Society is possible because we have laws that are followed. If people have no reason to follow the laws, there would be no society. If criminals didn't figure that they'd be caught, why would they do anything to the witnesses? And if the witnesses are safe, why not increase penalties for crime? Since the criminals aren't thinking about being caught, keeping them from committing more crimes by keeping them in prison longer seems logical.
The people who figure that, by helping their neighbors, they'll be better off are the ones who aren't going to be committing any crimes.
Right premise, wrong organization. That's what charity is for. If someone were to see you in the street, mug you, only take, say, 40% of your cash, and give it to a homeless person, would that be theft? Next question: how is that any different from socialism?
I don't know if I'd want the government deciding what health care is best for me. Or is it different in Canada? Do people have a choice in what kind of care they receive? I suppose the only thing I'd really have against government-controlled anything on a national level is how close it comes to socialism. What about the people who use the service (roads, health care, whatever) less than others (or not at all)? They're paying for something they're not getting. That doesn't quite seem fair to me. Things that are run at a local governmental level are generally in better condition (the smaller, local politicians don't have the kind of campaigning budgets that national politicians do; therefore, they are more easily replaced), so I don't have much of a problem with that (unless it's some huge industry).
Certainly, though, there should be some price caps on private-sector health care. Hospital bills here in the U.S. can be staggering, even for minor things.
What's the point of catching someone if you're not going to do anything? So people will get caught, big deal. If nothing happens, they'll learn that they can commit crimes without worrying, because even by some bizarre chance they're caught, they won't have to serve any jail time, etc. No penalties==no crime reduction.
> Making the penalties harsher has never decreased the crime rate. In fact, it just makes the crimes more violent: why leave any witnesses. This is especially true in the case of the capital punishment.
So, according to you, if we were to decrease penalties, we would decrease the crime rate. If we decrease the penalties, PEOPLE WILL HAVE NO REASON NOT TO COMMIT CRIMES (ignoring human decency). People who commit crimes don't want to get caught, because there's a (pseudo-)price to be paid. If tougher punishment isn't the answer, what do you propose?
> The existing law enforcement doesn't prevent murder and rape. Do you think we should just let it all go?
Two different scenarios. With regulation (according to you), corporations are able to buy their way out of the tough regulations via political contributions/PR campaigns. Murder and rape happen because we've got a lax penal system. Instead of the turnstyle jail system we have now, if we were to increase the jail sentences to maybe 30 years for rape and 60 for murder and eliminate any chance for perole, that rate would take a sharp downturn.
> No-one dares to resist the big industries anymore because of the political clout they wield. Just try it and you'll be branded as a communist for the rest of your life. It's a political suicide.
OK. I'm game. So if regulation is ineffective in the important areas of industry, and restrictive in the non-critical areas, why have it at all?
Changing the regulation would be better. You're right that their problem is in going from regulation to deregulation, but regulation would not have been necessary if the electric companies didn't have a local monopoly. That's why they were regulated in the first place (yet another use for regulation). Changing the regulation to be less restrictive, while protecting customers from unwarranted (key word here) price hikes, would be best. They need to either change their regulation, finish deregulating the utilities, or go back to regulation. Otherwise their power companies will probably go bankrupt. Where's the benefit in that?:^)
> do you think a completely de-regulated society would run itself allright
In a smaller (less populous), less technologically developed society, sure. Small communities have a way of spreading the word about someone. With TV, newspapers, radio, etc. today, it'd be too easy for companies to buy commercial time convincing their customers that they really ARE trustworthy to be effective. You'd have to have a pretty blatant company for the entire nation to know that something's not quite right with it. Then the companies could just quietly rename themselves or slip their equity under the table to a new startup company that, by a strange coincidence, has the exact same employment/payroll chart.
Just out of curiosity, though, as far as regulation goes, though, what areas of business do you think need it most? Would it be the public health sector, tech companies, etc.?
> Pill makers should be regulated on their products
I agree wholeheartedly with you on that point. That's why I mentioned it in the above post (perhaps it wasn't quite clear). I'm not against government regulation, where it's appropriate, but having regulations on things like airlines just seems to be illogical. If the regulation was never there, people wouldn't have a psychological dependancy on it.
> Regulation isn't something the big-bad-government does to impede business and make itself feel important.
True, but it's become a bit too pervasive. Regulating the electric companies in California, for instance, is providing problems today. Making them jump through all sorts of hoops to get new plants built is having its effects today via rolling blackouts. Similarly, the overuse of the existing plants and the following repairs are costing the electric company quite a bit of money. According to a recent report (I don't have a link, sorry), they'd have to increase rates 82% just to break even. I'm not saying regulation is bad (it's necessary for some things), just that it should be used in moderation.
> When safety is involved, and when health is an issue, it is good to have an agency in the loop
Government regulation is useful at times, but it can lead to unnecessary price hikes. Airline safety regulation, for example, is entirely unnecessary. Airlines don't want to be spending $100+ million for a jet, only to see it go down. If they did business that way, they'd be losing money right and left, to say nothing about the lawsuits that would follow. Where government regulation is important is in industries where the companies wouldn't be able to be found to be clearly at fault. Medicinal corporations, for instance, marketing a drug that causes long-term cancer would probably not be found guilty in any suit against them due to the fact that research would be sparse, with little time for it during the suit. For monitoring for harmful chemicals, that sort of thing is iffy. If private individuals/corporations can do it, I'd say have them be responsible for it (including "missing" a warning from the systems) rather than using our tax money. That way, there'd be more to fund research for things like this.
I can see a use for this in homes and businesses (schools, organizations, etc.). People drink water every day, but occasionally, it's contaminated. Because checks aren't performed every day (for time/economic reasons), contaminations can slip by unnoticed for weeks or even months. This could provide a real-time testing (maybe once a day or something) for dangerous metals and set off a warning if there's a problem, kind of like carbon monoxide/smoke detectors. It would probably be more useful, though, if it detected for biological contaminants (due to the fact that biological contamination is far more common). Just a thought.
Errr . . . oops. I was thinking this was a Linux discussion, for some reason. I need more sleep.
Intelligent Satellite Teams for Space Systems
on
Pushing The Envelope
·
· Score: 2
Now this looks interesting. Nanotechnology for satellites. The only problem is space dust. It doesn't affect larger satellites, because they're, well, larger. Wouldn't nano-satellites encountering space dust be equivalent to regular satellites encountering asteroids? They'd be more susceptible to any forces acting upon them, because they have less mass (and are easier to move). If people can lose satellites WITHOUT having to worry about them being constantly knocked off course, wouldn't it be a good idea to stay away from this sort of thing? Just a thought.
If I were to take the graph of Sin(theta), I could tell you that it was going up on a certain interval, or that it was going down on a certain interval, depending on what interval I pick. Sure, we're not as inventive as we were in the 1900's-1950's, but we ARE as inventive as we were in the 1850's-1900's. So, overall, I'd say we've remained constant.
using it to play "on hold" music on a company's automated button-pushing phone number? Some of the music (like for United Airlines) never changes, and it gets old, fast. I think one of these with a hard drive would provide enough music to handle a lot more customers. Sure, it sounds stupid, but when you're on hold waiting for someone, do you really want to hear "Please hold . . . your call is important to us." (30 second gap) "Please hold . . . your call is important to us."
I don't think Linux people really need certification in a corporate setting. Linux is still a "finge" OS, so any company using it is likely to just hire someone who claims to know what he's doing. I'm not saying that certification is bad, per se, (it would look good on a resume, and would probably get you better pay) but it only seems to be necessary for Windows admins, where everybody and his duck knows how to click a button and use an applet. I think the best thing to do would be to try to find a job with a company and negotiate into your hiring contract a clause where they pay for your training/testing. That way, you can get a job, and, if you don't like it, you can get another one by flaunting your certification. And it won't cost you a dime.
It's not Microsoft Hack a National Security Threat. It's Microsoft Windows a National Security Threat. How many security holes can people exploit in Windows? And the gov't uses Windows in its networks? Sounds to me like we've got a genuine National Security Threat (TM) . ..
> Imagine having all programs on your system store all their configuration information in one consistent place - or just one place for systemwide stuff and one place for each user's local configs.
The 7th Guest didn't even make it into the top 15? That game was one of the first ones to be released only on CD (never mind that it was originally supposed to be released on floppy, too . ..), and one of the first to have lots of in-game movies. I think that T7G had to be one of the key games in the puzzle series, making it more visible to the mass market. Who can forget "SHY GYPSY SLYLY SPRYLY TRYST BY MY CRYPT"? Or the bishop puzzle? Some of those puzzles were REALLY creative, and likely influenced a few puzzles in later games.
I realize this probably isn't going to be modded up, due to the fact that there are so many other comments here, so I'll be brief. The reason Linux isn't getting the userbase it deserves is simple. People are more accustomed to Windows (and, by extension, DOS, but that's changing with Whistler . ..).
Windows is everywhere. If schools aren't using Macs, what do you have? It's certainly not any UNIX variant. What is the official corporate world OS? Windows, at least for the desktops.
Because Windows has such a large userbase, it's profitable for companies to make tutorials for it, but not for Linux. Linux's user base is still somewhere in the "rounding error" category. It's not going to grow, either, unless someone writes docs for people who are somewhat familiar with other operating systems, such as Windows and DOS. The tutorials that assume the reader knows every line of code in the kernel and those that help the user find the "on" button are both going to be too verbose for the average joe. What needs to happen is for someone to write a manual for people who can list every piece of hardware in their systems look up the chipsets/module files for their hardware and modify the relevant config files and create/dev/whatever entries.
How about, just, "To do this, type "mknod/dev/whatever majornumber minornumber". Edit this config file. These settings do this, this, and this. Have fun."?
Slashdot Mirror
If people behave because they want to behave, why do some people commit crimes?
Society is possible because we have laws that are followed. If people have no reason to follow the laws, there would be no society. If criminals didn't figure that they'd be caught, why would they do anything to the witnesses? And if the witnesses are safe, why not increase penalties for crime? Since the criminals aren't thinking about being caught, keeping them from committing more crimes by keeping them in prison longer seems logical.
The people who figure that, by helping their neighbors, they'll be better off are the ones who aren't going to be committing any crimes.
Right premise, wrong organization. That's what charity is for. If someone were to see you in the street, mug you, only take, say, 40% of your cash, and give it to a homeless person, would that be theft? Next question: how is that any different from socialism?
I don't know if I'd want the government deciding what health care is best for me. Or is it different in Canada? Do people have a choice in what kind of care they receive? I suppose the only thing I'd really have against government-controlled anything on a national level is how close it comes to socialism. What about the people who use the service (roads, health care, whatever) less than others (or not at all)? They're paying for something they're not getting. That doesn't quite seem fair to me. Things that are run at a local governmental level are generally in better condition (the smaller, local politicians don't have the kind of campaigning budgets that national politicians do; therefore, they are more easily replaced), so I don't have much of a problem with that (unless it's some huge industry).
Certainly, though, there should be some price caps on private-sector health care. Hospital bills here in the U.S. can be staggering, even for minor things.
> there is little or no control from anyone but the profit hungry airline-companies
And losing a 767/having lawsuits because of it is profitable for them?
What's the point of catching someone if you're not going to do anything? So people will get caught, big deal. If nothing happens, they'll learn that they can commit crimes without worrying, because even by some bizarre chance they're caught, they won't have to serve any jail time, etc. No penalties==no crime reduction.
> Making the penalties harsher has never decreased the crime rate. In fact, it just makes the crimes more violent: why leave any witnesses. This is especially true in the case of the capital punishment.
So, according to you, if we were to decrease penalties, we would decrease the crime rate. If we decrease the penalties, PEOPLE WILL HAVE NO REASON NOT TO COMMIT CRIMES (ignoring human decency). People who commit crimes don't want to get caught, because there's a (pseudo-)price to be paid. If tougher punishment isn't the answer, what do you propose?
> The existing law enforcement doesn't prevent murder and rape. Do you think we should just let it all go?
Two different scenarios. With regulation (according to you), corporations are able to buy their way out of the tough regulations via political contributions/PR campaigns. Murder and rape happen because we've got a lax penal system. Instead of the turnstyle jail system we have now, if we were to increase the jail sentences to maybe 30 years for rape and 60 for murder and eliminate any chance for perole, that rate would take a sharp downturn.
> No-one dares to resist the big industries anymore because of the political clout they wield. Just try it and you'll be branded as a communist for the rest of your life. It's a political suicide.
OK. I'm game. So if regulation is ineffective in the important areas of industry, and restrictive in the non-critical areas, why have it at all?
Changing the regulation would be better. You're right that their problem is in going from regulation to deregulation, but regulation would not have been necessary if the electric companies didn't have a local monopoly. That's why they were regulated in the first place (yet another use for regulation). Changing the regulation to be less restrictive, while protecting customers from unwarranted (key word here) price hikes, would be best. They need to either change their regulation, finish deregulating the utilities, or go back to regulation. Otherwise their power companies will probably go bankrupt. Where's the benefit in that? :^)
> do you think a completely de-regulated society would run itself allright
In a smaller (less populous), less technologically developed society, sure. Small communities have a way of spreading the word about someone. With TV, newspapers, radio, etc. today, it'd be too easy for companies to buy commercial time convincing their customers that they really ARE trustworthy to be effective. You'd have to have a pretty blatant company for the entire nation to know that something's not quite right with it. Then the companies could just quietly rename themselves or slip their equity under the table to a new startup company that, by a strange coincidence, has the exact same employment/payroll chart.
Just out of curiosity, though, as far as regulation goes, though, what areas of business do you think need it most? Would it be the public health sector, tech companies, etc.?
> Pill makers should be regulated on their products
I agree wholeheartedly with you on that point. That's why I mentioned it in the above post (perhaps it wasn't quite clear). I'm not against government regulation, where it's appropriate, but having regulations on things like airlines just seems to be illogical. If the regulation was never there, people wouldn't have a psychological dependancy on it.
> Regulation isn't something the big-bad-government does to impede business and make itself feel important.
True, but it's become a bit too pervasive. Regulating the electric companies in California, for instance, is providing problems today. Making them jump through all sorts of hoops to get new plants built is having its effects today via rolling blackouts. Similarly, the overuse of the existing plants and the following repairs are costing the electric company quite a bit of money. According to a recent report (I don't have a link, sorry), they'd have to increase rates 82% just to break even. I'm not saying regulation is bad (it's necessary for some things), just that it should be used in moderation.
And if the government's so concerned about regulation, why haven't they put a stop to it? Surely the FAA could have shoved something through.
> When safety is involved, and when health is an issue, it is good to have an agency in the loop
Government regulation is useful at times, but it can lead to unnecessary price hikes. Airline safety regulation, for example, is entirely unnecessary. Airlines don't want to be spending $100+ million for a jet, only to see it go down. If they did business that way, they'd be losing money right and left, to say nothing about the lawsuits that would follow. Where government regulation is important is in industries where the companies wouldn't be able to be found to be clearly at fault. Medicinal corporations, for instance, marketing a drug that causes long-term cancer would probably not be found guilty in any suit against them due to the fact that research would be sparse, with little time for it during the suit. For monitoring for harmful chemicals, that sort of thing is iffy. If private individuals/corporations can do it, I'd say have them be responsible for it (including "missing" a warning from the systems) rather than using our tax money. That way, there'd be more to fund research for things like this.
I can see a use for this in homes and businesses (schools, organizations, etc.). People drink water every day, but occasionally, it's contaminated. Because checks aren't performed every day (for time/economic reasons), contaminations can slip by unnoticed for weeks or even months. This could provide a real-time testing (maybe once a day or something) for dangerous metals and set off a warning if there's a problem, kind of like carbon monoxide/smoke detectors. It would probably be more useful, though, if it detected for biological contaminants (due to the fact that biological contamination is far more common). Just a thought.
Errr . . . oops. I was thinking this was a Linux discussion, for some reason. I need more sleep.
Now this looks interesting. Nanotechnology for satellites. The only problem is space dust. It doesn't affect larger satellites, because they're, well, larger. Wouldn't nano-satellites encountering space dust be equivalent to regular satellites encountering asteroids? They'd be more susceptible to any forces acting upon them, because they have less mass (and are easier to move). If people can lose satellites WITHOUT having to worry about them being constantly knocked off course, wouldn't it be a good idea to stay away from this sort of thing? Just a thought.
If I were to take the graph of Sin(theta), I could tell you that it was going up on a certain interval, or that it was going down on a certain interval, depending on what interval I pick. Sure, we're not as inventive as we were in the 1900's-1950's, but we ARE as inventive as we were in the 1850's-1900's. So, overall, I'd say we've remained constant.
> The same people who spawned the Canadians! (along with the dirty French)
Uh, you've got it backwards. The French spawned the British via the Normans invading/ruling over the Saxons.
> someone who breaks in and 'fixes things' without permission isn't a white hat
You're right. I was thinking a white hat with permission, as well as a gray hat without permission. I just forgot to make that clear.
using it to play "on hold" music on a company's automated button-pushing phone number? Some of the music (like for United Airlines) never changes, and it gets old, fast. I think one of these with a hard drive would provide enough music to handle a lot more customers. Sure, it sounds stupid, but when you're on hold waiting for someone, do you really want to hear "Please hold . . . your call is important to us." (30 second gap) "Please hold . . . your call is important to us."
I don't think Linux people really need certification in a corporate setting. Linux is still a "finge" OS, so any company using it is likely to just hire someone who claims to know what he's doing. I'm not saying that certification is bad, per se, (it would look good on a resume, and would probably get you better pay) but it only seems to be necessary for Windows admins, where everybody and his duck knows how to click a button and use an applet. I think the best thing to do would be to try to find a job with a company and negotiate into your hiring contract a clause where they pay for your training/testing. That way, you can get a job, and, if you don't like it, you can get another one by flaunting your certification. And it won't cost you a dime.
It's not Microsoft Hack a National Security Threat. It's Microsoft Windows a National Security Threat. How many security holes can people exploit in Windows? And the gov't uses Windows in its networks? Sounds to me like we've got a genuine National Security Threat (TM) . . .
> Imagine having all programs on your system store all their configuration information in one consistent place - or just one place for systemwide stuff and one place for each user's local configs.
.
It's called the Windows registry . .
The 7th Guest didn't even make it into the top 15? That game was one of the first ones to be released only on CD (never mind that it was originally supposed to be released on floppy, too . . .), and one of the first to have lots of in-game movies. I think that T7G had to be one of the key games in the puzzle series, making it more visible to the mass market. Who can forget "SHY GYPSY SLYLY SPRYLY TRYST BY MY CRYPT"? Or the bishop puzzle? Some of those puzzles were REALLY creative, and likely influenced a few puzzles in later games.
I realize this probably isn't going to be modded up, due to the fact that there are so many other comments here, so I'll be brief. The reason Linux isn't getting the userbase it deserves is simple. People are more accustomed to Windows (and, by extension, DOS, but that's changing with Whistler . . .).
/dev/whatever entries.
/dev/whatever majornumber minornumber". Edit this config file. These settings do this, this, and this. Have fun."?
Windows is everywhere. If schools aren't using Macs, what do you have? It's certainly not any UNIX variant. What is the official corporate world OS? Windows, at least for the desktops.
Because Windows has such a large userbase, it's profitable for companies to make tutorials for it, but not for Linux. Linux's user base is still somewhere in the "rounding error" category. It's not going to grow, either, unless someone writes docs for people who are somewhat familiar with other operating systems, such as Windows and DOS. The tutorials that assume the reader knows every line of code in the kernel and those that help the user find the "on" button are both going to be too verbose for the average joe. What needs to happen is for someone to write a manual for people who can list every piece of hardware in their systems look up the chipsets/module files for their hardware and modify the relevant config files and create
How about, just, "To do this, type "mknod