Actually, especially in a multiparty system, like Canada has (there are about 5 viable parties), it is easy for this to occur. A reform may change to a PC if they see reform only getting 2 seats out here, but PC tieing with Liberal. This is one of the problems with "polling."
But I was actually more speaking to people who were sure if they were going to vote, and then seeing a hated party winning by a margin, deciding to vote. On the other side, a person who had decided they were going to vote seeing their party winning may decide they don't need to. Polling also causes this problem.
I agree that I don't know for sure, but I still see no real problem with it. LEDs are remarkably efficient, as in: significantly more light produced than heat. That combined with the fact that you aren't focusing light down to a point, you expanding it up from the point means that the are may not get hot at all: all of the heat convects away from the OLED to a much larger surface, not collects from a large surface towards it (when burning ants, it works because the heat collects in the target).
But I don't know. It could just as easily be what you describe. There isn't enough information he to decide either way.
Acceptance voting is the way to go. It always satisfies the most people. Every candidate you simply answer whether you'd be fine with them winning. For me that would be Libertarian and Democrat for president (which isn't my preference, but I'd be okay with them winning) and Democrat and Green for Congress.
Then you just could up who has the most yes votes.
It easy to administer (try it sometime when deciding where to eat with friends/family) and understand, and is very resistant to many know voting attacks, such as polling (which STV isn't).
Because the husband can beat the wife if she uses the secret voting mechanism. Even without full replacement, in a coersive situation that can force you to change your vote can also force you to pick the voting method.
There are no "nonworking" days in the U.S. Every day, regardless of the religious or secular importance, there are millions of people working. It's just the way it is. Even declaring the day a holiday won't stop people from going to and being expected at work.
Instead, the law says that an employer must allow an employee the time to vote (if their shift lasts all day long). It works well enough.
The fact is that the X-men weren't humans. They were mutants. Their genetic sequence was different enough from homo sapien sapien such that they had amazing powers unknown to the human world in the same way that we have amazing powers unknown to the cromagnon world. X-men and other mutants are the next step in our eveolution.
The real issue at stake in their universe is whether or not the framers of the constitution would include the X-men under "We the people" and other such important phrases. The constitution talks of "people," not humans. I feel that yes, the X-men are people and should have the same constitutional protections as other people, but they aren't human.
I recall back during the 1997 Federal Elections, there was a small, but valid issue with blacking out election results because of the internet. Because of the timezones, the polls in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland were closed and estimated while the ones in British Columbia were still open. Without blacking these results out it can cause apathy among voters for the winning party and impetous for potential voters for the losing parties. This is enough to sway the vote to the minority party.
During this election, many of my friends were in IRC channels full of hundreds of people (not enough to sway the vote federally, but it could have effected a riding) on either coast talking about the results. Now with Candians checking American or British papers, it's on a scale not known before.
There are going to be more and more issues like this, but this is what happens when you empower the public in the way that the internet has. I for one will take the freedom the internet has given back to us and fight attempts at clamping down on it, even when i works against a case of individual right such as this, and voter's rights such as the election example given. We've been given somethng we've never had before and taken back a lot of freedom in the last few years. We can let it be pushed back like so many other freedoms we've lost.
You were modded funny, but in case you are earnest no, each pixel will not be that size. Either one dot will emit enough light for a whole 1*10^-4 inch square a typical pixel occupies, or they'll put multiple dots together. In all likelyhood, they will use at least 3 dots (a red green and blue one) to get the color gamut, even though one dot will be sufficient for the luminosity. It doesn't take a lot of light to illuminate 1*10-4 inches.
I don't think that's actually true. There has been talk about inorganic life before here on slashdot and it seems that even biologists consider life that isn't based on carbon to be inorganic. It's probably more that biologists don't consider a benzene ring I make in my lab to be organic, whereas in the strict chemistry terminology it is an organic compound.
This would be the RIAA versus all of corporate America. Every major business has a website. Do you think Google wants to pay the RIAA for every search done on their site?
Even when restricting to home users it'll be a tough fight. People buying audio tapes were doing it to copy audio (or ZX81 games). Most people on the internet don't know what P2P is. All it'll take is one email saying "the government wants to tax the internet to give aide to Hollywood producers please forward this to your friends" email, and in a month you've got a "Not quite" entry on snopes and a million people writing their congressman saying they don't want a tax on their email to go to Hollywood.
The Florida Supreme court, voting thier political agenda, TRIED TO CHANGE FLORIDA STATE LAW by extending the deadline for election results to be certified
It cannot logically serve a political agenda to allow for a recount of votes. It can only serve the agenda of determining who the actual victor is. If the votes are retallied in a careful fashion, then reasonably whoever the victor is will be the one with the greater amount of votes. If you are confident that Bush won in Florida, then you should not care if a recount is made. If you are confident that Gore won, then you would want a recount, but you could be shown that you are wrong.
However, barring a recount only can serve a political agenda for whoever the current count winner is. It is declaring that what the actual votes are don't matter, just that we want to use this possibily inaccurate count.
Florida law stating elections must be finished by a certain time and stating that the will of the voters should be voices are two laws that can contradict each other, as they do in this case. It is the role of the Supreme Court to resolve such conflicts. Normally, the two work together because it forces the government to be expidient and accurate. But in the cases where the government can only be expidient or accurate, the Supreme's in FL said that accurate is the governing reason. The Supreme's in D.C. feel expidiency is the key, so I guess it would make more sense to just generate a random number than all this voting nonsense.
Not so. All inventions and works of art belong to the creators. If they choose not to share them with us, that is their unalienable right, an the public has no right to demand that these inventions be shared.
This, isn't 100% true. If I create a drawing of a mouse with pants and hold it up to the window, and you see it without my realizing, you can still copy the picture 70 years after my death. I don't have to make an active choice to share my work, once I create it, the "idea" belongs to everyone (the materials are still mine). No, no one can force me to share it, but then no one can force you to share it either, that's just a separate issue. Without the means to copy the idea, the idea can't be copied, but everyone has the right to copy it, even if it means post-humously examining my brain matter.
I too disagree with this. The principle behind the public domain is that because all works are derivitive works, they should belong to the public. Well, part of this is that they should belong to the public of the time that the work was created. I'm for giving a limited monopoly, but to give one such that the work goes to the pubic domain within my lifetime (given a normal life). Even 40 years is preferable.
This also allows for less risk in the commerce of works, since it is known when the expiry is. A publisher would still be reluctant to publish a book by a 90 year old knowing it probably only has a 15 year life span under life+15. Even if 15 is longer than the average run, part of the business is getting books that are timeless as part of your offering.
thank you so much for the contributions that you make to some of the brilliant works in society whether it's art, music or anything
You're welcome.
As an aside, I certainly feel that if anyone were to want to use my works (you must know about them as you are thanking me for them) as a basis of a new work, then they should. I like the temporary monopoly I have to my works, but I really don't see the need for them to go beyond 14 years (or even 5 years, and a lot of my works are older than that. Nothing worth anything is older than 14 years).
We'll see if you still feel the same way after you have your million dollar idea
I have many million dollar ideas. I just don't have the starting capital or credit to execute them. Millin dollar ideas are a dime a dozen to me.
I can't speak for all, but I know I'm cool with that. I actually can't think of a better example of a derivitive work than Linux. It's a copy of Minux. It should have it's exclusive monopoly for it's short time, and then it should be as unemcumbered as FreeBSD.
Yeah, when I wrote about this in my blog I said a simpler model may work, where you base COL on some low amount and you chosing to live in 90210 is your choice to spend your disposable income on that. I really have to think about this more. I've been a big proponent for progressive tax because of the disposable income arguement as well as the belief that the wealthy (and up until recently I was making 115K, so I was in that boat) benefit more from society than the poor. Doing this math has been interesting. I didn't really realize before that a flat tax could be progressive given the right deductible.
No they don't. Or at least not in the case of intellectual property. If we are talking a physical item, then yes, ownership makes sense. But the fact is that all works are derivative works, derived from the input that society gives the artist. All of society help an author write a book, a painter paint a painting, a musican write a song.
We give them a short term monopoly on their work as a repayment for coming up with it, but then it should get turned over to the society that helped make it happen.
That is the reason for the public domain, and to me, it's a damn good one. This decision really pisses me off.
This works because it then is a function with a maximization in the middle class, because at 50K
Let N=income, t=tax rate, d=deductable, c=cost of living F(N,t,d,c) is the tax rate based on disposable income.
F(N,t,d,c)=t*(N-d)/(N-c) thus, F'(N,t,d,c)=t*( (N-c)-(N-d))/(N-c)^2
=t*(d-c)/(N-c)^2 Note that if d>c, then the derivative is >0 so it is monotonically increasing (progressive). If dc, then the derivative is 0 so it is monotonically decreasing (regressive). If d=c, then the derivitive is 0, thus all points are maxima (flat tax).
To make a flat tax based on disposable income then, you must have a knowledge of the cost of living, which varies area by area. Thus your deductible should be based on zip code, which is unweildy for a common tax payor, offers lower to middle class loopholes (I live in 90210 so I have a high deductable but I really live in shit creek), and is difficult to determine (a 3 bedroom apartment in this zip is cheaper than in that zip, but safety is in issue in this zip so you are actually paying for less).
With truck stops, it wouldn't just be personal use. I work on logistics software and the current buzz is WiFi hotspots where a laptop with a GPS will call home when it enters the area. Carriers will pay quite a bit (but not too much) for access to these networks, since most of what they currently do is have the truck driver phone a representative who keys in the data (cellular service/equipment tends to be too expensive or nonreliable).By using these networks they can eliminate the rep (and the keying errors).
One possible explaination for the LoC count may be that he's using Borland and trusting it's "count". At my first real job, we used Borland and I made a realtively complex program over the course of 18 months (coincidentally enough). The line count was over 1.5 million, but the reality was that it wasn't that long, Borland was counting lines processed, which included the header files, and the OWL and windows headers could add a lot to each module (of which there were over 100, since I was big on modularization).
I never really knew the true line count. I just remember the Borland one because I used to often do a global compile any time I wanted a half hour break ("Oh, the systems acting funny. Better do a global compile to make sure it's not a dependancy problem." If my boss came by and I wasn't there, he'd see the compile running on the screen).
Yeah, but his goal is to open a business, and Harvard is a good environment for that goal, if not just for the people you meet. Sure, if you want to be a grunt, going to MIT or Waterloo is a good idea. But if you want to have "C.E.O." next to your name, Harvard is a better choice.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Write a book about "1. do X; 2. ???; 3. Profit" ...
2. ???
Actually, especially in a multiparty system, like Canada has (there are about 5 viable parties), it is easy for this to occur. A reform may change to a PC if they see reform only getting 2 seats out here, but PC tieing with Liberal. This is one of the problems with "polling."
But I was actually more speaking to people who were sure if they were going to vote, and then seeing a hated party winning by a margin, deciding to vote. On the other side, a person who had decided they were going to vote seeing their party winning may decide they don't need to. Polling also causes this problem.
I agree that I don't know for sure, but I still see no real problem with it. LEDs are remarkably efficient, as in: significantly more light produced than heat. That combined with the fact that you aren't focusing light down to a point, you expanding it up from the point means that the are may not get hot at all: all of the heat convects away from the OLED to a much larger surface, not collects from a large surface towards it (when burning ants, it works because the heat collects in the target).
But I don't know. It could just as easily be what you describe. There isn't enough information he to decide either way.
Acceptance voting is the way to go. It always satisfies the most people. Every candidate you simply answer whether you'd be fine with them winning. For me that would be Libertarian and Democrat for president (which isn't my preference, but I'd be okay with them winning) and Democrat and Green for Congress.
Then you just could up who has the most yes votes.
It easy to administer (try it sometime when deciding where to eat with friends/family) and understand, and is very resistant to many know voting attacks, such as polling (which STV isn't).
They can set up a stations in their office and have clerks verify it. It's just an example, use your ability of abstract thought.
Because the husband can beat the wife if she uses the secret voting mechanism. Even without full replacement, in a coersive situation that can force you to change your vote can also force you to pick the voting method.
There are no "nonworking" days in the U.S. Every day, regardless of the religious or secular importance, there are millions of people working. It's just the way it is. Even declaring the day a holiday won't stop people from going to and being expected at work.
Instead, the law says that an employer must allow an employee the time to vote (if their shift lasts all day long). It works well enough.
The fact is that the X-men weren't humans. They were mutants. Their genetic sequence was different enough from homo sapien sapien such that they had amazing powers unknown to the human world in the same way that we have amazing powers unknown to the cromagnon world. X-men and other mutants are the next step in our eveolution.
The real issue at stake in their universe is whether or not the framers of the constitution would include the X-men under "We the people" and other such important phrases. The constitution talks of "people," not humans. I feel that yes, the X-men are people and should have the same constitutional protections as other people, but they aren't human.
I recall back during the 1997 Federal Elections, there was a small, but valid issue with blacking out election results because of the internet. Because of the timezones, the polls in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland were closed and estimated while the ones in British Columbia were still open. Without blacking these results out it can cause apathy among voters for the winning party and impetous for potential voters for the losing parties. This is enough to sway the vote to the minority party.
During this election, many of my friends were in IRC channels full of hundreds of people (not enough to sway the vote federally, but it could have effected a riding) on either coast talking about the results. Now with Candians checking American or British papers, it's on a scale not known before.
There are going to be more and more issues like this, but this is what happens when you empower the public in the way that the internet has. I for one will take the freedom the internet has given back to us and fight attempts at clamping down on it, even when i works against a case of individual right such as this, and voter's rights such as the election example given. We've been given somethng we've never had before and taken back a lot of freedom in the last few years. We can let it be pushed back like so many other freedoms we've lost.
You were modded funny, but in case you are earnest no, each pixel will not be that size. Either one dot will emit enough light for a whole 1*10^-4 inch square a typical pixel occupies, or they'll put multiple dots together. In all likelyhood, they will use at least 3 dots (a red green and blue one) to get the color gamut, even though one dot will be sufficient for the luminosity. It doesn't take a lot of light to illuminate 1*10-4 inches.
I don't think that's actually true. There has been talk about inorganic life before here on slashdot and it seems that even biologists consider life that isn't based on carbon to be inorganic. It's probably more that biologists don't consider a benzene ring I make in my lab to be organic, whereas in the strict chemistry terminology it is an organic compound.
This would be the RIAA versus all of corporate America. Every major business has a website. Do you think Google wants to pay the RIAA for every search done on their site?
Even when restricting to home users it'll be a tough fight. People buying audio tapes were doing it to copy audio (or ZX81 games). Most people on the internet don't know what P2P is. All it'll take is one email saying "the government wants to tax the internet to give aide to Hollywood producers please forward this to your friends" email, and in a month you've got a "Not quite" entry on snopes and a million people writing their congressman saying they don't want a tax on their email to go to Hollywood.
# Giving them the comfort of mind to know that even if they should die, their children (and grandchildren) will still be ok
Not for nothing, but this is why I have a million dollar life insurance policy on me. Has copyright somehow displaced the insurance industry?
The Florida Supreme court, voting thier political agenda, TRIED TO CHANGE FLORIDA STATE LAW by extending the deadline for election results to be certified
It cannot logically serve a political agenda to allow for a recount of votes. It can only serve the agenda of determining who the actual victor is. If the votes are retallied in a careful fashion, then reasonably whoever the victor is will be the one with the greater amount of votes. If you are confident that Bush won in Florida, then you should not care if a recount is made. If you are confident that Gore won, then you would want a recount, but you could be shown that you are wrong.
However, barring a recount only can serve a political agenda for whoever the current count winner is. It is declaring that what the actual votes are don't matter, just that we want to use this possibily inaccurate count.
Florida law stating elections must be finished by a certain time and stating that the will of the voters should be voices are two laws that can contradict each other, as they do in this case. It is the role of the Supreme Court to resolve such conflicts. Normally, the two work together because it forces the government to be expidient and accurate. But in the cases where the government can only be expidient or accurate, the Supreme's in FL said that accurate is the governing reason. The Supreme's in D.C. feel expidiency is the key, so I guess it would make more sense to just generate a random number than all this voting nonsense.
Not so. All inventions and works of art belong to the creators. If they choose not to share them with us, that is their unalienable right, an the public has no right to demand that these inventions be shared.
This, isn't 100% true. If I create a drawing of a mouse with pants and hold it up to the window, and you see it without my realizing, you can still copy the picture 70 years after my death. I don't have to make an active choice to share my work, once I create it, the "idea" belongs to everyone (the materials are still mine). No, no one can force me to share it, but then no one can force you to share it either, that's just a separate issue. Without the means to copy the idea, the idea can't be copied, but everyone has the right to copy it, even if it means post-humously examining my brain matter.
I too disagree with this. The principle behind the public domain is that because all works are derivitive works, they should belong to the public. Well, part of this is that they should belong to the public of the time that the work was created. I'm for giving a limited monopoly, but to give one such that the work goes to the pubic domain within my lifetime (given a normal life). Even 40 years is preferable.
This also allows for less risk in the commerce of works, since it is known when the expiry is. A publisher would still be reluctant to publish a book by a 90 year old knowing it probably only has a 15 year life span under life+15. Even if 15 is longer than the average run, part of the business is getting books that are timeless as part of your offering.
thank you so much for the contributions that you make to some of the brilliant works in society whether it's art, music or anything
You're welcome.
As an aside, I certainly feel that if anyone were to want to use my works (you must know about them as you are thanking me for them) as a basis of a new work, then they should. I like the temporary monopoly I have to my works, but I really don't see the need for them to go beyond 14 years (or even 5 years, and a lot of my works are older than that. Nothing worth anything is older than 14 years).
We'll see if you still feel the same way after you have your million dollar idea
I have many million dollar ideas. I just don't have the starting capital or credit to execute them. Millin dollar ideas are a dime a dozen to me.
I can't speak for all, but I know I'm cool with that. I actually can't think of a better example of a derivitive work than Linux. It's a copy of Minux. It should have it's exclusive monopoly for it's short time, and then it should be as unemcumbered as FreeBSD.
Yeah, when I wrote about this in my blog I said a simpler model may work, where you base COL on some low amount and you chosing to live in 90210 is your choice to spend your disposable income on that. I really have to think about this more. I've been a big proponent for progressive tax because of the disposable income arguement as well as the belief that the wealthy (and up until recently I was making 115K, so I was in that boat) benefit more from society than the poor. Doing this math has been interesting. I didn't really realize before that a flat tax could be progressive given the right deductible.
right to own what they produced
No they don't. Or at least not in the case of intellectual property. If we are talking a physical item, then yes, ownership makes sense. But the fact is that all works are derivative works, derived from the input that society gives the artist. All of society help an author write a book, a painter paint a painting, a musican write a song.
We give them a short term monopoly on their work as a repayment for coming up with it, but then it should get turned over to the society that helped make it happen.
That is the reason for the public domain, and to me, it's a damn good one. This decision really pisses me off.
This works because it then is a function with a maximization in the middle class, because at 50K
( (N-c)-(N-d))/(N-c)^2
Let N=income, t=tax rate, d=deductable, c=cost of living
F(N,t,d,c) is the tax rate based on disposable income.
F(N,t,d,c)=t*(N-d)/(N-c)
thus,
F'(N,t,d,c)=t*
=t*(d-c)/(N-c)^2
Note that if d>c, then the derivative is >0 so it is monotonically increasing (progressive).
If dc, then the derivative is 0 so it is monotonically decreasing (regressive).
If d=c, then the derivitive is 0, thus all points are maxima (flat tax).
To make a flat tax based on disposable income then, you must have a knowledge of the cost of living, which varies area by area. Thus your deductible should be based on zip code, which is unweildy for a common tax payor, offers lower to middle class loopholes (I live in 90210 so I have a high deductable but I really live in shit creek), and is difficult to determine (a 3 bedroom apartment in this zip is cheaper than in that zip, but safety is in issue in this zip so you are actually paying for less).
Still, kind of interesting.
With truck stops, it wouldn't just be personal use. I work on logistics software and the current buzz is WiFi hotspots where a laptop with a GPS will call home when it enters the area. Carriers will pay quite a bit (but not too much) for access to these networks, since most of what they currently do is have the truck driver phone a representative who keys in the data (cellular service/equipment tends to be too expensive or nonreliable).By using these networks they can eliminate the rep (and the keying errors).
I think the top one of these would be a better brand symbol.
One possible explaination for the LoC count may be that he's using Borland and trusting it's "count". At my first real job, we used Borland and I made a realtively complex program over the course of 18 months (coincidentally enough). The line count was over 1.5 million, but the reality was that it wasn't that long, Borland was counting lines processed, which included the header files, and the OWL and windows headers could add a lot to each module (of which there were over 100, since I was big on modularization).
I never really knew the true line count. I just remember the Borland one because I used to often do a global compile any time I wanted a half hour break ("Oh, the systems acting funny. Better do a global compile to make sure it's not a dependancy problem." If my boss came by and I wasn't there, he'd see the compile running on the screen).
Yeah, but his goal is to open a business, and Harvard is a good environment for that goal, if not just for the people you meet. Sure, if you want to be a grunt, going to MIT or Waterloo is a good idea. But if you want to have "C.E.O." next to your name, Harvard is a better choice.