I don't see why there should be a positive correlation between being less wealthy and moving less. In fact, poverty is often the driving force behind moving to or within the US. Think about okies during the great depression, Irish during the potato famine, etc.
The current resistance to moving is surprising since some areas of the US have significantly more economic opportunities than others, but fewer people are moving to take advantage of them. (That said, there is still a fair number of people who move.) I hate to blame it on "kids these days!", but there is a legitimate case that we're kind of losing our immigrant drive that brought the US success in the first place. It makes me think that we need more immigrants...
As President, I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyberattacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic, and military responses.
"Military responses" can mean anything. The military has cyber-warfare capability, so a "military response" could simply be hacking them back. Supposedly, the email hacks were by the Russian _military_ intelligence service, in which case Clinton was proposing a military response to a military action. That's pretty reasonable. Do you seriously think she was planning a conventional military response to cyberattacks?
I don't see the evidence that she tried to *start* shit. I see an excellent case that she tried to *respond* to shit, and maybe it wouldn't be a good response (no way of knowing now), but not responding makes you a more appealing target.
I might add that the current president is also threatening to "start shit with an ICBM and submarine possessing nuclear power". After all, on an international stage, the amount of people for whom shit can get ruined, and the degree to which it can get ruined, is too horrifying to allow him a chance to do so. Don't sleep too easy.
But that logic only makes sense if microprocessors and brains were similar enough that comparable methods could be used to attempt to understand them. But that isn't true.
Yes, there's no guarantee that the methods that work on the brain also have to work on microprocessors. However, there's also no guarantee that they won't work in both cases. There are many methods/observations that are so generally useful that they apply to a huge range of problems. This is important because there's no guarantee that methods that work on one part of the brain also work on another part of the brain. Maybe the part of the brain responsible for facial recognition and the part of the brain that controls your muscles are as different as horses and tractors?
However, the real issue is that we don't even know which methods work on any part of the brain! As far as I can tell, the methods used to study the brain are basically just shots in the dark. So, we have chosen methods that we hope to be generally useful. Sure, they kind of make sense to apply to brains, but I know of no proof they are really useful. They certainly haven't explained how the brain works yet! Furthermore, before this paper was published, these general methods appeared to make about as much sense for microprocessors as they do on the brain.
So the point of this article is this: the methods we have to study the brain are just shots in the dark; we don't know if they work. So let's try another shot in the dark to see if these methods work on a known system. Since we are assuming that these methods are useful in a wide range of situations, the fact that the methods are total failures on a 6502 should indicate that the methods aren't as generally useful as we hoped.
But, what about those that do NOT want to have kids? Seems unfair and discriminatory against them, in that they don't get this 20 week PAID BENEFIT...?
Yeah, I'm sick of this kind of discrimination! It's everywhere! Why should I be forced to pay for public schools if I don't have kids?!? Why are there tax credits and deductions only available to parents!?! Why are babies allowed to scream on aircraft but I'm not allowed to??? Discrimination! Discrimination! Discrimination!
I get the feeling that trump opposes it because he wants revenge on "the media" (due to supposed bias against him) -- not because trump has any deep-seated belief or philosophy that this type of merger is bad. I'm sure that isn't true for Sanders.
I'm sure if he had dirt on Trump he'd release it also.
At one time, I would have agreed with you. However, it's becoming clear that Assange is not simply freeing information; he's playing politics -- possibly in hopes of a Trump pardon. That's not a far-fetched goal. Assange's standing among conservatives has improved greatly since he started dumping on Clinton. Take the example of Fox News anchor (and Trump lapdog) Sean Hannity. In 2010, he was calling for Assange's head and castigating Obama for not taking out wikileaks. Now, Hannity wants Assange to go free. (Source) So, if Assange had dirt on Trump, I highly doubt that Assange would release it. He wouldn't want to alienate his most powerful audience.
The United States government owns 47 percent of all land in the West. (That's about 1/4th of our country that is, essentially, wilderness.)
Could you explain the logic of "It's owned by the government, therefore it's wilderness"? A lot of federally-owned area is used for cattle grazing, logging, indian reservations, recreation, man-made bodies of water, military facilities, etc.
The federal government does have designated wildernesses, but they form only about 4.5% of the US land mass. (FWIW, over half of the designated wilderness is in Alaska.) Of course, the government's definition of wilderness is not the same as the definition in TFA, but assuming that 25% of the US landmass is wilderness by any reasonable definition is absurd.
I agree with many things in your post, but I think that one of your important claims is wrong, and that weakens your argument significantly and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Intel's situation:
At the time no one was asking for server class ARM chips (which is basically what XScale was).
XScale was not a server class ARM chip. StrongARM was designed from the beginning for the embedded market. XScale was being used in BlackBerry and Palm handheld devices at the time Intel got rid of XScale. (Example from 2005. There are many more examples if you want to google around.)
So, Intel was already in the mobile game, and it decided to quit it right as it was taking off. That fact remains regardless off your points about stacks and modems. Intel could have made the latter without issue. (In fact, it's making modems now.)
Intel's decision to focus rather than branch out was shortsighted and clearly cost them. That said, "focusing" is a classic business strategy, so I can't blame them too much for following it. However, I think that focusing doesn't pay off the way that it used to. Many of the most successful tech companies at the moment (Google, Amazon, etc.) are branching out like mad, and it's paying dividends.
It's more like 20 years ago. Digital Equipment Corporation sued Intel into buying their ARM processor business in 1997 (sounds kind of weird, but it's basically what happened), and Intel kept making the processors until 2006, when it sold the business.
This is amusing in part because Intel made ARM processors from 1997-2006 (branded StrongARM and later XScale), but decided that ARM processors were silly and sold their ARM processor business in 2006. In hindsight, that was the worst possible timing since the mobile market started to take off shortly thereafter (the first iPhone was 2007. Oh well. At least they're no longer wasting their time trying to cram x86 processors into phones.
Care to show me your post where you predicted this?
You caught me AC! I didn't post it on slashdot so I couldn't possibly have thought of it earlier or discussed it with other humans (with friends last week at lunch).
I guess if slashdot is your only means of communicating with other humans, then it makes sense to believe that discussions not posted on slashdot couldn't have happened.
I'm surprised so many people didn't see this coming. The share price was totally out-of-whack with reality. I'd have shorted the hell out of Nintendo's stock (if I had money and the means to do so). Surely, someone with money did? Anyone here?
FWIW, the conditions for speech to not fall under the first amendment is that the speech must advocate "imminent lawless action". So, your co-worker spouting off about how he wants to kill infidels is legal under the first amendment because it is not imminent. He's just advocating lawless action at some unspecified time in the future.
a list which has no Due Process to be either listed or removed?
Would you object if there were due process to be listed or removed?
How would the due process to be listed work? Someone on the terrorism watch list hasn't committed a crime yet, and they're innocent until they have committed a crime, so how could due process be applied to bar an innocent person from their 2nd amendment rights? Can you suggest any mechanism whereby a suspected "lone wolf terrorist" could be denied a gun purchase through due process? (You can't really charge a lone wolf with conspiracy if they've only made threatening but non-specific comments to their family, co-workers, on twitter, etc.)
If you think that every non-criminal should be allowed to purchase firearms, then just cut to the chase and say so.
Believe it or not, you're not the first person to think of feedback loops at work in climate change. There are many known feedback mechanisms (relevant wikipedia article), both negative and _positive_. Let's not pretend that the "Net Primary Productivity" feedback mechanism (what you're talking about) will save us. In fact, it seems to be a pretty weak feedback loop compared to feedback loops that are at work. After all, we're burning up a _lot_ of dead plants (many of them from the days when the earth was covered with jungles). We'd need a lot of new plants to make up for it, and they'd have to show up pretty fast to overpower the other feedback mechanisms. It's easy to see that this feedback loop isn't too strong: just look at the amount of biomass around us and compare it to how much was there 50 years ago. The amount of biomass hasn't changed much even though the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has gone up an appreciable amount.
These feedback loops are included in climate models. No one pretends that we fully understand them or model them exactly, but people have put a lot of thought into them and have a decent grasp of their workings.
The largest tree planting project that I know of is the Civilian Conservation Core which planted about 3 billion trees in the US over about a decade (source).
Let's say that a 40-year-old tree is sequestering about 1 ton of CO2 (source, and yes, I realize this will vary a lot based on species and location, but we need to start somewhere).
So, let's say that we magically plant 3 billion trees tomorrow. That will sequester 3e9 trees*2e3 lbs/tree*4.54e-13 lbs/gigatonne / 40 years = 0.068 gigatonnes/year of CO2 sequestered. (Note that ton and tonne are different.) In comparison, the US produces about 1.4 gigatonnes a year (source).
I'm not saying that sequestering CO2 in rock is a better scheme, but planting a few *billion* trees won't solve our problem.
(PS. someone check my math. It's easy to screw these calculations up.)
Even if these were diesel trains (they're actually electric), there would be a significant reduction in pollution because trains are incredibly efficient and trucks are not. All things being equal, a gallon of diesel fuel will move one ton of cargo over 200 miles on a railroad (or over 400 miles, depending on your reference). Trucks are nowhere close to that efficient.
It's hard to overstate how efficient trains are at moving cargo; no other land method comes close. (You can only do better on boats/barges.)
I'm no expert on the AlpTransits project (which includes the Gotthard Base Tunnel and a number of other new tunnels), but the whole project seems to have been on budget in part because they cut stuff. For example, the Loetschberg Base Tunnel, which is the second longest tunnel in this project, is opened but not complete. They just stopped part way through and declared it good enough (one bore is up and running -- I've been through it -- but the other isn't finished). Or, as wikipedia puts it:
Due to the soaring costs of the AlpTransit initiative, funds were diverted to the Gotthard Base Tunnel; and the LBT [Loetschberg Base Tunnel] is only half finished.
Even worse, work on the Zimmerberg Base Tunnel is suspended -- possibly without plans to complete it.
The whole "on budget and in time" thing doesn't sound so miraculous in context: the Gotthard Base Tunnel is part of a larger project that is neither on time nor on budget. However, the Swiss government sure did a good job spinning it that way.
Those are the second order effects that I talked about, and they're irrelevant for this question. If you win a grant, then yes the school does take a cut, but there is money earmarked for an individual researcher. If you don't win a grant, then no money is earmarked for you. The question is: do you win a grant or not. That's it.
You're making this more complicated than it really is. Let's take your logic a step further. You argue that because all the money is sitting in the school's bank account, then all the school's money has a bit of government grant mixed in since the source of the money is indistinguishable. But the money sitting in a bank is indistinguishable too. The money from the university just sits in a big pool inside the bank -- along with the money from all other bank accounts, so by your logic all checking accounts in the bank also have government grant money in them too! In fact, if you and your neighbor use the same bank, then your money is your neighbor's money and vice versa because it's all sitting in the same pool inside the bank! If your neighbor writes a check to someone at another bank, then some of your money is now in everyone's account at the other bank too! Declaring that money is distinguishable is a useful and self-consistent construct, just like money as a whole is a useful and self-consistent construct. Just go with it.
(I assume that you're in the US since you consider the case where the government might only contribute 5% of a university's budget.)
Second order effects like the school's general fund getting a pinch government money are irrelevant. The question is whether the research is being directly payed for, in full or in part, by a government grant (e.g. NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA). US researchers already have to state government funding sources in publications, so there's not much ambiguity about whether research is being funded by a government grant. Look at the acknowledgement section of a research article and you'll see something like
Work at UCSB was supported by the US Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences (BES) under Award No. DE-SC0010689. Computational resources were provided by the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, which is supported by the DOE Office of Science under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see why there should be a positive correlation between being less wealthy and moving less. In fact, poverty is often the driving force behind moving to or within the US. Think about okies during the great depression, Irish during the potato famine, etc.
The current resistance to moving is surprising since some areas of the US have significantly more economic opportunities than others, but fewer people are moving to take advantage of them. (That said, there is still a fair number of people who move.) I hate to blame it on "kids these days!", but there is a legitimate case that we're kind of losing our immigrant drive that brought the US success in the first place. It makes me think that we need more immigrants...
Trump is just the first person on the right who found a way to fight back in a long, long time.
Justify this statement.
Exactly what shit was she proposing to start?
The quote you're relying on is super weak:
As President, I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyberattacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic, and military responses.
"Military responses" can mean anything. The military has cyber-warfare capability, so a "military response" could simply be hacking them back. Supposedly, the email hacks were by the Russian _military_ intelligence service, in which case Clinton was proposing a military response to a military action. That's pretty reasonable. Do you seriously think she was planning a conventional military response to cyberattacks?
I don't see the evidence that she tried to *start* shit. I see an excellent case that she tried to *respond* to shit, and maybe it wouldn't be a good response (no way of knowing now), but not responding makes you a more appealing target.
I might add that the current president is also threatening to "start shit with an ICBM and submarine possessing nuclear power". After all, on an international stage, the amount of people for whom shit can get ruined, and the degree to which it can get ruined, is too horrifying to allow him a chance to do so. Don't sleep too easy.
But that logic only makes sense if microprocessors and brains were similar enough that comparable methods could be used to attempt to understand them. But that isn't true.
Yes, there's no guarantee that the methods that work on the brain also have to work on microprocessors. However, there's also no guarantee that they won't work in both cases. There are many methods/observations that are so generally useful that they apply to a huge range of problems. This is important because there's no guarantee that methods that work on one part of the brain also work on another part of the brain. Maybe the part of the brain responsible for facial recognition and the part of the brain that controls your muscles are as different as horses and tractors?
However, the real issue is that we don't even know which methods work on any part of the brain! As far as I can tell, the methods used to study the brain are basically just shots in the dark. So, we have chosen methods that we hope to be generally useful. Sure, they kind of make sense to apply to brains, but I know of no proof they are really useful. They certainly haven't explained how the brain works yet! Furthermore, before this paper was published, these general methods appeared to make about as much sense for microprocessors as they do on the brain.
So the point of this article is this: the methods we have to study the brain are just shots in the dark; we don't know if they work. So let's try another shot in the dark to see if these methods work on a known system. Since we are assuming that these methods are useful in a wide range of situations, the fact that the methods are total failures on a 6502 should indicate that the methods aren't as generally useful as we hoped.
But, what about those that do NOT want to have kids? Seems unfair and discriminatory against them, in that they don't get this 20 week PAID BENEFIT...?
Yeah, I'm sick of this kind of discrimination! It's everywhere! Why should I be forced to pay for public schools if I don't have kids?!? Why are there tax credits and deductions only available to parents!?! Why are babies allowed to scream on aircraft but I'm not allowed to??? Discrimination! Discrimination! Discrimination!
I get the feeling that trump opposes it because he wants revenge on "the media" (due to supposed bias against him) -- not because trump has any deep-seated belief or philosophy that this type of merger is bad. I'm sure that isn't true for Sanders.
I'm sure if he had dirt on Trump he'd release it also.
At one time, I would have agreed with you. However, it's becoming clear that Assange is not simply freeing information; he's playing politics -- possibly in hopes of a Trump pardon. That's not a far-fetched goal. Assange's standing among conservatives has improved greatly since he started dumping on Clinton. Take the example of Fox News anchor (and Trump lapdog) Sean Hannity. In 2010, he was calling for Assange's head and castigating Obama for not taking out wikileaks. Now, Hannity wants Assange to go free. (Source) So, if Assange had dirt on Trump, I highly doubt that Assange would release it. He wouldn't want to alienate his most powerful audience.
EOM
The United States government owns 47 percent of all land in the West. (That's about 1/4th of our country that is, essentially, wilderness.)
Could you explain the logic of "It's owned by the government, therefore it's wilderness"? A lot of federally-owned area is used for cattle grazing, logging, indian reservations, recreation, man-made bodies of water, military facilities, etc.
The federal government does have designated wildernesses, but they form only about 4.5% of the US land mass. (FWIW, over half of the designated wilderness is in Alaska.) Of course, the government's definition of wilderness is not the same as the definition in TFA, but assuming that 25% of the US landmass is wilderness by any reasonable definition is absurd.
I agree with many things in your post, but I think that one of your important claims is wrong, and that weakens your argument significantly and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Intel's situation:
At the time no one was asking for server class ARM chips (which is basically what XScale was).
XScale was not a server class ARM chip. StrongARM was designed from the beginning for the embedded market. XScale was being used in BlackBerry and Palm handheld devices at the time Intel got rid of XScale. (Example from 2005. There are many more examples if you want to google around.)
So, Intel was already in the mobile game, and it decided to quit it right as it was taking off. That fact remains regardless off your points about stacks and modems. Intel could have made the latter without issue. (In fact, it's making modems now.)
Intel's decision to focus rather than branch out was shortsighted and clearly cost them. That said, "focusing" is a classic business strategy, so I can't blame them too much for following it. However, I think that focusing doesn't pay off the way that it used to. Many of the most successful tech companies at the moment (Google, Amazon, etc.) are branching out like mad, and it's paying dividends.
It's more like 20 years ago. Digital Equipment Corporation sued Intel into buying their ARM processor business in 1997 (sounds kind of weird, but it's basically what happened), and Intel kept making the processors until 2006, when it sold the business.
This is amusing in part because Intel made ARM processors from 1997-2006 (branded StrongARM and later XScale), but decided that ARM processors were silly and sold their ARM processor business in 2006. In hindsight, that was the worst possible timing since the mobile market started to take off shortly thereafter (the first iPhone was 2007. Oh well. At least they're no longer wasting their time trying to cram x86 processors into phones.
Yeah, and it's still the SAME PRICE!
To quote the linked buyer's guide:
The model received a $100 price cut in July 2014.
So it's not the same price, but yes, it should be a lot cheaper.
Care to show me your post where you predicted this?
You caught me AC! I didn't post it on slashdot so I couldn't possibly have thought of it earlier or discussed it with other humans (with friends last week at lunch).
I guess if slashdot is your only means of communicating with other humans, then it makes sense to believe that discussions not posted on slashdot couldn't have happened.
I'm surprised so many people didn't see this coming. The share price was totally out-of-whack with reality. I'd have shorted the hell out of Nintendo's stock (if I had money and the means to do so). Surely, someone with money did? Anyone here?
FWIW, the conditions for speech to not fall under the first amendment is that the speech must advocate "imminent lawless action". So, your co-worker spouting off about how he wants to kill infidels is legal under the first amendment because it is not imminent. He's just advocating lawless action at some unspecified time in the future.
a list which has no Due Process to be either listed or removed?
Would you object if there were due process to be listed or removed?
How would the due process to be listed work? Someone on the terrorism watch list hasn't committed a crime yet, and they're innocent until they have committed a crime, so how could due process be applied to bar an innocent person from their 2nd amendment rights? Can you suggest any mechanism whereby a suspected "lone wolf terrorist" could be denied a gun purchase through due process? (You can't really charge a lone wolf with conspiracy if they've only made threatening but non-specific comments to their family, co-workers, on twitter, etc.)
If you think that every non-criminal should be allowed to purchase firearms, then just cut to the chase and say so.
The article may simply cite a third party, but Thiel did admit it in an interview.
Believe it or not, you're not the first person to think of feedback loops at work in climate change. There are many known feedback mechanisms (relevant wikipedia article), both negative and _positive_. Let's not pretend that the "Net Primary Productivity" feedback mechanism (what you're talking about) will save us. In fact, it seems to be a pretty weak feedback loop compared to feedback loops that are at work. After all, we're burning up a _lot_ of dead plants (many of them from the days when the earth was covered with jungles). We'd need a lot of new plants to make up for it, and they'd have to show up pretty fast to overpower the other feedback mechanisms. It's easy to see that this feedback loop isn't too strong: just look at the amount of biomass around us and compare it to how much was there 50 years ago. The amount of biomass hasn't changed much even though the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has gone up an appreciable amount.
These feedback loops are included in climate models. No one pretends that we fully understand them or model them exactly, but people have put a lot of thought into them and have a decent grasp of their workings.
*core->corps
Let's crunch some numbers.
The largest tree planting project that I know of is the Civilian Conservation Core which planted about 3 billion trees in the US over about a decade (source).
Let's say that a 40-year-old tree is sequestering about 1 ton of CO2 (source, and yes, I realize this will vary a lot based on species and location, but we need to start somewhere).
So, let's say that we magically plant 3 billion trees tomorrow. That will sequester 3e9 trees*2e3 lbs/tree*4.54e-13 lbs/gigatonne / 40 years = 0.068 gigatonnes/year of CO2 sequestered. (Note that ton and tonne are different.) In comparison, the US produces about 1.4 gigatonnes a year (source).
I'm not saying that sequestering CO2 in rock is a better scheme, but planting a few *billion* trees won't solve our problem.
(PS. someone check my math. It's easy to screw these calculations up.)
Even if these were diesel trains (they're actually electric), there would be a significant reduction in pollution because trains are incredibly efficient and trucks are not. All things being equal, a gallon of diesel fuel will move one ton of cargo over 200 miles on a railroad (or over 400 miles, depending on your reference). Trucks are nowhere close to that efficient.
It's hard to overstate how efficient trains are at moving cargo; no other land method comes close. (You can only do better on boats/barges.)
I'm no expert on the AlpTransits project (which includes the Gotthard Base Tunnel and a number of other new tunnels), but the whole project seems to have been on budget in part because they cut stuff. For example, the Loetschberg Base Tunnel, which is the second longest tunnel in this project, is opened but not complete. They just stopped part way through and declared it good enough (one bore is up and running -- I've been through it -- but the other isn't finished). Or, as wikipedia puts it:
Due to the soaring costs of the AlpTransit initiative, funds were diverted to the Gotthard Base Tunnel; and the LBT [Loetschberg Base Tunnel] is only half finished.
Even worse, work on the Zimmerberg Base Tunnel is suspended -- possibly without plans to complete it.
The whole "on budget and in time" thing doesn't sound so miraculous in context: the Gotthard Base Tunnel is part of a larger project that is neither on time nor on budget. However, the Swiss government sure did a good job spinning it that way.
Those are the second order effects that I talked about, and they're irrelevant for this question. If you win a grant, then yes the school does take a cut, but there is money earmarked for an individual researcher. If you don't win a grant, then no money is earmarked for you. The question is: do you win a grant or not. That's it.
You're making this more complicated than it really is. Let's take your logic a step further. You argue that because all the money is sitting in the school's bank account, then all the school's money has a bit of government grant mixed in since the source of the money is indistinguishable. But the money sitting in a bank is indistinguishable too. The money from the university just sits in a big pool inside the bank -- along with the money from all other bank accounts, so by your logic all checking accounts in the bank also have government grant money in them too! In fact, if you and your neighbor use the same bank, then your money is your neighbor's money and vice versa because it's all sitting in the same pool inside the bank! If your neighbor writes a check to someone at another bank, then some of your money is now in everyone's account at the other bank too! Declaring that money is distinguishable is a useful and self-consistent construct, just like money as a whole is a useful and self-consistent construct. Just go with it.
(I assume that you're in the US since you consider the case where the government might only contribute 5% of a university's budget.)
Second order effects like the school's general fund getting a pinch government money are irrelevant. The question is whether the research is being directly payed for, in full or in part, by a government grant (e.g. NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA). US researchers already have to state government funding sources in publications, so there's not much ambiguity about whether research is being funded by a government grant. Look at the acknowledgement section of a research article and you'll see something like
Work at UCSB was supported by the US Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences (BES) under Award No. DE-SC0010689. Computational resources were provided by the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, which is supported by the DOE Office of Science under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
(Taken from a random physics article.)
It's not that complicated.