doesn't know if his first paper is on the highest end of the probability distribution, or on the lowest end, or in between, his overall expectation for switching turns out to be even money.
Quite funny, I agree with the conclusion, but here's the CORRECT REASONING:
The only event in the story where chance plays a part is when the knight chooses one of the two papers. The 'strategy' that the knight uses to come to his choice does not at all effects his winning expectations. Not even the fact that he can see the amount on one of the two papers, as he has not a clue of how high the usual reward is.
(A different game would be if the king would give the knight a piece of paper with an amount of gold written on it, flipped a fair coin and wrote, depending on the outcome of the flip, either half or double that amount on a second paper. In that case the knight had better switched.)
How typical btw. that even freshly rescued damsels have to stick their noses into their rescuing knight's affairs.
Slashdot Mirror
If we give the government the mandate to forcefully inject our bodies with vaccines against measles, then why not against an arbitrary flu. Having the flu causes economic damage, since you will not show up at work.
And, why not have a chip implanted that permanently measures your health, so medical attention can be sought immediately when necessary? Surely you wouldn't want your children to risk being late for cancer treatment?
Oh well, now we have a chip, why not add some more features that are useful for running society more smoothly?
It's a slippery slope and it's bodily integrity that is at stake here.
And yet another reason to postpone buying a new cellphone. I'll never get rid of my 2012 phone...
You should not.
Can't argue against logic, if jokes about Germans are allright then making fun of the Chinese speaking English can't be racist either...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Hmm, you (or another Anonymous C.) were the one linking this specific pronounciation to Mandarin.
If you would agree that over 99% of Mandarin speaking people are Chinese, wouldn't it be reasonable to say that this should be called making fun of, not an arbitrary, but a Chinese foreign-language speaking person?
'Making fun of' is not necessarily bullying, but it is still racist if it is based on the characteristics of the (Manderin speaking) Chinese.
>racist
unfortunately, chinese people are not born speaking mandarin and do not have a racial/genetic problem with r & l.
I think it is racist, as over 99% of people speaking Manderin are Chinese...
The results of the polygraph will not be used, they will just look at your recorded internet sessions.
The polygraph is just there as an excuse, a distraction.
When people pointed out two key typos, the military bosses thanked them and said they were 'exactly the kind of people they are looking for.'
"Eh, sarge, I think this war is a mistake..."
Accepting them is a "no-brainer" as a donation, there is no loss. But for any other serious financial transaction, well, unless you are a mobster or a dope dealer or otherwise involved in something illegal, the real question is WHY DEAL WITH IT.
There is a (potential) loss. As soon as the Bitcoin collapses, some people will have lost money. And Bitcoin might, in retrospect, be regarded as a pyramid scheme. People will not be happy with any party that has profited from that.
Every Watt spent on Bitcoins is a wasted Watt. (Ok, you can't spend a Watt, a Joule I mean.)
Plus, now we get the environmental burden of producing ASICs, which will be quite worthless in the near future. With the GPUs you could at least organise a fantastic LAN party after the Bitcoin crash.
Time will tell...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory
That sounds like the obvious answer here...
I'd find these rules more reasonable:
1. You should be free to refuse anything being put into your body (even if it would harm others)
2. You should be free to put whatever you want into your body (provided it doesn't harm others)
3. You should be free to practice whatever religion you want (provided it doesn't harm others)
4. An employer may never impose rules that violate previous 3 rules.
Irony indeed, you're a bad copycat. Please do see Comboman's previous post:
Suppose there's a new vaccin that, if taken by nurses, has been proven to completely rule out any chance of them infecting patients. But, as a side effect, it causes X% of the vaccinated to die instantly. Or, on average, those vaccinated live Y days shorter. How large may X or Y be for you to still be a proponent of obligatory vaccination? (And what if X and Y are unknown?)
What if we not only requite nurses to vaccinate, but also policemen, firemen and teachers? What the hell, why not forcibly vaccinate everyone? That would help stop a flu epidemic.
And while we're at it, why not have everyone implant an RFID and put a halt to terrorism!
How would you explain the huge advantage for early-adopters to latecomers, given that a perfectly natural fair distribution exists, where (proof-of-)work is always rewarded the same number of bitcoins?
I think a cryptocurrency is a good idea, but the current 'money distribution' with an artificial limit will not hold. At least prices will go down therefore, way down. Have a look here for some more critique: http://www.newbitcoin.org/documents/newbitcoin.pdf
Movie theaters are private businesses (like the whole of the music and film industry). If a private business sells something, the conditions of the sale should be (negotiated and) agreed upon between seller and buyer beforehand, e.g. by the seller handing out his (general) conditions on paper before he sells.
I think it's reasonable if there's laws protecting businesses and consumers in cases where conditions were lacking or outrages.
A law that would allow consumers to end up in jail for filming in a theater, even without proof that the filmed material has been spread, is, let me say 'heavily biased favoring the movie and music industry' instead of straight out 'unreasonably unfair and ridiculous'.
Anyone needing an experienced LOGO programmer?
Euh, 128 4/7 degrees? I'm still puzzled by what's so lucky about that though...
I hit the 'submit' button, consider the last post a good hint. Here's the rest of my answer:
Let's call the 'life expectancy' in 'situation P' P, in 'situation Q' Q, etc.
Then the following holds:
A bit of algebra yields that P equals 6, so my answer is that on average the crawlers live 6 days.
Nice one! I think I have the answer though:
There's 4 distinguishable situations:
And how many squares does a chessboard contain?
This is a great puzzle. STOP READING if you don't want to know the answer.
The solution rests with the fact that there must be some a priori bounded probability distribution of the offered amounts of gold; it can't be infinitely variable. (Similar to how you can't "choose an integer at random," with uniform distribution, without first specifying a range.) If the amount on the knight's piece of paper is within a factor of two of the upper limit, he can only lose (a large amount) by switching. And if it's within a factor of two of the lower limit, he can only gain (a small amount) by switching. These endpoints exactly cancel the roughly 25% expected gain from switching from amounts in between. Since the knight doesn't know if his first paper is on the highest end of the probability distribution, or on the lowest end, or in between, his overall expectation for switching turns out to be even money.
Quite funny, I agree with the conclusion, but here's the CORRECT REASONING:
The only event in the story where chance plays a part is when the knight chooses one of the two papers. The 'strategy' that the knight uses to come to his choice does not at all effects his winning expectations. Not even the fact that he can see the amount on one of the two papers, as he has not a clue of how high the usual reward is.
(A different game would be if the king would give the knight a piece of paper with an amount of gold written on it, flipped a fair coin and wrote, depending on the outcome of the flip, either half or double that amount on a second paper. In that case the knight had better switched.)
How typical btw. that even freshly rescued damsels have to stick their noses into their rescuing knight's affairs.
Euh, 18?
Because these menu's come with nasi and all the other menu's come with white rice?