Do you make this crap up yourself, or does it get sent to you through the mail as part of your subscription to Batshit Monthly?
3,987 karma · joined March 1, 2012
Do you make this crap up yourself, or does it get sent to you through the mail as part of your subscription to Batshit Monthly?
Saying that utility functions are the "what there is to life", is a bit like 42 being the answer to life, the universe and everything in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. What meaning you can draw depends totally on what question you are asking, or what perspective you are looking at it from.
For instance, if you are a squirrel, then an economist might be able to calculate a utility function for your behaviour, however the concept of utility functions themselves have no bearing (as far as we know) on "what there is to life" from the squirrel's perspective.
(Not meaning to make light of what was an excellent post. Is just that I read your edit, and I thought you might be cheered up by sillyness.)
So you would, I guess, also suggest that Sikhs should stop wearing turbans, Jews should stop wearing a kippah, nuns should stop wearing habits, pagans should stop wearing pentangles, etc.
Not only is your suggestion frankly both offensive and pretty idiotic, but the world it would lead to would have even more discrimination than now and be a hell of a lot more boring.
If someone detects a murder by extremely technological means, say while using muons from cosmic rays to image though a structure like they are doing at Fukashima at the moment http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v109/i15/e152501, then that murder is still a crime whatever the method of detection.
Now it is reasonable to argue that growing weed should not be a crime in the first place, but to argue that growing it indoors should not be a crime on the basis of the level of technology required to detect it, does not seem to make any sort of sense.
They could be missing already, or be unregistered kids, or recently arrived unregistered migrants. Not everyone who is murdered is noticed missing. Also, very few of the people who are missing have been murdered.
He should probably stop selling them then.
You also have to be careful with some of these statistics. Speed cameras often get put up in reaction to a series of accidents. But statistically you would expect the amount of crashes to go up and down, and if you have just had an unusually high level of accidents on a stretch of road, then you would expect the average measured afterwards to be lower in the majority of cases, irrespective of whether a speed camera was installed.
For me the question isn't, 'how do we protect the intellectual property of the people who do research', because the term intellectual property is a legal one that varies massively in time and geography. I would probably be more inclined to ask the question 'how do we make sure that the people who do research get paid really well and are really well resourced', and work from there.
I'm pretty sure it has. It also sues them as individuals for large sums of money, so if it didn't state exactly that then it would have a very hard time making an argument in court.
Are we talking about the thing of writing "fizz" for multiples of 3 and "buzz" for multiples of 5 and "fizzbuzz" for both, for the numbers 1 - 100? If that is famously hard, then the definition of hard must have changed massively while I wasn't looking.