How can the state not have an interest in revenge? Thats what a Justice system ~is~, an organized system of revenge. "Justice" is just the appropriate amount of revenge on the appropriate people. Anything else is just a bunch of made up bullshit.
On the other hand, one should never perform labor for others for free or without expecting something in return. It is entirely selfish of someone to expect others to perform labor/favors for them for nothing.
Maybe your sisters problem was that she didnt trust she would be compensated when there perhaps was no basis for that lack of trust. However, there is nothing 'selfish' about expecting and/or demanding compensation.
Scientists are members of this species like everyone else, and as such they have the same faults and failings.
As much as Im a huge fan of science, trying to say that someone is more or less trustworthy based on their job title is, well, religion. There are phd level scientists I wouldnt trust with a wooden nickel and burger flippers Id trust with my life.
Seems to me the obvious economics of the article is that, well, Indians are becoming less poor and more rich, thus driving the move to outsource to other countries.
There will equitable wealth distribution when there is equitable effort and equitable ability and equitable initiative. Until then, it would be the height of unfairness for there to be 'equitable' wealth distribution.
Re:Maximizing Composability and Relax NG Trivia
on
Tim Bray Says RELAX
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
From the Haskell implementation:
"This document does not describe any algorithms for transforming a RELAX NG schema into simplified form, nor for determining whether a RELAX NG schema is correct."
From the Jing implementation:
"This version of Jing implements:
* RELAX NG 1.0 Specification,
* RELAX NG Compact Syntax, and
* parts of RELAX NG DTD Compatibility, specifically checking of ID/IDREF/IDREFS."
also from the Jing implementation:
"Jing also has experimental support for schema languages other than RELAX NG; specifically
* W3C XML Schema (based on Xerces-J);
* Schematron;
* Namespace Routing Language."
Implement the same level of functionality in Haskell as is being implemented in Jing, then come back and compare.
Also, number of lines of code is only one standard, how does the Haskell implementation hold up under heavy loads? How well does it scale?
I personally think Jing tries to do too much, and I think there is definitely a need for a better java implementation of a RelaxNG validator, but your post (largely dealing with a non-sensical argument about semantics) is rather lazy.
Controversial because it implies that species may be able to subconsciously choose which feature is 'evolved' to be the dominant factor.
This implies no such thing. What this implies is that, all else being equal, the lizards with the shorter legs were able to climb higher than the lizards with long legs (if the lizards with long legs could even climb) and so more lizards with short legs survive to reproduce than lizards with long legs. Im not sure how it was a 'choice', on the part of the lizard, to be born with long or short legs.
This also implies that other forms of getting away from the predator were not successful; Its possible many lizards with both long and short legs hid under rocks, burrowed in the ground, etc but only the ones who climbed trees survived. Again, Im not sure how the type of predator is a choice of the lizards; what if the predator was some sort of hawk? Would the lizards who climbed trees survive to reproduce more than those who hid under rocks?
Much as in Diamond's book - it was not a choice of early peoples to wind up in environments that did not have native domesticable plant species that they could exploit when the time came (when the mammal herds they were following became extinct). Allthough for the wrong reasons youre right that the development of agriculture is ultimately responsible for a large part of modern human behavior.
The lizards werent and arent demonstrating any change in behavior; their behavioral choice as it were was to survive. All this study shows is that the lizards who were physically capable of choosing the tactic of climbing trees, and did so, survived to reproduce while all others apparently didnt.
Sorry, but youre just being lazy. Its the things youre not good at that you need to work on, not the things you ~are~ good at. If you only stick to areas that you excel in allready, you arent 'learning' anything.
No, Im sorry, but you dont really want to draw and play music that badly, because you gave up before you learned how. Your words say one thing, but your stated actions indicate another.
Very well said. I have some experience in writing financial software, and the apparent faith so many scientists put in software models has always baffled me. I just cant trust the judgement of a scientist who points to the results of modeling as proof of something; it can never be more than a possible indication.
I completely agree with you, except for the fact that I dont think this is going to decrease the likelyhood of civil strife (bloodshed). This election was a choosing of sides...the next election 2 years away will determine whether or not we fall into civil war.
Yeah, but then if things are so bad, or youre so bad at what you do, that you have to get a job with the govt just to be be employed at all, youve got worse problems; youre living in a third world country.
Ehh, I dont think so. If they had won something like 2/3'rds control, you could say mandate. Im actually suprised they didnt win more than they did; I would have estimated the anti-Bush-thus-Republican feeling to be stronger than the results indicate. I think the many repubs using the tactic of distancing themselves from the Prez made a smart move.
These are not examples of collective intelligence, but aggregate intelligence. Each one of those examples will be no better than the aggregate ability of the individuals comprising the group. At no point is there a 'thing' seperate from the individuals; though there is the impression of such, that is merely a trick of perspective.
Yes, the Standard Social Science model is bunk, and yes everything is genetic/biological. However, youre making quite a few assumptions from the limited amount of data we have as to how intelligence works, let alone what exactly it is. In particular, you seem to mistake a lack of predisposition for a lack of ability. Also, you seem to take it for granted that ones innate intelligence is ones finite supply. If you are under the impression that ones innate intelligence is some sort of finite thing that cannot be added to or increased, please point in the direction of any study that indicates such a thing. IQs are measurements of rate, not of capacity.
Exactly. While the conservatives wish to base legislation on religous morality, liberals wish to base legislation on philosophal (secular religous) morality.
The income tax is and has always been legal under the Constitution - its an excise tax.
You perform labor in exchange for money, youre engaging in a commercial transaction; trade, and as such it is and always has been subject to the excise clause, as much as you or I would wish it otherwise.
The first income tax, though it wasnt called such, was the tax on whiskey which started the Whiskey Rebellion. The sellers of whiskey were taxed based on how much they sold, i.e their income was taxed. There were further instances of income taxes being established for temporary periods before, during and after the Civil War.
If the subject were more esoteric I might give links, but anyone with an index finger can confirm this given Google and five minutes.
(The Civil War by the way wasnt about states rights, unless of course you mean the states rights to enslave American citizens and fire on federal troops; indirectly it was about individual rights - the right to not be owned by others. Directly, it was about a political entity, the Confederacy, attacking and firing on federal property and federal troops, namely Fort Sumpter. THAT is what started the war, and if the Confederacy had never attacked Fort Sumpter there is a strong possibility they actually would have successfully seceded.)
If private industry were not viable, then what stocks could people own that would be paying out dividends? Where would the dividends come from? What would the trust fund be making money from?
Or are you talking at a state level, wherein anachronistic labor/business laws cause some states to have third-world economies and rely on govt handouts while others have more sane labor/business laws and thus are forced to indirectly subsidise the third-world states? So the rich in third-world states own stocks in companies that are headquarted in non-third-world states? Perhaps the people in the third-world states should maybe get their govt's to, you know, join the 21st century, or at least the 20th?
Yes, lets back our currency not with human labor and creativity (the possibility of valuation for which is infinite), but a finite supply of a natural resource. That way, before any economic expansion can take place, we first must acquire a larger supply of that resource. Oh yes, brilliant. Yes, lets return to the ultimate causation of the rape of South America by the Spanish and the rape of North America by the US (among many many other examples). What an amazing idea. Yes, lets return to when the purpose of labor wasnt to create more wealth, but aquire it. Yes, lets go back to a system that requires at all times a certain amount of protectionism (and thus lack of opportunity) so that a certain amount of the finite natural resource backing the currency is always kept in and never paid out. Yes, lets return to the system wherein, ultimately at some point due to the necessity of protectionism, war and conquest are the only way an economy can expand. Oh yes, superb.
Not backing a currency by a finite natural resource, or indeed by any material thing at all, was the second greatest conceptual achievement of mankind after the development of agriculture, IMO. Since there is no objective value to anything, its rediculous to try to base ones currency on a (falsely) objective standard. We here in the US only some 30 odd years ago finally cut the umbilical cord completely, and if it hadnt been done we wouldnt be having this conversation because the technology never would have gotten as widespread as rapidly, if it had been invented at all.
Youre kidding...someone asks you where the govt gets the money and your answer is, in effect, that they print it? Do your mommy and daddy know your on the computer?
Your understanding of economics is along the lines of religous conservatives understanding of evolution.
it was to provide a link between several acres of developable land and the airport.
Right. Makes perfect sense from the developers point of view - $50 grand or so to buy a politician to steal the money from others rather than pay for building the bridge themselves.
Of course, you havent explained why the developers couldnt pay for the bridge themselves, then recoup the money in the cost of the housing/development projects they are going to build and profit from. Then, when Joe from California retires, he buys the place and in the cost absorbs the cost of the bridge he is then - not previously, but then - benefiting from.
This just helps explain why the Alaskan servant is against the database...it would be easier for us to find out which of those developers are his friends/family members, and/or how much stock he owns in the development companies, and/or how much of the land to be developed is owned by him/his friends/family members.
Here's an interesting idea for a law: as it is now, when the Pres takes office, he has to divest himself of all holdings in companies, stocks etc. Lets require the same from members of congress. And to sweeten it, lets tack on a part that says any congresman sitting on any comittee who has recieved donations from any party involved in any of the comittees' business be required to abstain from any vote or action of that committee regarding that particular piece of business.
Well, you seem to take it as a given that people should invest for the purpose of benfiting others rather than themselves...are you saying pork spending should be based on your personal religous beliefs?
Are the voters not mere mortals as well? If an individual would only invest their money on something that benefits themselves (i.e they are rational), what makes you think that individuals behavior is going to be any different when standing in a voting booth?
Im sorry, your post just really doesnt make too much sense.
All elected officials should act in the best interests of their constituents- and that IS the best interests of the country as a whole.
Yes well, unfortunately we have many (if not most) politicians who seem to think they represent their political party in Congress, rather than their constituents.
The problem comes in when the pork doesn't go to the consituents- but instead to a K-Street contractor
Well no, the problem comes when some idiot thinks they actually have the ability to determine that people in District A are more deserving of the people in District B's money than the people in District B themselves. The govt Has. No. Money. Pork isnt coming from the govt, its coming from other people in other parts of the country. Its idiots trying to 'run' an ecosystem.
You can't tell me that a $223 million project like Ted Steven's "Bridge to Nowhere" didn't mean a hell of a lot of local jobs for an area of only 8050 people
Well, that money didnt just appear by magic. It was taken from people somewhere else in the country. So $223 million dollars worth (actually more - $223 mill was left after the govt took its cut) of jobs elsewhere were eliminated so that the Alaskan servant could bribe his employers.
The group that watched porn indicated that they were more accepting of some "rape myths" (ie, "'No' doesn't always mean 'no'"). So porn did have an effect.
As my wife told me on our third date "'No' sometimes means do it harder, silly".
The fact is, No ~doesnt~ always mean No. All this study really says is:
When college males viewed non-campus approved information in the form of pronographic video, the males had a higher tendency to question the accuracy of fundamentalist campus dogma.
Of course No most often does mean No, but not all the time. Little fundamentalist rules like 'No always means No' are catchy, but flat out fucking wrong.
Its kind of silly when you think about it; if a male intends to rape a female, whether she says no or not is completely irrelevent; its about what he wants, not what she wants. If the male is concerned enough about the female to listen to what she is saying (let alone care), I find it hard for someone to be able to establish a basis for a claim that rape was his intent. Yes, young males need to be reminded that young females - hell, young people in general - give out mixed signals, and so they need to give the female the benefit of the doubt. But young females also need to be reminded to try not to give out mixed signals. Adolescence (which in general ends at about 18 for those who dont go to college, and about 25-30 for those who do) is a fucked up period of peoples lives, full of insecurities and uncertainties as exhibited daily here on/. . Mistakes and misunderstandings are going to occur, and throwing these misunderstandings into the same category as a malevolent and malicious act is nothing but fundamentalist bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
Go ahead, join a gang ("Unionize" as you call it).
Just means that much more work for those of us who arent incompetent. Unions are for those who cant compete.
How can the state not have an interest in revenge? Thats what a Justice system ~is~, an organized system of revenge. "Justice" is just the appropriate amount of revenge on the appropriate people. Anything else is just a bunch of made up bullshit.
On the other hand, one should never perform labor for others for free or without expecting something in return. It is entirely selfish of someone to expect others to perform labor/favors for them for nothing.
Maybe your sisters problem was that she didnt trust she would be compensated when there perhaps was no basis for that lack of trust. However, there is nothing 'selfish' about expecting and/or demanding compensation.
Bullshit.
Scientists are members of this species like everyone else, and as such they have the same faults and failings.
As much as Im a huge fan of science, trying to say that someone is more or less trustworthy based on their job title is, well, religion. There are phd level scientists I wouldnt trust with a wooden nickel and burger flippers Id trust with my life.
Seems to me the obvious economics of the article is that, well, Indians are becoming less poor and more rich, thus driving the move to outsource to other countries.
There will equitable wealth distribution when there is equitable effort and equitable ability and equitable initiative. Until then, it would be the height of unfairness for there to be 'equitable' wealth distribution.
From the Haskell implementation:
"This document does not describe any algorithms for transforming a RELAX NG schema into simplified form, nor for determining whether a RELAX NG schema is correct."
From the Jing implementation:
"This version of Jing implements:
* RELAX NG 1.0 Specification,
* RELAX NG Compact Syntax, and
* parts of RELAX NG DTD Compatibility, specifically checking of ID/IDREF/IDREFS."
also from the Jing implementation:
"Jing also has experimental support for schema languages other than RELAX NG; specifically
* W3C XML Schema (based on Xerces-J);
* Schematron;
* Namespace Routing Language."
Implement the same level of functionality in Haskell as is being implemented in Jing, then come back and compare.
Also, number of lines of code is only one standard, how does the Haskell implementation hold up under heavy loads? How well does it scale?
I personally think Jing tries to do too much, and I think there is definitely a need for a better java implementation of a RelaxNG validator, but your post (largely dealing with a non-sensical argument about semantics) is rather lazy.
Controversial because it implies that species may be able to subconsciously choose which feature is 'evolved' to be the dominant factor.
This implies no such thing. What this implies is that, all else being equal, the lizards with the shorter legs were able to climb higher than the lizards with long legs (if the lizards with long legs could even climb) and so more lizards with short legs survive to reproduce than lizards with long legs. Im not sure how it was a 'choice', on the part of the lizard, to be born with long or short legs.
This also implies that other forms of getting away from the predator were not successful; Its possible many lizards with both long and short legs hid under rocks, burrowed in the ground, etc but only the ones who climbed trees survived. Again, Im not sure how the type of predator is a choice of the lizards; what if the predator was some sort of hawk? Would the lizards who climbed trees survive to reproduce more than those who hid under rocks?
Much as in Diamond's book - it was not a choice of early peoples to wind up in environments that did not have native domesticable plant species that they could exploit when the time came (when the mammal herds they were following became extinct). Allthough for the wrong reasons youre right that the development of agriculture is ultimately responsible for a large part of modern human behavior.
The lizards werent and arent demonstrating any change in behavior; their behavioral choice as it were was to survive. All this study shows is that the lizards who were physically capable of choosing the tactic of climbing trees, and did so, survived to reproduce while all others apparently didnt.
Sorry, but youre just being lazy. Its the things youre not good at that you need to work on, not the things you ~are~ good at. If you only stick to areas that you excel in allready, you arent 'learning' anything.
No, Im sorry, but you dont really want to draw and play music that badly, because you gave up before you learned how. Your words say one thing, but your stated actions indicate another.
Very well said. I have some experience in writing financial software, and the apparent faith so many scientists put in software models has always baffled me. I just cant trust the judgement of a scientist who points to the results of modeling as proof of something; it can never be more than a possible indication.
I completely agree with you, except for the fact that I dont think this is going to decrease the likelyhood of civil strife (bloodshed). This election was a choosing of sides...the next election 2 years away will determine whether or not we fall into civil war.
Which always cracks me up, considering that citizens exercising of their freedoms and rights is the only reason states exist in the first place.
Yeah, but then if things are so bad, or youre so bad at what you do, that you have to get a job with the govt just to be be employed at all, youve got worse problems; youre living in a third world country.
Ehh, I dont think so. If they had won something like 2/3'rds control, you could say mandate. Im actually suprised they didnt win more than they did; I would have estimated the anti-Bush-thus-Republican feeling to be stronger than the results indicate. I think the many repubs using the tactic of distancing themselves from the Prez made a smart move.
These are not examples of collective intelligence, but aggregate intelligence. Each one of those examples will be no better than the aggregate ability of the individuals comprising the group. At no point is there a 'thing' seperate from the individuals; though there is the impression of such, that is merely a trick of perspective.
Yes, the Standard Social Science model is bunk, and yes everything is genetic/biological. However, youre making quite a few assumptions from the limited amount of data we have as to how intelligence works, let alone what exactly it is. In particular, you seem to mistake a lack of predisposition for a lack of ability. Also, you seem to take it for granted that ones innate intelligence is ones finite supply. If you are under the impression that ones innate intelligence is some sort of finite thing that cannot be added to or increased, please point in the direction of any study that indicates such a thing. IQs are measurements of rate, not of capacity.
Exactly. While the conservatives wish to base legislation on religous morality, liberals wish to base legislation on philosophal (secular religous) morality.
There is no room for morality in legislation.
Youre way off.
The income tax is and has always been legal under the Constitution - its an excise tax.
You perform labor in exchange for money, youre engaging in a commercial transaction; trade, and as such it is and always has been subject to the excise clause, as much as you or I would wish it otherwise.
The first income tax, though it wasnt called such, was the tax on whiskey which started the Whiskey Rebellion. The sellers of whiskey were taxed based on how much they sold, i.e their income was taxed. There were further instances of income taxes being established for temporary periods before, during and after the Civil War.
If the subject were more esoteric I might give links, but anyone with an index finger can confirm this given Google and five minutes.
(The Civil War by the way wasnt about states rights, unless of course you mean the states rights to enslave American citizens and fire on federal troops; indirectly it was about individual rights - the right to not be owned by others. Directly, it was about a political entity, the Confederacy, attacking and firing on federal property and federal troops, namely Fort Sumpter. THAT is what started the war, and if the Confederacy had never attacked Fort Sumpter there is a strong possibility they actually would have successfully seceded.)
If private industry were not viable, then what stocks could people own that would be paying out dividends? Where would the dividends come from? What would the trust fund be making money from?
Or are you talking at a state level, wherein anachronistic labor/business laws cause some states to have third-world economies and rely on govt handouts while others have more sane labor/business laws and thus are forced to indirectly subsidise the third-world states? So the rich in third-world states own stocks in companies that are headquarted in non-third-world states? Perhaps the people in the third-world states should maybe get their govt's to, you know, join the 21st century, or at least the 20th?
Riiiight, the gold standard.
Yes, lets back our currency not with human labor and creativity (the possibility of valuation for which is infinite), but a finite supply of a natural resource. That way, before any economic expansion can take place, we first must acquire a larger supply of that resource. Oh yes, brilliant. Yes, lets return to the ultimate causation of the rape of South America by the Spanish and the rape of North America by the US (among many many other examples). What an amazing idea. Yes, lets return to when the purpose of labor wasnt to create more wealth, but aquire it. Yes, lets go back to a system that requires at all times a certain amount of protectionism (and thus lack of opportunity) so that a certain amount of the finite natural resource backing the currency is always kept in and never paid out. Yes, lets return to the system wherein, ultimately at some point due to the necessity of protectionism, war and conquest are the only way an economy can expand. Oh yes, superb.
Not backing a currency by a finite natural resource, or indeed by any material thing at all, was the second greatest conceptual achievement of mankind after the development of agriculture, IMO. Since there is no objective value to anything, its rediculous to try to base ones currency on a (falsely) objective standard. We here in the US only some 30 odd years ago finally cut the umbilical cord completely, and if it hadnt been done we wouldnt be having this conversation because the technology never would have gotten as widespread as rapidly, if it had been invented at all.
Youre kidding...someone asks you where the govt gets the money and your answer is, in effect, that they print it? Do your mommy and daddy know your on the computer?
Your understanding of economics is along the lines of religous conservatives understanding of evolution.
it was to provide a link between several acres of developable land and the airport.
Right. Makes perfect sense from the developers point of view - $50 grand or so to buy a politician to steal the money from others rather than pay for building the bridge themselves.
Of course, you havent explained why the developers couldnt pay for the bridge themselves, then recoup the money in the cost of the housing/development projects they are going to build and profit from. Then, when Joe from California retires, he buys the place and in the cost absorbs the cost of the bridge he is then - not previously, but then - benefiting from.
This just helps explain why the Alaskan servant is against the database...it would be easier for us to find out which of those developers are his friends/family members, and/or how much stock he owns in the development companies, and/or how much of the land to be developed is owned by him/his friends/family members.
Here's an interesting idea for a law: as it is now, when the Pres takes office, he has to divest himself of all holdings in companies, stocks etc. Lets require the same from members of congress. And to sweeten it, lets tack on a part that says any congresman sitting on any comittee who has recieved donations from any party involved in any of the comittees' business be required to abstain from any vote or action of that committee regarding that particular piece of business.
Well, you seem to take it as a given that people should invest for the purpose of benfiting others rather than themselves...are you saying pork spending should be based on your personal religous beliefs?
Are the voters not mere mortals as well? If an individual would only invest their money on something that benefits themselves (i.e they are rational), what makes you think that individuals behavior is going to be any different when standing in a voting booth?
Im sorry, your post just really doesnt make too much sense.
All elected officials should act in the best interests of their constituents- and that IS the best interests of the country as a whole.
Yes well, unfortunately we have many (if not most) politicians who seem to think they represent their political party in Congress, rather than their constituents.
The problem comes in when the pork doesn't go to the consituents- but instead to a K-Street contractor
Well no, the problem comes when some idiot thinks they actually have the ability to determine that people in District A are more deserving of the people in District B's money than the people in District B themselves. The govt Has. No. Money. Pork isnt coming from the govt, its coming from other people in other parts of the country. Its idiots trying to 'run' an ecosystem.
Well, that money didnt just appear by magic. It was taken from people somewhere else in the country. So $223 million dollars worth (actually more - $223 mill was left after the govt took its cut) of jobs elsewhere were eliminated so that the Alaskan servant could bribe his employers.
As my wife told me on our third date "'No' sometimes means do it harder, silly".
The fact is, No ~doesnt~ always mean No. All this study really says is:
When college males viewed non-campus approved information in the form of pronographic video, the males had a higher tendency to question the accuracy of fundamentalist campus dogma.
Of course No most often does mean No, but not all the time. Little fundamentalist rules like 'No always means No' are catchy, but flat out fucking wrong.
Its kind of silly when you think about it; if a male intends to rape a female, whether she says no or not is completely irrelevent; its about what he wants, not what she wants. If the male is concerned enough about the female to listen to what she is saying (let alone care), I find it hard for someone to be able to establish a basis for a claim that rape was his intent. Yes, young males need to be reminded that young females - hell, young people in general - give out mixed signals, and so they need to give the female the benefit of the doubt. But young females also need to be reminded to try not to give out mixed signals. Adolescence (which in general ends at about 18 for those who dont go to college, and about 25-30 for those who do) is a fucked up period of peoples lives, full of insecurities and uncertainties as exhibited daily here on /. . Mistakes and misunderstandings are going to occur, and throwing these misunderstandings into the same category as a malevolent and malicious act is nothing but fundamentalist bullshit.