The tricky thing about 3D is people already don't trust it; we know, viscerally, that it's a gimmick. We've had it in our theaters for what.... 4 years now? Dunno for sure, I haven't been keeping track. But we hear "3D!" and know instinctively that 3D is just an "oooo! ahhh....!" trick to get us to come see their movie; not a way to tell a more compelling story.
That sucks, because I can see a ton of ways to use 3D artistically, but instead it has been abused and ruined at a base level.
When I was in high school, one of the most popular dates to go on was to the Desert Playhouse in Salt Lake City. Kids STILL do this all the time for dances; it's fun to dress up all fancy and go see something live. Wise Guys comedy club is pretty popular, too.
I think that, generally, younger folks just don't know where to go to see a cheap live performance, and that's sad, because I know a lot of kids that have a blast.
Spot on. I find it very amusing, all the people bitching about "supsension of disbelief". As if frame-rate/clarity was the hardest obstacle to overcome. Gimme a break. If you can get past the following, you can deal with a different filming technique, CGI, or frame-rate:
A) They're fucking HOBBITS.
B) That big giant screen/TV you're watching? It is definitely not a window into the Shire, I promise. Do NOT attempt to go through it; you will quickly be disappointed.
C) You know that sound you hear, coming from the speakers? Try REAL hard and you can train your ears to see the millisecond discrepancy. It's always there, I promise.
D) Remember buying the ticket? Popcorn? That drink you're holding? Remember choosing a seat without the sticky floor? Now, realize you've set all those annoyances aside after the movie started.
E) They're still HOBBITS. These do not exist. This story is not a documentary; it is fiction. I know, I know, it's fun to pretend it really happened, or even that we are a part of it, but it did not.
Part of the fun of the experience is guiding your thinking, accepting the fantasy as a whole new world that is real for you. It's really not that difficult to do this, regardless of the visual or audio quality. It's even possible to ignore super shitty acting (though this is probably the toughest thing to ignore). This is why people can go to see a live performance and not lose their shit about how ZOMG FAAAAKE it looks.
I liken it to the printing industry, for I am a printer. I could whip out my trusty loupe when I'm looking at a fine-art print, examining the ink droplets to tell which pass count was used, on which printer, using dye or pigment inks, on which general substrate, and whether proper color management was used. I have the expertise and experience to determine all that very easily, but it's a shit-ton more satisfying to step back and enjoy the fuckin painting.
Good. AGW is a definite problem, and people like you don't really help the situation. By playing the old "weather isn't climate, you retards!" card you're overlooking the fact we have long been applying small scale models to predict large scale changes. This is why Charlie's joke about predicting the weather was pretty damn good.
The point you seem to miss, all high and mighty up there, is that claiming we can predict long term climate change based on historical weather patterns and/or small scale and short term models hurts the position of changing how we consume energy. It's just as silly as those who say "well it isn't hotter HERE, so there's no warming going on at all, liar!"
There are so very, very, very many reasons to effect energy changes that focusing entirely on something that is inherently unreliable, and being snarky about it, is worse than a waste of time. Yes, it's getting warmer. Yes, it's likely our consumption has a quantifiable but unmeasurable effect on it. It's also true that we are gonna run out of oil, it's expensive, and we need to be self-sustaining.
By the way, he knows the difference between weather and climate, as do I. Your'e the one who assumed we didn't. So, the joke becomes about using weather (a small and short term historical model, with high precision and increasingly low accuracy as we move back in time) to predict climate (a large and long term model, with less precision and low accuracy). What other large-scale predictions have we made using small-scale models?
I could also say there was a downward trend until about 700 AD, then it vanished for a steep upwards trend. I can say the same for around 50 (which was an even longer uphill climb!), 500, 1300, etc.
What this shows isn't that there's not a hockey stick, or that there is one; it shows that this data says absolutely nothing about the future, and I'm sick and tired of hearing about it.
AGW studies clearly show that the way we live could be causing mega-problems. We also have other valid reasons to change the way we consume energy. Using historical graphs to predict the future of AGW is like deciding you're immortal because you haven't died yet, even though you got close a couple of times. It's a ridiculous position for either side of an AGW debate.
The ONLY thing historical record says is that humankind has dealt with these kinds of temperatures before. Even THAT info isn't very useful; we live differently and in different places now than we did then. Focus on the future, people.
Yes, weather, and not just for his amusing way to jab the point home. Climate states create weather patterns. We're terrible at predicting weather beyond 7 days, so what makes us think we can predict climate (weather's progenitor) with any more reliability? Additionally, we're terrible at identifying historical weather conditions beyond 100 years ago, so what makes us think we can state trends?
Compared to most other sciences, climate and weather trends are *terribly* uncertain.
None of that means we should ignore temperature trends and implementing sustainable energy plans. Charlie hits it on the head when he says "there are other reasons to do this; let's do it and quit with the doom and gloom FFS."
Well said, both posts. As I re-read the register article after reading the Nature article, I'm surprised by the quotes from Professor-Doktor Jan Esper. It appears the only thing the study proved was previous N-Scale readings disagree with current TRW readings, and that TRW readings are suspected to be more accurate than N-Scale or Lake/River readings.
As far as the current temperatures go, we're dealing with the same heat the Romans did. All *that* proves is it was fuck-off hot then, and it's fuck-off hot now. As for the trend, if you plot the data all the way out, we're still in a cooling trend, and the "hockey stick" is there, but a graph with this many historical deviations from the mean is utterly worthless for predicting the future, at least by itself. A hockey stick can turn into a plateau and come down, or just keep going up and up, but there's no way to know from that graph alone.
I wish people could understand that and look at the studies that actually investigate AGW instead of the ones that just measure past trends.
(lakes and ice show a larger cooling trend than the N-Scan data!).
I should clarify. Lakes and ice show a steeper downward trend than the N-Scan data, but starting from a higher overall temperature. In any case, nothing in the study refutes AGW; the entire thing was about comparing the consistency of the various ways of measuring temperature prior to instrument measurements.
The Nature article's data casts doubt on the accuracy of a cooling trend from 138 BC - 1900 AD; this is why the study only uses this time-frame in your linked graph. The entire point of the article is to state that the theoretical cooling trend is not observed using Tree Ring Width data measurements.
From the Nature paper:
The cooling trend, representing a 0.34C temperature difference between the first and second millennium AD (0.36C excluding the twentieth century from the second millennium mean), is however not preserved in the TRW data from the same temperature-sensitive trees (Fig. 3). Similarly, no evidence for a long-term cooling trend is observed in a previous Fennoscandian TRW-based temperature reconstruction spanning the past 2,000 years. Such a trend was found in only low-resolution lake sediment and ice-core data of a circum-Arctic proxy network.
The N-Scan data (your link) doesn't agree with the TRW data, and, further, data gleaned from lakes and ice doesn't agree with the data gleaned from trees (lakes and ice show a larger cooling trend than the N-Scan data!). The images below are a better representation of the study's data.
None of this study (or even the register article, as annoying as it is) is directly related to AGW; it only has to do with the uncertainty of the techniques of measuring past temperatures, and it's a very interesting read.
My kingdom for a modpoint today. The AGW issue is so emotional that discussion of data becomes impossible. No, it's worse: even the fact that there IS data to discuss is an implied attack on one position or the other.
My take on the entire thing is it's good for us to work on being more responsible, environmentally. We can and should find ways to be more efficient, cleaner, and self-sustaining, and make an aggregate profit while doing so. Sometimes it's the right thing to make a change to the way we do things, and the data is just the initial catalyst.
We've made these types of sweeping changes before, so it's not like a precedent hasn't been set. It really shouldn't be devastatingly hard to do it now. We've built interstates, we've waged wars, we've made amendments to our constitution, we've just recently enacted a game-changing healthcare bill (I'm not arguing the merits either way, just stating a big, hairy change). None of these things grind our economy to a halt; in fact, there is usually a TON of money to be made during times of change.
We don't need doom and gloom pronouncements in support of or economical arguments against these changes. We should do it because it's going to help our society in the long run.
Free to the client, definitely, but the lawyer often gets something (non-monetary) out of the deal too.
The American Bar Association recommends 50 hours of pro bono service per year, and most state bar associations recommend various numbers of pro bono service per year, too. 7 states even have mandatory reporting of pro bono hours. The bar gives out awards to firms that do their pro bono work, too, and it seems pretty prestigious.
Standing in a bar association is pretty much the go to prestige for an attorney, from what I can tell, and it's sort of the law equivalent to medicine's Hippocratic oath. A little.
I think the line is basically drawn at performance enhancing chemicals and mechanical aids. I suppose this shoe could be considered a mechanical aid, but I rather think it's like a more the swim cap you mention. Besides, these types of judgements have to be kept at discretion; I know that when the Winter Olympics were in Salt Lake City, a lot of times were shattered due to the altitude, but other times were slower due to... the altitude. Was that an aid/detriment?
Depends on how you fluff the math, as always. What if I said a 3.5% performance increase, but applied it to acceleration AND max speed, and then recalculated? I don't really want to do that math but I expect it'd be as far different number than a 3.5% better time.
People that abuse statistics are the dirtiest liars of all.
I also liked the blanket, across the board, 3.5% improvement number. Because athletes are all built the same, and a 4 (or 14) minute mile is the same as a 7 (or 70) second 100 meter dash.
Agreed completely. It's much better to follow the default rules and be gently corrected than to just ignore the rules entirely.
Additionally, if you're using terms like NIC, and you know there are people in your audience that don't know what a NIC is, it's proper etiquette to provide the meaning of the acronym the first time, especially when communicating in writing. Obviously you're ok on Slashdot, but you may not be ok over at grandma's knitting circle blog.
Whether the audience, or speaker, knows the term or not, I don't think it's ever helpful to be an interrupter-jones grammar nazi. It's much better to politely point out mistake at a non-critical and non-embarrassing time. Of course, this shouldn't prevent you from pointing out a major error prior to releasing an embarrassing statement into the public.
Regarding "fob" - I remember thinking my new boss was being very rude by not explaining what FOB stood for to the new guy (me). Turns out, it's not an acronym, my assumption was false, and the meaning of "fob" was easy to infer from context (once I dropped my assumptions), so there was nothing for him to explain. I learned a little lesson that day.
Actually a "fob" is NOT an acronym, at least not originally. I worked for one of the largest access control distributors in the country, and when I first started there, I assumed a "key fob" was "key F.O.B.", too. Like you, I decided on frequency operated button, after finding it on a wikipedia page - but that isn't where the word "fob" comes from.
Button operated transmitters are called "remotes", proximity cards are "prox cards" or "clamshells" (depending on the way they are constructed); and any of these would technically fit the Frequency part of FOB (though only remotes fit the full FOB acronym). Small keychain-sized proximity devices are the only item called fobs in the access industry, though, and this made me very curious about the FOB acronym; it just doesn't fit right. Also, why the widespread redundant references to a "key-fob" and not just "FOB"?
Some of the older hats that had been selling fobs for years and years set me straight. The item actually IS a "fob", no acronym, and the word has been around for ages. It doesn't even refer to the access control abilities bit of the device; a rabbit's food or other keychain trinket can be correctly referred to as a fob, too!
The word "fob" can refer to 1) the small pocket on a pair of pants or a vest used for a pocket watch or other small ornamental item, 2) the chain or loops connecting an ornament to a pocket or keychain, or 3) the ornament that attaches to a pocket, watch or keychain itself (which is the common usage when talking about access keys).
Voice recognition software is an interesting beast. My girlfriend has a higher pitched, almost lilting voice, and she can't for the life of her get her Droid to do what she tells it to, regardless of how clearly she speaks. On the other hand, her phone seems to pick up my voice even if I'm whispering whisper.
This makes for amusing moments when I'm driving us around and she's navigating: she's trying to get the damn thing to work, while I have to bite my tongue, hoping an important freeway sign doesn't show up.
True. And I depend on my lovely fiance for sex in the back seat of my car. Knowing that she can easily say "no", which is the better practice?
Treat her with disdain, attempting to convince her she should be lucky to get the little "D" when I offer it, and ensure that I get what I want prior to giving her any sort of satisfaction? Maybe even going so far as calling her immoral for figuring out how to sex herself, for free (hot) when HELLO!? I'm right here with the wienermobile, and any time she thinks about the sexin she should be coming to me, as the only lawful provider in town?
Or, improve my offering by a) making sure she'll get something out of it, b) treating her with respect and caring instead of disdain and distrust, c) having the exchange become personal and welcoming instead of sterile and cold, and d) providing a service she truly enjoys, keeping her coming back for more?
Now, I'm no scientist or corporate executive racecar driver, but I can tell you pretty clearly which approach has NOT worked out so well for me in the past, putting my little production facility right the hell into bankruptcy.
A lot of people have been giving you crap for sounding like the fresh-faced "I know everything computer-y!" kid you are, and I won't pile it on, other than to say I agree with them. I will advise you, though. You should set a default fall-back mode to settle into whenever you've solved a workplace problem. Do this until you can recognize just how you sounded when you were 22, which is usually somewhere around 30, but may take as long as your 50s, if you're an exceptional douchebag. The major indicator of when you're ready is when your career goal is success, not smugness.
Here's what you do, and I'm 100% serious about this: Whenever you solve a problem that others are struggling with, or have given up on, and are just itchy and giddy and giggly over presenting your solution, go ask someone if they need your help on a project. Let this person lead you. This does 3 things:
1) puts your focus on something other than being smug for just a little while
2) brings home that there will always be new projects to work on. While this was a battle you may have won, there's a greater war you're fighting, and your co-workers are not your adversaries. They're in the trench with you.
3) prevents you from resting on your smug little laurels and forces you to be a part of a team.
If you find you're still not liked around the office, give credit for one of your "solutions" to someone who is well-liked and well-placed in the company, and learn to mimic the grace this person uses while presenting the solution. If you STILL cannot solve problems without being smug, hit yourself in the face with a hammer once daily so you can get pity friends who'll teach you how to be a human being.
You may find that without the superiority complex, solving problems isn't as fun, but that's when you realize that doing your job well is ultimately fulfilling, not just fun, and your co-workers won't want to slap you (or sabotage you).
Above all, always remember that:
-Someone out there will always be better at something than you. The sooner your pull your head out of your ass and realize how valuable it is when that someone works with you, the better off you'll be.
-At 22, true experience is a variable you cannot even comprehend yet. No disrespect to your "over-a-year-now" in the industry, but claiming that year as experience looks tremendously foolish. Even workers who are apparently "old dogs" who can't learn new tech will have something to teach you. Do yourself a favor: Ferret that knowledge out and learn it, while keeping your mouth shut.
As for your questions, had you not made so many idiotic assumptions, you'd realize neither your questions nor their answers are useful to anybody; least of all you. The best thing you can do for your career, I promise you, is sit down, shut up, and listen for the next 5 years. You'll be 10 years ahead of where I was at 27 if you do.
Indeed. Scarcity increases demand, which increases price, which increases the motivation for less supply (more scarcity). It's a rock solid house in the realm of physical products, but tumbles like a house of cards when the good is digital.
Something has been lost because the value of the original has been reduced.
You're very, very close, but not quite. The original commands a far lower price for the same utility, yes, but what has really been lost is the artificial scarcity that drove the price up in the first place. You nailed it straight on the head with your boss' quote, which is about maintaining scarcity. If a product is free (as in beer), it's not less valuable (in terms of utility to the owner), but it is less valuable (in terms of what people are willing to pay for it). Piercing through the ambiguity of the word "value", the situation is facepalmingly obvious: nobody's going to pay for something they can get for free unless there's enough utility added to warrant the price.
When we look at something like the loss of easily managed scarcity, I can't help but think consumers have shrugged off shackles at the expense of the production studios. Any good that becomes freely available *should* see a much lower price point. If every person in the world discovered a diamond mine in their back yard tomorrow, diamonds would be next to worthless. Bad for them, but good for us, so long as there is a producer that can subsist on creating a product that actually has more utility than the old freebie option. I think the biggies may not survive, but I don't think it's impossible to set up a business that takes advantage of the brave new digital world. Even if it IS impossible to make a profit creating digital goods, digital copies are flying directly out of Pandora's box, my friend. We could be seeing the end of digital goods as we know them, but I highly doubt it; my bet is someone much smarter than me is gonna create a new empire based around consumer satisfaction.
...say "I do not pay because it is not worth it", merely say that because they are used to getting it for free.
These two statements lead to the same end result, and are quite possibly 2 ways state the exact same idea.
True. And I depend on my lovely fiance for sex. Knowing that she can easily say "no", which is the better practice?
Treat her with disdain, attempting to convince her she should be lucky to get the little "D" when I offer it, and ensure that I get what I want prior to giving her any sort of satisfaction? Maybe even going so far as calling her immoral for figuring out how to sex herself, for free (hot) when HELLO!? I'm right here with the wienermobile, and any time she thinks about the sexin she should be coming to me, as the only lawful provider in town?
Or, improve my offering by a) making sure she'll get something out of it, b) treating her with respect and caring instead of disdain and distrust, c) having the exchange become personal and welcoming instead of sterile and cold, and d) providing a service she truly enjoys, keeping her coming back for more?
Now, I'm no scientist or corporate executive, but I can tell you pretty clearly which approach has NOT worked out so well for me in the past, putting my little production facility right the hell into bankruptcy.
I do. Each copy has exactly the value that the purchaser (or pirate) ascribes to it. The actual value lost to the producer of digital content per copied item is best shown in a bulleted list:
*Loss of a potential sale to a potential customer.
*Oh, wait... that'll pretty much wrap this list up.
The claim of "the studios need to pay their business costs!!" accomplishes precisely nothing when arguing against piracy. Of course they do. So does the Ferrari factory mentioned earlier. If nobody's buying Ferraris, they're gonna have a tough time paying them, aren't they? So, Ferrari would look to why people aren't buying, and adjust their business practices accordingly. The ONLY difference is that digital goods can be replicated extremely easily, making the artificial scarcity that Ferrari relies on (or DeBeers, or Starbucks, or any store that offers specialty goods) a non-factor.
If you accept the claim that a digital downloader would not otherwise purchase the copy of the software he downloaded, then nothing of value was "lost". In fact, one could just as validly surmise that the download provided a gain for the producer in the form of advertising. Of course, you don't have to take this claim at face value, but then you're arguing that the pirate's dishonesty has cost the producer, not file-sharing, and that's a totally different argument (guns don't kill people, people kill people).
The point of all this is there are a great many assumptions being made when people try to determine the actual damages of piracy. You can argue that people who pirate are being disingenuous when they state "I wouldn't have bought it anyway!" or "I buy the ones I like!" but the truth is it doesn't matter, from a business standpoint. Some facts of life: 1) People are pirating software successfully. 2) It has been proven that the distribution costs of a piece of software can be next to nil; set up a webserver and let people do their thing. 3) As a commodity, software is valued arbitrarily, and it's been heavily, heavily skewed by points 1) and 2). These facts conspire against the old model of software distribution.
The harsh truth is the studios have 4 options, all of which are happening in various markets. 1) Create a way to bring in revenue after the original purchase of the software, which requires after-market purchases (pay-to-play, DLC, expansion packs, font packs, etc). 2) Campaign against piracy as an immoral act. I imagine this approach will continue to have the same effect as a campaign against oral sex. 3) Lower the price and increase the convenience of software acquisition to the point where it is easier and cheaper (in terms of time) to purchase software instead of pirate it. 4) Increase DRM protections more, and more, and more. Perhaps going as far as copy protecting all software via encrypted hardware keys. This is currently done for high-end or industrial software, and while it doesn't prevent piracy, it makes it orders of magnitude harder to crack the DRM. This has historically had the unintended side effect of pissing real consumers off, leading to even MORE piracy, once the inevitable software crack is released into the wild. Maybe it's worth it to insure initial sales before piracy begins, but that would be a case by case determination.
We can argue the morality of it all we want, and we can argue the "intrinsic value" of a copy, but a copy's true worth (or that of any purchased product, going all the way back to the first time a fellow traded an old spear for a tasty rabbit) is what the purchaser ascribes to it. Value is NOT set by a creator; that is price. When the price of software is higher than the consumer's value, you will get piracy (for non-digital goods, you don't even get piracy; you just get fewer and fewer sales as the disparity increases). That is simply the way it works.
I would probably agree with statements such as "The quality of digital goods is likel
Slashdot Mirror
The tricky thing about 3D is people already don't trust it; we know, viscerally, that it's a gimmick. We've had it in our theaters for what.... 4 years now? Dunno for sure, I haven't been keeping track. But we hear "3D!" and know instinctively that 3D is just an "oooo! ahhh....!" trick to get us to come see their movie; not a way to tell a more compelling story.
That sucks, because I can see a ton of ways to use 3D artistically, but instead it has been abused and ruined at a base level.
When I was in high school, one of the most popular dates to go on was to the Desert Playhouse in Salt Lake City. Kids STILL do this all the time for dances; it's fun to dress up all fancy and go see something live. Wise Guys comedy club is pretty popular, too.
I think that, generally, younger folks just don't know where to go to see a cheap live performance, and that's sad, because I know a lot of kids that have a blast.
Spot on. I find it very amusing, all the people bitching about "supsension of disbelief". As if frame-rate/clarity was the hardest obstacle to overcome. Gimme a break. If you can get past the following, you can deal with a different filming technique, CGI, or frame-rate:
A) They're fucking HOBBITS.
B) That big giant screen/TV you're watching? It is definitely not a window into the Shire, I promise. Do NOT attempt to go through it; you will quickly be disappointed.
C) You know that sound you hear, coming from the speakers? Try REAL hard and you can train your ears to see the millisecond discrepancy. It's always there, I promise.
D) Remember buying the ticket? Popcorn? That drink you're holding? Remember choosing a seat without the sticky floor? Now, realize you've set all those annoyances aside after the movie started.
E) They're still HOBBITS. These do not exist. This story is not a documentary; it is fiction. I know, I know, it's fun to pretend it really happened, or even that we are a part of it, but it did not.
Part of the fun of the experience is guiding your thinking, accepting the fantasy as a whole new world that is real for you. It's really not that difficult to do this, regardless of the visual or audio quality. It's even possible to ignore super shitty acting (though this is probably the toughest thing to ignore). This is why people can go to see a live performance and not lose their shit about how ZOMG FAAAAKE it looks.
I liken it to the printing industry, for I am a printer. I could whip out my trusty loupe when I'm looking at a fine-art print, examining the ink droplets to tell which pass count was used, on which printer, using dye or pigment inks, on which general substrate, and whether proper color management was used. I have the expertise and experience to determine all that very easily, but it's a shit-ton more satisfying to step back and enjoy the fuckin painting.
Good. AGW is a definite problem, and people like you don't really help the situation. By playing the old "weather isn't climate, you retards!" card you're overlooking the fact we have long been applying small scale models to predict large scale changes. This is why Charlie's joke about predicting the weather was pretty damn good.
The point you seem to miss, all high and mighty up there, is that claiming we can predict long term climate change based on historical weather patterns and/or small scale and short term models hurts the position of changing how we consume energy. It's just as silly as those who say "well it isn't hotter HERE, so there's no warming going on at all, liar!"
There are so very, very, very many reasons to effect energy changes that focusing entirely on something that is inherently unreliable, and being snarky about it, is worse than a waste of time. Yes, it's getting warmer. Yes, it's likely our consumption has a quantifiable but unmeasurable effect on it. It's also true that we are gonna run out of oil, it's expensive, and we need to be self-sustaining.
By the way, he knows the difference between weather and climate, as do I. Your'e the one who assumed we didn't. So, the joke becomes about using weather (a small and short term historical model, with high precision and increasingly low accuracy as we move back in time) to predict climate (a large and long term model, with less precision and low accuracy). What other large-scale predictions have we made using small-scale models?
I could also say there was a downward trend until about 700 AD, then it vanished for a steep upwards trend. I can say the same for around 50 (which was an even longer uphill climb!), 500, 1300, etc.
What this shows isn't that there's not a hockey stick, or that there is one; it shows that this data says absolutely nothing about the future, and I'm sick and tired of hearing about it.
AGW studies clearly show that the way we live could be causing mega-problems. We also have other valid reasons to change the way we consume energy. Using historical graphs to predict the future of AGW is like deciding you're immortal because you haven't died yet, even though you got close a couple of times. It's a ridiculous position for either side of an AGW debate.
The ONLY thing historical record says is that humankind has dealt with these kinds of temperatures before. Even THAT info isn't very useful; we live differently and in different places now than we did then. Focus on the future, people.
Yes, weather, and not just for his amusing way to jab the point home. Climate states create weather patterns. We're terrible at predicting weather beyond 7 days, so what makes us think we can predict climate (weather's progenitor) with any more reliability? Additionally, we're terrible at identifying historical weather conditions beyond 100 years ago, so what makes us think we can state trends?
Compared to most other sciences, climate and weather trends are *terribly* uncertain.
None of that means we should ignore temperature trends and implementing sustainable energy plans. Charlie hits it on the head when he says "there are other reasons to do this; let's do it and quit with the doom and gloom FFS."
Well said, both posts. As I re-read the register article after reading the Nature article, I'm surprised by the quotes from Professor-Doktor Jan Esper. It appears the only thing the study proved was previous N-Scale readings disagree with current TRW readings, and that TRW readings are suspected to be more accurate than N-Scale or Lake/River readings.
As far as the current temperatures go, we're dealing with the same heat the Romans did. All *that* proves is it was fuck-off hot then, and it's fuck-off hot now. As for the trend, if you plot the data all the way out, we're still in a cooling trend, and the "hockey stick" is there, but a graph with this many historical deviations from the mean is utterly worthless for predicting the future, at least by itself. A hockey stick can turn into a plateau and come down, or just keep going up and up, but there's no way to know from that graph alone.
I wish people could understand that and look at the studies that actually investigate AGW instead of the ones that just measure past trends.
(lakes and ice show a larger cooling trend than the N-Scan data!).
I should clarify. Lakes and ice show a steeper downward trend than the N-Scan data, but starting from a higher overall temperature. In any case, nothing in the study refutes AGW; the entire thing was about comparing the consistency of the various ways of measuring temperature prior to instrument measurements.
From the Nature paper:
The cooling trend, representing a 0.34C temperature difference between the first and second millennium AD (0.36C excluding the twentieth century from the second millennium mean), is however not preserved in the TRW data from the same temperature-sensitive trees (Fig. 3). Similarly, no evidence for a long-term cooling trend is observed in a previous Fennoscandian TRW-based temperature reconstruction spanning the past 2,000 years. Such a trend was found in only low-resolution lake sediment and ice-core data of a circum-Arctic proxy network.
The N-Scan data (your link) doesn't agree with the TRW data, and, further, data gleaned from lakes and ice doesn't agree with the data gleaned from trees (lakes and ice show a larger cooling trend than the N-Scan data!). The images below are a better representation of the study's data.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nclimate1589_F3.html
None of this study (or even the register article, as annoying as it is) is directly related to AGW; it only has to do with the uncertainty of the techniques of measuring past temperatures, and it's a very interesting read.
My kingdom for a modpoint today. The AGW issue is so emotional that discussion of data becomes impossible. No, it's worse: even the fact that there IS data to discuss is an implied attack on one position or the other.
My take on the entire thing is it's good for us to work on being more responsible, environmentally. We can and should find ways to be more efficient, cleaner, and self-sustaining, and make an aggregate profit while doing so. Sometimes it's the right thing to make a change to the way we do things, and the data is just the initial catalyst.
We've made these types of sweeping changes before, so it's not like a precedent hasn't been set. It really shouldn't be devastatingly hard to do it now. We've built interstates, we've waged wars, we've made amendments to our constitution, we've just recently enacted a game-changing healthcare bill (I'm not arguing the merits either way, just stating a big, hairy change). None of these things grind our economy to a halt; in fact, there is usually a TON of money to be made during times of change.
We don't need doom and gloom pronouncements in support of or economical arguments against these changes. We should do it because it's going to help our society in the long run.
Free to the client, definitely, but the lawyer often gets something (non-monetary) out of the deal too.
The American Bar Association recommends 50 hours of pro bono service per year, and most state bar associations recommend various numbers of pro bono service per year, too. 7 states even have mandatory reporting of pro bono hours. The bar gives out awards to firms that do their pro bono work, too, and it seems pretty prestigious.
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/probono_public_service/policy/aba_model_rule_6_1.html
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/probono_public_service/policy/reporting_of_pro_bono_service.html
Standing in a bar association is pretty much the go to prestige for an attorney, from what I can tell, and it's sort of the law equivalent to medicine's Hippocratic oath. A little.
I think the line is basically drawn at performance enhancing chemicals and mechanical aids. I suppose this shoe could be considered a mechanical aid, but I rather think it's like a more the swim cap you mention. Besides, these types of judgements have to be kept at discretion; I know that when the Winter Olympics were in Salt Lake City, a lot of times were shattered due to the altitude, but other times were slower due to... the altitude. Was that an aid/detriment?
Depends on how you fluff the math, as always. What if I said a 3.5% performance increase, but applied it to acceleration AND max speed, and then recalculated? I don't really want to do that math but I expect it'd be as far different number than a 3.5% better time.
People that abuse statistics are the dirtiest liars of all.
I also liked the blanket, across the board, 3.5% improvement number. Because athletes are all built the same, and a 4 (or 14) minute mile is the same as a 7 (or 70) second 100 meter dash.
Agreed completely. It's much better to follow the default rules and be gently corrected than to just ignore the rules entirely.
Additionally, if you're using terms like NIC, and you know there are people in your audience that don't know what a NIC is, it's proper etiquette to provide the meaning of the acronym the first time, especially when communicating in writing. Obviously you're ok on Slashdot, but you may not be ok over at grandma's knitting circle blog.
Whether the audience, or speaker, knows the term or not, I don't think it's ever helpful to be an interrupter-jones grammar nazi. It's much better to politely point out mistake at a non-critical and non-embarrassing time. Of course, this shouldn't prevent you from pointing out a major error prior to releasing an embarrassing statement into the public.
Regarding "fob" - I remember thinking my new boss was being very rude by not explaining what FOB stood for to the new guy (me). Turns out, it's not an acronym, my assumption was false, and the meaning of "fob" was easy to infer from context (once I dropped my assumptions), so there was nothing for him to explain. I learned a little lesson that day.
Actually a "fob" is NOT an acronym, at least not originally. I worked for one of the largest access control distributors in the country, and when I first started there, I assumed a "key fob" was "key F.O.B.", too. Like you, I decided on frequency operated button, after finding it on a wikipedia page - but that isn't where the word "fob" comes from.
Button operated transmitters are called "remotes", proximity cards are "prox cards" or "clamshells" (depending on the way they are constructed); and any of these would technically fit the Frequency part of FOB (though only remotes fit the full FOB acronym). Small keychain-sized proximity devices are the only item called fobs in the access industry, though, and this made me very curious about the FOB acronym; it just doesn't fit right. Also, why the widespread redundant references to a "key-fob" and not just "FOB"?
Some of the older hats that had been selling fobs for years and years set me straight. The item actually IS a "fob", no acronym, and the word has been around for ages. It doesn't even refer to the access control abilities bit of the device; a rabbit's food or other keychain trinket can be correctly referred to as a fob, too!
The word "fob" can refer to 1) the small pocket on a pair of pants or a vest used for a pocket watch or other small ornamental item, 2) the chain or loops connecting an ornament to a pocket or keychain, or 3) the ornament that attaches to a pocket, watch or keychain itself (which is the common usage when talking about access keys).
Here's a little bit of history on a keychain fob from a different wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_fob
Voice recognition software is an interesting beast. My girlfriend has a higher pitched, almost lilting voice, and she can't for the life of her get her Droid to do what she tells it to, regardless of how clearly she speaks. On the other hand, her phone seems to pick up my voice even if I'm whispering whisper.
This makes for amusing moments when I'm driving us around and she's navigating: she's trying to get the damn thing to work, while I have to bite my tongue, hoping an important freeway sign doesn't show up.
Ask and ye shall receive. Edits follow:
True. And I depend on my lovely fiance for sex in the back seat of my car. Knowing that she can easily say "no", which is the better practice?
Treat her with disdain, attempting to convince her she should be lucky to get the little "D" when I offer it, and ensure that I get what I want prior to giving her any sort of satisfaction? Maybe even going so far as calling her immoral for figuring out how to sex herself, for free (hot) when HELLO!? I'm right here with the wienermobile, and any time she thinks about the sexin she should be coming to me, as the only lawful provider in town?
Or, improve my offering by a) making sure she'll get something out of it, b) treating her with respect and caring instead of disdain and distrust, c) having the exchange become personal and welcoming instead of sterile and cold, and d) providing a service she truly enjoys, keeping her coming back for more?
Now, I'm no scientist or corporate executive racecar driver, but I can tell you pretty clearly which approach has NOT worked out so well for me in the past, putting my little production facility right the hell into bankruptcy.
A lot of people have been giving you crap for sounding like the fresh-faced "I know everything computer-y!" kid you are, and I won't pile it on, other than to say I agree with them. I will advise you, though. You should set a default fall-back mode to settle into whenever you've solved a workplace problem. Do this until you can recognize just how you sounded when you were 22, which is usually somewhere around 30, but may take as long as your 50s, if you're an exceptional douchebag. The major indicator of when you're ready is when your career goal is success, not smugness.
Here's what you do, and I'm 100% serious about this: Whenever you solve a problem that others are struggling with, or have given up on, and are just itchy and giddy and giggly over presenting your solution, go ask someone if they need your help on a project. Let this person lead you. This does 3 things:
1) puts your focus on something other than being smug for just a little while
2) brings home that there will always be new projects to work on. While this was a battle you may have won, there's a greater war you're fighting, and your co-workers are not your adversaries. They're in the trench with you.
3) prevents you from resting on your smug little laurels and forces you to be a part of a team.
If you find you're still not liked around the office, give credit for one of your "solutions" to someone who is well-liked and well-placed in the company, and learn to mimic the grace this person uses while presenting the solution. If you STILL cannot solve problems without being smug, hit yourself in the face with a hammer once daily so you can get pity friends who'll teach you how to be a human being.
You may find that without the superiority complex, solving problems isn't as fun, but that's when you realize that doing your job well is ultimately fulfilling, not just fun, and your co-workers won't want to slap you (or sabotage you).
Above all, always remember that:
-Someone out there will always be better at something than you. The sooner your pull your head out of your ass and realize how valuable it is when that someone works with you, the better off you'll be.
-At 22, true experience is a variable you cannot even comprehend yet. No disrespect to your "over-a-year-now" in the industry, but claiming that year as experience looks tremendously foolish. Even workers who are apparently "old dogs" who can't learn new tech will have something to teach you. Do yourself a favor: Ferret that knowledge out and learn it, while keeping your mouth shut.
As for your questions, had you not made so many idiotic assumptions, you'd realize neither your questions nor their answers are useful to anybody; least of all you. The best thing you can do for your career, I promise you, is sit down, shut up, and listen for the next 5 years. You'll be 10 years ahead of where I was at 27 if you do.
A high class hooker still knows she's a hooker, and performs accordingly.
Indeed. Scarcity increases demand, which increases price, which increases the motivation for less supply (more scarcity). It's a rock solid house in the realm of physical products, but tumbles like a house of cards when the good is digital.
The point is moot now anyway. We no longer live in a world where copying is prohibitively difficult.
Something has been lost because the value of the original has been reduced.
You're very, very close, but not quite. The original commands a far lower price for the same utility, yes, but what has really been lost is the artificial scarcity that drove the price up in the first place. You nailed it straight on the head with your boss' quote, which is about maintaining scarcity. If a product is free (as in beer), it's not less valuable (in terms of utility to the owner), but it is less valuable (in terms of what people are willing to pay for it). Piercing through the ambiguity of the word "value", the situation is facepalmingly obvious: nobody's going to pay for something they can get for free unless there's enough utility added to warrant the price.
When we look at something like the loss of easily managed scarcity, I can't help but think consumers have shrugged off shackles at the expense of the production studios. Any good that becomes freely available *should* see a much lower price point. If every person in the world discovered a diamond mine in their back yard tomorrow, diamonds would be next to worthless. Bad for them, but good for us, so long as there is a producer that can subsist on creating a product that actually has more utility than the old freebie option. I think the biggies may not survive, but I don't think it's impossible to set up a business that takes advantage of the brave new digital world. Even if it IS impossible to make a profit creating digital goods, digital copies are flying directly out of Pandora's box, my friend. We could be seeing the end of digital goods as we know them, but I highly doubt it; my bet is someone much smarter than me is gonna create a new empire based around consumer satisfaction.
...say "I do not pay because it is not worth it", merely say that because they are used to getting it for free.
These two statements lead to the same end result, and are quite possibly 2 ways state the exact same idea.
True. And I depend on my lovely fiance for sex. Knowing that she can easily say "no", which is the better practice?
Treat her with disdain, attempting to convince her she should be lucky to get the little "D" when I offer it, and ensure that I get what I want prior to giving her any sort of satisfaction? Maybe even going so far as calling her immoral for figuring out how to sex herself, for free (hot) when HELLO!? I'm right here with the wienermobile, and any time she thinks about the sexin she should be coming to me, as the only lawful provider in town?
Or, improve my offering by a) making sure she'll get something out of it, b) treating her with respect and caring instead of disdain and distrust, c) having the exchange become personal and welcoming instead of sterile and cold, and d) providing a service she truly enjoys, keeping her coming back for more?
Now, I'm no scientist or corporate executive, but I can tell you pretty clearly which approach has NOT worked out so well for me in the past, putting my little production facility right the hell into bankruptcy.
Noone argues that.
I do. Each copy has exactly the value that the purchaser (or pirate) ascribes to it. The actual value lost to the producer of digital content per copied item is best shown in a bulleted list:
*Loss of a potential sale to a potential customer.
*Oh, wait... that'll pretty much wrap this list up.
The claim of "the studios need to pay their business costs!!" accomplishes precisely nothing when arguing against piracy. Of course they do. So does the Ferrari factory mentioned earlier. If nobody's buying Ferraris, they're gonna have a tough time paying them, aren't they? So, Ferrari would look to why people aren't buying, and adjust their business practices accordingly. The ONLY difference is that digital goods can be replicated extremely easily, making the artificial scarcity that Ferrari relies on (or DeBeers, or Starbucks, or any store that offers specialty goods) a non-factor.
If you accept the claim that a digital downloader would not otherwise purchase the copy of the software he downloaded, then nothing of value was "lost". In fact, one could just as validly surmise that the download provided a gain for the producer in the form of advertising. Of course, you don't have to take this claim at face value, but then you're arguing that the pirate's dishonesty has cost the producer, not file-sharing, and that's a totally different argument (guns don't kill people, people kill people).
The point of all this is there are a great many assumptions being made when people try to determine the actual damages of piracy. You can argue that people who pirate are being disingenuous when they state "I wouldn't have bought it anyway!" or "I buy the ones I like!" but the truth is it doesn't matter, from a business standpoint. Some facts of life: 1) People are pirating software successfully. 2) It has been proven that the distribution costs of a piece of software can be next to nil; set up a webserver and let people do their thing. 3) As a commodity, software is valued arbitrarily, and it's been heavily, heavily skewed by points 1) and 2). These facts conspire against the old model of software distribution.
The harsh truth is the studios have 4 options, all of which are happening in various markets. 1) Create a way to bring in revenue after the original purchase of the software, which requires after-market purchases (pay-to-play, DLC, expansion packs, font packs, etc). 2) Campaign against piracy as an immoral act. I imagine this approach will continue to have the same effect as a campaign against oral sex. 3) Lower the price and increase the convenience of software acquisition to the point where it is easier and cheaper (in terms of time) to purchase software instead of pirate it. 4) Increase DRM protections more, and more, and more. Perhaps going as far as copy protecting all software via encrypted hardware keys. This is currently done for high-end or industrial software, and while it doesn't prevent piracy, it makes it orders of magnitude harder to crack the DRM. This has historically had the unintended side effect of pissing real consumers off, leading to even MORE piracy, once the inevitable software crack is released into the wild. Maybe it's worth it to insure initial sales before piracy begins, but that would be a case by case determination.
We can argue the morality of it all we want, and we can argue the "intrinsic value" of a copy, but a copy's true worth (or that of any purchased product, going all the way back to the first time a fellow traded an old spear for a tasty rabbit) is what the purchaser ascribes to it. Value is NOT set by a creator; that is price. When the price of software is higher than the consumer's value, you will get piracy (for non-digital goods, you don't even get piracy; you just get fewer and fewer sales as the disparity increases). That is simply the way it works.
I would probably agree with statements such as "The quality of digital goods is likel