Most european industries know from experience that money spent to reduce CO2 emmission (meaning almost exactly reduce fuel usage) is not lost, but invested in far better conditions than the financial market can promise. You may also note that fuel usage usually not only produce CO2 but also various midly toxic chemicals that can cause a local overoccurence of some diseases. Burning fuel as if there was no consequences has so many proven bad consequences that arguing over a not totally proven one is just...american.
Driving a bicylcle is not only faster than walking, it requires less energy for the same distance, in particular if you carry some stuff (unless you are one of those affrican women who can walk optimaly with 20kg on their head).
Of course, it isn't free, but it is not that expensive, what costs an arm and leg is promotion and the rock&roll way of life.
One of my uncle is the bassist/studio owner/producer of a small jazz band and he spend most of his time working with amateurs who want to make their own CD. For a flat 399E, you can have two days in the studio (he can play guitar, bass or drums if you need), postproduction and 200 pressed CD (he works with a compagny that makes advertisement CD/DVD and have them way cheaper than blank ones, even for small volumes), and of course, the clients totally own the resulting work. His clients are numerous and vary from the people buying their children a present to local groups.
You are forgetting one (probably large) population: people who kinda liked the single they heard on the radio and know those single are rarely representative of the rest of the album and want to if they want to buy it or not.
It's nothing new or US specific, most of the time, it's basic CYA crap.
In 99, I was doing my year in the french army and one of the other victims had a bad accident during an exercice (he felt from a climbing wall a broke one leg in several points), and before the ambulance arrived, he had been expelled from the army and the hospital had to consider him a civilian patient with no insurance.
Moreover, they put cellphone nano-cells in the planes not to protect the plane but the cellphone operators: a cellphone in a plane has a very good line of sight communication path to potentially several towers using the same frequency (something that is normaly impossible to a ground-level phone) and moves faster than the protocol allows, causing an out of range doppler effect and propagation delay correction (an can switch towers faster than the network can handle). At least it's the case for GSM, don't know for sure for CDMA, but it's likely too.
Unfortunately, it is always a tradeof. Modern airplanes have a huge length (and mass) of wires running trough it and perfect shielding (besides the cost) would add far too much weight. The solution used is to shield the calculators and use robust communication protocols such as ARINC A429 between them. Of course, even with no weight constraints, they still can't shield some captors for obvious reasons and usualy rely on redundancy to offset the risks caused by a polluted measurement.
The problem is that they don't mind wasting their time, all they want is to waste the life of anyone who is not a sheep. What you are proposing is puting a big red target on your back and actually make their job easier.
I think you use two distinc meaning of "bad", the GP one stands for "evil", yours simply for "flawed". Most people won't spontaneously hurt other people. What Milgram shows is that a majority of people will knowningly accept to be the instrument of an evil power with very little coercion from that power and try to rationalyze their coward behavior to themself. To me that's the reason we need check and balance: if you have to wait for a majority to openly question orders as questionable, it will probably be far too late, so IMHO, the Milgram expreriment is a point FOR the GP argument, not against it.
Czars were not a product of of the communism, it was a remanent of european middle age feudalism system. The initial goal of the soviet revolution was to throw out that system and and give back the power to the people. Of course, like any utopian bottom-up political system (such as, ironically, free market), it was already corrupted by the greed of few before it had a chance to be implemented.
"Quite how you get from there to enforced censorship to protect the image of the UK government I don't know"
The original post ("Parents already enabled...") was raising the risk that may ULTIMATELY result in giving parenting authority to a central power who could decide to limit what should be restricted, not only for children, for for anyone. I just used Dr Who irrespective humour as an example because the poster I was responding to told it was one of the few things he watches.
I however am aware that this irrespective humor or for example, that an US compagny could have created and distributed "Jericho" clearly shows that things are currently quite OK.
From the original post: "Eventually they'll take the choice away from us to watch what they consider to be objectionable as some overly zealous group says that on thing or another should be banned in case some child somewhere sees it."
To wich it was reply sothing on the line of "censorship not a problem, since I don't watch TV".
I was just pointing that, despite its qualities and its being generally ontopic for the whole discussion, that reply was in no way a valid reply to the original post's concerns.
While your reply is interesting in itself, it is offtopic reguarding its parent post. Yes, most children watch too much crapy TV, but not having a TV is not a valid answer to the concern of censorship by a central authority in the name of the children. As a Dr Who fan, ask yourself if you would have like if every occasion in which that show (which, we'll all agree to consider not supposed to be watched by young children) depicted the british government or crown in unflatering way (at least half a dozen times since the beginning of the rerun) was removed or rewritten, would you still don't care (we are of course considering for the sake of the argument that your are aware of such censorship)?
That's actually far easier to determine than if it really was water that caused liquid erosion of the surface: all they had to do was to determine the temperature at which it evaporated.
Plants don't have an immune system in the way large animals have, but that doesn't mean they are defenseless: many of them can produce poison to kill or deter animals feeding on them, even for some in reaction to stress, and many others rely on symbiose with fungi to trade antibiotics for food.
"More realistic graphics can, in fact, make a game better."
Of course, but not always. Heroes of Might & Magic 5 is IMHO a counter-example: full 3D when you're not supposed to be immerged only get in the way of the game interface and when zooming out enough to see a reasonable area, gold and ore would almost look like the same. That game is not that bad per se, but it would have been far better if done in 2D.
"But that doesn't mean this particular game is going to be another Crysis."
From the trailer I have seen, I was thinking of a new Dragon's Lair instead.
"Have you never seen a movie which makes good use of facial expressions, even eyes?"
A lot of people would actually pay for the opportunity to legally harass their neigbours, so I think the councils aren't even close to what they could have done, after all, they'll need a lot of money to staff their soon to be overwhelmed homicide divisions.
We have a skill database too where I work, but it didn't prevented me to switch from writing DSP drivers for telecom equipments to maintaining unit testing infrastructure for level A avionic SW half a year ago. You know what? a bigger payraise wouldn't have given me a tenth of the morale increase that I got from starting over on a totally different job.
When I was a consultant, one of my mangers was more a garbage collector: he tagged me "CORBA expert" and was ready to sell me on that ground after I added a new function (mostly by copy-paste) in an object's IDL.
Slashdot Mirror
Most european industries know from experience that money spent to reduce CO2 emmission (meaning almost exactly reduce fuel usage) is not lost, but invested in far better conditions than the financial market can promise. ...american.
You may also note that fuel usage usually not only produce CO2 but also various midly toxic chemicals that can cause a local overoccurence of some diseases. Burning fuel as if there was no consequences has so many proven bad consequences that arguing over a not totally proven one is just
Driving a bicylcle is not only faster than walking, it requires less energy for the same distance, in particular if you carry some stuff (unless you are one of those affrican women who can walk optimaly with 20kg on their head).
Of course, it isn't free, but it is not that expensive, what costs an arm and leg is promotion and the rock&roll way of life.
One of my uncle is the bassist/studio owner/producer of a small jazz band and he spend most of his time working with amateurs who want to make their own CD. For a flat 399E, you can have two days in the studio (he can play guitar, bass or drums if you need), postproduction and 200 pressed CD (he works with a compagny that makes advertisement CD/DVD and have them way cheaper than blank ones, even for small volumes), and of course, the clients totally own the resulting work. His clients are numerous and vary from the people buying their children a present to local groups.
You are forgetting one (probably large) population: people who kinda liked the single they heard on the radio and know those single are rarely representative of the rest of the album and want to if they want to buy it or not.
It's nothing new or US specific, most of the time, it's basic CYA crap.
In 99, I was doing my year in the french army and one of the other victims had a bad accident during an exercice (he felt from a climbing wall a broke one leg in several points), and before the ambulance arrived, he had been expelled from the army and the hospital had to consider him a civilian patient with no insurance.
Moreover, they put cellphone nano-cells in the planes not to protect the plane but the cellphone operators: a cellphone in a plane has a very good line of sight communication path to potentially several towers using the same frequency (something that is normaly impossible to a ground-level phone) and moves faster than the protocol allows, causing an out of range doppler effect and propagation delay correction (an can switch towers faster than the network can handle). At least it's the case for GSM, don't know for sure for CDMA, but it's likely too.
Unfortunately, it is always a tradeof.
Modern airplanes have a huge length (and mass) of wires running trough it and perfect shielding (besides the cost) would add far too much weight. The solution used is to shield the calculators and use robust communication protocols such as ARINC A429 between them. Of course, even with no weight constraints, they still can't shield some captors for obvious reasons and usualy rely on redundancy to offset the risks caused by a polluted measurement.
"I would be quite worried if I thought the aircraft could be flown with a bluetooth mouse."
Flown? No. Crashed? Maybe.
Fixed that for you.
You mean, the ones that get killed every other week?
You don't get it: it was simply a pathetic attempt to distract the cheerleaders from the young football players to the old virgin scientits.
The problem is that they don't mind wasting their time, all they want is to waste the life of anyone who is not a sheep. What you are proposing is puting a big red target on your back and actually make their job easier.
Probably because any music disk that has a copy protection cannot be legally called a CD.
I think you use two distinc meaning of "bad", the GP one stands for "evil", yours simply for "flawed".
Most people won't spontaneously hurt other people. What Milgram shows is that a majority of people will knowningly accept to be the instrument of an evil power with very little coercion from that power and try to rationalyze their coward behavior to themself.
To me that's the reason we need check and balance: if you have to wait for a majority to openly question orders as questionable, it will probably be far too late, so IMHO, the Milgram expreriment is a point FOR the GP argument, not against it.
I think you can even call it a fraternal one.
Czars were not a product of of the communism, it was a remanent of european middle age feudalism system. The initial goal of the soviet revolution was to throw out that system and and give back the power to the people. Of course, like any utopian bottom-up political system (such as, ironically, free market), it was already corrupted by the greed of few before it had a chance to be implemented.
"Quite how you get from there to enforced censorship to protect the image of the UK government I don't know"
The original post ("Parents already enabled ...") was raising the risk that may ULTIMATELY result in giving parenting authority to a central power who could decide to limit what should be restricted, not only for children, for for anyone.
I just used Dr Who irrespective humour as an example because the poster I was responding to told it was one of the few things he watches.
I however am aware that this irrespective humor or for example, that an US compagny could have created and distributed "Jericho" clearly shows that things are currently quite OK.
From the original post: "Eventually they'll take the choice away from us to watch what they consider to be objectionable as some overly zealous group says that on thing or another should be banned in case some child somewhere sees it."
To wich it was reply sothing on the line of "censorship not a problem, since I don't watch TV".
I was just pointing that, despite its qualities and its being generally ontopic for the whole discussion, that reply was in no way a valid reply to the original post's concerns.
While your reply is interesting in itself, it is offtopic reguarding its parent post. Yes, most children watch too much crapy TV, but not having a TV is not a valid answer to the concern of censorship by a central authority in the name of the children.
As a Dr Who fan, ask yourself if you would have like if every occasion in which that show (which, we'll all agree to consider not supposed to be watched by young children) depicted the british government or crown in unflatering way (at least half a dozen times since the beginning of the rerun) was removed or rewritten, would you still don't care (we are of course considering for the sake of the argument that your are aware of such censorship)?
That's actually far easier to determine than if it really was water that caused liquid erosion of the surface: all they had to do was to determine the temperature at which it evaporated.
Plants don't have an immune system in the way large animals have, but that doesn't mean they are defenseless: many of them can produce poison to kill or deter animals feeding on them, even for some in reaction to stress, and many others rely on symbiose with fungi to trade antibiotics for food.
"More realistic graphics can, in fact, make a game better."
Of course, but not always. Heroes of Might & Magic 5 is IMHO a counter-example: full 3D when you're not supposed to be immerged only get in the way of the game interface and when zooming out enough to see a reasonable area, gold and ore would almost look like the same. That game is not that bad per se, but it would have been far better if done in 2D.
"But that doesn't mean this particular game is going to be another Crysis."
From the trailer I have seen, I was thinking of a new Dragon's Lair instead.
"Have you never seen a movie which makes good use of facial expressions, even eyes?"
Yes, "The Mask" :)
A lot of people would actually pay for the opportunity to legally harass their neigbours, so I think the councils aren't even close to what they could have done, after all, they'll need a lot of money to staff their soon to be overwhelmed homicide divisions.
We have a skill database too where I work, but it didn't prevented me to switch from writing DSP drivers for telecom equipments to maintaining unit testing infrastructure for level A avionic SW half a year ago. You know what? a bigger payraise wouldn't have given me a tenth of the morale increase that I got from starting over on a totally different job.
When I was a consultant, one of my mangers was more a garbage collector: he tagged me "CORBA expert" and was ready to sell me on that ground after I added a new function (mostly by copy-paste) in an object's IDL.
Good thing: the manager doesn't have a stupid son or nephew to promote instead of you.
Bad thing: no more open position available for promotion. (and so the death of the compagnies caused by the unability to apply Dilbert's rule).