A blue moon is the second full moon in a particular month. I don't know why it's called that. They aren't really that rare, but it's a bit less frequent than once in 2 3/4 years.
Now a wolf moon happens once/year, so a blue wolf moon would happen about 1/12th as often..say once in 33 years.
How often a blood moon happens is (as shown above) a matter of argument, but it's a lot less than once per year, so a blue blood wolf moon would happen less than once in a life-time. (With a very liberal definition of "blood moon" I still get a lot less than once in 300 years.)
Unfortunately, there are a lot of time lags in the system, and we have probably already made changes that will result in 2 degrees Centigrade warming...or more. The oceans have been warming and so has the permafrost. (Most of the current rise in sea levels is due to the warming of the oceans, as warmer water takes up more space than colder water down to around 4 degrees Centigrade.)
So while reducing the impact of current actions is extremely highly desirable, it's probably not going to stave off unpredictably unpleasant results. (We can't say just how bad it will be, because we're pushing the models outside the range within which they have been validated.... And they weren't really good at detailed predictions anyway, which is why an ensemble prediction approach was used, with large error bars.)
And that *IS* a problem. Probably the only legitimate reason to subsidize coal mining. But perhaps they've got sufficient alternatives. Maybe. If only at a possibly higher price.
Sorry, the other users have other specialties that *YOU* are poor at. It takes a lot of time and energy to master a specialty, and nobody can master even a large fragment of them. Can you chip a flint arrowhead and bind it to a stick straight enough to fire from a bow? (Using materials that you didn't buy.) That's a relatively simple one that I got close to at one point, but the arrowhead kept cutting the binding. I would have needed to search out some tar or fresh pine resin...which wasn't available where I was. These days even the proper stone isn't available locally (then I used discarded milk bottles, but they don't work anymore since they changed what the bottles are made of).
In the medieval period a blacksmith was expected to grade his own ore, make his own charcoal, and purify his own iron. Can you do that? How about just designing your own CPU? Be detailed enough so that you can tell the chip foundry what to do.
Educating the users is tempting solution, but it's not one that could plausibly work.
YES. Google has not improved the results that it returns to my searches over the past decade, so the collection of data hasn't helped. (Actually, Alta-Vista did as good a search, often better, but was a bit more of a pain to use.)
It's not even that simple. Companies go bankrupt all the time, and when they do their assets get sold off, regardless of whether or not they promised to keep them secret, and how honorably they intended to keep that promise.
I can't give any examples either, but there've been several stories about this over the past year. Also prior to that, though less commonly. E.g., a Barbie doll that sent ongoing conversations to a central location, where who knows what actually happened to the data. (The claim is it wasn't processed outside of feeding back conversation fragments. But who knows. And even if that's all the company did with it, it was transmitted unencrypted over the internet [though I'm assuming in a preprocessed and compressed form].)
Originally that was true, though I'm not sure it currently is. But it took a lot fewer people to make the sandwiches that ended up in the vending machines than the people who used to make the sandwiches. One of the things that changed was that the hours of availability increased dramatically, even though the quality decreased. So more sandwiches were sold. So *PERHAPS* the total number of sandwich makers remained the same...but I doubt it. The people making sandwiches in the cafe's had a lot of down time that the assembly line sandwich makers didn't. There are other differences, like more centralized control, purchasing, and distribution. These enabled several efficiencies, but included efficiently transmitting diseases...so steps had to be taken to prevent that. Etc.
There needs to be a separation between work and respect. This has been vitally needed for a long time, but it's not profitable to those in power...and profit here doesn't really refer to money, it refers to power and esteem.
The problem is that not all jobs CAN be automated. So some people are going to need to work. And the amount of work needed is greater than people will do without exterior motivation. (Also the goals. Now that I've retired I only program half to a third as much, but what I program is very different. I'm no longer willing to even touch MSAccess or Visual Basic. Or to agree to any MS or Apple EULA.)
Middle level jobs are being eaten away every year. I saw that decades ago. And this isn't the entry of automation into the service sector. That was the vending machine, or perhaps the Automated Cafeteria. But the curve seems to be getting steeper, as predicted by various folks. And computers are getting more capable, while people are remaining about the same. So when computers get more capable faster, and people only get as capable as they can be trained to be, which hasn't really improved since the stone age, then what do you expect to happen? Computers become dominant on more and more areas. But it was two or three decades ago that a chef in Chicago experimented with printing imitation food. This isn't a sudden change. And more and more commercial kitchens are using fancy gizmos like liquid Nitrogen, automated ovens, electric mixers, etc. etc. And you'd be surprised what a modern commercial electric mixer can do. (Actually, of course, there are lots of different models with differing capabilities, and I'm no expert in the field.)
So automation has been moving into the service sector since long before the first Roomba. What's the real difference between an automated hamburger maker and a sandwich vending machine? A bit of capability, but the basic idea is the same. It's just the new version is a bit more appealing.
If you believe the official numbers, you're fooling yourself. I haven't checked into it in detail for awhile, but every time I did they have jiggered the numbers in a new way. I understand that those who follow the numbers carefully do have a way of tracking what's happening, but the numbers reported as "unemployment" bear little to no relation to reality.
Groovy is tied to Java, so it's not a plausible replacement. It's been decades, and nobody has seen fit to write a version that isn't tied to Java. This has advantages in certain use cases, but not in most of them.
Wellll...... The problem here is that the language designer is retiring. Who do you trust to replace him?
OTOH, Python *is* Free Software, so if anyone thinks he can do a better job, he can just fork it. I think we'll have a bit of a wait before that happens, though.
And if you don't think that C has a standards committee that oversees language changes, you need to do a bit of research.
If we assume that the name was originally intended to slander those with mobility problems (as some have alleged, without evidence) then the official history of the name can't be truster.
HOWEVER: Even though I believe the name was an innocent acronym, it has caused difficulties in getting it used in work places. This is independent of why it was given that name. (Yes, I've always thought it referred to Gnu Image Manipulation Program. But some people have publicly objected to it as abusive, and many more have been reluctant to use something that could be seen as abusive.) Public image is important here, regardless of historical causality.
While I agree with your statement, it's also reasonable to request that the name be changed. Consider all the trouble GIMP's name has caused, even though originally, I presume, it was just an acronym.
I'd prefer gentian violet. Non-toxic, unless you're a fungus. But stains things purple (not a pleasant purple) and is quite difficult to remove. On skin you normally need to let new skin grow to replace the skin that got stained. But it's harmless even if it gets in your eyes.
I'm less than convinced that radio waves have no effect on cancer frequency...but so do lots of other things, and it can't be a strong effect.
Also there's a question as to whether lidar may contribute to cataract formation. Probably not, and it certainly isn't a strong effect at measured levels, but perhaps over time....
Low level effects are really difficult to detect, particularly as they often only appear when multiple instigators are combined over a long period of time. But they also *usually* aren't that important. E.g. tobacco smoking took centuries to detect, and it's quite possible that the effect was weak enough that it was only successfully detected because it was mixed with other irritants, such as chemicals infused into the cigarette paper. This doesn't mean it isn't a real effect, or that it isn't desirable to eliminate it, but it does mean that it's not worth getting overly emotional about. (As it happens, most lung cancer in the modern world can be directly traced to tobacco, so it's NOW clear that it should be eliminated. But it was a very weak effect, than normally took decades to result in detectable symptoms. And going back a bit probably more lung cancers were caused by wood smoke. Tobacco was rarer and wood smoke was common.)
Sorry, but you need to read about the protests against cars when horses started being replaced. This is one (of a number of) normal human reaction(s) to unforeseen changes. And that they didn't foresee it tells you about the kind of person they are.
The people the legal document processing automation has and may soon replace are paralegals and lawyers who aren't already partners in a politically powerful agency. It is to the benefit of the current partners to stifle the incoming competition and to cut the costs of paper shuffling.
Think more carefully about your suggestion. I expect automation of all middle management as quickly as is profitable. But not of upper management.
The useful ones are exactly the same as the deleterious ones except in the particular way they fold a particular protein. They are equally infectious. They are equally proteinaceous.
I think it's more related to the way a lot of companies treat employees who admit they are leaving. And you're never certain you know the honest truth about your current employer.
That said, i still think it's a foolish move. Even before the internet, employers shared data about employees with each other.
Wouldn't immersion in anhydrous ethyl alcohol solution of concentrated potassium hydroxide work? Of course, when we were cleaning glassware we preceded that by a bath in concentrated nitric acid, and followed it by a rinse in distilled water. We were, however, working with glassware that we wanted to remove proteins from...but we weren't worried about infection, merely analysis.
That said, it seems to me that there are a lot of protein cleaving enzymes that could be used in a pre-treatment bath. So the problem is to ensure that the sugar-coat that they're likely to be wearing is stripped off before the cleansing agent is applied. But there are other enzymes that are good against multiple varieties of sugar, and you wouldn't need to worry about it being safe internally, so you could use the wide-spectrum ones.
So this doesn't seem a process that's inherently impossible. Just one that's different and difficult (and expensive) to set up properly. (Of course, I'm no expert in the field.) It would probably also lengthen the turn around in how quickly you could re-use the tool. But once it's set up, it could probably be done by any lab tech with minimal training.
Wellllll..... At the end of the day, they're just specialized alloys of metal bent, cut, and specially heat-treated into fancy shapes. You could probably make them for less than $100 each, if the demand was high enough.
But "high enough" means a continuously active production line, that you don't shut down every other month. How much brain surgery do you plan on that specialized tools used in only particular variants of the operation will be cheap?
I'll grant that there is a huge mark-up, because the system has removed any decent feed-back mechanism, but that's not the only reason those things are expensive.
Sorry, but you've been affected by selective reporting (at multiple levels).
Prions are necessary for life. Much of the dry intra-cellular fluid is prions. Not all proteins are built initially in the active form, they often need a chaperon to cause them to fold correctly. These are prions just as much as the ones that cause incorrect folding. And without it no mammalian, I suspect no eucaryotic, life would exist.
For more details you need to consult a real expert, I'm just a sometimes interested layman, (A real expert would know which phyla require prions to live. My suspicion that it's the eucaryotes, and only the eucaryotes, is based on quite uncertain reasoning.)
Slashdot Mirror
A blue moon is the second full moon in a particular month. I don't know why it's called that. They aren't really that rare, but it's a bit less frequent than once in 2 3/4 years.
Now a wolf moon happens once/year, so a blue wolf moon would happen about 1/12th as often..say once in 33 years.
How often a blood moon happens is (as shown above) a matter of argument, but it's a lot less than once per year, so a blue blood wolf moon would happen less than once in a life-time. (With a very liberal definition of "blood moon" I still get a lot less than once in 300 years.)
Unfortunately, there are a lot of time lags in the system, and we have probably already made changes that will result in 2 degrees Centigrade warming...or more. The oceans have been warming and so has the permafrost. (Most of the current rise in sea levels is due to the warming of the oceans, as warmer water takes up more space than colder water down to around 4 degrees Centigrade.)
So while reducing the impact of current actions is extremely highly desirable, it's probably not going to stave off unpredictably unpleasant results. (We can't say just how bad it will be, because we're pushing the models outside the range within which they have been validated. ... And they weren't really good at detailed predictions anyway, which is why an ensemble prediction approach was used, with large error bars.)
And that *IS* a problem. Probably the only legitimate reason to subsidize coal mining. But perhaps they've got sufficient alternatives. Maybe. If only at a possibly higher price.
Sorry, the other users have other specialties that *YOU* are poor at. It takes a lot of time and energy to master a specialty, and nobody can master even a large fragment of them. Can you chip a flint arrowhead and bind it to a stick straight enough to fire from a bow? (Using materials that you didn't buy.) That's a relatively simple one that I got close to at one point, but the arrowhead kept cutting the binding. I would have needed to search out some tar or fresh pine resin...which wasn't available where I was. These days even the proper stone isn't available locally (then I used discarded milk bottles, but they don't work anymore since they changed what the bottles are made of).
In the medieval period a blacksmith was expected to grade his own ore, make his own charcoal, and purify his own iron. Can you do that? How about just designing your own CPU? Be detailed enough so that you can tell the chip foundry what to do.
Educating the users is tempting solution, but it's not one that could plausibly work.
YES. Google has not improved the results that it returns to my searches over the past decade, so the collection of data hasn't helped. (Actually, Alta-Vista did as good a search, often better, but was a bit more of a pain to use.)
It's not even that simple. Companies go bankrupt all the time, and when they do their assets get sold off, regardless of whether or not they promised to keep them secret, and how honorably they intended to keep that promise.
I can't give any examples either, but there've been several stories about this over the past year. Also prior to that, though less commonly. E.g., a Barbie doll that sent ongoing conversations to a central location, where who knows what actually happened to the data. (The claim is it wasn't processed outside of feeding back conversation fragments. But who knows. And even if that's all the company did with it, it was transmitted unencrypted over the internet [though I'm assuming in a preprocessed and compressed form].)
Originally that was true, though I'm not sure it currently is. But it took a lot fewer people to make the sandwiches that ended up in the vending machines than the people who used to make the sandwiches. One of the things that changed was that the hours of availability increased dramatically, even though the quality decreased. So more sandwiches were sold. So *PERHAPS* the total number of sandwich makers remained the same...but I doubt it. The people making sandwiches in the cafe's had a lot of down time that the assembly line sandwich makers didn't. There are other differences, like more centralized control, purchasing, and distribution. These enabled several efficiencies, but included efficiently transmitting diseases...so steps had to be taken to prevent that. Etc.
But the basic idea was the same.
There needs to be a separation between work and respect. This has been vitally needed for a long time, but it's not profitable to those in power...and profit here doesn't really refer to money, it refers to power and esteem.
The problem is that not all jobs CAN be automated. So some people are going to need to work. And the amount of work needed is greater than people will do without exterior motivation. (Also the goals. Now that I've retired I only program half to a third as much, but what I program is very different. I'm no longer willing to even touch MSAccess or Visual Basic. Or to agree to any MS or Apple EULA.)
Middle level jobs are being eaten away every year. I saw that decades ago. And this isn't the entry of automation into the service sector. That was the vending machine, or perhaps the Automated Cafeteria. But the curve seems to be getting steeper, as predicted by various folks. And computers are getting more capable, while people are remaining about the same. So when computers get more capable faster, and people only get as capable as they can be trained to be, which hasn't really improved since the stone age, then what do you expect to happen? Computers become dominant on more and more areas. But it was two or three decades ago that a chef in Chicago experimented with printing imitation food. This isn't a sudden change. And more and more commercial kitchens are using fancy gizmos like liquid Nitrogen, automated ovens, electric mixers, etc. etc. And you'd be surprised what a modern commercial electric mixer can do. (Actually, of course, there are lots of different models with differing capabilities, and I'm no expert in the field.)
So automation has been moving into the service sector since long before the first Roomba. What's the real difference between an automated hamburger maker and a sandwich vending machine? A bit of capability, but the basic idea is the same. It's just the new version is a bit more appealing.
If you believe the official numbers, you're fooling yourself. I haven't checked into it in detail for awhile, but every time I did they have jiggered the numbers in a new way. I understand that those who follow the numbers carefully do have a way of tracking what's happening, but the numbers reported as "unemployment" bear little to no relation to reality.
Groovy is tied to Java, so it's not a plausible replacement. It's been decades, and nobody has seen fit to write a version that isn't tied to Java. This has advantages in certain use cases, but not in most of them.
Wellll...... The problem here is that the language designer is retiring. Who do you trust to replace him?
OTOH, Python *is* Free Software, so if anyone thinks he can do a better job, he can just fork it. I think we'll have a bit of a wait before that happens, though.
And if you don't think that C has a standards committee that oversees language changes, you need to do a bit of research.
If we assume that the name was originally intended to slander those with mobility problems (as some have alleged, without evidence) then the official history of the name can't be truster.
HOWEVER: Even though I believe the name was an innocent acronym, it has caused difficulties in getting it used in work places. This is independent of why it was given that name. (Yes, I've always thought it referred to Gnu Image Manipulation Program. But some people have publicly objected to it as abusive, and many more have been reluctant to use something that could be seen as abusive.) Public image is important here, regardless of historical causality.
While I agree with your statement, it's also reasonable to request that the name be changed. Consider all the trouble GIMP's name has caused, even though originally, I presume, it was just an acronym.
I'd prefer gentian violet. Non-toxic, unless you're a fungus. But stains things purple (not a pleasant purple) and is quite difficult to remove. On skin you normally need to let new skin grow to replace the skin that got stained. But it's harmless even if it gets in your eyes.
Just wait until they genetically modify pigs to "chew the cud".
Because the stockholders have no direct voice unless they *ARE* upper management.
I'm less than convinced that radio waves have no effect on cancer frequency...but so do lots of other things, and it can't be a strong effect.
Also there's a question as to whether lidar may contribute to cataract formation. Probably not, and it certainly isn't a strong effect at measured levels, but perhaps over time....
Low level effects are really difficult to detect, particularly as they often only appear when multiple instigators are combined over a long period of time. But they also *usually* aren't that important. E.g. tobacco smoking took centuries to detect, and it's quite possible that the effect was weak enough that it was only successfully detected because it was mixed with other irritants, such as chemicals infused into the cigarette paper. This doesn't mean it isn't a real effect, or that it isn't desirable to eliminate it, but it does mean that it's not worth getting overly emotional about. (As it happens, most lung cancer in the modern world can be directly traced to tobacco, so it's NOW clear that it should be eliminated. But it was a very weak effect, than normally took decades to result in detectable symptoms. And going back a bit probably more lung cancers were caused by wood smoke. Tobacco was rarer and wood smoke was common.)
Sorry, but you need to read about the protests against cars when horses started being replaced. This is one (of a number of) normal human reaction(s) to unforeseen changes. And that they didn't foresee it tells you about the kind of person they are.
The people the legal document processing automation has and may soon replace are paralegals and lawyers who aren't already partners in a politically powerful agency. It is to the benefit of the current partners to stifle the incoming competition and to cut the costs of paper shuffling.
Think more carefully about your suggestion. I expect automation of all middle management as quickly as is profitable. But not of upper management.
The useful ones are exactly the same as the deleterious ones except in the particular way they fold a particular protein. They are equally infectious. They are equally proteinaceous.
I think it's more related to the way a lot of companies treat employees who admit they are leaving. And you're never certain you know the honest truth about your current employer.
That said, i still think it's a foolish move. Even before the internet, employers shared data about employees with each other.
Wouldn't immersion in anhydrous ethyl alcohol solution of concentrated potassium hydroxide work? Of course, when we were cleaning glassware we preceded that by a bath in concentrated nitric acid, and followed it by a rinse in distilled water. We were, however, working with glassware that we wanted to remove proteins from...but we weren't worried about infection, merely analysis.
That said, it seems to me that there are a lot of protein cleaving enzymes that could be used in a pre-treatment bath. So the problem is to ensure that the sugar-coat that they're likely to be wearing is stripped off before the cleansing agent is applied. But there are other enzymes that are good against multiple varieties of sugar, and you wouldn't need to worry about it being safe internally, so you could use the wide-spectrum ones.
So this doesn't seem a process that's inherently impossible. Just one that's different and difficult (and expensive) to set up properly. (Of course, I'm no expert in the field.) It would probably also lengthen the turn around in how quickly you could re-use the tool. But once it's set up, it could probably be done by any lab tech with minimal training.
Wellllll.....
At the end of the day, they're just specialized alloys of metal bent, cut, and specially heat-treated into fancy shapes. You could probably make them for less than $100 each, if the demand was high enough.
But "high enough" means a continuously active production line, that you don't shut down every other month. How much brain surgery do you plan on that specialized tools used in only particular variants of the operation will be cheap?
I'll grant that there is a huge mark-up, because the system has removed any decent feed-back mechanism, but that's not the only reason those things are expensive.
Sorry, but you've been affected by selective reporting (at multiple levels).
Prions are necessary for life. Much of the dry intra-cellular fluid is prions. Not all proteins are built initially in the active form, they often need a chaperon to cause them to fold correctly. These are prions just as much as the ones that cause incorrect folding. And without it no mammalian, I suspect no eucaryotic, life would exist.
For more details you need to consult a real expert, I'm just a sometimes interested layman, (A real expert would know which phyla require prions to live. My suspicion that it's the eucaryotes, and only the eucaryotes, is based on quite uncertain reasoning.)