1. Hire contractor. 2. 6 months to train them up. 3. 6 months of actual work from them. 4. 6 months using them to train their replacement.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Given the sheer amount of time it takes to get someone effective in a large bureaucratic organization, it is *mind-boggling* that critical staff positions end up being held by contractors who have to do the contractor dance. Most companies have tricks they use to avoid the contractor dance (reclassifying something as an SOW, rather than hourly position, for example), but that's just another dodge to avoid actually hiring someone and giving them employee protections.
Most large projects take *years* to get to fruition - if you're going to use contractors for anything other than dumb, grunty labor that takes a tech only a week to get up to speed in, you're abusing people and destroying value.
So how does one learn how to colonize space without "slinging meat bags" out there?
You do that part last.
Assume for a moment that it'll take 500 more years to actually get things together enough where we can send robot fleets to the moon to build habitable modules there. *Then* start training your meat bags...or start off by sending a colony of dogs or cats to survive there. In any case, you don't spend the next 500 years wasting effort on meat bags, you focus on the technology that needs to come *first*.
Actually, I'll make one more caveat - if you did want to practice the whole meat bag support thing, you'd want to start off with a manned mission to the bottom of the marianas trench, to establish a human colony there. You'll get a real quick idea of just how much stuff you need to prep before supporting a colony for any amount of time.
You're right - we don't get to blame Obama for everything until he's out of office, and then we can spend two terms doing so. Obviously people blaming him now are simply jumping the gun.
That being said, we shouldn't have a manned space flight program. It's a ridiculous luxury item, and frankly, even the moon shot was more about hubris and cold war competition than actual science.
Space flight is important, space exploration is important, but slinging meat bags into space is decidedly *not* important.
...why aren't we sending more robotic probes? Putting meat bags in space is completely overrated - we need to get better at developing the robust systems necessary for autonomous and semi-autonomous probes.
I know this is a swift kick in the nut sack for all those astronaut wannabes in the air force out there, but frankly, the quickest way to get meat bags somewhere else is to have a bunch of mechanical devices head out there first and build the infrastructure necessary to support meat bags. The sheer inefficiency of manned space exploration is phenomenal, and if it is going to have a place, it's gotta come after we've laid the necessary groundwork with unmanned probes.
The idea that anyone can make a living directly off of content generation is going to be a particularly quaint 20th century phenomenon as the years go by. Even without the corporate driven market disruption, content creators of the present and the future continue to face increasing competition from the heartless and cold past.
Eventually, and soon, content generation for pay is going to be something primarily sponsored by wealthy patrons, rather than the mass media buying public.
For consumers, the difficulty will be deciding which content to view, not which content they can afford.
Does it really take that much to predict that if you breed horse in pens with 3 foot ceilings and keep them in them all the time, in a few generations you are going to get short horses ?
Only if the tall horses are unable to breed in that environment. You might get tall horses that have sex laying down.
Apply selective pressures to the plants you grow, seeding the ones you want for durability, taste, color...lather, rinse repeat.
The real challenge would be to predict what natural selective pressures might exist in any given environment - even if you're looking at a constant geography, anything from weather, or even other life forms, can provide unpredictable selective pressures that will nix your prediction.
...on the one hand, this is going to mean more candidates for job openings I have. On the other hand, Microsoft and Nokia are certainly using this opportunity to get rid of bottom performers...
Both of those numbers are huge hits, and I'm sure they're losing some good talent along with the bad, but sifting through to figure out which is which is going to be a real challenge.
It seems that the federal government isn't satisfied with imposing its will on every state in the union, but once something touches the united states, even only tangentially, we apparently have jurisdiction there too:)
I guess our problem is that we haven't been able to accurately discern between *publishing* and *publishing something useful*. We've built an economy based on how many papers you can shove through the system, without regard to their quality. Build a system with certain incentives, and you'll get fairly predictable outcomes.
It seems like it would take some pretty severe sanctions, and perhaps bounties for those who exposed fraud, before it will really stop.
So you still have no evidence for your claim falsifiability s a necessary part of science.
Do you not understand the demarcation problem?
Do you not understand that without the requirement of falsifiability, you allow things like astrology and intelligent design to be considered "science"?
Falsifiability is *required* for science. It is literally the *cornerstone* of the scientific method.
Do you honestly think that something non-falsifiable, like the existence of non-temporal and non-spatial fairies living in your nose is scientific?:)
You've apparently got a hypothesis that isn't contradicted by any observation - colder, hotter, the same, faster, slower, the same, wetter, drier, the same, all of them are "consistent with" your belief system. Much like God, who can turn water into wine, or just leave water alone, apparently there is nothing excluded from observation by your faith:)
"The notion of transwarp beaming is like trying to hit a bullet with a smaller bullet, whilst wearing a blindfold, riding a horse." – Montgomery Scott, 2258 (Star Trek)
It [falsifiability] is not and never has been a requirement for science.
If you'd like to assert that falsifiability isn't required, by what method do you exclude astrology or creationism from being "science"?
Falsifiability is quite obviously the answer to the demarcation problem, although I'm happy to entertain any alternative you'd like to propose:)/crickets
Otherwise known as, "regulation to keep the competition out".
It seems to me that the tendency to over-regulate in order to give advantage to existing market movers simply isn't justified. Yes, you need to deal with liability, but there's nothing that says that over-regulation is the only (or the best) way to do it.
So, according to you, unfalsifiable hypotheses, like astrology, or creationism, can be considered science the same way we consider astronomy and evolution?:)
Of course Karl Popper didn't define science - he simply wrote about the most basic requirement for the scientific method, that of falsifiability.
If you'd like to assert that falsifiability isn't required, by what method do you exclude astrology or creationism from being "science"? If falsifiability is not going to be the tool you use for demarcation, exactly what do you propose?
non-profit doesn't mean zero salary. It means charging just enough to cover costs
So, doctors and nurses, and other healthcare employees should charge only enough to cover a small, 2 bedroom house in a modest neighborhood, grocery money, utility money, and maybe a small entertainment budget?
If you're going to decry the profit made by some insurance company, but give a pass to all the salaries being paid, couldn't they just take their "profit", give it as salary to their employees, and call it "covering costs"?
There is a reason that all Western Style Democracies, except the US, have fully or partially socialized healthcare.
There is a reason that all Western Style Democracies, with fully or partially socialized healthcare, have to ration their care. There simply isn't unlimited resources to give everyone everything they want anytime they want.
YOU are the one claiming all the experts are wrong; the burden of proof is on you to disprove the science.
And here's where you fail - appeal to unnamed authorities is the logical fallacy perpetrated by religions, not science.
The burden of proof us this - if we're doing science with AGW, we need to start off with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Thus far, no such statement has ever been constructed.
Once we get that first step, we're doing science, and can decide what is right and wrong. Before then, all you're doing is preaching.
I'm just fine to trust the majority of the worlds scientists;
The fact that you outsource your rational thought processes to others may be fine for you, but I prefer not to be a sheeple:)
Sheeple don't follow expert opinion; they are herded by whatever barks at them or feeds them
You've been told what expert opinion is by the forces that bark at you and feed you:)
The two party thing is a false dialemma to distract slow people
No, actually, it's designed to maximize fund raising potential. If one part was completely dominant, nobody would contribute to the winners (because they're already going to win), and nobody would contribute to the losers (because they're already going to lose). Keeping the two parties carefully balanced at as close to 50/50 as possible maximizes fund raising potential, because both sides are scared. This leads to odd pairings like, "anti-death penalty + pro abortion", or "smaller government + anti-gay-marriage", or "anti-creationism + pro AGW" - it's almost certainly a calculated division of hypocritical views in order to make sure the final tallies are close to an even split.
It is possible to get to a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW - but once done, and treated like science rather than propaganda, the power of the Church of Global Warming diminishes. This is why it has been studiously avoided by those pushing for policy changes due to AGW. The question you have to ask yourself is, are you willing to listen to your experts in science when they won't start with the very basics of the scientific method?
As Feynman once put it, "science is the belief in the ignorance of experts". Great man.
The fact of the matter is this - your motivated thinking on this topic has blinded you to the base requirement for science - the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. You can't quote one for AGW, and you can't make any reasoned argument that it doesn't need one to be science.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Hire contractor.
2. 6 months to train them up.
3. 6 months of actual work from them.
4. 6 months using them to train their replacement.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Given the sheer amount of time it takes to get someone effective in a large bureaucratic organization, it is *mind-boggling* that critical staff positions end up being held by contractors who have to do the contractor dance. Most companies have tricks they use to avoid the contractor dance (reclassifying something as an SOW, rather than hourly position, for example), but that's just another dodge to avoid actually hiring someone and giving them employee protections.
Most large projects take *years* to get to fruition - if you're going to use contractors for anything other than dumb, grunty labor that takes a tech only a week to get up to speed in, you're abusing people and destroying value.
We're missing a number here - how many requests were *made*?
http://cdn.bgr.com/2013/11/app...
The data for the US is almost laughably vague. It could very well be that 1000 requests were made, and 1000 requests were granted.
100% success rate in complying with requests sounds pretty cozy to me...
You do that part last.
Assume for a moment that it'll take 500 more years to actually get things together enough where we can send robot fleets to the moon to build habitable modules there. *Then* start training your meat bags...or start off by sending a colony of dogs or cats to survive there. In any case, you don't spend the next 500 years wasting effort on meat bags, you focus on the technology that needs to come *first*.
Actually, I'll make one more caveat - if you did want to practice the whole meat bag support thing, you'd want to start off with a manned mission to the bottom of the marianas trench, to establish a human colony there. You'll get a real quick idea of just how much stuff you need to prep before supporting a colony for any amount of time.
You're right - we don't get to blame Obama for everything until he's out of office, and then we can spend two terms doing so. Obviously people blaming him now are simply jumping the gun.
That being said, we shouldn't have a manned space flight program. It's a ridiculous luxury item, and frankly, even the moon shot was more about hubris and cold war competition than actual science.
Space flight is important, space exploration is important, but slinging meat bags into space is decidedly *not* important.
...why aren't we sending more robotic probes? Putting meat bags in space is completely overrated - we need to get better at developing the robust systems necessary for autonomous and semi-autonomous probes.
I know this is a swift kick in the nut sack for all those astronaut wannabes in the air force out there, but frankly, the quickest way to get meat bags somewhere else is to have a bunch of mechanical devices head out there first and build the infrastructure necessary to support meat bags. The sheer inefficiency of manned space exploration is phenomenal, and if it is going to have a place, it's gotta come after we've laid the necessary groundwork with unmanned probes.
The idea that anyone can make a living directly off of content generation is going to be a particularly quaint 20th century phenomenon as the years go by. Even without the corporate driven market disruption, content creators of the present and the future continue to face increasing competition from the heartless and cold past.
Eventually, and soon, content generation for pay is going to be something primarily sponsored by wealthy patrons, rather than the mass media buying public.
For consumers, the difficulty will be deciding which content to view, not which content they can afford.
...and I've got no idea what the internet looks like to mere mortals anymore.
I'm almost afraid to turn it off and see just how bad it's gotten out there.
Back in 2012, the average rate was 9.26%
http://clarityray.com/Content/...
I have to imagine adblocking has only gotten more common since.
Only if the tall horses are unable to breed in that environment. You might get tall horses that have sex laying down.
Apply selective pressures to the plants you grow, seeding the ones you want for durability, taste, color...lather, rinse repeat.
The real challenge would be to predict what natural selective pressures might exist in any given environment - even if you're looking at a constant geography, anything from weather, or even other life forms, can provide unpredictable selective pressures that will nix your prediction.
...on the one hand, this is going to mean more candidates for job openings I have. On the other hand, Microsoft and Nokia are certainly using this opportunity to get rid of bottom performers...
Both of those numbers are huge hits, and I'm sure they're losing some good talent along with the bad, but sifting through to figure out which is which is going to be a real challenge.
...looks like the free market worked this time?
Offer made without government interference...offer rejected without government interference...
Or does someone think that Rupert Murdoch can just force Time Warner to take the deal?
,,,the Commerce Clause.
It seems that the federal government isn't satisfied with imposing its will on every state in the union, but once something touches the united states, even only tangentially, we apparently have jurisdiction there too :)
Government isn't the answer, it's the problem.
streisandeffect.com
I guess our problem is that we haven't been able to accurately discern between *publishing* and *publishing something useful*. We've built an economy based on how many papers you can shove through the system, without regard to their quality. Build a system with certain incentives, and you'll get fairly predictable outcomes.
It seems like it would take some pretty severe sanctions, and perhaps bounties for those who exposed fraud, before it will really stop.
...but we've only got a "shortage" of it if we think we have a shortage of K-5 Basketball Polishers as well.
Just because it's possible for a job to exist, doesn't mean that there needs to be a certain amount of those jobs.
Do you not understand the demarcation problem?
Do you not understand that without the requirement of falsifiability, you allow things like astrology and intelligent design to be considered "science"?
Falsifiability is *required* for science. It is literally the *cornerstone* of the scientific method.
Do you honestly think that something non-falsifiable, like the existence of non-temporal and non-spatial fairies living in your nose is scientific? :)
You've apparently got a hypothesis that isn't contradicted by any observation - colder, hotter, the same, faster, slower, the same, wetter, drier, the same, all of them are "consistent with" your belief system. Much like God, who can turn water into wine, or just leave water alone, apparently there is nothing excluded from observation by your faith :)
"The notion of transwarp beaming is like trying to hit a bullet with a smaller bullet, whilst wearing a blindfold, riding a horse."
– Montgomery Scott, 2258 (Star Trek)
You said:
If you'd like to assert that falsifiability isn't required, by what method do you exclude astrology or creationism from being "science"?
Falsifiability is quite obviously the answer to the demarcation problem, although I'm happy to entertain any alternative you'd like to propose :) /crickets
Otherwise known as, "regulation to keep the competition out".
It seems to me that the tendency to over-regulate in order to give advantage to existing market movers simply isn't justified. Yes, you need to deal with liability, but there's nothing that says that over-regulation is the only (or the best) way to do it.
So, according to you, unfalsifiable hypotheses, like astrology, or creationism, can be considered science the same way we consider astronomy and evolution? :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Your beliefs are colliding with facts again :)
Of course Karl Popper didn't define science - he simply wrote about the most basic requirement for the scientific method, that of falsifiability.
If you'd like to assert that falsifiability isn't required, by what method do you exclude astrology or creationism from being "science"? If falsifiability is not going to be the tool you use for demarcation, exactly what do you propose?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
So, doctors and nurses, and other healthcare employees should charge only enough to cover a small, 2 bedroom house in a modest neighborhood, grocery money, utility money, and maybe a small entertainment budget?
If you're going to decry the profit made by some insurance company, but give a pass to all the salaries being paid, couldn't they just take their "profit", give it as salary to their employees, and call it "covering costs"?
There is a reason that all Western Style Democracies, with fully or partially socialized healthcare, have to ration their care. There simply isn't unlimited resources to give everyone everything they want anytime they want.
http://newsatjama.jama.com/201...
And here's where you fail - appeal to unnamed authorities is the logical fallacy perpetrated by religions, not science.
The burden of proof us this - if we're doing science with AGW, we need to start off with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Thus far, no such statement has ever been constructed.
Once we get that first step, we're doing science, and can decide what is right and wrong. Before then, all you're doing is preaching.
The fact that you outsource your rational thought processes to others may be fine for you, but I prefer not to be a sheeple :)
You've been told what expert opinion is by the forces that bark at you and feed you :)
No, actually, it's designed to maximize fund raising potential. If one part was completely dominant, nobody would contribute to the winners (because they're already going to win), and nobody would contribute to the losers (because they're already going to lose). Keeping the two parties carefully balanced at as close to 50/50 as possible maximizes fund raising potential, because both sides are scared. This leads to odd pairings like, "anti-death penalty + pro abortion", or "smaller government + anti-gay-marriage", or "anti-creationism + pro AGW" - it's almost certainly a calculated division of hypocritical views in order to make sure the final tallies are close to an even split.
It is possible to get to a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW - but once done, and treated like science rather than propaganda, the power of the Church of Global Warming diminishes. This is why it has been studiously avoided by those pushing for policy changes due to AGW. The question you have to ask yourself is, are you willing to listen to your experts in science when they won't start with the very basics of the scientific method?
As Feynman once put it, "science is the belief in the ignorance of experts". Great man.
Proved wrong by your blind faith assertions? :)
The fact of the matter is this - your motivated thinking on this topic has blinded you to the base requirement for science - the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. You can't quote one for AGW, and you can't make any reasoned argument that it doesn't need one to be science.
Q.E.D :)
Wow, the warmist trolls must be out in force - mod parent up for at least "informative"!