One thing to remember about the MWP is that there's not really any consensus that it was warmer anywhere outside of the North Atlantic region.
So, since we're talking about _global_ temperatures or "global" warming, whether or not one particular region was warmer or cooler at some point in the last 1000 years or so seems like it might be of minimal relevance.
Any sort of theory of global warming doesn't pretend (or at least, shouldn't!) to predict _weather_, or regional differences, just speak to a global mean.
That's the conclusion that a Canadian Judicial Inquiry came to, anyway.
I'm too lazy to look for the link, but antipolygraph.org probably has it, anyway, one of the conclusions the judge came to was that you could probably replace the polygraph with a purely theatrical device and get about the same results.
"What you are seeing is a move towards web apps where it makes sense (email, document sharing, social networking, etc.), and people sticking with local applications where it doesn't make sense to go to the web (video or photo editing, most office documents, etc.) - anything where the bandwidth or latency requirements become too much of a bottleneck."
Depends on how retarded management is at your workplace.
At my last job, we did exactly this - use web apps when it makes sense, everything else done with local apps.
But the one before that, I guess somebody in management was a sucker for every jackass salesman offering web-based apps who promised lower total costs or something.
Without exception, every instance of this was slow or buggy or didn't actually do everything that the local app it replaced did, or just plain-out didn't work very well.
Although, to be fair, I guess none of this is exclusive to web-based apps in the IT/software world...
There was a time, when adults could count on a degree of "solidarity" with other adults. These days, a kid who fails to do their work, turn in assignments, and skips classes, when their parents discover that their kid is failing, if the kid says "it's not my fault! [fill-in-the-blank] Teacher doesn't like me!", the fucking parents believe it!
Look, not that when I was in school I didn't try that bs with my parents, but when I was in school, (~20 years ago) my mom would roll her eyes at me, at best.
Hell, even just raising salaries to the point where teaching is a desirable career for people who have the education/experience where it's conceivable that they could make >80K/year.
After all, there's a non-zero number of teachers, if you could somehow get a situation where people were competing for teaching positions, you'd have significantly better quality teachers, I suspect.
The really difficult thing to deal with is burnout. It seems that the burnout rate amongst teachers at least appears to be higher than average, so we need a way to either prevent burnout, treat it when hit happens, or get rid of burnout teachers. They're poison.
I read about a case of Toyota buying back a first-generation Prius from a taxi operator, that had a million miles on it, because they wanted to study how the battery breaks down.
Now, maybe there's something else going on, maybe this was an "outlier" and most Priuses don't last for 1,000,000 miles. But if a Prius went 1,000,000 miles without a battery failure, I think the battery isn't a problem.
England or the USA never had protectionist policies in the past?
In fact, pretty much every developed nation went through a period of protectionism, which arguably led to them being the wealthy economies they are today.
So I guess the only reason you don't sell heroin to schoolchildren or defective sprinkler systems or something is because the profit margins are lousy?
Why exactly is it that because somebody calls themselves a 'trader' that they therefore get a free pass from any sort of ethical considerations?
Winston Churchill said something about how we can count on the Americans to do the right thing, but only after trying everything else first. (I'm sure I mangled that, anybody who knows the correct one please correct me)
Now, let's face it, that's basically how humans everywhere behave.
Well, limited government, that's one thing. That means relying on a free market model of decision making and resource allocation and all that, right?
But things like CO2 emissions are an example of a "negative externality", which are often an area of "market failure".
Person A and Person B meet in the marketplace, exchange goods and services, (presumably, hopefully) in a way that they both consider beneficial to themselves. But their trade/economic activities negatively effect person C who is not at all involved in their trade or economic activities. (i.e., their activities pollutes the environment, or cranks up global warming, or whatever...)
So, if you can see a way, without expanding the role of government, to have the free market reduce CO2 emissions, then you'll convert me to libertarianism. But smarter people than you or I have tried.
Is the USA really that much more diverse than Canada? I'd argue that Canada is arguably _more_ diverse, we have two official languages, for example. And in Canada, with our non-electronic, single-payer system, our admin costs are around 8-10%.
With his line about how he and his wife have decided to have their very own 'invisible baby' - his name is "Ten Hours of Sleep a Night". He's the best baby in the world! You can do mushrooms in front of him, you can go to a rock concert on a thursday and come home sunday...
And, realistically, you probably shouldn't talk about bankruptcies without talking about: 1) Wage stagnation - my father, when he was younger than I am now, was able to own a house, and support himself, my mother, and two small kids on a plain 'ol civil servant's salary. My wife and I are "DINKS", (dual-income-no-kids) and even with the drop in prices recently, home ownership is still something only possible on the far side of a large inheritance or a lottery win. In the last 30-40 years, the price of a house has gone up much, much faster than median incomes; 2) If you're talking about in the USA, anyway, healthcare costs. I can't remember the source, but I recall hearing that the #1 cause of personal bankruptcies in the USA is medical bills. I don't know if it's the _number one_ cause, but I think we can all agree it's probably a significant factor.
Especially for men, DO NOT get married in your 20s.
Every single one of my male friends who got married in their 20s was either divorced inside of 2 or 3 years or in a completely miserable, dysfunctional, marriage by age 30. Me, I was engaged when I was 25, and thank god we broke up before going through with the wedding.
Besides, if I can indulge in some cynical thinking that verges on the misogynistic, before 30, women are "buying", but after 30, women are selling, and men are buying. The dating/relationship options for men get better and better after 30.
It usually comes down to something like "I/my friend/some guy I knew/etc used to work at a union shop and they were ineffective/incompetent/corrupt/whatever.
Sorta like saying "I heard about a doctor who was incompetent once, who killed his patients. That's why I got my broken leg treated by a faith healer."
So a very drunk man is wandering around an alleyway, just under a streetlight, obviously looking for something.
His friend sees him, walks up to him, asks what the hell he's doing. He explains he lost his keys. His friend, trying to be helpful, asks where he might've lost them. The drunk says "oh, couple blocks over that way,"
His friend, incredulous, says "well, if you lost them over there, why in god's name are you looking for them here?"
The drunk explains, "well, over here, the light is better."
This is exactly how (some, but not all) management types work. What gets measured gets done. And what gets measured is what's easy to measure, not what's relevant to the situation.
That cost of a failover server, we know that costs X dollars. But nobody has a convenient way to measure the cost of 50 people sitting around twiddling their thumbs for a half a day, and there's no real incentive to measure that anyway.
"Krugman? Seriously? That guy is still stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the failure of the philosophy that he has been espousing for years. You know, the one that created the economic mess we're in right now.
Why even when Keynesian economics has been proven a failure do people keep trying to claim it works?"
Uh, just pointing out that this isn't actually an argument, this is basically one step above name-calling.
If you wanna say that a guy who just won a Nobel prize is philosophically wrong about his chosen field of study, you need, um, an actual argument.
I think what the person meant by "allow" was more a scenario of "talented worker X is offered a better paying job in Canada, he will move to a different country if his employer doesn't match it with an equal or better offer".
If you work for me, and you have a better offer in a foreign country, and I choose not to match it (for whatever reason) then when you leave the country, in a sense, I have "allowed" that to happen.
Well, the real problem with what you're describing is we have treaties that govern the movement of capital (and jobs and industrial production etc) around the world, that guarantee how corporations are treated in different countries, but we don't have similar treaties for the free movement of people or the treatment of workers around the world.
I got no problem with "globalization", as long as the worker rights, health, safety, etc, regulations around the world have something similar to the WTO. But I'm not holding my breath for that.
Also, whoever said Smith is outdated is right on. When Smith was writing, a fundamental assumption was that wealth or capital was fixed (i.e., landowners) and that labor was mobile. We're basically in the opposite situation now.
After all, they've got physical access to the device. Isn't the general consensus that it's not possible to keep an attacker out, given that they have physical access?
Slashdot Mirror
One thing to remember about the MWP is that there's not really any consensus that it was warmer anywhere outside of the North Atlantic region.
So, since we're talking about _global_ temperatures or "global" warming, whether or not one particular region was warmer or cooler at some point in the last 1000 years or so seems like it might be of minimal relevance.
Any sort of theory of global warming doesn't pretend (or at least, shouldn't!) to predict _weather_, or regional differences, just speak to a global mean.
That's the conclusion that a Canadian Judicial Inquiry came to, anyway.
I'm too lazy to look for the link, but antipolygraph.org probably has it, anyway, one of the conclusions the judge came to was that you could probably replace the polygraph with a purely theatrical device and get about the same results.
"What you are seeing is a move towards web apps where it makes sense (email, document sharing, social networking, etc.), and people sticking with local applications where it doesn't make sense to go to the web (video or photo editing, most office documents, etc.) - anything where the bandwidth or latency requirements become too much of a bottleneck."
Depends on how retarded management is at your workplace.
At my last job, we did exactly this - use web apps when it makes sense, everything else done with local apps.
But the one before that, I guess somebody in management was a sucker for every jackass salesman offering web-based apps who promised lower total costs or something.
Without exception, every instance of this was slow or buggy or didn't actually do everything that the local app it replaced did, or just plain-out didn't work very well.
Although, to be fair, I guess none of this is exclusive to web-based apps in the IT/software world...
Here fucking here!
There was a time, when adults could count on a degree of "solidarity" with other adults. These days, a kid who fails to do their work, turn in assignments, and skips classes, when their parents discover that their kid is failing, if the kid says "it's not my fault! [fill-in-the-blank] Teacher doesn't like me!", the fucking parents believe it!
Look, not that when I was in school I didn't try that bs with my parents, but when I was in school, (~20 years ago) my mom would roll her eyes at me, at best.
Also, you kids get off my lawn...
Hell, even just raising salaries to the point where teaching is a desirable career for people who have the education/experience where it's conceivable that they could make >80K/year.
After all, there's a non-zero number of teachers, if you could somehow get a situation where people were competing for teaching positions, you'd have significantly better quality teachers, I suspect.
The really difficult thing to deal with is burnout. It seems that the burnout rate amongst teachers at least appears to be higher than average, so we need a way to either prevent burnout, treat it when hit happens, or get rid of burnout teachers. They're poison.
Ahh, that makes sense.
But, aren't there people who are doing plug-in electric conversions on Priuses (god that's an awkward word to pluralize...)?
I've only heard of it, no idea of tech details, I just remember hearing that you'd get 40-50 miles using no gasoline at all.
That's not a completely zero-emission vehicle, but 40-50 miles covers what, 80% of people's commutes? That's a pretty good start...
I read about a case of Toyota buying back a first-generation Prius from a taxi operator, that had a million miles on it, because they wanted to study how the battery breaks down.
Now, maybe there's something else going on, maybe this was an "outlier" and most Priuses don't last for 1,000,000 miles. But if a Prius went 1,000,000 miles without a battery failure, I think the battery isn't a problem.
Like, the pentagon, for example, that hotbed of the loony-left, right?
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/3566_AbruptClimateChange.pdf
Really? Protectionism is never a good idea?
England or the USA never had protectionist policies in the past?
In fact, pretty much every developed nation went through a period of protectionism, which arguably led to them being the wealthy economies they are today.
So I guess the only reason you don't sell heroin to schoolchildren or defective sprinkler systems or something is because the profit margins are lousy?
Why exactly is it that because somebody calls themselves a 'trader' that they therefore get a free pass from any sort of ethical considerations?
Winston Churchill said something about how we can count on the Americans to do the right thing, but only after trying everything else first. (I'm sure I mangled that, anybody who knows the correct one please correct me)
Now, let's face it, that's basically how humans everywhere behave.
Well, limited government, that's one thing. That means relying on a free market model of decision making and resource allocation and all that, right?
But things like CO2 emissions are an example of a "negative externality", which are often an area of "market failure".
Person A and Person B meet in the marketplace, exchange goods and services, (presumably, hopefully) in a way that they both consider beneficial to themselves. But their trade/economic activities negatively effect person C who is not at all involved in their trade or economic activities. (i.e., their activities pollutes the environment, or cranks up global warming, or whatever...)
So, if you can see a way, without expanding the role of government, to have the free market reduce CO2 emissions, then you'll convert me to libertarianism. But smarter people than you or I have tried.
Is the USA really that much more diverse than Canada? I'd argue that Canada is arguably _more_ diverse, we have two official languages, for example. And in Canada, with our non-electronic, single-payer system, our admin costs are around 8-10%.
With his line about how he and his wife have decided to have their very own 'invisible baby' - his name is "Ten Hours of Sleep a Night". He's the best baby in the world! You can do mushrooms in front of him, you can go to a rock concert on a thursday and come home sunday...
And, realistically, you probably shouldn't talk about bankruptcies without talking about:
1) Wage stagnation - my father, when he was younger than I am now, was able to own a house, and support himself, my mother, and two small kids on a plain 'ol civil servant's salary. My wife and I are "DINKS", (dual-income-no-kids) and even with the drop in prices recently, home ownership is still something only possible on the far side of a large inheritance or a lottery win. In the last 30-40 years, the price of a house has gone up much, much faster than median incomes;
2) If you're talking about in the USA, anyway, healthcare costs. I can't remember the source, but I recall hearing that the #1 cause of personal bankruptcies in the USA is medical bills. I don't know if it's the _number one_ cause, but I think we can all agree it's probably a significant factor.
This is why my wife and I (both of us have _never_ wanted kids) are looking into more permanent birth control options.
You wanna ruin your marriage? Have kids.
Of how lucky I am to have my wife. She's in better shape now than she was when we first started dating (2004), and our sex life is better than ever.
Especially for men, DO NOT get married in your 20s.
Every single one of my male friends who got married in their 20s was either divorced inside of 2 or 3 years or in a completely miserable, dysfunctional, marriage by age 30. Me, I was engaged when I was 25, and thank god we broke up before going through with the wedding.
Besides, if I can indulge in some cynical thinking that verges on the misogynistic, before 30, women are "buying", but after 30, women are selling, and men are buying. The dating/relationship options for men get better and better after 30.
I'm always amazed at anti-union sentiments.
It usually comes down to something like "I/my friend/some guy I knew/etc used to work at a union shop and they were ineffective/incompetent/corrupt/whatever.
Sorta like saying "I heard about a doctor who was incompetent once, who killed his patients. That's why I got my broken leg treated by a faith healer."
You're exactly right.
Very old joke:
So a very drunk man is wandering around an alleyway, just under a streetlight, obviously looking for something.
His friend sees him, walks up to him, asks what the hell he's doing. He explains he lost his keys. His friend, trying to be helpful, asks where he might've lost them. The drunk says "oh, couple blocks over that way,"
His friend, incredulous, says "well, if you lost them over there, why in god's name are you looking for them here?"
The drunk explains, "well, over here, the light is better."
This is exactly how (some, but not all) management types work. What gets measured gets done. And what gets measured is what's easy to measure, not what's relevant to the situation.
That cost of a failover server, we know that costs X dollars. But nobody has a convenient way to measure the cost of 50 people sitting around twiddling their thumbs for a half a day, and there's no real incentive to measure that anyway.
Actually, you wanna blame somebody, blame Alan "I never met a bubble I didn't like" Greenspan.
"Krugman? Seriously? That guy is still stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the failure of the philosophy that he has been espousing for years. You know, the one that created the economic mess we're in right now.
Why even when Keynesian economics has been proven a failure do people keep trying to claim it works?"
Uh, just pointing out that this isn't actually an argument, this is basically one step above name-calling.
If you wanna say that a guy who just won a Nobel prize is philosophically wrong about his chosen field of study, you need, um, an actual argument.
I think what the person meant by "allow" was more a scenario of "talented worker X is offered a better paying job in Canada, he will move to a different country if his employer doesn't match it with an equal or better offer".
If you work for me, and you have a better offer in a foreign country, and I choose not to match it (for whatever reason) then when you leave the country, in a sense, I have "allowed" that to happen.
Well, the real problem with what you're describing is we have treaties that govern the movement of capital (and jobs and industrial production etc) around the world, that guarantee how corporations are treated in different countries, but we don't have similar treaties for the free movement of people or the treatment of workers around the world.
I got no problem with "globalization", as long as the worker rights, health, safety, etc, regulations around the world have something similar to the WTO. But I'm not holding my breath for that.
Also, whoever said Smith is outdated is right on. When Smith was writing, a fundamental assumption was that wealth or capital was fixed (i.e., landowners) and that labor was mobile. We're basically in the opposite situation now.
Absolutely right. None at all.
After all, they've got physical access to the device. Isn't the general consensus that it's not possible to keep an attacker out, given that they have physical access?