What is important about this discovery is more than anything else that it constitutes proof of the fact that women, presumably nuns, as well as monks were involved in the production of the most splendid manuscripts of the time because nobody except a first rate illustrator would have something as obscenely expensive as lapis lazuli in their dental plaque.
So the long help belief was that women's monasteries, which they obviously knew existed, just sat there twiddling their thumbs? I suspect people are projecting their modern biases pretty damn hard there. Back then life was hard, and it is pretty solid common sense that gender was much LESS of an issue, as survival was a little higher up the priority list.
Really, I googled "women monasteries illuminated manuscripts" and I found a book from 2009 about the subject (fifth result, the four before that were all about this article). Its introduction reads: "Although the majority of scribes who can be affiliated with women’s monastic manuscripts were themselves, in fact, women monastics, a number of their male contemporaries also contributed to monastic manuscript holdings". So it is actually the other way around: we knew about women scribes.
It is either (post)modern bias or just marketing ("look, we found something new, something none could believe"!) or probably both.
It means that once it's manufactured, there is no part of it's operation that pollutes.
Which is a non sequitur as in the example of the plastic forks and steel forks. By the way, in the European Union plastic cutlery will be banned by 2021 (steel cutlery is still fine).
PV panels produce less than 80% of their original electrical output after 20-25 years but they still produce electricity. However, they are also made of highly recyclable materials, so it's really just re-manufacturing the panels when you are done with them.
Manufacturing can be clean or dirty, depending on how you do it but it's 100% pollution free after that.
Fossil fuels also go through a manufacturing process which can be clean or dirty and it's 100% polluting after that.
What does that even mean? There are 100 years old hydroelectric power plants still in use today, the average coal plant in the USA is over 40 years old, the expected life span of a PV panel is 20-25 years, the expected lifespan of a wind turbine is still 20-25 years. You can NOT just say "heck, it is pollution free after manufacturing", that is like saying that a plastic fork is "pollution free" after manufacturing, so it is more environment friendly than a steel fork that you have to wash regularly (pro hint: in that case, it is exactly the other way around). Measuring the real environmental impact of a given process is very hard, even subjective to some extent (are there pollutants better than others?). Measuring the real environmental impact _per energy produced_ is even more complex; if you take into account non-measurable quantities, like energy quality, availability etc. it is all politics.
Note: I did not delve into maintenance and upkeep costs. Usually, if it costs, it pollutes, so, no, nothing is 100% pollution free after manufacturing.
In my opinion there's way too much focus on the process and far too little focus on the actual output.
This. Exactly this. There are so many things wrong with how these things are actually implemented in the real world! The bosses who are sold on these ideas do not understand that a good process does not substitute competent people, that is you need competent people in order to have a functional process and not the other way around. Moreover there is not one process to rule them all, different tasks, different projects may need different processes.
The point is that he can't be wrong. If he goes to Swedish court, gets fined (or even a couple years in jail) and doesn't "disappear", then that would suggest his panic was unjustified paranoia. [...]
Not really. He is no more investigated in Sweden, so going to a Swedish court now is out of question (I think that they could reopen the investigation, but that is not the case right now). However, in the UK there is a warrant for his arrest, for skipping bail when the UK wanted to have him extradite to Sweden. So his "paranoia" is not completely unjustified, after all he is officially wanted by the UK, because Sweden investigated him without a charge. It is bit too much for an alleged improper sexual behaviour.
On top of that the vast majority of the media companies endorsed Hillary Clinton. 500 newspapers endorsed Hillary Clinton, while only 28 endorsed Trump and an additional 30 newspapers, including USA Today, were outright against Trump.
But the big question is: why did the GRU know where to spend their (up to) $100,000 (including post electoral expenditures), while Hillary Clinton and her staff did not? Probably because it is all an excuse for a very poor performance, after all the money she spent and all the media support she gained.
in no way does that work backwards. Trump can't block people because of who he is as a government official. If he starts gramming he can't block people either. if he has email he can't block people. It's not a function of the social media. It's a function of the presidency. The same way we as a people are allowed to block politicians, social media can ban them.
Why backwards? You have just explained to me that Trump cannot block anyone on twitter, because twitting is a "function of the presidency", in your own words. So can twitter remove a "function of the presidency" at its own discretion? I do not think so. In fact, in the article I linked there is a statement by twitter, that enforce that point of view (because it suited them at the time): "Twitter has said that messages from world leaders like Mr Trump are inherently of public interest and argued that blocking those users or censoring certain messages would <<not silence that leader, but it would certainly hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions>>". So twitter blocking Trump would harm the "public interest", _according to twitter itsef_. Can the telephone utility company cut the phone line of the White House? No. Can the USPS stop fetching the mail at the White House? No. Is Twitter a utility? That is the real question. I would argue that it is not and that mr. Trump can block other people, and that Twitter can ban mr. Trump. A federal judge seems to argue differently, though.
To say the truth, lean manufacturing/production is the name retroactively given by MBA "experts" to the Toyota production system. The key point of the Toyota production system is a capable management (Taiichi Ohno was a technician with a lot of on-field experience), all the rest is basically folklore: a bad management does no good, no matter how many kaizen and genchi genbutsu they do, while on the other hand a skillfull and competent management, well, does the right things anyway.
These fads, like lean production, six sigma mumbo jumbo, are just magic formulas that MBA bots repeat to persuade you they are able to manage real stuff, they know nothing about.
My opinion:
Good agile practices: TDD, FBF
Ok in moderation: Standups, sprints, stories
Bad: Everything else
TDD = Test Driven Development
FBF = Fix Bugs First
The fact is you don't need agile to do TDD and FBF. Every _good_ software developer would do that. On the other hand, if you have bad developers, no matter the method, you're going to get mediocre software.
In situations like this forcing in a small wedge can be what is needed to start a move towards a genuine meritocracy and a system that doesn't exclude women.
I can't really see how you can conclude that, given what you just said:
Look at the average board and it's full of cronyism and nepotism.
Thinking that a cradle of cronyism and nepotism magically becomes a place of genuine meritocracy, by just including women, is just a baseless delusion.
It is either a meritocratic place or it is not: throwing women into the equation, you get either a meritocratic place with a few women more (possibly less meritocratic then) or a meeting of cronies (now both male and female cronies). In the end it does nothing for "women", it is good only for a few, already privileged, women, namely the president's daughter, the CEO's lover and the venture capitalist's sister. If you do not believe what I just said, look at how well "coloured quotas" worked in South Africa for coloured people (and South Africa at large).
A random guy claim to have studied medieval history (probably his university is called Wikipedia) and he is modded up because his post fits some agenda.
But throughout that time period the vast majority of regional knowledge preservation, much less adding to the store, was the result of muslims. I realize that doesn't make for good material in christian-centric teaching, but it doesn't change reality.
Muslims (or better, Christians and some Hebrews employed by Muslims) began to translate Greek books into Arabic in the 8th-9th century, after the conquest of the Near East in the 7th century. The Roman Empire became a Christian Empire during the 4th century. Who do you think preserved those texts in the meantime (just 4 or 5 centuries, you know)? As a comparison Arabic texts were mainly translated into Latin in the 12th century, 3 or 4 century after they were translated from Greek.
You claim to have studied the 500-1000 AD period and Charlemagne and his public schools: then you should know the paucity of Greek scholars in Western Europe, which had hindered the diffusion of Greek texts for centuries. One of the best Greek translator at the court of the Frankish Kingdom was an Irish monk, Eriugena and that because Ireland was almost spare by the Barbarian Invasions and the chaos they sparked.
Early Christians did intentionally destroy Pagan writings, including Greek and Roman science, and even went so far as to rape and murder the academic Hypatia for the sake of their internal gossip.
Hypatia was caught in the middle of a power struggle between two christian factions. She was too close to one of them and then she was killed for political reasons. Some early Christians intentionally destroyed pagan writings, other early Christians intentionally preserved them: in the end it was preserved a lot, given the circumstances (complete destruction of civil institutions etc.).
All science from the Greeks and Romans was preserved exclusively by the Arab civilization.
It was preserved mostly by monks from the Middle Ages, especially Latin manuscripts.
It is just that history and reality are different than you know.
I like when pretentious, know-it-all grammar nazis suck thier own dick:
paper out to boo[t] their careers
That would be an orthographic mistake, not a grammar one. I missed an "s" when I added a "t" to clarify the original quote that read "boos": I'd use angular brackets to do a substitution, brace brackets for a suppression and square brackets for a restoration (look at Leiden conventions). Obviously that missing "t" wasn't the point of my comment (otherwise I would have not used the restoration symbol), however your snarky comment is and I am grateful to you, because you emphasized the point I was trying to make.
The Fermi Paradox is an utterly useless test. It takes variables you have no data on and then says to compute their probability.
There are not variables in the Fermi Paradox, otherwise it would not be a paradox but an equation or a function. I do not know why you mentioned an equation, but probably it is because you do not know what we are talking about.
Note: I find it particularly annoying that random guys on the internet think they are masters of the known universe and _every time_ there is a discussion, you have to read caustic, trenchant comments using words like "utterly useless", "drunk frat students", "easily published paper out to boo[t] their careers". Discussions are rational processes, not political calls to arms, where you have to convey simple concepts to masses of mindless commoners.
The DNC email leak was from the DNC, not the Clinton server (and was years after Hillary left the Secretary of State office). It was done by phishing John Podesta's account:
There were three distinct leaks: one from the Clinton server, one from the DNC and one from Podesta. The Podesta leak has nothing to do with the DNC leak and the phished Podesta account is on gmail.
Or perhaps we are simply hitting some technological roadblock. It seems to me that they (at Intel) are scraping the bottom of the barrel to stay on top, because the technological progress in the area (especially for the x86 architecture) is reaching a plateau.
Slashdot Mirror
To say the truth, Wikipedia is a propaganda outlet, used by many governments. Propaganda and censorship are just two sides of the same coin.
What is important about this discovery is more than anything else that it constitutes proof of the fact that women, presumably nuns, as well as monks were involved in the production of the most splendid manuscripts of the time because nobody except a first rate illustrator would have something as obscenely expensive as lapis lazuli in their dental plaque.
Which is already a well known fact since sometime they signed their works.
So the long help belief was that women's monasteries, which they obviously knew existed, just sat there twiddling their thumbs? I suspect people are projecting their modern biases pretty damn hard there. Back then life was hard, and it is pretty solid common sense that gender was much LESS of an issue, as survival was a little higher up the priority list.
Really, I googled "women monasteries illuminated manuscripts" and I found a book from 2009 about the subject (fifth result, the four before that were all about this article). Its introduction reads: "Although the majority of scribes who can be affiliated with women’s monastic manuscripts were themselves, in fact, women monastics, a number of their male contemporaries also contributed to monastic manuscript holdings". So it is actually the other way around: we knew about women scribes.
It is either (post)modern bias or just marketing ("look, we found something new, something none could believe"!) or probably both.
It means that once it's manufactured, there is no part of it's operation that pollutes.
Which is a non sequitur as in the example of the plastic forks and steel forks. By the way, in the European Union plastic cutlery will be banned by 2021 (steel cutlery is still fine).
PV panels produce less than 80% of their original electrical output after 20-25 years but they still produce electricity. However, they are also made of highly recyclable materials, so it's really just re-manufacturing the panels when you are done with them.
So highly recyclable that the US still lack an infrastructure to recycle them. In the EU, PV panels are recycled because it is mandatory by law. In the US, an expert of solar energy technology at the Electric Power Research Institute said: "Either [PV recycling] becomes economical or it gets mandated. But I’ve heard that it will have to be mandated because it won’t ever be economical."
There is also a peer reviewed article[YanXu 2018] on the matter. It states: "At present, from the technical aspect, the research on solar panel recovery is facing many problems, and we need to further develop an economically feasible and non-toxic technology".
it is all politics.
Only in the imaginary world where science doesn't matter and Earth gets warmer because it feels loved.
Yawn... politics.
Manufacturing can be clean or dirty, depending on how you do it but it's 100% pollution free after that. Fossil fuels also go through a manufacturing process which can be clean or dirty and it's 100% polluting after that.
What does that even mean? There are 100 years old hydroelectric power plants still in use today, the average coal plant in the USA is over 40 years old, the expected life span of a PV panel is 20-25 years, the expected lifespan of a wind turbine is still 20-25 years. You can NOT just say "heck, it is pollution free after manufacturing", that is like saying that a plastic fork is "pollution free" after manufacturing, so it is more environment friendly than a steel fork that you have to wash regularly (pro hint: in that case, it is exactly the other way around).
Measuring the real environmental impact of a given process is very hard, even subjective to some extent (are there pollutants better than others?). Measuring the real environmental impact _per energy produced_ is even more complex; if you take into account non-measurable quantities, like energy quality, availability etc. it is all politics.
Note: I did not delve into maintenance and upkeep costs. Usually, if it costs, it pollutes, so, no, nothing is 100% pollution free after manufacturing.
Given an unlimited amount of money, everything is almost 100% recyclable. When you put recycling costs into the equation, not so much.
Then you should also measure the health effect of battery (and perhaps PV panels etc.) disposal in third world countries.
In my opinion there's way too much focus on the process and far too little focus on the actual output.
This. Exactly this. There are so many things wrong with how these things are actually implemented in the real world! The bosses who are sold on these ideas do not understand that a good process does not substitute competent people, that is you need competent people in order to have a functional process and not the other way around. Moreover there is not one process to rule them all, different tasks, different projects may need different processes.
No, just only within your own rank. Date a coworker? Sure. Date your boss or your underling? Nope.
What if he/she gets promoted? Have you to break up your relationship? Should a company not promote employees enganged with other employees?
The point is that he can't be wrong. If he goes to Swedish court, gets fined (or even a couple years in jail) and doesn't "disappear", then that would suggest his panic was unjustified paranoia. [...]
Not really. He is no more investigated in Sweden, so going to a Swedish court now is out of question (I think that they could reopen the investigation, but that is not the case right now). However, in the UK there is a warrant for his arrest, for skipping bail when the UK wanted to have him extradite to Sweden. So his "paranoia" is not completely unjustified, after all he is officially wanted by the UK, because Sweden investigated him without a charge. It is bit too much for an alleged improper sexual behaviour.
Whataboutism is a propaganda technique first used by the Soviet Union, in its dealings with the Western world.
I really, really doubt that Whataboutism was first used by Soviet Union.
On top of that the vast majority of the media companies endorsed Hillary Clinton. 500 newspapers endorsed Hillary Clinton, while only 28 endorsed Trump and an additional 30 newspapers, including USA Today, were outright against Trump.
But the big question is: why did the GRU know where to spend their (up to) $100,000 (including post electoral expenditures), while Hillary Clinton and her staff did not? Probably because it is all an excuse for a very poor performance, after all the money she spent and all the media support she gained.
in no way does that work backwards. Trump can't block people because of who he is as a government official. If he starts gramming he can't block people either. if he has email he can't block people. It's not a function of the social media. It's a function of the presidency. The same way we as a people are allowed to block politicians, social media can ban them.
Why backwards? You have just explained to me that Trump cannot block anyone on twitter, because twitting is a "function of the presidency", in your own words. So can twitter remove a "function of the presidency" at its own discretion? I do not think so. In fact, in the article I linked there is a statement by twitter, that enforce that point of view (because it suited them at the time): "Twitter has said that messages from world leaders like Mr Trump are inherently of public interest and argued that blocking those users or censoring certain messages would <<not silence that leader, but it would certainly hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions>>". So twitter blocking Trump would harm the "public interest", _according to twitter itsef_.
Can the telephone utility company cut the phone line of the White House? No. Can the USPS stop fetching the mail at the White House? No. Is Twitter a utility? That is the real question. I would argue that it is not and that mr. Trump can block other people, and that Twitter can ban mr. Trump. A federal judge seems to argue differently, though.
If Trump cannot block people on Twitter because that violates the first amendment, then I don't think that Twitter can block Trump either for the same reason. Double standards are bad for a democracy.
To say the truth, lean manufacturing/production is the name retroactively given by MBA "experts" to the Toyota production system. The key point of the Toyota production system is a capable management (Taiichi Ohno was a technician with a lot of on-field experience), all the rest is basically folklore: a bad management does no good, no matter how many kaizen and genchi genbutsu they do, while on the other hand a skillfull and competent management, well, does the right things anyway.
If I had mod points, I'd mod you up.
These fads, like lean production, six sigma mumbo jumbo, are just magic formulas that MBA bots repeat to persuade you they are able to manage real stuff, they know nothing about.
My opinion: Good agile practices: TDD, FBF Ok in moderation: Standups, sprints, stories Bad: Everything else
TDD = Test Driven Development FBF = Fix Bugs First
The fact is you don't need agile to do TDD and FBF. Every _good_ software developer would do that. On the other hand, if you have bad developers, no matter the method, you're going to get mediocre software.
In situations like this forcing in a small wedge can be what is needed to start a move towards a genuine meritocracy and a system that doesn't exclude women.
I can't really see how you can conclude that, given what you just said:
Look at the average board and it's full of cronyism and nepotism.
Thinking that a cradle of cronyism and nepotism magically becomes a place of genuine meritocracy, by just including women, is just a baseless delusion.
It is either a meritocratic place or it is not: throwing women into the equation, you get either a meritocratic place with a few women more (possibly less meritocratic then) or a meeting of cronies (now both male and female cronies).
In the end it does nothing for "women", it is good only for a few, already privileged, women, namely the president's daughter, the CEO's lover and the venture capitalist's sister.
If you do not believe what I just said, look at how well "coloured quotas" worked in South Africa for coloured people (and South Africa at large).
But throughout that time period the vast majority of regional knowledge preservation, much less adding to the store, was the result of muslims. I realize that doesn't make for good material in christian-centric teaching, but it doesn't change reality.
Muslims (or better, Christians and some Hebrews employed by Muslims) began to translate Greek books into Arabic in the 8th-9th century, after the conquest of the Near East in the 7th century. The Roman Empire became a Christian Empire during the 4th century. Who do you think preserved those texts in the meantime (just 4 or 5 centuries, you know)? As a comparison Arabic texts were mainly translated into Latin in the 12th century, 3 or 4 century after they were translated from Greek.
You claim to have studied the 500-1000 AD period and Charlemagne and his public schools: then you should know the paucity of Greek scholars in Western Europe, which had hindered the diffusion of Greek texts for centuries. One of the best Greek translator at the court of the Frankish Kingdom was an Irish monk, Eriugena and that because Ireland was almost spare by the Barbarian Invasions and the chaos they sparked.
Early Christians did intentionally destroy Pagan writings, including Greek and Roman science, and even went so far as to rape and murder the academic Hypatia for the sake of their internal gossip.
Hypatia was caught in the middle of a power struggle between two christian factions. She was too close to one of them and then she was killed for political reasons. Some early Christians intentionally destroyed pagan writings, other early Christians intentionally preserved them: in the end it was preserved a lot, given the circumstances (complete destruction of civil institutions etc.).
All science from the Greeks and Romans was preserved exclusively by the Arab civilization.
It was preserved mostly by monks from the Middle Ages, especially Latin manuscripts.
It is just that history and reality are different than you know.
Indeed.
I like when pretentious, know-it-all grammar nazis suck thier own dick:
That would be an orthographic mistake, not a grammar one.
I missed an "s" when I added a "t" to clarify the original quote that read "boos": I'd use angular brackets to do a substitution, brace brackets for a suppression and square brackets for a restoration (look at Leiden conventions). Obviously that missing "t" wasn't the point of my comment (otherwise I would have not used the restoration symbol), however your snarky comment is and I am grateful to you, because you emphasized the point I was trying to make.
The Fermi Paradox is an utterly useless test. It takes variables you have no data on and then says to compute their probability.
There are not variables in the Fermi Paradox, otherwise it would not be a paradox but an equation or a function. I do not know why you mentioned an equation, but probably it is because you do not know what we are talking about.
Note: I find it particularly annoying that random guys on the internet think they are masters of the known universe and _every time_ there is a discussion, you have to read caustic, trenchant comments using words like "utterly useless", "drunk frat students", "easily published paper out to boo[t] their careers". Discussions are rational processes, not political calls to arms, where you have to convey simple concepts to masses of mindless commoners.
or distracting ourselves in such a way that we no longer pass tests as children anymore.
I suspect it's that coupled with "no child left behind act" style legislation, that lowers education standards.
The DNC email leak was from the DNC, not the Clinton server (and was years after Hillary left the Secretary of State office). It was done by phishing John Podesta's account:
There were three distinct leaks: one from the Clinton server, one from the DNC and one from Podesta. The Podesta leak has nothing to do with the DNC leak and the phished Podesta account is on gmail.
Or perhaps we are simply hitting some technological roadblock. It seems to me that they (at Intel) are scraping the bottom of the barrel to stay on top, because the technological progress in the area (especially for the x86 architecture) is reaching a plateau.