I know Haynes flutes go very high, and bassoons are ridiculously pricey even for low-end pro models, but really - what kind of clarinet are you referring to that's more than $10K? I've never heard of such a thing (which may simply be because I stopped formal study at the undergrad level). I could see maybe $3K and some custom work on the order of another $1K, but just haven't seen prices like you're describing. Brands? Models? Years? I'm curious now.
Same with saxophones. I have a vintage 1960s Selmer MK VI tenor. It truly is a beautiful instrument. However, I don't get to practice as much as I'd like, and frankly the modern Yamaha saxes are easier to play (while admittedly providing a different tone). And I am thinking about selling my MK VI to someone for maybe $5k and buying a new Yamaha and having a better (for my tastes) instrument and enough left over to buy a nicer clarinet, too.
TFA states that they would need to substantially improve current capabilities for a car-size battery. Not that it doesn't make it cool, but at the same time, it's a bit presumptive to assume this will be the basis of car batteries given existing capabilities. Good luck to them, though!
I have no data, but I am certain that anyone who's upset about this is terms of waste and hunger should probably consider the likely (tens, hundreds, more?) millions of dollars worth of wasted food sent to Africa and hoarded by gangs and left to rot in warehouses as people starve. I bet the peanut butter is orders of magnitude less significant.
And it will always be better to run IT as a centralized system on a mainframe than it will be to give people personal computers.
These things go in cycles. There are some things which will be much cheaper and more efficient to 3-d print; lots of small plastic bits that break and render a larger item useless, like the brackets on my $50 folding chair, or a doohickey on a plastic toy. Put the old one together, put it in the scanner, replicate one without a crack in it. There's not enough of those little parts to repair to warrant a centralized, economy-of-scale market for any specific item, but there is an economy of scale in having a cheap replicator for lots of little things that can break like plastic handles and so on.
Power generation may see a similar shift; it will be more economical for those who can to install solar grids or methane fuel cell systems at home than to rebuild the whole power grid.
We just don't know when specific markets will make gain in distributed as opposed to centralized distribution.
I am laughing at that quote. I'm not sure you could be more insulting to domestic OR H-1B workers with a statement like that.
As it turns out, most workers are human beings, with individual qualities. Some docestic workers may be reluctant to retrain, others may embrace the opportunity and excel. Likewise, some people with H-1B visas may be incompetent, and others may be valuable contributors.
I didn't ignore anything. As I said, deflationary currencies encourage savings. People held on to the money they felt would maintain its value, and spent the inflationary money. It's Gresham's law in action, and pretty much all economists agree it's a typical dynamic. Nothing about my comment ignored the facts of what I responded to. I simply interpreted the facts accurately and pointed out a subtlety that you were not perceiving.
The fact is that the US experimented with going off the gold standard throughout the 1800s, but overall stayed with it, and we experienced growth while the purchasing power of the dollar, long term, went up by about 40% over that century.
Deflationary currencies encourage saving until people realize they have "enough", and decide to buy something, or lots of somethings.
Inflationary currencies have their own problems.
Rothbard does a great job explaining how supply and demand for cash balances equilibrate the price of goods and services. Money is a good like any other.
You're painting this as a picture of Darwinian vs. Lamarckian. That's a false dichotomy. I never once argued for the primacy of Lamarckian evolution. That's a strawman. I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge the contributions and relevance of multiple schools of thought. In fact, my original point was not that Darwinists were wrong about many aspects of Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms, but that other schools of thought were rejected by the very wrong attitude that evolutionary mechanisms are exclusively Darwinian.
Naturally, much of the struggle of this was taking place pre-internet and in conversations between student researchers and advisors. If you don't want to accept my contention that there was suppression of these ideas, fine. But don't accuse me of arguing for the primacy of Lamarckian mechanisms, or maintain an ignorant attitude that only one school of thought is legitimate. Which, oddly enough, kind of proves my point.
And the neo-Darwinists? They are today described by eminent scientists and scientific historians as ‘hopelessly out of date’. Evolution has entered a new era of scientific agnosticism, freed from prejudice, bigotry and the idolatry of dogma. Lamarck has emerged intact from two centuries of doubt, adulation, criticism and hope.
Now, there are a lot of articles that you can read across the web that talk about the "debunking" of Lamarck. Implied in this is a rejection of the data which now seems irrefutable. I like this quote, "Although it has been known for a long time that the inheritance of genetic traits does not always follow Darwin’s laws of inheritance, the majority of molecular geneticists disregarded these findings.", from:
I didn't say it was Lamarckian. I said it "looked like" Lamarckian evolution. At no point am I suggesting Lamarckian evolution is correct.
I did, however, say that because things LOOKED Lamarckian there was a knee-jerk response against it. I distinctly remember a college biology teacher explaining the case of field mice who developed webbed feet in one generation after a field was flooded.
He said that regardless of the data, we were to reject the idea that an adaptation emerged as a response to stimuli.
If that's not suppression, I don't know what is. Of course I'm probably just making this up, because I like to develop detailed conspiracy theories between different branches of sciences I have no stake in.
In the past 30 years Darwinists suppressed information about inheritance of acquired traits. The Lamarckian-looking genetics that explain this are now FINALLY being accepted as science and are called, as a group of phenomenon, "epigenetics".
It is true that valid scientific criticism of Darwinian evolution was supressed.
Some of this suppression was because epigenetics at times looks like Intelligent Design as proposed by some people.
But the real science behind it was never wrong. The religious fear of real problems in the Darwinian model that suppressed all criticism, whether coming from legitimate scientists or creationists, was wrong.
Full article indicates the human study was based on a one-time interview with participants. Even then (FTFA): "as the NHANES cohort aged, protein became more important. In the over-65 crowd, those who ate lots of protein survived longer, on average, than those who ate less."
Deflation isn't a problem. Only in your head, and the heads of the Keynesians. Investment becomes attractive in a deflationary environment when a risk-assessed 5% loan returns more than a 2% "sit on cash".
In case you haven't noticed, in your central-bank engineered inflationary system we're in right now, banks are sitting on over $2trillion in excess reserves and the Fed is paying them interest NOT TO INVEST THE MONEY. Please google "FRB excess reserves", they publish that data openly.
National Healthcare Service, I would think. Could be wrong, but it's pretty likely. A big reason people in the USA oppose the ACA; diagnosed with anxiety disorder (which 1 in 3 people are believed to have at some point)? Lose your 2nd amendment rights. Handy.
Too bad the poster here was AC and didn't get modded up, because he is absolutely, positively right. All the people here who talk about code analysis, etc., are completely missing the point. Simply ask, publicly, for the test cases showing a positive path, and the test results. If they can't be provided, go back to management with the statement, "I don't understand why, but I'm not getting the same results as the previous engineering team did. Before I add any features or fix any bugs, we need to baseline what works and what doesn't.
I inherited a project like this in exactly the same circumstances. It was a dangerous time for me at the company, and the previous engineering lead did make some questionable accusations, but by keeping it non-confrontational he basically ignored me and went back to what he was doing. Management eventually saw that I was dedicated to getting things working so long as they let me do what needed to be done, out of their own self-interest.
I give a lot of credit to my product manager, who helped me navigate the political waters on that one (which included being called an incompetent liar to my face by the previous engineering lead). It worked out great for me in the long run.
Almost all the publicly funded schools teach that this is a democratic republic with three independent branches of government that provide checks and balances to protect our constitutional rights. Given how laughably provably untrue that is, the Creationism is a relatively minor problem.
I've loaded special bitmap fonts several times, because I'm nuts about the old 6x13 bitmap font the was the default on the old SGI Irix systems I used in the 90s (no preferable font exists at my current DPI, and I've even carried it into Visual Studio). Granted, it wasn't BDF, but there are some folks out there who make niche fonts available.
No, I don't think that's the generally accepted definition of socialism at least among economists. Socialism is redistribution of profits as most economists see it. Communism is about central control of production. Thus you can have free markets of exchange with Socialism, but not full private property rights due to taxation (forced wealth redistribution). It's quite possible socialists deny this definition so they can claim not to be socialists. But that's probably just political science professors.
Slashdot Mirror
I know Haynes flutes go very high, and bassoons are ridiculously pricey even for low-end pro models, but really - what kind of clarinet are you referring to that's more than $10K? I've never heard of such a thing (which may simply be because I stopped formal study at the undergrad level). I could see maybe $3K and some custom work on the order of another $1K, but just haven't seen prices like you're describing. Brands? Models? Years? I'm curious now.
Same with saxophones. I have a vintage 1960s Selmer MK VI tenor. It truly is a beautiful instrument. However, I don't get to practice as much as I'd like, and frankly the modern Yamaha saxes are easier to play (while admittedly providing a different tone). And I am thinking about selling my MK VI to someone for maybe $5k and buying a new Yamaha and having a better (for my tastes) instrument and enough left over to buy a nicer clarinet, too.
TFA states that they would need to substantially improve current capabilities for a car-size battery. Not that it doesn't make it cool, but at the same time, it's a bit presumptive to assume this will be the basis of car batteries given existing capabilities. Good luck to them, though!
I have no data, but I am certain that anyone who's upset about this is terms of waste and hunger should probably consider the likely (tens, hundreds, more?) millions of dollars worth of wasted food sent to Africa and hoarded by gangs and left to rot in warehouses as people starve. I bet the peanut butter is orders of magnitude less significant.
And it will always be better to run IT as a centralized system on a mainframe than it will be to give people personal computers.
These things go in cycles. There are some things which will be much cheaper and more efficient to 3-d print; lots of small plastic bits that break and render a larger item useless, like the brackets on my $50 folding chair, or a doohickey on a plastic toy. Put the old one together, put it in the scanner, replicate one without a crack in it. There's not enough of those little parts to repair to warrant a centralized, economy-of-scale market for any specific item, but there is an economy of scale in having a cheap replicator for lots of little things that can break like plastic handles and so on.
Power generation may see a similar shift; it will be more economical for those who can to install solar grids or methane fuel cell systems at home than to rebuild the whole power grid.
We just don't know when specific markets will make gain in distributed as opposed to centralized distribution.
Capitalistic systems are only interested in return on investment.
I guess that explains the total lack of charitable hospitals in the USA. Oh wait...
Sure, but think of the musical theatre!
I am laughing at that quote. I'm not sure you could be more insulting to domestic OR H-1B workers with a statement like that.
As it turns out, most workers are human beings, with individual qualities. Some docestic workers may be reluctant to retrain, others may embrace the opportunity and excel. Likewise, some people with H-1B visas may be incompetent, and others may be valuable contributors.
I didn't ignore anything. As I said, deflationary currencies encourage savings. People held on to the money they felt would maintain its value, and spent the inflationary money. It's Gresham's law in action, and pretty much all economists agree it's a typical dynamic. Nothing about my comment ignored the facts of what I responded to. I simply interpreted the facts accurately and pointed out a subtlety that you were not perceiving.
The fact is that the US experimented with going off the gold standard throughout the 1800s, but overall stayed with it, and we experienced growth while the purchasing power of the dollar, long term, went up by about 40% over that century.
Deflationary currencies encourage saving until people realize they have "enough", and decide to buy something, or lots of somethings.
Inflationary currencies have their own problems.
Rothbard does a great job explaining how supply and demand for cash balances equilibrate the price of goods and services. Money is a good like any other.
You're painting this as a picture of Darwinian vs. Lamarckian. That's a false dichotomy. I never once argued for the primacy of Lamarckian evolution. That's a strawman. I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge the contributions and relevance of multiple schools of thought. In fact, my original point was not that Darwinists were wrong about many aspects of Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms, but that other schools of thought were rejected by the very wrong attitude that evolutionary mechanisms are exclusively Darwinian.
Naturally, much of the struggle of this was taking place pre-internet and in conversations between student researchers and advisors. If you don't want to accept my contention that there was suppression of these ideas, fine. But don't accuse me of arguing for the primacy of Lamarckian mechanisms, or maintain an ignorant attitude that only one school of thought is legitimate. Which, oddly enough, kind of proves my point.
And the neo-Darwinists? They are today described by eminent scientists and scientific historians as ‘hopelessly out of date’. Evolution has entered a new era of scientific agnosticism, freed from prejudice, bigotry and the idolatry of dogma. Lamarck has emerged intact from two centuries of doubt, adulation, criticism and hope.
http://lamarcksevolution.com/e...
https://theconversation.com/no...
Now, there are a lot of articles that you can read across the web that talk about the "debunking" of Lamarck. Implied in this is a rejection of the data which now seems irrefutable. I like this quote, "Although it has been known for a long time that the inheritance of genetic traits does not always follow Darwin’s laws of inheritance, the majority of molecular geneticists disregarded these findings.", from:
http://www.bio-pro.de/magazin/...
But yeah, I totally make this stuff up. It's my hobby.
I did, however, say that because things LOOKED Lamarckian there was a knee-jerk response against it. I distinctly remember a college biology teacher explaining the case of field mice who developed webbed feet in one generation after a field was flooded.
He said that regardless of the data, we were to reject the idea that an adaptation emerged as a response to stimuli.
If that's not suppression, I don't know what is. Of course I'm probably just making this up, because I like to develop detailed conspiracy theories between different branches of sciences I have no stake in.
In the past 30 years Darwinists suppressed information about inheritance of acquired traits. The Lamarckian-looking genetics that explain this are now FINALLY being accepted as science and are called, as a group of phenomenon, "epigenetics".
It is true that valid scientific criticism of Darwinian evolution was supressed.
Some of this suppression was because epigenetics at times looks like Intelligent Design as proposed by some people.
But the real science behind it was never wrong. The religious fear of real problems in the Darwinian model that suppressed all criticism, whether coming from legitimate scientists or creationists, was wrong.
So, sort of, maybe, but not.
In case you haven't noticed, in your central-bank engineered inflationary system we're in right now, banks are sitting on over $2trillion in excess reserves and the Fed is paying them interest NOT TO INVEST THE MONEY. Please google "FRB excess reserves", they publish that data openly.
Given the way so many companies run out-of-support systems you would also have to mandate that customers download and install the updates.
Not necessarily socialist. There are radical libertarians who might say something similar.
National Healthcare Service, I would think. Could be wrong, but it's pretty likely. A big reason people in the USA oppose the ACA; diagnosed with anxiety disorder (which 1 in 3 people are believed to have at some point)? Lose your 2nd amendment rights. Handy.
Too bad the poster here was AC and didn't get modded up, because he is absolutely, positively right. All the people here who talk about code analysis, etc., are completely missing the point. Simply ask, publicly, for the test cases showing a positive path, and the test results. If they can't be provided, go back to management with the statement, "I don't understand why, but I'm not getting the same results as the previous engineering team did. Before I add any features or fix any bugs, we need to baseline what works and what doesn't.
I inherited a project like this in exactly the same circumstances. It was a dangerous time for me at the company, and the previous engineering lead did make some questionable accusations, but by keeping it non-confrontational he basically ignored me and went back to what he was doing. Management eventually saw that I was dedicated to getting things working so long as they let me do what needed to be done, out of their own self-interest.
I give a lot of credit to my product manager, who helped me navigate the political waters on that one (which included being called an incompetent liar to my face by the previous engineering lead). It worked out great for me in the long run.
Lies! Wealth comes from fiat money! The more we print, the richer we are. Otherwise, why would the Federal Reserve be doing it?!
Almost all the publicly funded schools teach that this is a democratic republic with three independent branches of government that provide checks and balances to protect our constitutional rights. Given how laughably provably untrue that is, the Creationism is a relatively minor problem.
I've loaded special bitmap fonts several times, because I'm nuts about the old 6x13 bitmap font the was the default on the old SGI Irix systems I used in the 90s (no preferable font exists at my current DPI, and I've even carried it into Visual Studio). Granted, it wasn't BDF, but there are some folks out there who make niche fonts available.
No, I don't think that's the generally accepted definition of socialism at least among economists. Socialism is redistribution of profits as most economists see it. Communism is about central control of production. Thus you can have free markets of exchange with Socialism, but not full private property rights due to taxation (forced wealth redistribution). It's quite possible socialists deny this definition so they can claim not to be socialists. But that's probably just political science professors.