Better not even say that. Giving them the idea you might have something they could turn into a prison sentence is probably enough to interest them even more.
Well, you're absolutely right. Perhaps things could actually work this way were it not for news media that has no interest in putting things in context and a populace that ooh look, Justin Beeber, pretty, shiny.
"Is that hour worth 60 of those newly employed people?"
No.
In the first place you have a dimensional analysis problem of non-matching units.
In the second place, one CEO can't do the work of 60 people. That's why he had to hire them.
You're right that his job isn't easy. No interesting job is. Lots of people work hard.
The average CEO makes 340 times his average employee. The CEO does not work 340 times harder than his average employee. He doesn't know 340 times more than his average employee. He doesn't single-handedly bring in 340 times more productivity than his average employee.
Instead he gets the credit (and sometimes blame) for what every other person in the organization accomplished.
Good CEOs deserve respect. Not worship. And not money disproportionate to his contribution.
The reason CEOs get paid so much is not because the free market prices them so high. It's because they are on each others' Board of Directors and they all figured out they could overcharge their companies and share the spoils amongst themselves.
A "blue dog democrat" is a democrat whose constituency is conservative.
A "republican in name only" is a guy who wants to be a republican but is rejected and disowned by the base when they catch a whiff of non-zealotry regarding their party line.
This. The obvious truth is that each party wants the programs they don't like to vanish, and the programs they do like to expand.
Only purist libertarians honestly want the whole government small. Regardless of their rhetoric, the actions of every other party show they want the government to be ginormous, domineering, and bent on shoving their agenda down the world's throat.
"confidential informants, undercover work, legal wiretaps, etc. are all things which should be protected"
So says the government. The Constitution says the defense is supposed to get all the evidence. That's been taken to include the whole story of what opened the case, and what led the cops to look where.
Maybe the Constitution is wrong; I wouldn't know. But this "parallel evidence" is a secret end run around the Constitution, and it is illegal.
If you want to allow this "parallel evidence" history revision, amend the constitution to say the government can lie about their evidence trail to keep secrets from defendants and even the prosecutors.
Until then, follow the law. Or just stop pretending we have a Constitution.
I think most libertarians don't want to circumvent laws. If there is a law they disagree with I expect they'd want to rescind it, not dance around it.
And I think most libertarians would probably assess a bitcoin's value at the value of the commodity that backs it, which is zero. But some may like to gamble that they could buy some and sell them to a bigger sucker.
" [skeptics]prefer not to jump to conclusions that can`t really be asserted from this data"
" [skeptics] defy the notion that human factors are as significant as the alarmists say"
Sounds to me like skeptics have arrived at a conclusion.can`t really be asserted from this data.
The idea that human activity doesn't alter the composition of the atmosphere may have made some sense in 1870, but by 1970 anybody who lived in a major city could see with their own eyes that we were changing the atmosphere.
I think the ones jumping to conclusions without supporting data are mostly right-wing idealogues. Because I know of no science to support their position, only politics.
All I've seen against AGW is selective pseudo-scientific microqubbles copied and pasted from energy industry shills, attacks on Al Gore, and laughter at cold spells..
"the theory that what is happenign now is outside the bounds of what already happened to Earth many many times"
I think the theory you refer to was probably about human history, not planetary history. But if I'm wrong, please point me to a URL proferring that theory.
"Skeptics... defy the notion that human factors are as significant as the alarmists say"
Do these skeptics have any hard data about what the human contribution is and what greenhose effect it should have?
Science is "inherently" about curiosity, a desire to understand how things work. You don't need skepticism to form a hypothesis and test it.
The only role skepticism has in science is in questioning whether a conclusion is supported by the data. But most "skeptics" are merely announcing their cognitive bias.
This political debate waged in selective pseudo-scientific microquibbles is silly. It's really pretty simple.
1) You can trust the process and presume that if the research scientists are converging on the basics, they're probably on the right track.
2) You can prove them wrong - on scientific turf, not the comments section of a news article - and earn yourself a nobel prize and the undying thanks of millions of concerned citizens
No, only individual persons have rights. Government has no "right" to anything, not even to exist. It exists because the governed or the power-hungry created it.
Government has power. For "free" countries, theoretically the power we delegate ti. But in practice it eventually assumes the power it can get away with.
I don't get it. I think the point of "It takes a village" is to increase a child's face-to-face social interactions with a respectable variety of people.
So this article would seem to support the idea that it takes a village to raise a child well.
Yep. When your job is to find a needle, the best strategy is always to pay top dollar for a few million haystacks and see if there are any needles there.
I have a life. A wife who loves me, an ex that hates me, ingeniously dramatic kids, engaging friends. I feel slightly bad that I'm not investing extra time to stay at the profession's bleeding edge. But I genuinely prefer the company of warm bodies, music, games, conversation, food, physical work, and laughter.
So I doff my hat to all you die-hards with the ambition and drive to advance our profession, and I thank you. But that's not for me.
Slashdot Mirror
Better not even say that. Giving them the idea you might have something they could turn into a prison sentence is probably enough to interest them even more.
Here's how the ACLU says to handle the cops:
http://www.aclumontereycounty....
Well, you're absolutely right. Perhaps things could actually work this way were it not for news media that has no interest in putting things in context and a populace that ooh look, Justin Beeber, pretty, shiny.
"Is that hour worth 60 of those newly employed people?"
No.
In the first place you have a dimensional analysis problem of non-matching units.
In the second place, one CEO can't do the work of 60 people. That's why he had to hire them.
You're right that his job isn't easy. No interesting job is. Lots of people work hard.
The average CEO makes 340 times his average employee. The CEO does not work 340 times harder than his average employee. He doesn't know 340 times more than his average employee. He doesn't single-handedly bring in 340 times more productivity than his average employee.
Instead he gets the credit (and sometimes blame) for what every other person in the organization accomplished.
Good CEOs deserve respect. Not worship. And not money disproportionate to his contribution.
The reason CEOs get paid so much is not because the free market prices them so high. It's because they are on each others' Board of Directors and they all figured out they could overcharge their companies and share the spoils amongst themselves.
"it could have gone to medical or space research."
That's rich. Who do you think has been at the forefront of identifying the problem?
Plus a place like that might support us.
No, huge difference. Blue dogs are self-declared.
RINOs are labelled by others. And you don't have to be liberal to be a RINO, you only have to disagree with a talk show host.
A "blue dog democrat" is a democrat whose constituency is conservative.
A "republican in name only" is a guy who wants to be a republican but is rejected and disowned by the base when they catch a whiff of non-zealotry regarding their party line.
This. The obvious truth is that each party wants the programs they don't like to vanish, and the programs they do like to expand.
Only purist libertarians honestly want the whole government small. Regardless of their rhetoric, the actions of every other party show they want the government to be ginormous, domineering, and bent on shoving their agenda down the world's throat.
"To impeach the first black would be racist!"
That might not be far off, considering that nobody impeached Bush for doing the same things.
"confidential informants, undercover work, legal wiretaps, etc. are all things which should be protected"
So says the government. The Constitution says the defense is supposed to get all the evidence. That's been taken to include the whole story of what opened the case, and what led the cops to look where.
Maybe the Constitution is wrong; I wouldn't know. But this "parallel evidence" is a secret end run around the Constitution, and it is illegal.
If you want to allow this "parallel evidence" history revision, amend the constitution to say the government can lie about their evidence trail to keep secrets from defendants and even the prosecutors.
Until then, follow the law. Or just stop pretending we have a Constitution.
I know, it reads like that for me too. But if your UAV is going down, you ditch it the nearest place where it's unlikely to hit people.
I think most libertarians don't want to circumvent laws. If there is a law they disagree with I expect they'd want to rescind it, not dance around it.
And I think most libertarians would probably assess a bitcoin's value at the value of the commodity that backs it, which is zero. But some may like to gamble that they could buy some and sell them to a bigger sucker.
Effort to Salary ratio, rough estimates
me:
$100k/50 hrs/week, no enemies, and a private life
congressman:
$174K/70 hrs/week, 200 million enemies, and a public life
" I am moding."
Well, that explains a lot about Slashdot.
" [skeptics]prefer not to jump to conclusions that can`t really be asserted from this data"
" [skeptics] defy the notion that human factors are as significant as the alarmists say"
Sounds to me like skeptics have arrived at a conclusion.can`t really be asserted from this data.
The idea that human activity doesn't alter the composition of the atmosphere may have made some sense in 1870, but by 1970 anybody who lived in a major city could see with their own eyes that we were changing the atmosphere.
I think the ones jumping to conclusions without supporting data are mostly right-wing idealogues. Because I know of no science to support their position, only politics.
All I've seen against AGW is selective pseudo-scientific microqubbles copied and pasted from energy industry shills, attacks on Al Gore, and laughter at cold spells..
Why the personal attack, friend? We seem to be on the same side.
> a potential reality that will inevitably include you
FWIW, my future in "a potential reality" is probably not "inevitable".
Regardless, there are other "potential reality" scenarios which concern me more, so I'll leave this particular battle in your capable hands.
Or a way for the automakers to get nothing. I'd just buy older cars whose features I didn't need to rent.
"the theory that what is happenign now is outside the bounds of what already happened to Earth many many times"
I think the theory you refer to was probably about human history, not planetary history. But if I'm wrong, please point me to a URL proferring that theory.
"Skeptics ... defy the notion that human factors are as significant as the alarmists say"
Do these skeptics have any hard data about what the human contribution is and what greenhose effect it should have?
Each of the 7,000 who registered successfully first failed on average 9 times.
Science is "inherently" about curiosity, a desire to understand how things work. You don't need skepticism to form a hypothesis and test it.
The only role skepticism has in science is in questioning whether a conclusion is supported by the data. But most "skeptics" are merely announcing their cognitive bias.
"The study assumes"
No, the study concludes.
This political debate waged in selective pseudo-scientific microquibbles is silly. It's really pretty simple.
1) You can trust the process and presume that if the research scientists are converging on the basics, they're probably on the right track.
2) You can prove them wrong - on scientific turf, not the comments section of a news article - and earn yourself a nobel prize and the undying thanks of millions of concerned citizens
3) You can shut the fuck up.
"should the government have the right"
No, only individual persons have rights. Government has no "right" to anything, not even to exist. It exists because the governed or the power-hungry created it.
Government has power. For "free" countries, theoretically the power we delegate ti. But in practice it eventually assumes the power it can get away with.
"The village is strangers"
Wrong. By definition.
"It takes a village ...to raise a child poorly."
I don't get it. I think the point of "It takes a village" is to increase a child's face-to-face social interactions with a respectable variety of people.
So this article would seem to support the idea that it takes a village to raise a child well.
Yep. When your job is to find a needle, the best strategy is always to pay top dollar for a few million haystacks and see if there are any needles there.
I have a life. A wife who loves me, an ex that hates me, ingeniously dramatic kids, engaging friends. I feel slightly bad that I'm not investing extra time to stay at the profession's bleeding edge. But I genuinely prefer the company of warm bodies, music, games, conversation, food, physical work, and laughter.
So I doff my hat to all you die-hards with the ambition and drive to advance our profession, and I thank you. But that's not for me.