Because anybody who believes that " the El Paso Corporation, XTO Energy, Occidental Petroleum, BP, Anadarko, Marathon, EnCana, Chevron, Talisman, Shell, API, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, Halliburton, Schlumberger and the Ohio Oil and Gas Association" form front groups in order to tell the whole truth, is incapable of critically examining competing claims, a brainwashed Kochsucker incapable of reasoning at all.
I recall in 2008, a lot of effort was expended to dig up some dirt on Obama. The fluff that conservatives were actually able to print -- including a lot that was just made up, and information about a distant relative that was illegally made public by an immigration agent -- was just comical except for the animosity that was aroused in gullible conservatives in the process. But only idiots ever believed he was a secret Muslim, born in Kenya, etc. So in addition to wanting to know the truth, whatever the truth turns out to be, which several other Obama supporters have already said, I'm not worried about what will be found. I've seen the worst that you conservatard filth have to offer, and I'm here to tell you, I'm not impressed.
Well, I'm glad you asked about it because I would have just missed it and not even asked. And it is very funny. I would have hated to miss that chuckle.
LoL! No, I can't imagine that being the beginning of a very pleasant conversation. Perhaps you're overestimating the intelligence of Senators there, but putting that aside, that certainly is what they should say to Hoglund & Barr!
No doubt about it from the CERN article. Thanks for the clearer explanation of what they're actually doing than at nature.com, and for the links to cern.ch. It sheds a lot of light on luminosity.:-)
But colliders have failed to turn up direct evidence of the super particles predicted by the theory. The Tevatron at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois, for example, has found no evidence of supersymmetrical quarks ('squarks') at masses of up to 379 gigaelectronvolts (energy and mass are used interchangeably in the world of particle physics).
The LHC is now rapidly accumulating data at higher energies, ruling out heavier territory for the super particles. This creates a serious problem for SUSY (see 'SUSY's mid-life crisis'). As the super particles increase in mass, they no longer perfectly cancel out the troubling quantum fluctuations that they were meant to correct. Theorists can still make SUSY work, but only by assuming very specific masses for the super particles — the kind of fine-tuning exercise that the theory was invented to avoid. As the LHC collects more data, SUSY will require increasingly intrusive tweaks to the masses of the particles.
So far the LHC has doubled the mass limit set by the Tevatron, showing no evidence of squarks at energies up to about 700gigaelectronvolts. By the end of the year, it will reach 1,000gigaelectronvolts — potentially ruling out some of the most favoured variations of supersymmetry theory.
So, they are planning on some increase in energy levels between now and 2012. Not an order of magnitude, I know, but 1000 is nearly 50% more than 700, and that's not "about the same" to me. So I think it's a combination of acquiring more data, and slowly increasing the energy levels (to LHC's maximum output, I assume?) until either supersymmetric particles are detected, or we have turned up the energy so much without finding anything that we have to give up on SUSY.
I hear ya. The problem in politics is that what "can be done" generally depends on 50% + 1 of all citizens agreeing that a thing should be done. And even then a minute but extremely noisy bunch of teabagger freaks who the media loves to cover can still be a major obstacle for as long as legislators believe they're significant, because they don't understand and haven't bothered to learn, that the media is ignoring much larger, legitimate grassroots groups (not corporate sponsored) and by and large letting Glenn Beck, et al get away with enormous lies about the number who turnout for his pathetic event, for example.
Sorry, I wasn't clear.
I meant that cool stuff "can be done". "Whether it will be done" is the whole other problem with the political side. Sometimes the "can be done" is pretty hard, and politicians hate hard stuff. "We can have a moon base in 20 years" - but only if we were so scared we stopped most of our petty squabbling to do it.
Ha!
Seriously, you engineer types out there, how hard is it really to get a quad-protected airtight building to the moon? Put it at some kind of shade-crossover point to use the solar power but not get totally fried.
The dividing line between sunlight and shade / "night" on any planet (or moon) is called its Terminator.
Hmm. Yeah, I remember a lot of talk in late 2008 & early 2009 about what caused the financial sector to self-destruct. (Then health care and teabagging distracted the media from getting the Whole Story.) I still find N. Taleb's Black Swan theory the most illuminating analytical framework for financial bubbles, but what you said about corporate actions being decided by individuals acting in their individual best interests, even in direct conflict with the interest of the corporation and shareholders, is also an important component. Personally, I think the best solution to such perverse incentives would be criminal penalties for losing more of "other people's money" than one has the ability to repay. I mean, there's an implicit assertion of competence and benevolence, or at least genuine customer service, inherent in job titles like "investment advisor" and "financial manager" so I say, let's just make that explicit and official and legally binding; if you squander my investment while claiming to be an investment professional, then by definition you're guilty of fraud, theft, etc. and subject to the same fate as Bernie Madoff.
Thanks for the article. Funny how economists give away their work even less than physical scientists, eh?
The derivation of Lagrange's result linked from the NASA page you just linked is probably about as good as any explanation you'll find outside a $100+ textbook, and better than some of those as well.
There's a difference between acting rationally for the long term versus the short term. Plus the difference between acting rationally for the betterment for the officers versus the shareholders or customers or employees.
Yes, there is, and that difference is not generally recognized by economists, particularly the disciples of Milton Friedman and overzealous "free marketeers" in general. Whether one calls the behavior "irrational" as istartedi and I call it, or a different kind of rationality or rationality from a different "viewpoint" as you call it, the real point is that the distinction is generally not being made at all in the field where it most needs to be, in economics, especially "economics" for the masses as seen on Sunday morning "news" opinion, campaign stumping and commentary programs.
The most visible spokespeople for the field of economics, the propagators of common "wisdom," haven't even gotten around to arguing such semantics, and they can't because aside from Krugman, Taleb, David Cay Johnston, Simon Johnson, Robert Reich and a few others, despite the mountain of evidence piling up since 15 September 2008 that irrationality has been widespread among the most wealthy actors in the US economy ever since Glass-Steagall was repealed by Gramm-Leech-Bliley exposing the "rational actor" model as a blatant error, more an inversion of reality than a simplification of the sort appropriate to a "scientific" model of reality, nevertheless most economists not only won't admit the obvious fact that this cornerstone of their libertardian world view is dead wrong, they won't even consider whether the "rational actor" assumption has significant limitations and flaws, for instance in collectives such as corporations in which individual decision-makers can have interests that may sometimes be in direct conflict with the presumed "rational" goals of the corporate collective. As a direct result of the obstinate refusal of Toohey-esque "think" tank "fellows" and "experts" from AEI, CEI, et al, who are paid not to know that the "rational actor" and other rosy assumptions of "mainstream" economics are wrong (because their real jobs are to be apologists for those very corporations that have all but destroyed the middle class), we have the spectacle of labor unions, the organizing tool of the working middle class, being scapegoated for what is 100% the fault of Fortune 500 financial institutions.
When we really think about it, we all know that no labor union had, nor has ever had, the power to cripple the economy this way because they have never had the power to re-write the rules by which the game is played. And yet we all know a few basic facts that suffice to show the basic nature of the problem: Wall Street was bailed out, and corporate GM was bailed out, but the old-GM stocks which comprise the totality of the pension plans of loyal, multi-decade GM workers are now penny stocks. This is morally wrong, and the direct result of economic common "wisdom" that is factually wrong.
If Gates really cared in that way, would he have stepped aside? And left the shop to "the Ballmer monkey"? Hewlett & Packard I'll grant you since they create a great company that was the favorite place to work of all IT guys, and it took Carly Fiorina to undo their work. But Ellison & Gates? I just can't find it in my heart to extend any benefit of any doubt for those two.
... recent college graduates to already have how much professional experience, exactly?
Employers agree that colleges and universities need to provide their students with the essential skills required to run IT departments, yet only 8% of hiring managers would rate IT graduates hired as 'well-trained, ready-to-go,' according to a survey of 376 organizations that are members of the IBM user group Share and Database Trends and Applications subscribers."
Computers were pretty much the domain of scientists and mathematicians until about the 1980s. Seems like BS graduates (business school, not bachelor of science) just expect "computer guys" to work magic because the hiring managers and others from the accountancy/finance/hr side of the companies, which is probably who was surveyed in these studies, just have no idea how a computer works and what is really required to make it work.
To look at it more neutrally, without my biases for math & physical science, and against business school, when expectations are that consistently not met, that's a clear signal that the expectations themselves are out of order. Even a business school graduate should be able to see that in those numbers.
Could you link to some of that "experimental economics that pulls in the discipline of psychology?" I'd like to read up on exactly how/why corporate collectives are not rational actors.
That's a valid point. But they're all subject to impeachment and Thomas' ethical violations regarding his wife's income from a political lobbying group is certainly grounds. So is the attendance of more than one SCOTUS juror at events hosted by "think" tanks owned by the primary beneficiaries of the anti-democratic decision in Citizens United v. FEC. I don't recall the exact list, but I do know it's two or more of Thomas, Alito, Scalia, Roberts. Probably all four, but don't quote me without Googling it first.
Answer me this then. What if I wanted to watch pictures of people of adequate age that are completely inadequately clothed for the climate? Or send out millions of email marketing messages? Both are speech...so why can't I?
Not that your point is without merit, but the Supreme Court has ruled on both issues. And while "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" is not an adequately rigorous definition for governing behavior in my opinion it is the standing precedent for obscenity. Likewise, commerce is subject to more restrictive regulations than non-violent, non-inciteful (sic) political speech, and this is perfectly appropriate.
Commerce requires start-up costs. If communication technology is one of those costs -- if communication infrastructure is not 100% provided by the public sector for some commercial applications -- that is not necessarily a violation of anybody's rights. But political speech is a right. Selectively providing public services according to political motivations is a violation of free political speech, the most broadly and strongly protected class of speech in the United States.
Toth's explanation, using Websense, would have been feasible had the half-wit aide not specified that "The Department of Administration blocks all new websites." That statement is very distinct from, and contrary to, the premise that a packaged IT solution does such automatically.
Slashdot Mirror
And so after we drill all of "our own oil" then what do you propose we do the next week?
Because anybody who believes that " the El Paso Corporation, XTO Energy, Occidental Petroleum, BP, Anadarko, Marathon, EnCana, Chevron, Talisman, Shell, API, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, Halliburton, Schlumberger and the Ohio Oil and Gas Association" form front groups in order to tell the whole truth, is incapable of critically examining competing claims, a brainwashed Kochsucker incapable of reasoning at all.
I recall in 2008, a lot of effort was expended to dig up some dirt on Obama. The fluff that conservatives were actually able to print -- including a lot that was just made up, and information about a distant relative that was illegally made public by an immigration agent -- was just comical except for the animosity that was aroused in gullible conservatives in the process. But only idiots ever believed he was a secret Muslim, born in Kenya, etc. So in addition to wanting to know the truth, whatever the truth turns out to be, which several other Obama supporters have already said, I'm not worried about what will be found. I've seen the worst that you conservatard filth have to offer, and I'm here to tell you, I'm not impressed.
Republicans cannot relate to such authentic morality and will never believe it about others. They have no character themselves, and no concept of it.
Well, I'm glad you asked about it because I would have just missed it and not even asked. And it is very funny. I would have hated to miss that chuckle.
LoL! No, I can't imagine that being the beginning of a very pleasant conversation. Perhaps you're overestimating the intelligence of Senators there, but putting that aside, that certainly is what they should say to Hoglund & Barr!
No doubt about it from the CERN article. Thanks for the clearer explanation of what they're actually doing than at nature.com, and for the links to cern.ch. It sheds a lot of light on luminosity. :-)
But colliders have failed to turn up direct evidence of the super particles predicted by the theory. The Tevatron at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois, for example, has found no evidence of supersymmetrical quarks ('squarks') at masses of up to 379 gigaelectronvolts (energy and mass are used interchangeably in the world of particle physics).
The LHC is now rapidly accumulating data at higher energies, ruling out heavier territory for the super particles. This creates a serious problem for SUSY (see 'SUSY's mid-life crisis'). As the super particles increase in mass, they no longer perfectly cancel out the troubling quantum fluctuations that they were meant to correct. Theorists can still make SUSY work, but only by assuming very specific masses for the super particles — the kind of fine-tuning exercise that the theory was invented to avoid. As the LHC collects more data, SUSY will require increasingly intrusive tweaks to the masses of the particles.
So far the LHC has doubled the mass limit set by the Tevatron, showing no evidence of squarks at energies up to about 700gigaelectronvolts. By the end of the year, it will reach 1,000gigaelectronvolts — potentially ruling out some of the most favoured variations of supersymmetry theory.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110228/full/471013a.html
So, they are planning on some increase in energy levels between now and 2012. Not an order of magnitude, I know, but 1000 is nearly 50% more than 700, and that's not "about the same" to me. So I think it's a combination of acquiring more data, and slowly increasing the energy levels (to LHC's maximum output, I assume?) until either supersymmetric particles are detected, or we have turned up the energy so much without finding anything that we have to give up on SUSY.
Sorry, I wasn't clear.
I meant that cool stuff "can be done". "Whether it will be done" is the whole other problem with the political side. Sometimes the "can be done" is pretty hard, and politicians hate hard stuff. "We can have a moon base in 20 years" - but only if we were so scared we stopped most of our petty squabbling to do it.
Ha!
Seriously, you engineer types out there, how hard is it really to get a quad-protected airtight building to the moon? Put it at some kind of shade-crossover point to use the solar power but not get totally fried.
The dividing line between sunlight and shade / "night" on any planet (or moon) is called its Terminator.
Hmm. Yeah, I remember a lot of talk in late 2008 & early 2009 about what caused the financial sector to self-destruct. (Then health care and teabagging distracted the media from getting the Whole Story.) I still find N. Taleb's Black Swan theory the most illuminating analytical framework for financial bubbles, but what you said about corporate actions being decided by individuals acting in their individual best interests, even in direct conflict with the interest of the corporation and shareholders, is also an important component. Personally, I think the best solution to such perverse incentives would be criminal penalties for losing more of "other people's money" than one has the ability to repay. I mean, there's an implicit assertion of competence and benevolence, or at least genuine customer service, inherent in job titles like "investment advisor" and "financial manager" so I say, let's just make that explicit and official and legally binding; if you squander my investment while claiming to be an investment professional, then by definition you're guilty of fraud, theft, etc. and subject to the same fate as Bernie Madoff.
Thanks for the article. Funny how economists give away their work even less than physical scientists, eh?
The derivation of Lagrange's result linked from the NASA page you just linked is probably about as good as any explanation you'll find outside a $100+ textbook, and better than some of those as well.
There's a difference between acting rationally for the long term versus the short term. Plus the difference between acting rationally for the betterment for the officers versus the shareholders or customers or employees.
Yes, there is, and that difference is not generally recognized by economists, particularly the disciples of Milton Friedman and overzealous "free marketeers" in general. Whether one calls the behavior "irrational" as istartedi and I call it, or a different kind of rationality or rationality from a different "viewpoint" as you call it, the real point is that the distinction is generally not being made at all in the field where it most needs to be, in economics, especially "economics" for the masses as seen on Sunday morning "news" opinion, campaign stumping and commentary programs.
The most visible spokespeople for the field of economics, the propagators of common "wisdom," haven't even gotten around to arguing such semantics, and they can't because aside from Krugman, Taleb, David Cay Johnston, Simon Johnson, Robert Reich and a few others, despite the mountain of evidence piling up since 15 September 2008 that irrationality has been widespread among the most wealthy actors in the US economy ever since Glass-Steagall was repealed by Gramm-Leech-Bliley exposing the "rational actor" model as a blatant error, more an inversion of reality than a simplification of the sort appropriate to a "scientific" model of reality, nevertheless most economists not only won't admit the obvious fact that this cornerstone of their libertardian world view is dead wrong, they won't even consider whether the "rational actor" assumption has significant limitations and flaws, for instance in collectives such as corporations in which individual decision-makers can have interests that may sometimes be in direct conflict with the presumed "rational" goals of the corporate collective. As a direct result of the obstinate refusal of Toohey-esque "think" tank "fellows" and "experts" from AEI, CEI, et al, who are paid not to know that the "rational actor" and other rosy assumptions of "mainstream" economics are wrong (because their real jobs are to be apologists for those very corporations that have all but destroyed the middle class), we have the spectacle of labor unions, the organizing tool of the working middle class, being scapegoated for what is 100% the fault of Fortune 500 financial institutions.
When we really think about it, we all know that no labor union had, nor has ever had, the power to cripple the economy this way because they have never had the power to re-write the rules by which the game is played. And yet we all know a few basic facts that suffice to show the basic nature of the problem: Wall Street was bailed out, and corporate GM was bailed out, but the old-GM stocks which comprise the totality of the pension plans of loyal, multi-decade GM workers are now penny stocks. This is morally wrong, and the direct result of economic common "wisdom" that is factually wrong.
Have blowtorch; will "program."
Heh, thanks syco, I think I have a new sig.
If Gates really cared in that way, would he have stepped aside? And left the shop to "the Ballmer monkey"? Hewlett & Packard I'll grant you since they create a great company that was the favorite place to work of all IT guys, and it took Carly Fiorina to undo their work. But Ellison & Gates? I just can't find it in my heart to extend any benefit of any doubt for those two.
Employers agree that colleges and universities need to provide their students with the essential skills required to run IT departments, yet only 8% of hiring managers would rate IT graduates hired as 'well-trained, ready-to-go,' according to a survey of 376 organizations that are members of the IBM user group Share and Database Trends and Applications subscribers."
Computers were pretty much the domain of scientists and mathematicians until about the 1980s. Seems like BS graduates (business school, not bachelor of science) just expect "computer guys" to work magic because the hiring managers and others from the accountancy/finance/hr side of the companies, which is probably who was surveyed in these studies, just have no idea how a computer works and what is really required to make it work.
To look at it more neutrally, without my biases for math & physical science, and against business school, when expectations are that consistently not met, that's a clear signal that the expectations themselves are out of order. Even a business school graduate should be able to see that in those numbers.
But Netscape was cheated out of the market, and the market was cheated out of the superior browser, by Microsoft.
Could you link to some of that "experimental economics that pulls in the discipline of psychology?" I'd like to read up on exactly how/why corporate collectives are not rational actors.
That's a big fat social science fail for the IT "journalists."
I'm stumped. How?
http://download.services.openoffice.org/files/stable/3.3.0/OOo_3.3.0_Linux_x86-64_install-rpm-wJRE_en-US.tar.gz
That's a valid point. But they're all subject to impeachment and Thomas' ethical violations regarding his wife's income from a political lobbying group is certainly grounds. So is the attendance of more than one SCOTUS juror at events hosted by "think" tanks owned by the primary beneficiaries of the anti-democratic decision in Citizens United v. FEC. I don't recall the exact list, but I do know it's two or more of Thomas, Alito, Scalia, Roberts. Probably all four, but don't quote me without Googling it first.
The only thing Pro about these is the price. The name is a pretentious as those with them who camp at Starbucks
And, how do you know they "camp" at Starbucks? Because you're camped there yourself. Or you're just making shit up. Or both.
Does the Patriot Act still classify interference with commerce as terrorism?
Answer me this then. What if I wanted to watch pictures of people of adequate age that are completely inadequately clothed for the climate? Or send out millions of email marketing messages? Both are speech...so why can't I?
Not that your point is without merit, but the Supreme Court has ruled on both issues. And while "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" is not an adequately rigorous definition for governing behavior in my opinion it is the standing precedent for obscenity. Likewise, commerce is subject to more restrictive regulations than non-violent, non-inciteful (sic) political speech, and this is perfectly appropriate.
Commerce requires start-up costs. If communication technology is one of those costs -- if communication infrastructure is not 100% provided by the public sector for some commercial applications -- that is not necessarily a violation of anybody's rights. But political speech is a right. Selectively providing public services according to political motivations is a violation of free political speech, the most broadly and strongly protected class of speech in the United States.
Toth's explanation, using Websense, would have been feasible had the half-wit aide not specified that "The Department of Administration blocks all new websites." That statement is very distinct from, and contrary to, the premise that a packaged IT solution does such automatically.