Ok. I see it now. It does seem from the time stamps that you posted the comment in reply to me, before you actually posted the comment in question. Your reply to me is timestamped 4:30, and your comment below is at 4:46.
The general lesson may be the same as that behind the Concorde. There's not a massive market for people willing to pay a massive amount of money for travel by planes. That applies whether the increased cost is for incredible luxury or incredible speed. If this is what is going on, then this does not bode very well for ideas like Musk's point-to-point transit with the Big Falcon Rocket.
There are three simple explanations for this: First, Google's management may just push back hard on anyone rocking the boat in any direction. Second, the pushback in each cases may have come from different people or different levels. Damore seems to have had the most pushback from fellow rank-and file employees. It is possible there's a disconnect between management and employees. Third, Google has many different locations, it is possible that company culture at difference offices is wildly different. All of these explanations are consistent with both stories.
They were more careful than you give them credit for here. The quote explicitly says "animal models" so they weren't talking about all animals, just those used as model organisms.
Your personal anecdote is not data. For example, the fraction of people in rural areas are using solar and geothermal power is very small. Moreover, a major part of the difference is car travel v. public transit (in fact this alone accounts for one of the major reasons that NYC is more efficient than even other cities). If you want, I can easily give you other sources detailing the same thing (such as http://e360.yale.edu/features/greenest_place_in_the_us_its_not_where_you_think). Calling actual data "nonsense" and responding with personal anecdote is not productive.
Yes, they obviously mean largest known prime, not the largest prime there is. Headlines need to be short and frequently need to rely on some minimal context. Yes, the headline is hardly a "Headless body found in topless bar" quality but it was pretty clear from the context what was meant.
Primarily for the fun of it. There are some specific uses of large Mersenne primes in the Mersenne twister algorithm for generating pseudorandom numbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_Twister, but in practice much, much smaller Mersenne primes are perfectly fine for that use, and indeed are much more practical. There are people who whenever you talk about large primes will claim they are useful for crypto, but that's not generally the case. The primes are too big for practical Diffie-Hellman (and there are specific reasons one might want to avoid using them for that), and they are not random primes in any sense so using them for any form of RSA would be really silly. That said, there's at least one mildly fun cryptographic algorithm whose proof of correctness relies on there being infinitely many Mersenne primes http://www.di.ens.fr/~vergnaud/algo0910/Locally.pdf, but no one has to my knowledge actually tried to implement the algorithm in that paper.
Your claim about the "collectivists agree" is missing completely the point of the issue there; that's a current person with a recent photograph. Exactly the sort of thing intended by the framers of the Constitution when they made intellectual property - that people make a profit (not an indefinite profit) off their work.
Because my children (not even grandkids) will not derive any income from my writing, I'll have to shelve my idea of this book and go do "real work". That's the line of thinking I was alluding to. The creator — or his wife — would certainly think/say such a thing.
Utter nonsense. Copyrights are extremely long, there's no way that children won't benefit from the same copyrights. This is just silly. Moreover, do you have any evidence that any author has ever said so?
But I do not wish to argue, which way is more effective. Even if my way was less conducive to development of art, it is still the only right way. Creators ought to be able to control their creations — they must be able to sell, rent, give away, or even destroy them however they see fit. It is not yours, it is not mine, it is theirs.
So at the end of the day, what you are trying to do is make a moral claim about the nature of intellectual property. I explicitly addressed that claim earlier. The moral reason we have a notion of basic property rights is that physical property is by nature restrictive, as I tried explaining earlier. If we somehow existed in a universe where objects could be used by any number of people without diminishing their value or usability, property rights wouldn't be a sensible thing. But that's precisely the situation with things like copyrighted works- one person reading it doesn't make someone else have less value. This isn't that complicated. And it is simple even before one gets to the incredible amount of wasted resources if copyrights were indefinite (imagine for a moment what our world would look like if Shakespeare was still copyrighted or if every 19th and early 20th century patent was still active). Your approach is both morally incoherent and simply a pragmatically bad idea.
The Constitution explicitly has that copyrights exist for a limited time. Despite the term "intellectual property" it isn't property in the classical sense of the term. If I try to use your house, you can't benefit from it. But my having a copy of a book doesn't reduce the amount of gain someone else gets from the book. The point of intellectual property laws is to give an incentive for people to make new things, knowing they will have some time to benefit. But almost no one says "I was going to patent this or was going to write this book, but because my grandkids might not have 100% rights to it, I won't."
She was not a pre-existing character, which is an interesting point, and certainly a more valid point than most of the other responses (apparently there are a lot of people who are engaging in the I-disagree-so-I-will-mod-down line of thinking on this conversation).
Really? I'm strongly against people (wherever they are on the political spectrum) using violence and threats of violence to shut down the speech of others, but that hardly makes them akin to Nazis. The Nazis had as a goal literal genocide for multiple different groups, and they managed to kill millions of people. There's a pretty massive difference in moral weight at work here.
By "Female Thor" do you mean Jane Foster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Foster_(comics) or do you mean Thor Girl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Girl? Since Thor Girl was from the early 2000s I'm guessing you mean Foster, although that does a good job by itself showing that female versions of Thor aren't some miraculous recent thing. The current "Mighty Thor" comic does focus on Foster http://marvel.com/comics/series/20527/mighty_thor_2015_-_present, but there are two problems with that argument. First, Thor Odinson is still a major character in other Marvel lines including Secret Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Empire_(comics), and second while Mighty Thor has sold poorly, so have many other Marvel titles, including some very long-running ones. In that regard the "Mighty Thor" comic is about middle of the pack; hardly what one would expect if it were so bad it would be dragging everything else down.
As for the Iron Man, since you specified black *female* Iron Man, I presume you mean Riri Williams, since a black male Iron Man was done about 20 years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Machine#The_all_new_Iron_Man as James Rhodes (before he got his own War Machine title). It is true that the Riri Williams Iron Man has sold poorly and had negative reviews, but those reviews have focused on poor story writing, poor drawing and poor editing. See for example https://www.bleedingcool.com/2017/08/24/generations-iron-man-ironheart-1-review/ and has little to do with Riri Williams as a character (although I'll certainly volunteer that she does come across as a Mary Sue).
So where is the evidence that any of these characters have failed due to being "forced diversity versions"?
What diversity versions are you talking about? The two examples one could most argue are "forced diversity versions" (never mind that not having almost all characters be white might actually be a reasonable thing given actual real life demographics) are Miles Morales as an alternate universe Spider-Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_(Miles_Morales) and Kamala Khan as Ms. Marvel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms._Marvel_(Kamala_Khan)#Sales. The Morales version of Spider-Man has had its own series independent from the regular Peter Parker Spider-Man, so it isn't like having Morales somehow interferes with the usual Spider-Man. Meanwhile, Ms. Marvel has sold very well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms._Marvel_(Kamala_Khan)#Sales. So who are these "disastrous forced diversity versions" that are harming Marvel's sales?
Classically, Slashdot has "News for nerds, stuff that matters"- this seems to be in the first category. One could argue that based on the classic word cloud associations this is closer to "geek" than "nerd" https://slackprop.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/on-geek-versus-nerd/, but the overlap between those two has always been pretty high.
Marvel has done really well with their movies, but they've screwed themselves over in multiple ways with their comics. The biggest is that continuing their disagreement with Fox, where Fox still has the rights to X-Men movie franchises, and Marvel isn't happy about that, they kept Wolverine dead for 3 years, which in comic time is almost an eternity http://www.iswolverinestilldead.com/. This seems to have been essentially because he was one of the most popular of the X-Men characters. So they were willing to shoot themselves in the foot in order to be able to say "screw you" to Fox even as it only hurt Marvel's bottom line. The last few years, Marvel has had a lot of little petty things like this that haven't helped the brand.
It will be interesting to see what happens if they ever market in the US. The US concern about trademarks will I suspect take a much dimmer view of this.
While the poster you are replying to is accurate, your comment is by and large not in this context. Yes, there are people who have very overactive Nazi detection. But that doesn't make some of the people actual Nazis. And in this context, the twitter accounts weren't run by people "to the right of Trotsky" but seem to have been actual Nazis by reasonable notions of the term.
So, I'm strongly against killing people who aren't an active threat, and I find the AC's use of anti-gay slurs offensive and unacceptable, but I'm still willing to say that the AC is probably a lot better than Nazis. If group A is advocating killing groups B,C,D,E,F,G, and H, and group A is to a large extent defined by that desire (whether or not they are actively engaged in it), then someone who wants to preemptively kill group A is probably wrong if group A isn't anywhere near its goals, but the person who wants to kill those in group A is not nearly as bad a person and has a pretty reasonable motivation.
To extend this just slightly, the primary problems with groups like Antifa is a) they go after people who are not active threats and b) that they have what amounts to very overactive Nazi detection. But that doesn't by and large make them anywhere comparable to Nazis.
No strong evidence or the like no; the closest I can find is things like what the AC I was replying to linked where the assertion is made that that someone was angry over that but where there's no real confirmation.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok. I see it now. It does seem from the time stamps that you posted the comment in reply to me, before you actually posted the comment in question. Your reply to me is timestamped 4:30, and your comment below is at 4:46.
Since this comment is your only comment on this article, I'm not sure where you are intending me to look.
The general lesson may be the same as that behind the Concorde. There's not a massive market for people willing to pay a massive amount of money for travel by planes. That applies whether the increased cost is for incredible luxury or incredible speed. If this is what is going on, then this does not bode very well for ideas like Musk's point-to-point transit with the Big Falcon Rocket.
The evidence strongly suggests that the size and scale of the tulip bubble was vastly exaggerated https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/there-never-was-real-tulip-fever-180964915/.
There are three simple explanations for this: First, Google's management may just push back hard on anyone rocking the boat in any direction. Second, the pushback in each cases may have come from different people or different levels. Damore seems to have had the most pushback from fellow rank-and file employees. It is possible there's a disconnect between management and employees. Third, Google has many different locations, it is possible that company culture at difference offices is wildly different. All of these explanations are consistent with both stories.
They were more careful than you give them credit for here. The quote explicitly says "animal models" so they weren't talking about all animals, just those used as model organisms.
Your personal anecdote is not data. For example, the fraction of people in rural areas are using solar and geothermal power is very small. Moreover, a major part of the difference is car travel v. public transit (in fact this alone accounts for one of the major reasons that NYC is more efficient than even other cities). If you want, I can easily give you other sources detailing the same thing (such as http://e360.yale.edu/features/greenest_place_in_the_us_its_not_where_you_think). Calling actual data "nonsense" and responding with personal anecdote is not productive.
Sure, see http://e360.yale.edu/features/greenest_place_in_the_us_its_not_where_you_think. Also, see https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/ for the state-level data. That said, I think that considering this to be something that would constitute a conflict of interest enough to doubt the source is pretty silly.
People in cities use less energy per a capita than people in suburbs or rural areas https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/translating-uncle-sam/stories/urban-or-rural-which-is-more-energy-efficient and NYC is one of the most energy efficient of major cities by multiple metrics http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/12/31/eco.cities/.
Yes, they obviously mean largest known prime, not the largest prime there is. Headlines need to be short and frequently need to rely on some minimal context. Yes, the headline is hardly a "Headless body found in topless bar" quality but it was pretty clear from the context what was meant.
Primarily for the fun of it. There are some specific uses of large Mersenne primes in the Mersenne twister algorithm for generating pseudorandom numbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_Twister, but in practice much, much smaller Mersenne primes are perfectly fine for that use, and indeed are much more practical. There are people who whenever you talk about large primes will claim they are useful for crypto, but that's not generally the case. The primes are too big for practical Diffie-Hellman (and there are specific reasons one might want to avoid using them for that), and they are not random primes in any sense so using them for any form of RSA would be really silly. That said, there's at least one mildly fun cryptographic algorithm whose proof of correctness relies on there being infinitely many Mersenne primes http://www.di.ens.fr/~vergnaud/algo0910/Locally.pdf, but no one has to my knowledge actually tried to implement the algorithm in that paper.
Because my children (not even grandkids) will not derive any income from my writing, I'll have to shelve my idea of this book and go do "real work". That's the line of thinking I was alluding to. The creator — or his wife — would certainly think/say such a thing.
Utter nonsense. Copyrights are extremely long, there's no way that children won't benefit from the same copyrights. This is just silly. Moreover, do you have any evidence that any author has ever said so?
But I do not wish to argue, which way is more effective. Even if my way was less conducive to development of art, it is still the only right way. Creators ought to be able to control their creations — they must be able to sell, rent, give away, or even destroy them however they see fit. It is not yours, it is not mine, it is theirs.
So at the end of the day, what you are trying to do is make a moral claim about the nature of intellectual property. I explicitly addressed that claim earlier. The moral reason we have a notion of basic property rights is that physical property is by nature restrictive, as I tried explaining earlier. If we somehow existed in a universe where objects could be used by any number of people without diminishing their value or usability, property rights wouldn't be a sensible thing. But that's precisely the situation with things like copyrighted works- one person reading it doesn't make someone else have less value. This isn't that complicated. And it is simple even before one gets to the incredible amount of wasted resources if copyrights were indefinite (imagine for a moment what our world would look like if Shakespeare was still copyrighted or if every 19th and early 20th century patent was still active). Your approach is both morally incoherent and simply a pragmatically bad idea.
The Constitution explicitly has that copyrights exist for a limited time. Despite the term "intellectual property" it isn't property in the classical sense of the term. If I try to use your house, you can't benefit from it. But my having a copy of a book doesn't reduce the amount of gain someone else gets from the book. The point of intellectual property laws is to give an incentive for people to make new things, knowing they will have some time to benefit. But almost no one says "I was going to patent this or was going to write this book, but because my grandkids might not have 100% rights to it, I won't."
She was not a pre-existing character, which is an interesting point, and certainly a more valid point than most of the other responses (apparently there are a lot of people who are engaging in the I-disagree-so-I-will-mod-down line of thinking on this conversation).
Yes, easily found. See e.g. https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/tempers-flare-in-court-as-man-faces-charge-over-muslim-womans-happy-holidays-christmas-reply-ng-b88533825z.
Really? I'm strongly against people (wherever they are on the political spectrum) using violence and threats of violence to shut down the speech of others, but that hardly makes them akin to Nazis. The Nazis had as a goal literal genocide for multiple different groups, and they managed to kill millions of people. There's a pretty massive difference in moral weight at work here.
By "Female Thor" do you mean Jane Foster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Foster_(comics) or do you mean Thor Girl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Girl? Since Thor Girl was from the early 2000s I'm guessing you mean Foster, although that does a good job by itself showing that female versions of Thor aren't some miraculous recent thing. The current "Mighty Thor" comic does focus on Foster http://marvel.com/comics/series/20527/mighty_thor_2015_-_present, but there are two problems with that argument. First, Thor Odinson is still a major character in other Marvel lines including Secret Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Empire_(comics), and second while Mighty Thor has sold poorly, so have many other Marvel titles, including some very long-running ones. In that regard the "Mighty Thor" comic is about middle of the pack; hardly what one would expect if it were so bad it would be dragging everything else down.
As for the Iron Man, since you specified black *female* Iron Man, I presume you mean Riri Williams, since a black male Iron Man was done about 20 years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Machine#The_all_new_Iron_Man as James Rhodes (before he got his own War Machine title). It is true that the Riri Williams Iron Man has sold poorly and had negative reviews, but those reviews have focused on poor story writing, poor drawing and poor editing. See for example https://www.bleedingcool.com/2017/08/24/generations-iron-man-ironheart-1-review/ and has little to do with Riri Williams as a character (although I'll certainly volunteer that she does come across as a Mary Sue).
So where is the evidence that any of these characters have failed due to being "forced diversity versions"?
What diversity versions are you talking about? The two examples one could most argue are "forced diversity versions" (never mind that not having almost all characters be white might actually be a reasonable thing given actual real life demographics) are Miles Morales as an alternate universe Spider-Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_(Miles_Morales) and Kamala Khan as Ms. Marvel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms._Marvel_(Kamala_Khan)#Sales. The Morales version of Spider-Man has had its own series independent from the regular Peter Parker Spider-Man, so it isn't like having Morales somehow interferes with the usual Spider-Man. Meanwhile, Ms. Marvel has sold very well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms._Marvel_(Kamala_Khan)#Sales. So who are these "disastrous forced diversity versions" that are harming Marvel's sales?
Classically, Slashdot has "News for nerds, stuff that matters"- this seems to be in the first category. One could argue that based on the classic word cloud associations this is closer to "geek" than "nerd" https://slackprop.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/on-geek-versus-nerd/, but the overlap between those two has always been pretty high.
Marvel has done really well with their movies, but they've screwed themselves over in multiple ways with their comics. The biggest is that continuing their disagreement with Fox, where Fox still has the rights to X-Men movie franchises, and Marvel isn't happy about that, they kept Wolverine dead for 3 years, which in comic time is almost an eternity http://www.iswolverinestilldead.com/. This seems to have been essentially because he was one of the most popular of the X-Men characters. So they were willing to shoot themselves in the foot in order to be able to say "screw you" to Fox even as it only hurt Marvel's bottom line. The last few years, Marvel has had a lot of little petty things like this that haven't helped the brand.
It will be interesting to see what happens if they ever market in the US. The US concern about trademarks will I suspect take a much dimmer view of this.
While the poster you are replying to is accurate, your comment is by and large not in this context. Yes, there are people who have very overactive Nazi detection. But that doesn't make some of the people actual Nazis. And in this context, the twitter accounts weren't run by people "to the right of Trotsky" but seem to have been actual Nazis by reasonable notions of the term.
So, I'm strongly against killing people who aren't an active threat, and I find the AC's use of anti-gay slurs offensive and unacceptable, but I'm still willing to say that the AC is probably a lot better than Nazis. If group A is advocating killing groups B,C,D,E,F,G, and H, and group A is to a large extent defined by that desire (whether or not they are actively engaged in it), then someone who wants to preemptively kill group A is probably wrong if group A isn't anywhere near its goals, but the person who wants to kill those in group A is not nearly as bad a person and has a pretty reasonable motivation.
To extend this just slightly, the primary problems with groups like Antifa is a) they go after people who are not active threats and b) that they have what amounts to very overactive Nazi detection. But that doesn't by and large make them anywhere comparable to Nazis.
No strong evidence or the like no; the closest I can find is things like what the AC I was replying to linked where the assertion is made that that someone was angry over that but where there's no real confirmation.
I'm guessing that you haven't spent much time in the South. I can assure you that this is very much not the case.