Re:So... we lose one, we win one.
on
Birth of an Island
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
First one to the island gets mildly radioactive beachfront property that will either blow up in another eruption or get washed away by big waves. Save it for the great-great-grandkids.
Last time I was buying them at home depot, a socket was 79 cents and a cord was a few bucks. Why should I want to replace an already mature, tested, cheap, reliable technology with something that costs a whole lot more, and may direct power to where it is not wanted?
"A better question is, under what possible set of circumstances would ANYONE market a product that would want to behave independantly from it's owners wishes?"
The gods made women and that wasn't a marketing failure.
Seriously, I wonder if there is any evolutionary connection between the placement of some neural processing in the hindquarters and the frequency of two heads in the reptilian class, as if mother nature was experimenting with protecting brainpower by moving it around to a safer location, or by duplicating it. Since reptiles had the first big brains, this may have been the first occasion to arise in which trying to protect brains might be worth the expense.
Please note: I didn't say that it was random. I said it was politicized. Of course they will ask you for input - somebody who knows something about good engineering must contribute. But in the end, the goals are political.
"The commercial spaceflight companies wanted these rules. They provide a well-defined regulatory environment."
These rules are driven by politics, not by sound engineering. Most of the people making the rules probably don't know enough about flying to fold a paper airplane.
What the rules provide - that is of greatest interest to big companies - is liability protection. If a company kills people or destroys property, but they can point to laws and say that they were acting within the law, their liability is decreased, or at least limited.
All other things being equal, most companies do not want any government agency to tell them what to do. But with the current lawsuit-happy culture that we have, they can't get the necessary venture capital unless they can demonstrate limits to liability. At this stage, before there are paying customers, venture capital is the primary if not sole source of funding.
( And, yes, the rules will probably hurt development. Remember, this is the same government that thought that it was a good idea to put a teacher into a problem-plagued shuttle, and that thinks that terrorists use hair gel. )
"Loyalty is and always has been a fairy story told to you by people in power to get you to do things for them cheaply
Always? Sorry, I disagree. Loyalty goes both ways. Yes, some people abuse it to get things done cheaply - and those are often the most memorable or newsworthy ones. But less newsworthy are the people in power who show loyalty to their underlings.
I'll bet if the Indian management simply paid their people what they were worth - and added an occasional attaboy - the engineers would stay.
I passed the parent on to a friend of mine who happens to be a DA with 20+ years experience in a major southern California jurisdiction. I got the following reply:
1. Prosecutors who do things like destroy evidence get fired and disbarred. Even in Texas. There are canons of ethics, business codes and bar rules for every jurisdiction, that impose on prosecutors the duty to "do justice", representing the interests of all the residents of the jurisdiction, including the accused. Do individual prosecutors occasionally cheat? Sure, but when they get caught (see below for appeals)they give their office a black eye, they lose their jobs, their livelihood, and the conviction for which they cheated. Prosecutorial misconduct of this level is an automatic walk for the defendant on appeal.
2. Prosecutors have a higher standard of ethics imposed upon them than defense attorneys. The prosecutor, again, is required to do justice. The defense attorney's standard is to help his client in virtually any way possible. Everyone in the legal profession knows this.
Bad prosecutions more often arise out of poor police investigation, or personal failings of the prosecutor involved, such as cowardice, apathy, or stupidity, rather than from dishonesty.
3. Lack of funding to defense attorneys? Let's break this down: public defenders get paid out of public funds, at exactly the same pay rate as prosecutors in the same jurisdiction, and while they have pretty heavy case loads, they usually have more time to put into a serious trial than private defense attorneys. Private defense attorneys either get paid by their clients or by the state if the client is indigent. If the accused can't afford experts to examine the evidence or testify about their area of expertise, those experts get paid by the jursidiction - that's you and me and every other taxpayer. There is virtually no limit to how much of the public funds that a defense attorney can expend on experts, so long as there is some plausible reason for having them in the defense. Failure to provide funds for an arguably relevant expert witness for the defense is a denial of due process, and again results in reversal on appeal.
The prosecution does have access to police labs and the criminalists who work there, who testify in areas of their expertise. However, there are plenty of private criminalistics experts that the defense can call. If the police criminalist finds evidence that weakens the case against the accused, the prosecutor is required to turn it over to the defense. If the defense criminalist finds evidence that strengthens the case against the accused, there is no duty to turn that information over to the prosecution. And if the first defense criminalist doesn't help the defendant enough, the defendant can keep shopping on his own dime, or on the public's, if he can convince the judge of the merit of his request. Prosecutors' offices have to work within their budgets - which is why the prosecution generally calls fewer expert witnesses in the big trials.
4. On the subject of appeal, there are also publicly paid defense attorneys for a convict who wishes to appeal his conviction. It's one of the reasons why there are so many frivolous appeals jamming appellate court calendars. The convict has the right to demand that the appellate court review his trial to find some error, even if his appellate lawyer can't find anything specific to complain about. All on the taxpayer's account. So why not appeal? It costs the appellant nothing, and it's something diverting to do while serving his time.
5. Judges become judges in 1 of 3 different ways: They are elected in a general election for a vacant seat, they are directly appointed to a vacant seat by the governor, or they become temporary judges called "court commissioners", who can be but are not always appointed judges by the governor thereafter. The only difference between a court commissioner and a regular judge is that the partie
People with guns kill people. Black people with guns kill people. Black leaders want to protect blacks from gun violence. Black leaders support bans on guns.
What doesn't make sense here?
If all black people ( and their white neighbors ) obey the laws, it makes perfect sense. Unfortunately there is a small criminal minority who will retain their guns for the purpose of using them to commit crimes. And their law-abiding victims will be defenseless, unless they happen to be lucky enough to have a cop nearby at just the right moment.
The black leaders are often wealthier and live in better neighbrhoods than their constituents. They don't have to worry about being the victims of random street crime. So it makes sense for them to support bans. They get the best of both worlds: they are still safe, and they get votes for being vigorously opposed to crime.
I think Jefferson offered some guidance here, with his comments about a little revolution every now and then is a good thing. He noted that it should probably happen every 2nd or 3rd generation. ( Sorry, I forget the exact quote. )
The only real issue is: did Mr. Vaccaro know - or have good reason to believe - that there was a mistake made when the rate of 0.002 cents/kb was quoted to him? To accept a contract knowing that it is based on a mistake is dishonest. It's morally on par with keeping the extra money when a clerk accidently hands you too much change.
I'm curious what he would have done if Verizon had quoted him the correct rate, and if he had been the one to make a mistake, perhaps by accidentally making the check to Verizon for 100 times too much. What would he say then if Verizon kept the entire amount?
If he didn't know, then the only story is that lots of stupid people work for the sales departments at cell phone companies. And that is not news.
According to Edmunds.com, more than half the cost of a car during a 5-year useful life is gas, insurance, maintainence, etc. It may not be worth it. And - back to TFA - if you are a poor 3rd-world peasant, 100 dollars worth of food or medicine or electrical wiring may be the far better deal.
"...if you try to remember something when you're in the middle of Deja Vu, you won't be able to, forever. It's like you've erased a part of your memory...
How do you know that you have successfully done this? By definition, you can't remember having done it.
Slashdot Mirror
First one to the island gets mildly radioactive beachfront property that will either blow up in another eruption or get washed away by big waves. Save it for the great-great-grandkids.
Thanks, but I like the original spelling. It is one letter way from 'indicted'. ( And on slashdot, one letter ain't bad )
Last time I was buying them at home depot, a socket was 79 cents and a cord was a few bucks. Why should I want to replace an already mature, tested, cheap, reliable technology with something that costs a whole lot more, and may direct power to where it is not wanted?
He works for a few others too... try googling "I work with" OR "I work for" trisexualpuppy
I don't see what is wrong with Milgram either.
"A better question is, under what possible set of circumstances would ANYONE market a product that would want to behave independantly from it's owners wishes?"
The gods made women and that wasn't a marketing failure.
"The major takeway is that if we could barf up scheme and howtos on how open-ended thought works we would have done it by now..."
The scheming and designing is not the problem. The major problem is lack of hardware that has 10^^11 + nodes.
"I don't think there is much to be learned that requires a mechanical mind to achieve. We could do it now with the brain we have."
I disagree here too: Chess computers are already showing us things we hadn't thought of.
Seriously, I wonder if there is any evolutionary connection between the placement of some neural processing in the hindquarters and the frequency of two heads in the reptilian class, as if mother nature was experimenting with protecting brainpower by moving it around to a safer location, or by duplicating it. Since reptiles had the first big brains, this may have been the first occasion to arise in which trying to protect brains might be worth the expense.
Please note: I didn't say that it was random. I said it was politicized. Of course they will ask you for input - somebody who knows something about good engineering must contribute. But in the end, the goals are political.
"The commercial spaceflight companies wanted these rules. They provide a well-defined regulatory environment."
These rules are driven by politics, not by sound engineering. Most of the people making the rules probably don't know enough about flying to fold a paper airplane.
What the rules provide - that is of greatest interest to big companies - is liability protection. If a company kills people or destroys property, but they can point to laws and say that they were acting within the law, their liability is decreased, or at least limited.
All other things being equal, most companies do not want any government agency to tell them what to do. But with the current lawsuit-happy culture that we have, they can't get the necessary venture capital unless they can demonstrate limits to liability. At this stage, before there are paying customers, venture capital is the primary if not sole source of funding.
( And, yes, the rules will probably hurt development. Remember, this is the same government that thought that it was a good idea to put a teacher into a problem-plagued shuttle, and that thinks that terrorists use hair gel. )
In small groups ( ie: a carful ) if this strategy works, it will be quickly imitated by others. Then all of the participants will eat horrible food.
This looks like a prisoner's dilemma. Iterative prisoners dilemmas force such behavior to stop.
Yes...but he looked at it. So now its going to happen.
And if your surgeon violated the DMCA, you'll wake up in a tub of ice...
...or until you find that someone else copyrighted your liver.
"Loyalty is and always has been a fairy story told to you by people in power to get you to do things for them cheaply
Always? Sorry, I disagree. Loyalty goes both ways. Yes, some people abuse it to get things done cheaply - and those are often the most memorable or newsworthy ones. But less newsworthy are the people in power who show loyalty to their underlings.
I'll bet if the Indian management simply paid their people what they were worth - and added an occasional attaboy - the engineers would stay.
But most Windows users are as interested in secure computers as teenagers are in condoms.
...for not posting anything else for several hours so we all had a chance to watch the nearly hour long video.
I passed the parent on to a friend of mine who happens to be a DA with 20+ years experience in a major southern California jurisdiction. I got the following reply:
1. Prosecutors who do things like destroy evidence get fired and disbarred. Even in Texas. There are canons of ethics, business codes and bar rules for every jurisdiction, that impose on prosecutors the duty to "do justice", representing the interests of all the residents of the jurisdiction, including the accused. Do individual prosecutors occasionally cheat? Sure, but when they get caught (see below for appeals)they give their office a black eye, they lose their jobs, their livelihood, and the conviction for which they cheated. Prosecutorial misconduct of this level is an automatic walk for the defendant on appeal.
2. Prosecutors have a higher standard of ethics imposed upon them than defense attorneys. The prosecutor, again, is required to do justice. The defense attorney's standard is to help his client in virtually any way possible. Everyone in the legal profession knows this.
Bad prosecutions more often arise out of poor police investigation, or personal failings of the prosecutor involved, such as cowardice, apathy, or stupidity, rather than from dishonesty.
3. Lack of funding to defense attorneys? Let's break this down: public defenders get paid out of public funds, at exactly the same pay rate as prosecutors in the same jurisdiction, and while they have pretty heavy case loads, they usually have more time to put into a serious trial than private defense attorneys. Private defense attorneys either get paid by their clients or by the state if the client is indigent. If the accused can't afford experts to examine the evidence or testify about their area of expertise, those experts get paid by the jursidiction - that's you and me and every other taxpayer. There is virtually no limit to how much of the public funds that a defense attorney can expend on experts, so long as there is some plausible reason for having them in the defense. Failure to provide funds for an arguably relevant expert witness for the defense is a denial of due process, and again results in reversal on appeal.
The prosecution does have access to police labs and the criminalists who work there, who testify in areas of their expertise. However, there are plenty of private criminalistics experts that the defense can call. If the police criminalist finds evidence that weakens the case against the accused, the prosecutor is required to turn it over to the defense. If the defense criminalist finds evidence that strengthens the case against the accused, there is no duty to turn that information over to the prosecution. And if the first defense criminalist doesn't help the defendant enough, the defendant can keep shopping on his own dime, or on the public's, if he can convince the judge of the merit of his request. Prosecutors' offices have to work within their budgets - which is why the prosecution generally calls fewer expert witnesses in the big trials.
4. On the subject of appeal, there are also publicly paid defense attorneys for a convict who wishes to appeal his conviction. It's one of the reasons why there are so many frivolous appeals jamming appellate court calendars. The convict has the right to demand that the appellate court review his trial to find some error, even if his appellate lawyer can't find anything specific to complain about. All on the taxpayer's account. So why not appeal? It costs the appellant nothing, and it's something diverting to do while serving his time.
5. Judges become judges in 1 of 3 different ways: They are elected in a general election for a vacant seat, they are directly appointed to a vacant seat by the governor, or they become temporary judges called "court commissioners", who can be but are not always appointed judges by the governor thereafter. The only difference between a court commissioner and a regular judge is that the partie
Get to know his neighbor? In person?? You must be new here.
People with guns kill people. Black people with guns kill people. Black leaders want to protect blacks from gun violence. Black leaders support bans on guns.
What doesn't make sense here?
If all black people ( and their white neighbors ) obey the laws, it makes perfect sense. Unfortunately there is a small criminal minority who will retain their guns for the purpose of using them to commit crimes. And their law-abiding victims will be defenseless, unless they happen to be lucky enough to have a cop nearby at just the right moment.
The black leaders are often wealthier and live in better neighbrhoods than their constituents. They don't have to worry about being the victims of random street crime. So it makes sense for them to support bans. They get the best of both worlds: they are still safe, and they get votes for being vigorously opposed to crime.
I think Jefferson offered some guidance here, with his comments about a little revolution every now and then is a good thing. He noted that it should probably happen every 2nd or 3rd generation. ( Sorry, I forget the exact quote. )
The only real issue is: did Mr. Vaccaro know - or have good reason to believe - that there was a mistake made when the rate of 0.002 cents/kb was quoted to him? To accept a contract knowing that it is based on a mistake is dishonest. It's morally on par with keeping the extra money when a clerk accidently hands you too much change.
I'm curious what he would have done if Verizon had quoted him the correct rate, and if he had been the one to make a mistake, perhaps by accidentally making the check to Verizon for 100 times too much. What would he say then if Verizon kept the entire amount?
If he didn't know, then the only story is that lots of stupid people work for the sales departments at cell phone companies. And that is not news.
According to Edmunds.com, more than half the cost of a car during a 5-year useful life is gas, insurance, maintainence, etc. It may not be worth it. And - back to TFA - if you are a poor 3rd-world peasant, 100 dollars worth of food or medicine or electrical wiring may be the far better deal.
Back pocket? You're assuming that she still has her pants on?
"...if you try to remember something when you're in the middle of Deja Vu, you won't be able to, forever. It's like you've erased a part of your memory...
How do you know that you have successfully done this? By definition, you can't remember having done it.