The information came from an Indian scientist, reported be New Scientist. No it should not be use as an example of the effects of Global Warming, but it in no way invalidates the science.
*snicker*
If I had a nickel for every time I've heard the warmists use the "does not invalidate the science" line, I'd be retired to a nice, warm climate myself. Like maybe Costa Rica. Considering how many of these studies have turned out to be flawed, just would it take to "invalidate the science"?
Reminds me of the creationists who keep telling us that dinosaur bones don't prove the earth isn't 6000 years old.
Given that Murdoch is a conservative, you would have to believe the "consistent with his views" is a sarcasm. Why would he think his products are exempt from market demand? Live by the free market, die by the free market. Or at least adapt to the market.
You also miss the point that multiculturalism is one of the greatest benefits of great cities like London. Why would you want to have less variety?
The problem is that "variety" that includes new and exciting opportunities for assaults against my person and property aren't the kind of variety I'm looking for.
Having the rape rate of my neighborhood tripled in exchange for a few new dishes to excite the yuppie palate doesn't seem like an advantageous trade-off to me.
Yes...yes! Maybe we could make them wear yellow crescents!
I'd prefer that to having them make me wear a yellow crucifix. How's Sharia law, honor killings and terrorist bombings working out for Britain?
“When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle”
You're making the standard mistake when assessing the value of education. Your criticisms would be valid if all education was supposed to do was provide utility to companies.
Regardless of what education is "supposed to do", the fact is that the incentive for most people to pursue one is very much to demonstrate their utility to employers. Again, as you point out yourself, your employer didn't hire you for what you learned in school, he hired you because it "proved you could think".
The point here is that your employer used your education as a proxy for an aptitude test, he didn't hire you because you actually knew anything useful to him. The employer could just as easily have given aptitude or IQ tests himself, but unfortunately those leave them open to charges of "discrimination" if the subject matter isn't directly related to the job qualifications. Bryan Caplan and Charles Murray have both written some very good articles on the relationship between education and job qualification.
I don't know what country you come from, but in the US it's been illegal for companies to give IQ tests since the 1970's. So employers are forced to find another proxy to measure aptitude. Of course, IQ tests were deemed "discriminatory" because the subject matter was not deemed directly related to job qualifications. Of course, frequently enough, neither are college degrees. The value of the college degree isn't so much the subject matter mastered, but as a signal that the holder has the aptitude and perseverance necessary to succeed in the job.
Well, I'm not sure this incident accurately represents the situation. On balance, the electronic components are safer than the mechanical ones. Electronic components can be automatically monitored and compensated for much more easily than mechanical ones. Sure, this incident isn't good, but one of the reasons it stands out is that safety issues caused by deficient electronic component failures are so rare. On balance, accidents caused by component failure in modern cars are rarer than they've ever been.
Right. I'm not even sure comparing hacking now to hacking in the 70s/80's is a valid comparison. A computer is a fairly unlimited device with no specific defined purpose. The whole point of it is to adapt it to your particular needs. iPhones and iPads, OTOH, have specific, defined purposes, they make assumptions about what the user is going to need, and their design goal is to deliver those specific functions simply and reliably. They offer a subset of computer functionality to an audience that is assumed not to be hackers.
Also, in the 80's networks were generally not the usual operating environment for the computer. Yes, there were BB's and such, but the standard operating environment was as a standalone machine. Today, the majority of content, and the programming to create the content, exists remotely on a server. The action, programming-wise, has moved away from manipulating the hardware of the local computer to manipulating the browser, or other client software.
I sympathize with the author's position, but I'm not sure the comparison is really valid anymore. You can still get a general purpose computer for hacking, if you want one, but these appliance devices aren't really designed to serve that audience.
Probably not enough to make it viable. Do you remember quadrophonic sound from the 70's? Another cute technology that turned out to have an unfavorable benefit to pain-in-the-ass ratio. Those kind of things don't tend to catch fire in the commercial market. Wake me up they figure out how to do it without the glasses.
Indeed. Government funding is the only way manned space flight has proceeded for the last 50 or so years. I'm as big on the free market as anyone, but there are some things worth doing that are simply not profitable in economic terms. In fact, some of humanity's greatest achievements obviously weren't profitable. I doubt the pyramids ever provided the Egyptians with a profit. Well - at least not for several thousand years.
Sure, private industry, say SpaceX, might be able to develop the technology. But who will be the customer? What company, with several billion dollars at it's disposal, has an incentive to go to the moon or Mars? What would the incentive be?
Why trust any electronic medium? I felt the same way about POTS at least as far back as 1972. Wire-tapping was probably invented the day after the telephone was.
I concluded long ago that all electronic communications are by definition insecure. If what you're communicating is really that private, say it in person or use the post office. Other than that, don't be surprised when you find out your private information, isn't.
...is that the shop I work in is replacing it's Sun, HPUX and AIX servers with Red Hat Linux clusters hand over fist. HP and IBM are making up the lost revenue selling us blade servers, which pretty much leaves Sun out in the cold, given that Sun hasn't really established themselves on commodity hardware. Sun's servers are great, of course, but I'm guessing that without a competitive commodity platform to get their foot in the door, they aren't going to be making most customers A list of vendors when they go shopping for high end hardware.
Well, the last time I went to vote in a primary, the precinct worker assumed I'd be asking for a Democratic ballot, and was surprised when I asked for a Republican one.
I figured it was time for a shave, haircut and a pair of jeans without holes in them.
Maybe it would be a good idea to put the space program under the DoD. Given the budget defense gets, the equivalent of NASA's funding would be a rounding error. The military gets what the military wants.
Escape velocity is such that while humans could be landed on Neptune or Uranus they couldn't be lifted off without advanced fusion powered rockets.
Yeah, well don't forget about the gravity. If humans landed on those planets I doubt they'd be very interested in taking off again. Although they might make good frisbees from then on.
This is just another step in the hollowing out of the state. Private firms already fight our wars. What's next, private firms taking over the "service" of governing the country? Oh wait...
Maybe it would be more to the point to turn the space program back over to the DoD. As nearly as I can tell, they're the only ones who still have the kind of budget to finance that kind of thing. I'm all for the private sector, but the problem with that is that the private sector needs to make money, and space travel isn't likely to be profitable for a long, long time. Unless NASA is going to be the customer for those services, relying on the private sector is essentially saying, "fuggedaboutit, kid".
He's certainly not lacking in ambition. But I'm wondering where he thinks he's going to get the money to finance some of these ambitious ideas. Somehow, I doubt the private sector is going to be interested in a project that will never show a profit, and the government isn't really in a position to be funding frivolous projects with marginal chances of success. Maybe he can talk the Chinese into footing the bill?
Funny, all the IT professionals and programmers I meet seem to be using MacBooks these days.
That's true, it's a great client for a Unix admin. You have your standard Unix tools available, and you have your commercial productivity apps for paper pushing as well. It makes a convenient package. The last time I went to a Sun seminar, at least a third of the attendees were carrying Macbooks.
Slashdot Mirror
The information came from an Indian scientist, reported be New Scientist. No it should not be use as an example of the effects of Global Warming, but it in no way invalidates the science.
*snicker*
If I had a nickel for every time I've heard the warmists use the "does not invalidate the science" line, I'd be retired to a nice, warm climate myself. Like maybe Costa Rica. Considering how many of these studies have turned out to be flawed, just would it take to "invalidate the science"?
Reminds me of the creationists who keep telling us that dinosaur bones don't prove the earth isn't 6000 years old.
Given that Murdoch is a conservative, you would have to believe the "consistent with his views" is a sarcasm. Why would he think his products are exempt from market demand? Live by the free market, die by the free market. Or at least adapt to the market.
You also miss the point that multiculturalism is one of the greatest benefits of great cities like London. Why would you want to have less variety?
The problem is that "variety" that includes new and exciting opportunities for assaults against my person and property aren't the kind of variety I'm looking for.
Having the rape rate of my neighborhood tripled in exchange for a few new dishes to excite the yuppie palate doesn't seem like an advantageous trade-off to me.
Yes...yes! Maybe we could make them wear yellow crescents!
I'd prefer that to having them make me wear a yellow crucifix. How's Sharia law, honor killings and terrorist bombings working out for Britain?
“When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle”
-- Louis Veuillot
You're making the standard mistake when assessing the value of education. Your criticisms would be valid if all education was supposed to do was provide utility to companies.
Regardless of what education is "supposed to do", the fact is that the incentive for most people to pursue one is very much to demonstrate their utility to employers. Again, as you point out yourself, your employer didn't hire you for what you learned in school, he hired you because it "proved you could think".
The point here is that your employer used your education as a proxy for an aptitude test, he didn't hire you because you actually knew anything useful to him. The employer could just as easily have given aptitude or IQ tests himself, but unfortunately those leave them open to charges of "discrimination" if the subject matter isn't directly related to the job qualifications. Bryan Caplan and Charles Murray have both written some very good articles on the relationship between education and job qualification.
I don't know what country you come from, but in the US it's been illegal for companies to give IQ tests since the 1970's. So employers are forced to find another proxy to measure aptitude. Of course, IQ tests were deemed "discriminatory" because the subject matter was not deemed directly related to job qualifications. Of course, frequently enough, neither are college degrees. The value of the college degree isn't so much the subject matter mastered, but as a signal that the holder has the aptitude and perseverance necessary to succeed in the job.
Offtopic, but it needs to be asked any time somebody has a scheme like this: what's your business model?
1. Build website.
2. Whore it on Slashdot.
3. ?????
4. Profit!
Wasn't it ideology that got us to the moon the first time?
Well, that and a fat tax-payer stuffed wallet, yes.
Well, I'm not sure this incident accurately represents the situation. On balance, the electronic components are safer than the mechanical ones. Electronic components can be automatically monitored and compensated for much more easily than mechanical ones. Sure, this incident isn't good, but one of the reasons it stands out is that safety issues caused by deficient electronic component failures are so rare. On balance, accidents caused by component failure in modern cars are rarer than they've ever been.
Right. I'm not even sure comparing hacking now to hacking in the 70s/80's is a valid comparison. A computer is a fairly unlimited device with no specific defined purpose. The whole point of it is to adapt it to your particular needs. iPhones and iPads, OTOH, have specific, defined purposes, they make assumptions about what the user is going to need, and their design goal is to deliver those specific functions simply and reliably. They offer a subset of computer functionality to an audience that is assumed not to be hackers.
Also, in the 80's networks were generally not the usual operating environment for the computer. Yes, there were BB's and such, but the standard operating environment was as a standalone machine. Today, the majority of content, and the programming to create the content, exists remotely on a server. The action, programming-wise, has moved away from manipulating the hardware of the local computer to manipulating the browser, or other client software.
I sympathize with the author's position, but I'm not sure the comparison is really valid anymore. You can still get a general purpose computer for hacking, if you want one, but these appliance devices aren't really designed to serve that audience.
If you have to wear glasses, will any bother?
Probably not enough to make it viable. Do you remember quadrophonic sound from the 70's? Another cute technology that turned out to have an unfavorable benefit to pain-in-the-ass ratio. Those kind of things don't tend to catch fire in the commercial market. Wake me up they figure out how to do it without the glasses.
Indeed. Government funding is the only way manned space flight has proceeded for the last 50 or so years. I'm as big on the free market as anyone, but there are some things worth doing that are simply not profitable in economic terms. In fact, some of humanity's greatest achievements obviously weren't profitable. I doubt the pyramids ever provided the Egyptians with a profit. Well - at least not for several thousand years.
Sure, private industry, say SpaceX, might be able to develop the technology. But who will be the customer? What company, with several billion dollars at it's disposal, has an incentive to go to the moon or Mars? What would the incentive be?
Troll. And fascist.
BTW, Latinos are in the West.
And, FWIW, "America" is an entire continent, not just the United States *OF* America...
Please, we'd rather forget that if we can....
Why trust any electronic medium? I felt the same way about POTS at least as far back as 1972. Wire-tapping was probably invented the day after the telephone was.
I concluded long ago that all electronic communications are by definition insecure. If what you're communicating is really that private, say it in person or use the post office. Other than that, don't be surprised when you find out your private information, isn't.
Good question, I don't do the purchasing so I couldn't tell you. But selling something is certainly preferable to selling nothing.
...is that the shop I work in is replacing it's Sun, HPUX and AIX servers with Red Hat Linux clusters hand over fist. HP and IBM are making up the lost revenue selling us blade servers, which pretty much leaves Sun out in the cold, given that Sun hasn't really established themselves on commodity hardware. Sun's servers are great, of course, but I'm guessing that without a competitive commodity platform to get their foot in the door, they aren't going to be making most customers A list of vendors when they go shopping for high end hardware.
Well, the last time I went to vote in a primary, the precinct worker assumed I'd be asking for a Democratic ballot, and was surprised when I asked for a Republican one.
I figured it was time for a shave, haircut and a pair of jeans without holes in them.
Maybe it would be a good idea to put the space program under the DoD. Given the budget defense gets, the equivalent of NASA's funding would be a rounding error. The military gets what the military wants.
with the US's new direction. It's now official. Technical leadership has been ceded to Asia.
Maybe it's time to elect some politicians interested in space.
Escape velocity is such that while humans could be landed on Neptune or Uranus they couldn't be lifted off without advanced fusion powered rockets.
Yeah, well don't forget about the gravity. If humans landed on those planets I doubt they'd be very interested in taking off again. Although they might make good frisbees from then on.
This is just another step in the hollowing out of the state. Private firms already fight our wars. What's next, private firms taking over the "service" of governing the country? Oh wait...
Then start voting for politicians that are actually interested in funding it.
Maybe it would be more to the point to turn the space program back over to the DoD. As nearly as I can tell, they're the only ones who still have the kind of budget to finance that kind of thing. I'm all for the private sector, but the problem with that is that the private sector needs to make money, and space travel isn't likely to be profitable for a long, long time. Unless NASA is going to be the customer for those services, relying on the private sector is essentially saying, "fuggedaboutit, kid".
He's certainly not lacking in ambition. But I'm wondering where he thinks he's going to get the money to finance some of these ambitious ideas. Somehow, I doubt the private sector is going to be interested in a project that will never show a profit, and the government isn't really in a position to be funding frivolous projects with marginal chances of success. Maybe he can talk the Chinese into footing the bill?
Funny, all the IT professionals and programmers I meet seem to be using MacBooks these days.
That's true, it's a great client for a Unix admin. You have your standard Unix tools available, and you have your commercial productivity apps for paper pushing as well. It makes a convenient package. The last time I went to a Sun seminar, at least a third of the attendees were carrying Macbooks.