From a strategic standpoint, wouldn't it be better to wait till we've exhausted the oil supplies from everyone else before we start using our own?
Absolutely, that makes perfect sense. But that logic is not the reason we aren't drilling domestically. The excuse given is almost always environmental issues.
So....He makes a good argument against domestic drilling, which you agree with, but you're against it anyway because other people you dislike are for the same thing for other reasons that you consider bogus?
The environmentalist instinct survives in large part because its good for our team. Even if we justify taking good care of our resources using flaky nature worship metaphors, it still amounts to much the same thing. Not completely the same thing. But close enough that if you really believe that we should save our oil so we'll have it later, then you should oppose drilling in Alaska.
Yes, you can give lots of examples of other scandalous things environmentalists have done. But we're talking about whether or not to drill for oil.
Personally I don't care about the wildlife in barren parts of Alaska. But the way we squander oil is ridiculous.
spacetime consists of all the things that get done; it is what it is."
Wow, he dismisses a major issue in the free will debate offhand.
It seems to me that 'space-time' is not only all the things that get done, but is also, inseparably, many more things that could be done that might not be. And there's no clear line that divides the two. If you take away the ambiguity, it doesn't work.
Interesting post. One problem with the product I spoke of, which was one-time programmable, is there was no way to tell at the factory which cells were good.
Years ago I worked a product that had an IC feature that could be manufactured reliably 99.99% of the time. For a real device with millions of such features that averages to almost zero yield, and this problem was not overcome. For some technologies the manufacturing yield hurdle can be overcome, for others it can't be. So although seeing a small number of memory cells work correctly is interesting and worthwhile, by itself that doesn't tell us whether we will ever see this technology in an actual product.
It provides a nice readable display, and more importantly doesn't make me open my wallet to buy a separate gadget.
An iPhone has weird bugs. For instance, when reading/. on an iPhone 3G like I am right now, it won't let me post except in reply to an existing user comment. This can be awkward if what I want to say is irrelevant to any other post. Which brings me to my second point....
The point isn't to visit. The point is to find interesting planets and study them from afar, and possibly send probes eventually. Moving information is more fundamental than moving a particular flesh body around.
not resorting to violence => inability to do so => weakness
You clearly have no idea how I think.
I am against American militarism. What I just said was that socialism doesn't fix that problem. The Nazi's were of course also socialists. I didn't even argue against socialism, which may be a good idea in other regards, I just said that it doesn't fix the militarism/fascism problem.
in my opinion. Nature requires a self-consistent chain of causality from past to future, with no time travel miracles allowed. It does not require the whole chain to remained nailed to a hypothesized immutable historic 'past'. I don't mean that there are 'many worlds' or existent alternative realities, I mean that the one existent history is free to drift around as long as it does it in a physically consistent manner.
What I'm trying to say here, somewhat ineneptly, has so far been prohibitively difficult to prove through experiment, because the experiments are all conducted from within the causal chain on certain kinds of simple, isolated systems. Very hard to measure in a repeatable lab experiment is not the same as unreal however. And I think that something like this will be shown eventually.
Whether this applies to the situation with the Higgs particle I have no idea, but I think the broader principle is sound.
Many of the answers in their keys were plain incorrect. My supervisor was an anti-intellectual bully. The whole operation seemed antithetical to excellence, which is what testing pretends to cultivate. Computerized grading could work horribly and they would still use it if they could get away with it.
As a completely unrelated side note, I'm typing this on an iPhone. I love the hardware, but the software seems to suck. Frequent crashes, and things that don't work right. Some of that must be the fault of the web page designer, but I don't see why the browser should crash several times a day in any case.
You just described how DTP survives where there is poorly qualified and short-sighted management. In that sense, nearly every kind of corruption is good. Its not the whole story if you're looking for long term success.
But you make a valid point also, particularly when paying customers are in the role of your management.
Right, good point, that's an example of where a fringe or elitist policy prescription would have counterproductive consequences. But I still think the government classified information system is out of control. Unfortunately it's hard to show the need for reform since it's largely invisible.
The patent system is a mess also, and it's also an invisible problem in the sense that it's partially beyond the technical comprehension of most people, but at least we can present data when we argue about it.
That same argument is also used to cover up an enormous amount of scary, incompetent, and/or fraudulent behavior by security agencies. From my experience in the government surveillance R&D business, when someone says 'If you knew what I knew, you would support program X', its very often bullshit.
Of course much of what is secret does need to be secret. But often the main effect of secrecy is a lack of accountability. Personally I think we would be better off overall if we opened most of it up.
People get all offended when someone suggests that the US government is a greater danger than terrorists, since the US government is relatively civilized, and terrorists do want to kill us. But we are so much more powerful than the terrorists are that I think it is us that's the greater threat. Personally, taking a long view, I'd rather risk losing a city to a terrorist nuke than risk a Stalinist catastrophe.
I think that part of the issue is that some 'color blind' people aren't actually impaired, they just assign colors to wavebands in not quite the majority manner. For example, grass actually has more 'orange'-wavelength light in it than green, but most people see it as green, being hyper sensitive to green. If you are somewhat less sensitive to green and see it more as orange, they call you color-blind.
According to the standard color tests, I see no red, none. Yet I do have a vivid experience of red, and I'm in about 95% agreement with other people about which things are red. I suspect that some of the people who make confident pronouncements about other people's color experiences actually don't know what they are talking about.
You take one or more wavelengths and on some mixture of arbitrary and aesthetic grounds, assign them to visible colors.
Or rather, assign them to visible wavelengths. The colors aren't in the light; the brain is doing the somewhat arbitrary assignment of colors to wavelengths. And the color intensities assigned don't match wavelength intensities, with green being stronger than the corresponding band, for example.
I saw a job posting recently that asked for 18 years of web development experience. I guess Al Gore would be the only qualified candidate.
Personally, I won't lie on a resume or in an interview though. I don't want to hire weasels, and I don't want to work for them either. If they can't formulate reasonable job requirements, how are they going to be able to give me reasonable work requirements after I'm hired? Granted, sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the sake of having a job, but working for idiots is a pretty big sacrifice in my opinion.
I used to assume that learning to tell the truth was part of childhood, part of growing up. Looking around, maybe not.
Knowing this, having interviewed a lot of people and having known a lot of interviewees, I wouldn't be insulted to take a test. However, its also true that a lot of the gimmicky kinds of questions that are asked on tests don't show very much about a candidate's depth. Certainly a test shouldn't be a primary criteria.
I almost stopped reading when I got to 'Pirate Fests' and glimpsed words like 'dude' and 'insert' coming up on the next line. I was relieved to see you were talking about software theft.
Slashdot Mirror
From a strategic standpoint, wouldn't it be better to wait till we've exhausted the oil supplies from everyone else before we start using our own?
Absolutely, that makes perfect sense. But that logic is not the reason we aren't drilling domestically. The excuse given is almost always environmental issues.
So....He makes a good argument against domestic drilling, which you agree with, but you're against it anyway because other people you dislike are for the same thing for other reasons that you consider bogus?
The environmentalist instinct survives in large part because its good for our team. Even if we justify taking good care of our resources using flaky nature worship metaphors, it still amounts to much the same thing. Not completely the same thing. But close enough that if you really believe that we should save our oil so we'll have it later, then you should oppose drilling in Alaska.
Yes, you can give lots of examples of other scandalous things environmentalists have done. But we're talking about whether or not to drill for oil.
Personally I don't care about the wildlife in barren parts of Alaska. But the way we squander oil is ridiculous.
spacetime consists of all the things that get done; it is what it is."
Wow, he dismisses a major issue in the free will debate offhand.
It seems to me that 'space-time' is not only all the things that get done, but is also, inseparably, many more things that could be done that might not be. And there's no clear line that divides the two. If you take away the ambiguity, it doesn't work.
There is a lie in every slashdot summary, its like its a natural law or something.
Interesting post. One problem with the product I spoke of, which was one-time programmable, is there was no way to tell at the factory which cells were good.
I said 'millions of such features', not a dozen. Devices do have redundant elements, but not on that order of magnitude.
Years ago I worked a product that had an IC feature that could be manufactured reliably 99.99% of the time. For a real device with millions of such features that averages to almost zero yield, and this problem was not overcome. For some technologies the manufacturing yield hurdle can be overcome, for others it can't be. So although seeing a small number of memory cells work correctly is interesting and worthwhile, by itself that doesn't tell us whether we will ever see this technology in an actual product.
It provides a nice readable display, and more importantly doesn't make me open my wallet to buy a separate gadget.
An iPhone has weird bugs. For instance, when reading /. on an iPhone 3G like I am right now, it won't let me post except in reply to an existing user comment. This can be awkward if what I want to say is irrelevant to any other post. Which brings me to my second point....
What good to a nook is a hook cook book?
The point isn't to visit. The point is to find interesting planets and study them from afar, and possibly send probes eventually. Moving information is more fundamental than moving a particular flesh body around.
there's more Chinese pollution in LA now than the local stuff.
??? You can not see east L.A. from where you live, apparently.
Maybe I read your first post backwards too, sorry.
i like the way you think:
not resorting to violence => inability to do so => weakness
You clearly have no idea how I think.
I am against American militarism. What I just said was that socialism doesn't fix that problem. The Nazi's were of course also socialists. I didn't even argue against socialism, which may be a good idea in other regards, I just said that it doesn't fix the militarism/fascism problem.
No, socialism does not make the military industrial complex weaker.
in my opinion. Nature requires a self-consistent chain of causality from past to future, with no time travel miracles allowed. It does not require the whole chain to remained nailed to a hypothesized immutable historic 'past'. I don't mean that there are 'many worlds' or existent alternative realities, I mean that the one existent history is free to drift around as long as it does it in a physically consistent manner.
What I'm trying to say here, somewhat ineneptly, has so far been prohibitively difficult to prove through experiment, because the experiments are all conducted from within the causal chain on certain kinds of simple, isolated systems. Very hard to measure in a repeatable lab experiment is not the same as unreal however. And I think that something like this will be shown eventually.
Whether this applies to the situation with the Higgs particle I have no idea, but I think the broader principle is sound.
Portland and San Jose is full of the sort of people who like trains, so the opposition would be less.
Unemployed semiconductor engineers like trains?
Many of the answers in their keys were plain incorrect. My supervisor was an anti-intellectual bully. The whole operation seemed antithetical to excellence, which is what testing pretends to cultivate. Computerized grading could work horribly and they would still use it if they could get away with it.
As a completely unrelated side note, I'm typing this on an iPhone. I love the hardware, but the software seems to suck. Frequent crashes, and things that don't work right. Some of that must be the fault of the web page designer, but I don't see why the browser should crash several times a day in any case.
You just described how DTP survives where there is poorly qualified and short-sighted management. In that sense, nearly every kind of corruption is good. Its not the whole story if you're looking for long term success.
But you make a valid point also, particularly when paying customers are in the role of your management.
You use Reynolds & Reynolds software? Seems to be badly managed, by people without technical skills, and with many mediocre programmers.
Right, good point, that's an example of where a fringe or elitist policy prescription would have counterproductive consequences. But I still think the government classified information system is out of control. Unfortunately it's hard to show the need for reform since it's largely invisible.
The patent system is a mess also, and it's also an invisible problem in the sense that it's partially beyond the technical comprehension of most people, but at least we can present data when we argue about it.
So in this case, secrecy protects us all.
That same argument is also used to cover up an enormous amount of scary, incompetent, and/or fraudulent behavior by security agencies. From my experience in the government surveillance R&D business, when someone says 'If you knew what I knew, you would support program X', its very often bullshit.
Of course much of what is secret does need to be secret. But often the main effect of secrecy is a lack of accountability. Personally I think we would be better off overall if we opened most of it up.
People get all offended when someone suggests that the US government is a greater danger than terrorists, since the US government is relatively civilized, and terrorists do want to kill us. But we are so much more powerful than the terrorists are that I think it is us that's the greater threat. Personally, taking a long view, I'd rather risk losing a city to a terrorist nuke than risk a Stalinist catastrophe.
to summarize the majority view
I think that part of the issue is that some 'color blind' people aren't actually impaired, they just assign colors to wavebands in not quite the majority manner. For example, grass actually has more 'orange'-wavelength light in it than green, but most people see it as green, being hyper sensitive to green. If you are somewhat less sensitive to green and see it more as orange, they call you color-blind.
According to the standard color tests, I see no red, none. Yet I do have a vivid experience of red, and I'm in about 95% agreement with other people about which things are red. I suspect that some of the people who make confident pronouncements about other people's color experiences actually don't know what they are talking about.
You take one or more wavelengths and on some mixture of arbitrary and aesthetic grounds, assign them to visible colors.
Or rather, assign them to visible wavelengths. The colors aren't in the light; the brain is doing the somewhat arbitrary assignment of colors to wavelengths. And the color intensities assigned don't match wavelength intensities, with green being stronger than the corresponding band, for example.
I saw a job posting recently that asked for 18 years of web development experience. I guess Al Gore would be the only qualified candidate.
Personally, I won't lie on a resume or in an interview though. I don't want to hire weasels, and I don't want to work for them either. If they can't formulate reasonable job requirements, how are they going to be able to give me reasonable work requirements after I'm hired? Granted, sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the sake of having a job, but working for idiots is a pretty big sacrifice in my opinion.
I used to assume that learning to tell the truth was part of childhood, part of growing up. Looking around, maybe not.
Knowing this, having interviewed a lot of people and having known a lot of interviewees, I wouldn't be insulted to take a test. However, its also true that a lot of the gimmicky kinds of questions that are asked on tests don't show very much about a candidate's depth. Certainly a test shouldn't be a primary criteria.
I almost stopped reading when I got to 'Pirate Fests' and glimpsed words like 'dude' and 'insert' coming up on the next line. I was relieved to see you were talking about software theft.