If Steve Jobs does not return to Apple look for Apple's profits to fall off rapidly. Without Steve to tell them that they need the latest Apple product in order to stay cool, Apple fanbois will gradually drift away. As the fanbois drift away, so will many others.
I didn't read the article, but from your excerpt and summary of the relevant bit I would say the company is making a serious mistake in not giving the senior developer a significant raise. Yes, they are hiring graduates at rates driven by the market, but if they lose thise senior developer they are going to be SOL. The thing a lot of companies do not figure into their salary calculations are the cost to the company if they lose a particular employee. He may not have the skill set to get a salary comparable to what they are giving to these new hires elsewhere, but if he leaves the company over this it is going to cost them a lot more than a premium over what the new hires are making. If they are very lucky they will be able to hire someone to replace him at something close to the rate it would have taken to keep him. Then that person will have to learn the company's systems and get up to speed with the company's products.
Too many companies do not pay enough attention to what it costs them in lost productivity to replace an employee.
My understanding of the anthropic principle as used by creationists is that they say that the Universe has been fine-tuned to maximize conditions for life as we know it on earth, not to maximize life in the Universe. The subject of the article says that changing the Cosmological Constant would maximize the odds of life developing in multiple locations throughout the Universe.
The problem with this is really simple. You will need to replace the chemicals in this that produce the scents every so often. The other problem is that it will only be able to provide the scents that it has the chemicals for. Of course, I could see game companies including a scent disk with the game and then selling replacement scent disks for close to the same cost as the new game.
Actually my understanding is that Righthaven is owned by LVRJ (and possibly several other media companies). LVRJ transfers copyright of every article they publish to Righthaven in exchange for perpetual right to reproduce said articles (if there are ony other owners of Righthaven, they do the same for the copyright of the publications they own). Righthaven then sues anyone who reproduces any part of those articles.
The reason for the reference to other media company owners of Righthaven is that I seem to recall seeing that some of the lawsuits Righthaven has entered into are for articles originally published in other publications than LVRJ and I am too lazy to go into whether that is correct and whether or not those publications are owned by the same company as LVRJ.
There is a bigger reason to argue that the economic damage is zero than the one you cite. The only money Righthaven makes from the material it holds copyright on is from suing those who infringe its copyright. Righthaven is a separate legal entity owned by one or more media companies. The owners of Righthaven transfer their copyrights to Righthaven in exchange for the perpetual right to use the material. Righthaven then sues anyone else who uses the material. As far as I can tell, Righthaven does not license anyone to make copies of the material other than the originator of that material (to whom they extend that right in exchange for the copyright on the material). The way I understand copyright law to be written in the U.S. this significantly simplifies the "fair use" defense (and from previous articles posted on slashdot apparently the courts see it that way as well).
Of course no climatologist made that specific of a prediction, that would allow someone to point out that their theory was wrong. Climatologists (at least the proponents of AGW) are in the business of saying that if we do not follow the specific prescriptions they give us disaster will happen and no matter what happens, it is proof that their theory was right. Bastardi made a very specific prediction, if he is right that is support for his understanding of climatology. If he is wrong that proves his climatological theories false. When have AGW proponents ever made a prediction which if it was wrong would be evidence that their theory was wrong?
If a theory is not falsifiable it is not a scientific theory.
Maybe climatology can't make predictions as specific as "We won't see anymore snow in England", but that did not stop at least one climatologist from making it. If climatology cannot make a prediction that we can look at and say, "OK that happened," or "Sorry, back to the drawing board, that didn't happen," it isn't science. One of the most basic elements of something being scientific is that it is falsifiable. When have AGW proponents made any prediction that they were willing to say, "If such and so doesn't happen, our theory is wrong"?
In the article I linked to above Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, said "Children just aren't going to know what snow is." That sure sounds like a prediction that England would have essentially no snow.
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
No, making a prediction is not in and of itself science. However, if you have a scientific theory, historically the way to get it accepted was to make a prediction based on it and then go out and collect the data to see if your prediction is correct. So far my experience with AGW proponents is that they say that whatever unusual weather happens is what one would expect if AGW was true. Is it unusually warm? AGW. Is it unusually cold? AGW. Is it unusually dry? AGW. Is it unusually wet? AGW. that isn't science.
Re:Whatever you think of it
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 4, Informative
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
The blue states haven't been "forced to pay the bills" of the red states. The blue states have demanded that the federal government have all of these programs that pay money out to the states. The red states voters have consistently opposed these programs even though as a result of them more federal money is spent in those states than those states pay in taxes.
However, a study a year or so back indicated that a powerful legislator in Congress from a particular state tended to depress the economy of that state. If such is the case, perhaps the blue states are actually sending federal money to red states in order to depress the economies of those states to the advantage of the blue states. The method the study used to reach the conclusions they did could certainly be questioned, however, the authors stated that their results were the opposite of what they expected.
Whatever you think of it
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Whatever you think of it's relevance for the theory of AGW, Bastardi has made a specific prediction and challenged anyone to take him up on it. If those climatologists who are believers in AGW are true scientists they should be able to make a specific prediction that we can come back to in 10 years and either say, "Way to go, your prediction is correct" or "Sorry, back to the drawing board on your theory, your prediction is wrong."
The last major AGW prediction I can recall was that England would not have snow in winter any more. Of course, now that England has had a very snowy winter, those same AGW guys are telling us, "Well, yes, that is what you can expect from Global Warming." I would put a lot more credence into the latter statement if they had told us we could expect a snowier winter in England instead of telling us that England would be getting less and less snow every year.
I guess it depends on your definition of right and left. Most Americans define being in favor of big government as being left. Obama is very much in favor of big government. Modern democracy is unsustainable because we no longer have a common cultural basis upon which to build a concensus.
If elected officials do not have the ability to control the actions of senior level bureaucrats, this discussion about government policy is pointless. I believe that elected officials still have the ability to control the actions of the bureaucracy, when they choose to exercise it. Elected officials often choose to allow bureaucrats to funtion without control so as to allow them a certain amount of deniability when those bureaucrats carry out the will of said politicians in ways that the voters do not approve of.
I believe that the Founding Fathers would be horrified at the level of lawmaking that Congress has delegated to unelected bureaucrats. I suspect that the men who composed the Constitution would consider most of our federal regulatory structure to be a violation of the spirit of the Constitution when not an outright violation of what they thought was clearly written.
Which means that this was a political dirty trick. The guy in question is the son of a high ranking Democrat. What are the chances his father was the instigator of this "hack"?
I have yet to see anyone post any of the emails that were released through this that actually showed any wrongdoing by Sarah Palin.
If everything done by upper management in government is bad, the only way to fix it is at the next election. BTW, my impression of this policy is not that they are going to oust these people, merely restrict their access to classified data.
This is not a plan to root out the spies, this is a plan to weed out those who over time come to decide they are going to release secrets in order to get payback for a perceived slight or to force the government to change policies.
My impression of Manning (which is not based on much, I was not interested enough to read many articles which talked about his motivations) is that he was the sort who expressed general dissatisfaction with the world and then realized he was in a position to get some of his own back.
I have worked with people who are the type they are looking for (or at least the type they should be looking for). They are a cancer in the workplace. One place I worked, the entire department this person worked in was depressing to be around. They always viewed every management initiative in the worst possible light. The person quit for another job, within a month the department was much more upbeat and had a positive attitude. If nothing else, getting this person to not poison the waters for everyone else would be a positive thing.
This should not be aimed at people who have legitimate issues with management which they take through the appropriate channels (which certainly should exist), but at those people who view everything said and done by upper management as bad. Now, whether it will actually be implemented this way is another question. If it is implemented properly than the person who says "I'll be fired if I don't toe the party line! I'm being oppresse!" is exactly the ones who this should be targeting. Of course, if it isn't implemented correctly, they will quickly lose many of their good people.
I do not have a lot of faith in the government implementing it correctly, but that doesn't mean that the idea is inherently bad.
Can I ask how you know the question but not the answer? Got a source?
Google it. I had seen two or three articles which mentioned his question to her at the event in 2007. When this came up on here, I googled it so that I would get the question as it was reported in those articles.
According to those articles, she said something in Spanish and moved on. The articles do not report what her answer was.
So, someone who's just had a death in the family is now untrustworthy because they're unhappy?
Are you stupid or did you just deliberately misread the summary? They are not talking about generic unhappiness, they are talking about being unhappy with your job/management. Someone who expresses unhappiness with government policies is likely to be security risk when it comes to government secrets. Conceptually, this is not a bad idea. Whether it is executed in a manner that is sensible is a completely different question.
I was trying to point that out by saying that there is no rational way to connect Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto and the works of Ayn Rand. My point was that there is a logical connection to be constructed between Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto, but once you introduce Ayn Rand into the mix there is no hope for a rational world view to emerge.
I am actually surprised that "The Illuminatus Trilogy" by Robert Anton Wilson was not part of his reading list. What I have seen of Loughner's views seems to fit in very well with that series of books.
Slashdot Mirror
If Steve Jobs does not return to Apple look for Apple's profits to fall off rapidly. Without Steve to tell them that they need the latest Apple product in order to stay cool, Apple fanbois will gradually drift away. As the fanbois drift away, so will many others.
I didn't read the article, but from your excerpt and summary of the relevant bit I would say the company is making a serious mistake in not giving the senior developer a significant raise. Yes, they are hiring graduates at rates driven by the market, but if they lose thise senior developer they are going to be SOL. The thing a lot of companies do not figure into their salary calculations are the cost to the company if they lose a particular employee. He may not have the skill set to get a salary comparable to what they are giving to these new hires elsewhere, but if he leaves the company over this it is going to cost them a lot more than a premium over what the new hires are making. If they are very lucky they will be able to hire someone to replace him at something close to the rate it would have taken to keep him. Then that person will have to learn the company's systems and get up to speed with the company's products.
Too many companies do not pay enough attention to what it costs them in lost productivity to replace an employee.
My understanding of the anthropic principle as used by creationists is that they say that the Universe has been fine-tuned to maximize conditions for life as we know it on earth, not to maximize life in the Universe. The subject of the article says that changing the Cosmological Constant would maximize the odds of life developing in multiple locations throughout the Universe.
The problem with this is really simple. You will need to replace the chemicals in this that produce the scents every so often. The other problem is that it will only be able to provide the scents that it has the chemicals for. Of course, I could see game companies including a scent disk with the game and then selling replacement scent disks for close to the same cost as the new game.
Actually my understanding is that Righthaven is owned by LVRJ (and possibly several other media companies). LVRJ transfers copyright of every article they publish to Righthaven in exchange for perpetual right to reproduce said articles (if there are ony other owners of Righthaven, they do the same for the copyright of the publications they own). Righthaven then sues anyone who reproduces any part of those articles.
The reason for the reference to other media company owners of Righthaven is that I seem to recall seeing that some of the lawsuits Righthaven has entered into are for articles originally published in other publications than LVRJ and I am too lazy to go into whether that is correct and whether or not those publications are owned by the same company as LVRJ.
There is a bigger reason to argue that the economic damage is zero than the one you cite. The only money Righthaven makes from the material it holds copyright on is from suing those who infringe its copyright. Righthaven is a separate legal entity owned by one or more media companies. The owners of Righthaven transfer their copyrights to Righthaven in exchange for the perpetual right to use the material. Righthaven then sues anyone else who uses the material. As far as I can tell, Righthaven does not license anyone to make copies of the material other than the originator of that material (to whom they extend that right in exchange for the copyright on the material). The way I understand copyright law to be written in the U.S. this significantly simplifies the "fair use" defense (and from previous articles posted on slashdot apparently the courts see it that way as well).
Of course no climatologist made that specific of a prediction, that would allow someone to point out that their theory was wrong. Climatologists (at least the proponents of AGW) are in the business of saying that if we do not follow the specific prescriptions they give us disaster will happen and no matter what happens, it is proof that their theory was right. Bastardi made a very specific prediction, if he is right that is support for his understanding of climatology. If he is wrong that proves his climatological theories false. When have AGW proponents ever made a prediction which if it was wrong would be evidence that their theory was wrong?
If a theory is not falsifiable it is not a scientific theory.
Maybe climatology can't make predictions as specific as "We won't see anymore snow in England", but that did not stop at least one climatologist from making it. If climatology cannot make a prediction that we can look at and say, "OK that happened," or "Sorry, back to the drawing board, that didn't happen," it isn't science. One of the most basic elements of something being scientific is that it is falsifiable. When have AGW proponents made any prediction that they were willing to say, "If such and so doesn't happen, our theory is wrong"?
In the article I linked to above Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, said "Children just aren't going to know what snow is." That sure sounds like a prediction that England would have essentially no snow.
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
No, making a prediction is not in and of itself science. However, if you have a scientific theory, historically the way to get it accepted was to make a prediction based on it and then go out and collect the data to see if your prediction is correct. So far my experience with AGW proponents is that they say that whatever unusual weather happens is what one would expect if AGW was true. Is it unusually warm? AGW. Is it unusually cold? AGW. Is it unusually dry? AGW. Is it unusually wet? AGW. that isn't science.
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
Here is the article from which that was taken: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
The blue states haven't been "forced to pay the bills" of the red states. The blue states have demanded that the federal government have all of these programs that pay money out to the states. The red states voters have consistently opposed these programs even though as a result of them more federal money is spent in those states than those states pay in taxes.
However, a study a year or so back indicated that a powerful legislator in Congress from a particular state tended to depress the economy of that state. If such is the case, perhaps the blue states are actually sending federal money to red states in order to depress the economies of those states to the advantage of the blue states. The method the study used to reach the conclusions they did could certainly be questioned, however, the authors stated that their results were the opposite of what they expected.
Whatever you think of it's relevance for the theory of AGW, Bastardi has made a specific prediction and challenged anyone to take him up on it. If those climatologists who are believers in AGW are true scientists they should be able to make a specific prediction that we can come back to in 10 years and either say, "Way to go, your prediction is correct" or "Sorry, back to the drawing board on your theory, your prediction is wrong."
The last major AGW prediction I can recall was that England would not have snow in winter any more. Of course, now that England has had a very snowy winter, those same AGW guys are telling us, "Well, yes, that is what you can expect from Global Warming." I would put a lot more credence into the latter statement if they had told us we could expect a snowier winter in England instead of telling us that England would be getting less and less snow every year.
I guess it depends on your definition of right and left. Most Americans define being in favor of big government as being left. Obama is very much in favor of big government. Modern democracy is unsustainable because we no longer have a common cultural basis upon which to build a concensus.
If elected officials do not have the ability to control the actions of senior level bureaucrats, this discussion about government policy is pointless. I believe that elected officials still have the ability to control the actions of the bureaucracy, when they choose to exercise it. Elected officials often choose to allow bureaucrats to funtion without control so as to allow them a certain amount of deniability when those bureaucrats carry out the will of said politicians in ways that the voters do not approve of.
I believe that the Founding Fathers would be horrified at the level of lawmaking that Congress has delegated to unelected bureaucrats. I suspect that the men who composed the Constitution would consider most of our federal regulatory structure to be a violation of the spirit of the Constitution when not an outright violation of what they thought was clearly written.
Which means that this was a political dirty trick. The guy in question is the son of a high ranking Democrat. What are the chances his father was the instigator of this "hack"?
I have yet to see anyone post any of the emails that were released through this that actually showed any wrongdoing by Sarah Palin.
If everything done by upper management in government is bad, the only way to fix it is at the next election. BTW, my impression of this policy is not that they are going to oust these people, merely restrict their access to classified data.
Well obviously, otherwise we would not be having this discussion because the Wikileaks incident would not have occured.
I had a source, but I am not going to go look for it again now. Feel free to look for yourself if you wish.
This is not a plan to root out the spies, this is a plan to weed out those who over time come to decide they are going to release secrets in order to get payback for a perceived slight or to force the government to change policies.
My impression of Manning (which is not based on much, I was not interested enough to read many articles which talked about his motivations) is that he was the sort who expressed general dissatisfaction with the world and then realized he was in a position to get some of his own back.
I have worked with people who are the type they are looking for (or at least the type they should be looking for). They are a cancer in the workplace. One place I worked, the entire department this person worked in was depressing to be around. They always viewed every management initiative in the worst possible light. The person quit for another job, within a month the department was much more upbeat and had a positive attitude. If nothing else, getting this person to not poison the waters for everyone else would be a positive thing.
This should not be aimed at people who have legitimate issues with management which they take through the appropriate channels (which certainly should exist), but at those people who view everything said and done by upper management as bad. Now, whether it will actually be implemented this way is another question. If it is implemented properly than the person who says "I'll be fired if I don't toe the party line! I'm being oppresse!" is exactly the ones who this should be targeting. Of course, if it isn't implemented correctly, they will quickly lose many of their good people.
I do not have a lot of faith in the government implementing it correctly, but that doesn't mean that the idea is inherently bad.
Can I ask how you know the question but not the answer? Got a source?
Google it. I had seen two or three articles which mentioned his question to her at the event in 2007. When this came up on here, I googled it so that I would get the question as it was reported in those articles. According to those articles, she said something in Spanish and moved on. The articles do not report what her answer was.
So, someone who's just had a death in the family is now untrustworthy because they're unhappy?
Are you stupid or did you just deliberately misread the summary? They are not talking about generic unhappiness, they are talking about being unhappy with your job/management. Someone who expresses unhappiness with government policies is likely to be security risk when it comes to government secrets. Conceptually, this is not a bad idea. Whether it is executed in a manner that is sensible is a completely different question.
But Ayn Rand's solutions are diametrically opposed to those of the other two.
I was trying to point that out by saying that there is no rational way to connect Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto and the works of Ayn Rand. My point was that there is a logical connection to be constructed between Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto, but once you introduce Ayn Rand into the mix there is no hope for a rational world view to emerge. I am actually surprised that "The Illuminatus Trilogy" by Robert Anton Wilson was not part of his reading list. What I have seen of Loughner's views seems to fit in very well with that series of books.