I don't want my neighbor to be working and still not be able to feed his family
Then maybe your neighbor should have had fewer kids? Or maybe he should do something worth as much as it costs to feed his family?
What's more, I don't want to subsize the company that is making millions off of low-paid staff which then claims benefits.
Find a company with a large low-paid workforce. Now look at how much they pay in taxes. Now look at how much their employees receive in government benefits. You may notice that the former quantity is greater than the latter, typically much greater. What value is the government adding to this transaction, exactly?
I'd rather employers pay their fair share.
As long as there is no slavery in law or in fact, then the workers are getting paid the least they will accept and the most the company will pay. That's fair. Forcing the company to pay the workers more than that is no more sustainable than forcing the workers to accept less than that.
If that mean the unemployment rate is a little bit higher, so be it. I'd rather my tax dollars be used to help people that truly need it than some company's bottom line.
You don't care that there are more poor people, as long as they're all equally poor?
Secondly, not all price controls are bad. Some are necessary as the market is not always optimal.
What is about disinterested and clueless third parties that makes them superior to market actors in determining prices?
For example, there is a reason for the minimum wage - otherwise you have more and more working poor that rely on benefits
In exchange we have non-working poor that rely on benefits. Why was that a good trade-off?
or alternatively you can cut all benefits and bring back poor laws and workhouses
Why not cut benefits and not bring back poor laws and workhouses? All of the above just serve to subsidize one lifestyle or another. Stop controlling people and goddammit they might just figure out that scarcity is inescapable but wealth is not a zero-sum game.
There's a reason why we dumped that system.
Because not only did it not work, it also didn't get votes. Now we have a system that doesn't work but has at least guaranteed single-party control of every major urban area for over half a century now!
What are taxes, exactly? And what happens when you stop paying them?
There is nothing virtuous about doing what is required of you. Virtue only has meaning when it is not compulsory. And what it is about public servants that makes them so much more virtuous than the rest of us?
You can need it all you want, that doesn't mean you're going to get it. Medical procedures are not free. Even in the socialist workers' paradise, there are only finitely many doctors and finitely many hours in the day. There will always be more "need" for health care then there is time and effort available to provide it. This is called scarcity, and you cannot overcome it with wishful thinking. The insurance market, as distorted and manipulative as it may be, is in many ways just a reflection of this reality. Abolish it and replace it with single payer or single provider and you will still have scarcity. When you run out of rich people's money to confiscate, you will have to take on debt. When no one has spare cash to lend, you will have to ration care. When rationing care is not enough, you will have to control people's lifestyles. When that doesn't work,...?
People say socialized medicine works well where it is practiced. But the clock is still running. The great advancements of wealth in industry, science, and technology have enabled the explosive growth of population and the social safety net to cover them. What happens when human ingenuity can no longer sustain us?
The ability to deny coverage to higher risk individuals has been eliminated with Obamacare, and that's a good thing.
That's step one. When that inevitably fails because it drastically increases the insurance costs of healthy people, we head to step two: single payer. When the fundamental and inescapable problem of scarcity rears its ugly head, we head to step three: rationed care. Which brings back to where we started. So why are we playing this game, exactly?
It amazes me that someone whose philosophy has rationalized the use of theft and violence by the government would describe their opponents as "sociopaths". If people so wanted to help each other, why did you have force them to do it?
There were plenty of people who foresaw the consequences, they were just derided as obstructionists.
Re:PHP 6.0 without the stupid?
on
PHP 5.5.0 Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Indeed, but the problem is type coercion and not dynamic typing. You can have a dynamically typed language that does not coerce unlike types to make life "easier".
Fine, they've added cell phones to their methodology. It still doesn't create a representative sample. Did they ask how many of the landline respondents have cell phones to account for the overlapping sub-population? Did they ask people with landlines how many adults lived in their household? Did they generalize the opinion of one householder to the entire household? Did they account for deactivated, temporary, and multiple cell phones? Did they account for the outsized influence of people who answer to strange numbers and choose to participate in surveys? How did they survey Luddites and the homeless? Did they control for the wording of the question? Did they randomize the order of questions?
None of this is unique to Pew or this survey, but you can call it "robust" all day long, it doesn't change the fact that it's a meaningless number one step removed from being pulled out of a hat.
There are other factors in determining the "robustness" of a poll besides how the questions are worded and how many people were surveyed. For example, what people were surveyed, and what population they represent. Pew surveys homes (not individuals) with landline phones (which younger people don't bother with) that are listed in the phone book. That is not even a representative sampling of households, nevertheless of individuals.
This idea seems to encapsulate the belief that everything in the world is perfect. Laws are never arbitrary, enforcement is perfectly consistent, and knowledge is uniform. In the reality we actually live in, the sentiment ought to be "if the Nepalese don't want people filming anything, they should tell them that at the summit, or else confiscate their equipment, or levy a fee prior to entry." If they're not going to be upfront about it, that ought to be considered their own fault.
I'm sure the guy could have said anything he wanted while he was up on top of that mountain. The right to say anything is not the right to come into your house and take pictures and broadcast them to the world without your permission, even if you have invited me to dinner. His "human right to free speech and free press" were not abridged by the fee to broadcast from Everest. He was still free to go home and say anything he wanted about anything. He could have turned to the Sherpa standing next to him and said whatever he wanted. He could have taken photographs, written a story or poem or essay.
Hence, "free press" and not just "free speech".
Many libertarians (I'm not saying this is you, drinky), go off the rails on this issue. It ends up with "speech = money, money = speech" which dead ends at "paying people to vote". It is a sentiment that comes from believing that the people with the most money have your best interest at heart, which comes from missing Daddy.
Nobody has your best interest at heart, except you. Anyone who claims to believe in the benevolence of abstract others has no idea what libertarianism is about.
I don't blame Nepal for being very stingy with their heritage sites.
It's not being stingy, it's changing the terms after the fact. If they don't want video recorded and transmitted, then they should charge a broadcaster's fee to anyone who brings a device capable of recording and transmitting video. We could go on and on with this "but the law said! the law must be followed!" bullshit all day long, but at the end of the day the law is never 100% clear and no one knows the law 100%, even in his own country, nonetheless a foreign one. Upfront enforcement should be the norm wherever possible, as it leaves nothing to doubt.
The West believes about every place on earth, about every culture, "Fuck them, I do what I want because I've this big bag of money hanging between my legs" and yet when the people whose home they are in want to charge for the goodies it's all, "FREE SPEECH!! FREE SPEECH!! HUMAN RIGHTS!!". This ends in the "human right of white people to exploit the Third World".
The funny thing about hosting someone with a "big bag of money hanging between [his] legs" is that you get to negotiate how much of that money the person will give to you in exchange for what you can offer to him. Someone running the gateway to the most well known mountain in the world should probably have some idea of how to negotiate with foreigners who want to climb it. No one has ever been "exploited" except because of his own ignorance or gullibility.
Let's not bullshit. The libertarians who make the most noise (and I'm not saying this is you, drink) don't give one flip about human rights. They're children of privilege who are trying to press their advantage, nothing more.
Indeed, there are natural rights (life, liberty, and property), and the rest is all privileges and entitlements, none of which is a "human right".
While you are correct that, in practice, the President is largely a powerless figurehead, the President actually does possess a number of useful powers. The problem is that most Presidents nowadays do not use them. The President has the veto power to reign in legislative excesses. The President has the power to commute and pardon prisoners to reign in judicial excesses. And the President has the ability to appoint the officers of government and terminate the employees of executive agencies. Although the extent of the President's independent warmaking powers is open to considerable debate, the President is indisputably the commander-in-chief and so has the power to set military priorities in peacetime and strategies in wartime. Of course, taking a bold position and exercising any of these powers judiciously would open the President up to personal responsibility, which means he couldn't shift blame to other people as much.
Who the hell thinks making 5% over inflation every year for 20 years is "very conservative"? That is quite a successful investment plan! Also, it only takes one of those heirs being profligate to destroy all of your "math". Moreover, real wealth cannot "multiply forever, faster and faster" unless economic activity as a whole does likewise. In other words, for every fat cat sitting in his mansion, somebody (most likely, many somebodies) had to be doing something useful with that money.
25 mpg = 4 gal/100 mi 50 mpg = 2 gal/100 mi 75 mpg = 1.33 gal/100 mi
Look at gal/100 mi as a function of mpg. The difference between 50 and 25 is 25 and the difference between 2 and 4 is -2, so the slope of the tangent line is -2/25 = -0.08. The difference between 75 and 50 is 25 and the difference between 1.33 and 2 is -0.66, so the slope of the tangent line is -0.66/25 = -0.026. So the "linear" function has different slopes between different points, which is impossible, hence it is not linear at all. In fact, the curve is hyperbolic, which you might recognize from the fact that you are reciprocating one quantity to obtain the other.
In WPA-Personal (PSK) mode, the password is a shared secret, meaning that it is never passed over the air. Instead, authenticity is established by successful decryption: if I can use the password to decrypt a message I received from you, then I know that you knew the password when you encrypted it.
Technically, the password itself is not used as the key directly. It is repeatedly hashed with the SSID as a salt value to determine the pairwise master key (PMK) which is the actual encryption/decryption key. Since that key is a password equivalent (knowing it is as good as knowing the password), it is only used for the handshake process, which establishes two other keys, the PTK (pairwise transient key, used for unicast traffic) and the GTK (groupwise transient key, used for broadcast traffic), and those keys have no relation to the password.
Both binary and decimal-in-the-ascii-format should actually have about the same entropy.
Since this discussion is about Mersenne primes and not arbitrary numbers, it doesn't make any sense to talk about entropy. In base-2, a Mersenne prime consists of a single symbol repeated many times whereas in base-10 it consists of (at most) 10 symbols repeated without any discernible pattern. The former is trivially compressible, the latter is virtually incompressible.
but plenty of higher order entropy compressors would see them as nearly equivalent
The only way to compress a Mersenne number in base-10 (or any other base not a power of 2) would be to recognize it as a Mersenne number.
Walmart does not care one bit if you take your money elsewhere. Your spending is completely irrelevant to even one store's sales figures, and unless you have an abundance of alternatives (in which case why are you shopping at Walmart?), you'll be back eventually anyway.
In the best case, a Walmart cashier could hope to become a store manager in 15-20 years, but that doesn't grant ownership of the store. As for attempting to obtain a controlling stake in a multi-billion dollar company with a minimum wage job, surely you are joking?
What you say might make sense for "mom and pop" retail but the market is dominated by "big box" stores, for which your "advice" is anything but.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want my neighbor to be working and still not be able to feed his family
Then maybe your neighbor should have had fewer kids? Or maybe he should do something worth as much as it costs to feed his family?
What's more, I don't want to subsize the company that is making millions off of low-paid staff which then claims benefits.
Find a company with a large low-paid workforce. Now look at how much they pay in taxes. Now look at how much their employees receive in government benefits. You may notice that the former quantity is greater than the latter, typically much greater. What value is the government adding to this transaction, exactly?
I'd rather employers pay their fair share.
As long as there is no slavery in law or in fact, then the workers are getting paid the least they will accept and the most the company will pay. That's fair. Forcing the company to pay the workers more than that is no more sustainable than forcing the workers to accept less than that.
If that mean the unemployment rate is a little bit higher, so be it. I'd rather my tax dollars be used to help people that truly need it than some company's bottom line.
You don't care that there are more poor people, as long as they're all equally poor?
Secondly, not all price controls are bad. Some are necessary as the market is not always optimal.
What is about disinterested and clueless third parties that makes them superior to market actors in determining prices?
For example, there is a reason for the minimum wage - otherwise you have more and more working poor that rely on benefits
In exchange we have non-working poor that rely on benefits. Why was that a good trade-off?
or alternatively you can cut all benefits and bring back poor laws and workhouses
Why not cut benefits and not bring back poor laws and workhouses? All of the above just serve to subsidize one lifestyle or another. Stop controlling people and goddammit they might just figure out that scarcity is inescapable but wealth is not a zero-sum game.
There's a reason why we dumped that system.
Because not only did it not work, it also didn't get votes. Now we have a system that doesn't work but has at least guaranteed single-party control of every major urban area for over half a century now!
What are taxes, exactly? And what happens when you stop paying them?
There is nothing virtuous about doing what is required of you. Virtue only has meaning when it is not compulsory. And what it is about public servants that makes them so much more virtuous than the rest of us?
We don't need insurance; we need health care.
You can need it all you want, that doesn't mean you're going to get it. Medical procedures are not free. Even in the socialist workers' paradise, there are only finitely many doctors and finitely many hours in the day. There will always be more "need" for health care then there is time and effort available to provide it. This is called scarcity, and you cannot overcome it with wishful thinking. The insurance market, as distorted and manipulative as it may be, is in many ways just a reflection of this reality. Abolish it and replace it with single payer or single provider and you will still have scarcity. When you run out of rich people's money to confiscate, you will have to take on debt. When no one has spare cash to lend, you will have to ration care. When rationing care is not enough, you will have to control people's lifestyles. When that doesn't work, ...?
People say socialized medicine works well where it is practiced. But the clock is still running. The great advancements of wealth in industry, science, and technology have enabled the explosive growth of population and the social safety net to cover them. What happens when human ingenuity can no longer sustain us?
The ability to deny coverage to higher risk individuals has been eliminated with Obamacare, and that's a good thing.
That's step one. When that inevitably fails because it drastically increases the insurance costs of healthy people, we head to step two: single payer. When the fundamental and inescapable problem of scarcity rears its ugly head, we head to step three: rationed care. Which brings back to where we started. So why are we playing this game, exactly?
It amazes me that someone whose philosophy has rationalized the use of theft and violence by the government would describe their opponents as "sociopaths". If people so wanted to help each other, why did you have force them to do it?
In order for capitalism to "fail", it would have to exist in the first place.
There were plenty of people who foresaw the consequences, they were just derided as obstructionists.
Indeed, but the problem is type coercion and not dynamic typing. You can have a dynamically typed language that does not coerce unlike types to make life "easier".
The burden of proof falls on the poll taker to show that the sample is unbiased. Pew (like most polling outfits) has failed to meet that burden.
Pew surveys homes (not individuals) with landline phones (which younger people don't bother with) that are listed in the phone book.
This claim is wrong. I admitted as much. It doesn't change my point.
Fine, they've added cell phones to their methodology. It still doesn't create a representative sample. Did they ask how many of the landline respondents have cell phones to account for the overlapping sub-population? Did they ask people with landlines how many adults lived in their household? Did they generalize the opinion of one householder to the entire household? Did they account for deactivated, temporary, and multiple cell phones? Did they account for the outsized influence of people who answer to strange numbers and choose to participate in surveys? How did they survey Luddites and the homeless? Did they control for the wording of the question? Did they randomize the order of questions?
None of this is unique to Pew or this survey, but you can call it "robust" all day long, it doesn't change the fact that it's a meaningless number one step removed from being pulled out of a hat.
There are other factors in determining the "robustness" of a poll besides how the questions are worded and how many people were surveyed. For example, what people were surveyed, and what population they represent. Pew surveys homes (not individuals) with landline phones (which younger people don't bother with) that are listed in the phone book. That is not even a representative sampling of households, nevertheless of individuals.
If you don't like it, don't go to Nepal.
This idea seems to encapsulate the belief that everything in the world is perfect. Laws are never arbitrary, enforcement is perfectly consistent, and knowledge is uniform. In the reality we actually live in, the sentiment ought to be "if the Nepalese don't want people filming anything, they should tell them that at the summit, or else confiscate their equipment, or levy a fee prior to entry." If they're not going to be upfront about it, that ought to be considered their own fault.
It's not really up to anyone outside Nepal to tell them how to change their laws, they're an independent nation.
If they're so independent, then surely they can withstand the criticism of outsiders? If it offends them so much, they can just ignore it.
This isn't a human rights issue or something similarly abusive to a group of people.
Unless you consider freedom of movement a right.
If they need you to get a broadcast permit, however ridiculous it seems, get a broadcast permit.
Except that the requirement was not clear before the fact. Capricious enforcement is in some ways worse than heavy handed but consistent enforcement.
I'm sure the guy could have said anything he wanted while he was up on top of that mountain. The right to say anything is not the right to come into your house and take pictures and broadcast them to the world without your permission, even if you have invited me to dinner. His "human right to free speech and free press" were not abridged by the fee to broadcast from Everest. He was still free to go home and say anything he wanted about anything. He could have turned to the Sherpa standing next to him and said whatever he wanted. He could have taken photographs, written a story or poem or essay.
Hence, "free press" and not just "free speech".
Many libertarians (I'm not saying this is you, drinky), go off the rails on this issue. It ends up with "speech = money, money = speech" which dead ends at "paying people to vote". It is a sentiment that comes from believing that the people with the most money have your best interest at heart, which comes from missing Daddy.
Nobody has your best interest at heart, except you. Anyone who claims to believe in the benevolence of abstract others has no idea what libertarianism is about.
I don't blame Nepal for being very stingy with their heritage sites.
It's not being stingy, it's changing the terms after the fact. If they don't want video recorded and transmitted, then they should charge a broadcaster's fee to anyone who brings a device capable of recording and transmitting video. We could go on and on with this "but the law said! the law must be followed!" bullshit all day long, but at the end of the day the law is never 100% clear and no one knows the law 100%, even in his own country, nonetheless a foreign one. Upfront enforcement should be the norm wherever possible, as it leaves nothing to doubt.
The West believes about every place on earth, about every culture, "Fuck them, I do what I want because I've this big bag of money hanging between my legs" and yet when the people whose home they are in want to charge for the goodies it's all, "FREE SPEECH!! FREE SPEECH!! HUMAN RIGHTS!!". This ends in the "human right of white people to exploit the Third World".
The funny thing about hosting someone with a "big bag of money hanging between [his] legs" is that you get to negotiate how much of that money the person will give to you in exchange for what you can offer to him. Someone running the gateway to the most well known mountain in the world should probably have some idea of how to negotiate with foreigners who want to climb it. No one has ever been "exploited" except because of his own ignorance or gullibility.
Let's not bullshit. The libertarians who make the most noise (and I'm not saying this is you, drink) don't give one flip about human rights. They're children of privilege who are trying to press their advantage, nothing more.
Indeed, there are natural rights (life, liberty, and property), and the rest is all privileges and entitlements, none of which is a "human right".
While you are correct that, in practice, the President is largely a powerless figurehead, the President actually does possess a number of useful powers. The problem is that most Presidents nowadays do not use them. The President has the veto power to reign in legislative excesses. The President has the power to commute and pardon prisoners to reign in judicial excesses. And the President has the ability to appoint the officers of government and terminate the employees of executive agencies. Although the extent of the President's independent warmaking powers is open to considerable debate, the President is indisputably the commander-in-chief and so has the power to set military priorities in peacetime and strategies in wartime. Of course, taking a bold position and exercising any of these powers judiciously would open the President up to personal responsibility, which means he couldn't shift blame to other people as much.
Who the hell thinks making 5% over inflation every year for 20 years is "very conservative"? That is quite a successful investment plan! Also, it only takes one of those heirs being profligate to destroy all of your "math". Moreover, real wealth cannot "multiply forever, faster and faster" unless economic activity as a whole does likewise. In other words, for every fat cat sitting in his mansion, somebody (most likely, many somebodies) had to be doing something useful with that money.
The entire point of MariaDB is that it is a fork of MySQL which retains compatibility. It is, for the most part, a drop-in replacement.
25 mpg = 4 gal/100 mi
50 mpg = 2 gal/100 mi
75 mpg = 1.33 gal/100 mi
Look at gal/100 mi as a function of mpg. The difference between 50 and 25 is 25 and the difference between 2 and 4 is -2, so the slope of the tangent line is -2/25 = -0.08. The difference between 75 and 50 is 25 and the difference between 1.33 and 2 is -0.66, so the slope of the tangent line is -0.66/25 = -0.026. So the "linear" function has different slopes between different points, which is impossible, hence it is not linear at all. In fact, the curve is hyperbolic, which you might recognize from the fact that you are reciprocating one quantity to obtain the other.
I guess the change in alcohol consumption patterns during Prohibition was just a coincidence then?
In WPA-Personal (PSK) mode, the password is a shared secret, meaning that it is never passed over the air. Instead, authenticity is established by successful decryption: if I can use the password to decrypt a message I received from you, then I know that you knew the password when you encrypted it.
Technically, the password itself is not used as the key directly. It is repeatedly hashed with the SSID as a salt value to determine the pairwise master key (PMK) which is the actual encryption/decryption key. Since that key is a password equivalent (knowing it is as good as knowing the password), it is only used for the handshake process, which establishes two other keys, the PTK (pairwise transient key, used for unicast traffic) and the GTK (groupwise transient key, used for broadcast traffic), and those keys have no relation to the password.
Yeah, that's called BUYING AN UNLOCKED PHONE, and you can do it at pretty much any carrier (and on just about any model phone) in the U.S.
The letters CDMA don't exist in your universe, do they?
Both binary and decimal-in-the-ascii-format should actually have about the same entropy.
Since this discussion is about Mersenne primes and not arbitrary numbers, it doesn't make any sense to talk about entropy. In base-2, a Mersenne prime consists of a single symbol repeated many times whereas in base-10 it consists of (at most) 10 symbols repeated without any discernible pattern. The former is trivially compressible, the latter is virtually incompressible.
but plenty of higher order entropy compressors would see them as nearly equivalent
The only way to compress a Mersenne number in base-10 (or any other base not a power of 2) would be to recognize it as a Mersenne number.
Walmart does not care one bit if you take your money elsewhere. Your spending is completely irrelevant to even one store's sales figures, and unless you have an abundance of alternatives (in which case why are you shopping at Walmart?), you'll be back eventually anyway.
In the best case, a Walmart cashier could hope to become a store manager in 15-20 years, but that doesn't grant ownership of the store. As for attempting to obtain a controlling stake in a multi-billion dollar company with a minimum wage job, surely you are joking?
What you say might make sense for "mom and pop" retail but the market is dominated by "big box" stores, for which your "advice" is anything but.