Democracy, as practiced in the US, allows Paul to vote how much Peter will pay him. This has an inevitable meltdown as the eventual conclusion.
Not really. Because it requires a majority.
The appropriate complaint is that it allows tyrrany of the majority over the minority. But, with the US's strong slant on individuality, and tacit encouragement of groups like the ACLU, that is a fight always being fought, and has brought a lot of otherwise hidden prejudices to light, which is a "Good Thing".
Sadly, that's exactly the sort of behavior a democracy encourages.
Not really. Democracy advocates what the people want more commonly.
Basically, everyone wants a well-run system. Well-run systems have two tiers. One, laws with low-changeability based on well-thought-out principals. Two, laws with high-changeability based on popularity. Put another way. One, the guidlines. Two, the practical application.
It is rare to have a country with laws from only one of those sets. If the prior, it will be out of touch with reality. If the latter, judges will be extremely capricious. A mixture of both, however, can protect long-term interests while addressing short-term problems.
Democracy puts the laws in the people's hands. And, if the people separate these two groups, they can get very good results. Just have a higher line that must be reached to change the first category of laws, such as more votes, or voting on them less-often. Politicking can even exist on which group which laws fall into.
The US is not a democracy. It is a representative democracy. Thus, we expect out representative to evaluate these two groups, and at times give in to the public, and at others, resist them. Like a child complaining to the parent, we advocate the view not taking by the one in power, not because we want them to agree, but because it allows us to be one-sided, knwing the the "responsible" person in power will make the "right choice".
The issue with this system is that the representatives want to stay in power, more than they want to do the "right thing". This puts almost everything in the second category, making laws more of a game than a serious approach to protecting the populace.
Then again, the people who vote for them are choosing the politicians that give them more power like a child grabbing candy at the store. I dare say this is more of a lack of appreciation for some less-changeable laws, so people can vote without thinking long-term.
Perhaps then, the failure of a democracy is that it expects people to think long-term. But with so many people thinking about short-term gains (the business sector shows this issue as well) we lose the benefits of the less-changeable rules.
Remember Andorra? Of course you do! How did you get elected as governor every two years?
1) First year i denied all requests and printed tons of money. Everyone was angry, and inflation was high. But noone could do anything because it wasn't an election year. 2) Second year i printed no money, and gave everyone everything they wanted. Everyone was happy, and inflation was low. Everyone re-elected me because it was an election year. 3) Rinse, wash, repeat.
Back thewn, i though it was a game, and had no relevance to real life.
1) Put the word Linux on your website. 2) Add copious amounts of Microsoft bashing. 3) Add Socialist blurbs to the website. 4) Call the current astate of affairs evil. 5) Advocating lowering the voting age to 10. 6) Ask KDawson to post a link to your website. 7) Have everyone on slashdot believe you are the |37357 |]()()|] @®0|\||}
Well, it may not work, but most kids here think it will.
As a disclaimer, let me say that I'm one of the technical reviewers of the book and I have been working with Lua since 1993, most of the time interacting with Roberto Ierusalimschy, even when not working in the same projects as him.
Disclaimer or not, should he be allowed as a reviewer?
Important: If you have a relationship (other than as an ordinary reader) to the author or publisher of a book you're reviewing, disclose that relationship. This means not only cases like "My brother, the author, has given me a million dollars to type this review, and is holding me at gunpoint, while dictating to me from the Amazon review he himself wrote," but also "I used to work at this book's publisher, and was a technical reviewer for this book's three chapters on networking," or "The author is a good friend of mine." Better to disclose more than you think necessary (it can always be edited out if sensible; we'll let you know if we think there's an inappropriate conflict of interest) than less than actually necessary. If in doubt, please speak up.
So, it OK according to the guidelines. Though, i'd wonder if someone so involved is a good person to actually write such a review.
The tombs, which did not contain their mummies, were built of mud-brick and limestone, not the pure limestone preferred by ancient Egypt's upper class.
"The whole point of a tomb was to last forever," said Carol Redmount, associate professor of Egyptian archaeology at the University of California at Berkeley. "So you wanted to make it out of materials that would last forever. And mud-brick... didn't last forever."
So, it's a story of how the lower quality beat the higher quality, even though they flatly deny that such a thing is possible. No wonder the thieves were arrested. Their discovery defies some ivory-tower's resident and must be abolished before physics itself fails. Woe to us all!
three dentists who took care of a Pharaoh's teeth.
Of course, they only had the teeth because the thieves ancestors stole the rest of the body. They took them to court and cried "I want my mummy!", but for some reason the judge kept it under wraps.
Who decides what features make it in? I'm sure the team comes with a mandate, but a whole slew of "little things" are integral to a browser. Does a meeting define those, or do people code what they think is useful, and have it decided later if it should make it in or not?
Knowing the IE is pushed onto ever so many desktops, are decisions ever made based on what most people already do? Easing an erstwhile difficulty is a major thrust of Windows the OS, and i'm sure some of that exists in IE. But Windows looks forward, and it just keeps backwards compatibility in mind. Is IE the same, or is contemporary usage the main point, with innovations taking second seat?
Well, they aren't prohibiting anything, but if enough people cannot get a drink, or are sufficiently bothered to do so, circumvention will arise somehow, illegally or otherwise.
Tagging drinkers is almost nice (aside from standard privacy concerns), it can track those in a mind altered state, after the fact, if a crime was committed. Barring them elsewhere, however, may be overstepping the bounds. Or at least, it is taking two steps at a time.
I'd guess this will fail soon. It sounds overambitous and intrusional, it'll take one public incident to have the public rally against it.
Then again, if tracking works, will narcotics be legal as long as your tracked?
Slashdot Mirror
It's better than Intel's Pentium problem. They simply couldn't do the math!
Q: Why did they call it a Pentium instead of 586.
A: When they booted up the first Pentium and added 100 to 486, it answered 585.32752365107239874
Democracy, as practiced in the US, allows Paul to vote how much Peter will pay him. This has an inevitable meltdown as the eventual conclusion.
Not really. Because it requires a majority.
The appropriate complaint is that it allows tyrrany of the majority over the minority. But, with the US's strong slant on individuality, and tacit encouragement of groups like the ACLU, that is a fight always being fought, and has brought a lot of otherwise hidden prejudices to light, which is a "Good Thing".
Sadly, that's exactly the sort of behavior a democracy encourages.
Not really. Democracy advocates what the people want more commonly.
Basically, everyone wants a well-run system. Well-run systems have two tiers. One, laws with low-changeability based on well-thought-out principals. Two, laws with high-changeability based on popularity. Put another way. One, the guidlines. Two, the practical application.
It is rare to have a country with laws from only one of those sets. If the prior, it will be out of touch with reality. If the latter, judges will be extremely capricious. A mixture of both, however, can protect long-term interests while addressing short-term problems.
Democracy puts the laws in the people's hands. And, if the people separate these two groups, they can get very good results. Just have a higher line that must be reached to change the first category of laws, such as more votes, or voting on them less-often. Politicking can even exist on which group which laws fall into.
The US is not a democracy. It is a representative democracy. Thus, we expect out representative to evaluate these two groups, and at times give in to the public, and at others, resist them. Like a child complaining to the parent, we advocate the view not taking by the one in power, not because we want them to agree, but because it allows us to be one-sided, knwing the the "responsible" person in power will make the "right choice".
The issue with this system is that the representatives want to stay in power, more than they want to do the "right thing". This puts almost everything in the second category, making laws more of a game than a serious approach to protecting the populace.
Then again, the people who vote for them are choosing the politicians that give them more power like a child grabbing candy at the store. I dare say this is more of a lack of appreciation for some less-changeable laws, so people can vote without thinking long-term.
Perhaps then, the failure of a democracy is that it expects people to think long-term. But with so many people thinking about short-term gains (the business sector shows this issue as well) we lose the benefits of the less-changeable rules.
Remember Andorra? Of course you do! How did you get elected as governor every two years?
1) First year i denied all requests and printed tons of money. Everyone was angry, and inflation was high. But noone could do anything because it wasn't an election year.
2) Second year i printed no money, and gave everyone everything they wanted. Everyone was happy, and inflation was low. Everyone re-elected me because it was an election year.
3) Rinse, wash, repeat.
Back thewn, i though it was a game, and had no relevance to real life.
How to steal an election in seven easy steps:
1) Put the word Linux on your website.
2) Add copious amounts of Microsoft bashing.
3) Add Socialist blurbs to the website.
4) Call the current astate of affairs evil.
5) Advocating lowering the voting age to 10.
6) Ask KDawson to post a link to your website.
7) Have everyone on slashdot believe you are the |37357 |]()()|] @®0|\||}
Well, it may not work, but most kids here think it will.
According to the BBC NASA is debating whether or not to send astronauts in to space to service the Hubble telescope.
So, they're looking into the issue?
Microsoft Cake?
Finally, my Microsoft Bob has been hungry for years now, maybe i can finally raise him a level.
Michael Cherry, an analyst with Directions on Microsoft
No more Service Packs, OK? Please? Which a (Michael) Cherry on top?
Truthfully, i don't care much for Microsoft Service Packs. Microsoft Cakes, however, that may be a different case entirely.
Cake in Firfox?
Can someone fax me a slice?
500 megs
Did he actually say "megs"?
/me cries
Easy enough.
You holf it next to your ear, and it keeps saying "42, 42, 42".
This comment is only six words long.
Disclaimer or not, should he be allowed as a reviewer?
Hmm, the Review Guidelines stateSo, it OK according to the guidelines. Though, i'd wonder if someone so involved is a good person to actually write such a review.
This whole thing sounds confusing. Could someone send me a video showing how its done?
I wonder if user "usgovernment" with a feedback of 42k has any relevance here.
Maybe the moon was larger, yet somehow decayed into what it is today.
So, it's a story of how the lower quality beat the higher quality, even though they flatly deny that such a thing is possible. No wonder the thieves were arrested. Their discovery defies some ivory-tower's resident and must be abolished before physics itself fails. Woe to us all!
three dentists who took care of a Pharaoh's teeth.
Of course, they only had the teeth because the thieves ancestors stole the rest of the body. They took them to court and cried "I want my mummy!", but for some reason the judge kept it under wraps.
They left just the teeth. That's got to bite.
Who decides what features make it in? I'm sure the team comes with a mandate, but a whole slew of "little things" are integral to a browser. Does a meeting define those, or do people code what they think is useful, and have it decided later if it should make it in or not?
Knowing the IE is pushed onto ever so many desktops, are decisions ever made based on what most people already do? Easing an erstwhile difficulty is a major thrust of Windows the OS, and i'm sure some of that exists in IE. But Windows looks forward, and it just keeps backwards compatibility in mind. Is IE the same, or is contemporary usage the main point, with innovations taking second seat?
Is "Hachamovitch" your real name, or a nickname for how IE is put together?
Nice that he got an article, but....
it isn't comprehensive in the slightest.
doesn't mention Al-TV "taking over" M-TV for a half-hour.
doesn't mention the problems he's had except one album.
Must be slow news day.
Is this the UK's version of prohibition?
Well, they aren't prohibiting anything, but if enough people cannot get a drink, or are sufficiently bothered to do so, circumvention will arise somehow, illegally or otherwise.
Tagging drinkers is almost nice (aside from standard privacy concerns), it can track those in a mind altered state, after the fact, if a crime was committed. Barring them elsewhere, however, may be overstepping the bounds. Or at least, it is taking two steps at a time.
I'd guess this will fail soon. It sounds overambitous and intrusional, it'll take one public incident to have the public rally against it.
Then again, if tracking works, will narcotics be legal as long as your tracked?
Heh.
;)
First of all, i rarely use Word. I type most things in notepad and manually spellcheck.
I did realize i had an error, but as i said, i checked the wrong letter.
Thanx for the comment though.:)
Wow, this is perty kewl. The whole "doing more with less" thing.
[Not quite exact, but i think it demonstrates.]
Have a project that your programmer can't handle? Two solutions, hire another programmer, make programmer to work harder.
Have a processor that isn't fast enough? Two solutions, get a faster processor, overclock the processor.
Have a camera that doesn't capture enough? Two solutions, add more pixels, do more with the current pixels.
That they took the time to take a second look at this is fantastic. There is genius in simplicity.