The right tool for the right job. The job being asymmetrical warfare.
Just like few (here) had heard of IEDs before the Iraqi insurgents made them popular. It's the right tool for the job, developed for that job. IEDs would not be good for an advancing tank column. Or against aerial bombardment.
While this blimp wouldn't last long against the Russians or those dirty Canadians, it should help against small unit insurgencies.
India keeps trying to put forth the trappings of wealth without actually having the wealth first. A rich country with a developed infrastructure and minimal poverty has excess wealth that it can spend on this kind of research. A space program is something a rich country develops with excess cash. Or they can show their wealth by regularly going on fabulously expensive foreign military (mis)adventures.
India has a large GDP, but its per-capita GDP, the one that counts, is very low. 129th in the world, out of 183.
India needs to develop its infrastructure - roads, rail, electricity, sewers. And become a net exporter instead of a net importer, the model which developing countries typically follow. And stop wasting money on space programs. It's good research, but it's not something they ought to be spending scarce resources on, when their per-capita GDP is so low and infrastructure is so rickety.
That way we could see what our representatives are really voting for or against. Voting for one thing at a time would allow real debate on the issues and slow down the legislative process, not merely gridlock it for no coherent reason.
This "bundle everything into large bills and engage in horsetrading" is just a mechanism for politicians to obfuscate their voting records.
It's just a giant obfuscation technique. The politicians love the power and circumstance of their position, but they hate taking responsibility for leadership. However, leadership means taking responsibility. Political office should not be a lifetime career.
Most politicians simply have a lust for power completely detached from any social vision or principles.
"Access to power must be confined to those who are not in love with it." -- Plato.
With 30-thousand some traffic fatalities a year, it would be well worth it.
I mean, there are like 20-30 some common scenarios that kids could be faced with in the simulator. Experiences they could have without being actual near misses. Or hits, like the unfortunates who don't make it, or are maimed. You get your driver's test after you've completed all the scenarios and have done actual driving time.
Experienced drivers are better because of their experience and near misses over the years.
He could have been more clear and specific. But exactly which part of his statement if demonstrably, factually incorrect?
As I said, it's misleading, but it's technically sound.
Statement 1: "Thomas Edison invented the light bulb." Statement 2: "Thomas Edison took the initiative in creating the light bulb."
Statement 2 is very weasel-worded. What exactly does it mean to "take the initiative in creating the [product X]"? It is supposed to imply, instead of outright state, a fact. And allow the audience to infer the apparent meaning, which is evidently "invent". While still, if cornered, allow dissembling. And with enough dissembling, people's eyes will glaze over, and the dissembler will declare victory.
It's a good political statement. Which is why we're analyzing it 13 years later. But technically sound? No. If I wrote a specification in a technical manual with that level of ambiguity, I would be made an example of.
1) One can either Create OR Invent the first of a product, although "create" is very clumsy in that context:
"Thomas Edison created the light bulb, which revolutionized society." "Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, which revolutionized society."
2) However, once a product is in production, it can only be created:
"Herbert Frankel created a light bulb, which allowed him to pass his ENME 435 elective."
3) Also, "Create THE" suggests, but does not unquestionably mean, invention; versus "Create A" unquestionably means producing a previously existing item:
"His resume stated that "Herbert Frankel created the light bulb.""
This clearly implies he invented the light bulb, but provides some very minor ambiguity for Herbert to say that he was actually referring to the light bulb in his ENME 435 class. Definitely deceptive.
Summary: Al Gore Rhythm's statement was clumsy politi-speak, hamfistedly designed the use the minor ambiguity in the term "create" in order to implicitly take credit for something, yet not directly say so. Because explicitly stating he had invented the Internet would have been trivial to refudiate.
Regarding fracking... yeah, it makes me uncomfortable. They pump large amounts of water and other "stuff" underground. It may or may not contaminate ground water supplies. It is capable of contaminating ground water if something unexpected happens. And unexpected things do happen. Also, they won't tell us what the "stuff" they're pumping exactly is.
Try argon or carbon dioxide. Both are heavier than air so will be easier to manage. They will naturally tend to flow down, like water. With a heavier than air gas, you can just pump it in, in a still air environment, using a best guess method to figure out when the container is nearly pure argon or CO2.
Carbon dioxide is (in)famous for this property in Africa. Volcanoes will belch out CO2 every so often and it accumulates in depressions in the ground, where animals and children can be overcome by it. Here's an extreme example of it.
Is it wrong of me to be disheartened that this CME isn't stronger?
I won't lie, a fairly large part of me (the part where the evil genius lives) wants a very very powerful geomagnetic storm to devistate our powergrids, knock out communications, fry satelites, and cause general chaos and havok.
Is it so wrong?
"Some men just want to watch the world burn." - Alfred Pennyworth
The problem is the complete lack of any serious reform. Too Big To Fail, a major issue, is even worse today than it was in 2008. The failed banks are merged with larger banks with the government absorbing significant losses.
Basically, the current system uses tax money to fund Wall Street profits. Bad loans which the government insures or buys means tax money goes to make the loan good, making the lender whole, and leaves the taxpayer on the hook. With government debt at 100% GDP, the government should not be funneling money to Wall Street for pure profit, and getting nothing in return.
Tax money should be used for public goods, not Wall Street profits. That system has not changed in any significant way. The Too Big To Fail banks are completely and totally backstopped by the government. And that means these entities have a direct line to the public treasury.
Creative destruction is desperately necessary at the top. The people who orchestrated this debacle are still in power, both in finance and politics. They rose to the top because of their ability to create and prosper in this terribly flawed system. To think they'll voluntarily change it when it rewards them so handsomely is completely unrealistic.
X in this case is stupid and/or not motivated. Y in this case is smart and/or motivated.
That's the issue the question is raising.
On the other hand, if you are in an environment which is below your "Peter Principle" level, you should try to find one which challenges you and improves your skill set.
Also, while it's important to have a strong sense of self, it's also important to be able to understand other people's points of view, if you wish to be successful in the work world, and are not that elite irreplaceable genius who is a pillar of the organization.
And obviously, yes, people should be willing to learn new things. Learning new things takes intelligence and actual effort. For everyone but the smart and motivated, this is not something they are keen to do.
From reading the article, it sounds like the Pauls are more afraid of the government than corporations, which is a mistake IMHO. Eisenhower talked of the Military-Industrial complex. It's all slowly merging into one giant GovCorp, where the politicians and top corporate executives entrench themselves further and further, scratching each other's backs.
There's the concept of "Creative Destruction." The working classes are well acquainted with it. The problem is that where it's needed most, at the top of the political system and in financial sectors, it's almost completely prevented from occurring.
From that article: "In an extractive economy, such as the Belgian Congo and its successor state, Zaire, a narrow elite seizes power and uses its control of resources to prevent social change... Much of current economic policy seems to be driven by the need to prop up banks, whether it is record-low interest rates across the developed world or the recent provision of virtually unlimited liquidity by the once-staid European Central Bank. The long-term effects of these policies, which may be hard to reverse, are difficult to assess."
'Net neutrality' means government acting as arbiter and enforcer of what it deems to be 'neutral'."
They apparently don't understand "Net Neutrality." They seem to think it's some political content issue rather than preventing throttling of packets based on their source or content.
Somehow, this move reeks of opportunism - they have not shown any real understanding of Internet privacy, and certainly haven't "walked the walk."
The Internet allows the only real free flow of information nowadays. That's why keeping it open is so important. Without the Internet, the only information we'd get would come from CNN, Fox, BBC, ABC, CBS, etc.
The Internet is only free press. Hence the desire to keep it unfettered.
Assange better watch himself. The US is/has been involved in a lot of corruption in its politics and its financial sector, and it fields assassination teams around the world. However it's not going to directly kill Assange for embarrassing/inconveniencing it.
The same cannot be said for Russia and a host of other countries.
n addition, it became painfully clear that the proper preventative tree trimming had not been done. In the resultant study / inquiry into the unprecedented outages we learned the largest power company, CT Light & Power, had gradually cut funding to its line maintenance trimming over the years. I'd be curious to know what the trendline is in the hardest hit areas for line maintenance spending.
Unfortunately, maintenance tasks are often like this. Executives see them as only money sinks, not yielding any benefit. The public doesn't perceive any benefits when "things continue to work as normal." So maintenance gradually sinks. It's only when SHTF does the focus come back on maintenance.
My freedom is to choose to not let the free-market make my decisions, based on what would be profitable this month. I choose to be altruistic and not say fuck the rest of you people.
It's not altruistic. Trying to raise the standard of living for all of society means they're less likely f-ck with me. It means they're less likely to be hungry and diseased and prone to civil unrest. Seeing them better off means they have fewer kids, they're less anti-social and hopefully more informed. These things are in MY benefit. And yours.
There is the concept of a "public good" - a good which would have too high a cost/benefit ratio for an individual or company to create but could be created if the society pooled its resources. Plus the benefits would be much higher to the individual than his contribution.
Then there is the concept of a "natural monopoly" - a business which has very high barriers to entry. Think of the infrastructure of a utility or water system, or a railroad.
So, yes - the private sector would probably come up with a few private roads, the use for which they would charge monopolistic costs.
Ultimately, society needs to determine what is best for the most people. Not just blindly espouse principals or concepts for which the rationale does not lead to the most public benefit. The Mafia is a business. It is left as an exercise to the reader why the Mafia business is prohibited by the society yet other businesses are allowed to exist.
Slashdot Mirror
'Tis a shame. But you can't run a car on that yet.
Yes, but you can run golf carts on it: http://www.ezgo.com/powerfilm_solar_technology.html
The right tool for the right job. The job being asymmetrical warfare.
Just like few (here) had heard of IEDs before the Iraqi insurgents made them popular. It's the right tool for the job, developed for that job. IEDs would not be good for an advancing tank column. Or against aerial bombardment.
While this blimp wouldn't last long against the Russians or those dirty Canadians, it should help against small unit insurgencies.
India keeps trying to put forth the trappings of wealth without actually having the wealth first. A rich country with a developed infrastructure and minimal poverty has excess wealth that it can spend on this kind of research. A space program is something a rich country develops with excess cash. Or they can show their wealth by regularly going on fabulously expensive foreign military (mis)adventures.
India has a large GDP, but its per-capita GDP, the one that counts, is very low. 129th in the world, out of 183.
India needs to develop its infrastructure - roads, rail, electricity, sewers. And become a net exporter instead of a net importer, the model which developing countries typically follow. And stop wasting money on space programs. It's good research, but it's not something they ought to be spending scarce resources on, when their per-capita GDP is so low and infrastructure is so rickety.
That way we could see what our representatives are really voting for or against. Voting for one thing at a time would allow real debate on the issues and slow down the legislative process, not merely gridlock it for no coherent reason.
This "bundle everything into large bills and engage in horsetrading" is just a mechanism for politicians to obfuscate their voting records.
It's just a giant obfuscation technique. The politicians love the power and circumstance of their position, but they hate taking responsibility for leadership. However, leadership means taking responsibility. Political office should not be a lifetime career.
Most politicians simply have a lust for power completely detached from any social vision or principles.
"Access to power must be confined to those who are not in love with it." -- Plato.
With 30-thousand some traffic fatalities a year, it would be well worth it.
I mean, there are like 20-30 some common scenarios that kids could be faced with in the simulator. Experiences they could have without being actual near misses. Or hits, like the unfortunates who don't make it, or are maimed. You get your driver's test after you've completed all the scenarios and have done actual driving time.
Experienced drivers are better because of their experience and near misses over the years.
It would save a lot of lives.
Statement 1: "Thomas Edison invented the light bulb."
Statement 2: "Thomas Edison took the initiative in creating the light bulb."
Statement 2 is very weasel-worded. What exactly does it mean to "take the initiative in creating the [product X]"? It is supposed to imply, instead of outright state, a fact. And allow the audience to infer the apparent meaning, which is evidently "invent". While still, if cornered, allow dissembling. And with enough dissembling, people's eyes will glaze over, and the dissembler will declare victory.
It's a good political statement. Which is why we're analyzing it 13 years later. But technically sound? No. If I wrote a specification in a technical manual with that level of ambiguity, I would be made an example of.
1) One can either Create OR Invent the first of a product, although "create" is very clumsy in that context:
"Thomas Edison created the light bulb, which revolutionized society."
"Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, which revolutionized society."
2) However, once a product is in production, it can only be created:
"Herbert Frankel created a light bulb, which allowed him to pass his ENME 435 elective."
3) Also, "Create THE" suggests, but does not unquestionably mean, invention; versus "Create A" unquestionably means producing a previously existing item:
"His resume stated that "Herbert Frankel created the light bulb.""
This clearly implies he invented the light bulb, but provides some very minor ambiguity for Herbert to say that he was actually referring to the light bulb in his ENME 435 class. Definitely deceptive.
Summary: Al Gore Rhythm's statement was clumsy politi-speak, hamfistedly designed the use the minor ambiguity in the term "create" in order to implicitly take credit for something, yet not directly say so. Because explicitly stating he had invented the Internet would have been trivial to refudiate.
"One of the most common arguments against a scientific finding is confirmation bias: the scientist or scientists only look for data that confirms a desired conclusion." And ignore data that doesn't support. It's how a high school term paper is written.
Regarding fracking... yeah, it makes me uncomfortable. They pump large amounts of water and other "stuff" underground. It may or may not contaminate ground water supplies. It is capable of contaminating ground water if something unexpected happens. And unexpected things do happen. Also, they won't tell us what the "stuff" they're pumping exactly is.
Try argon or carbon dioxide. Both are heavier than air so will be easier to manage. They will naturally tend to flow down, like water. With a heavier than air gas, you can just pump it in, in a still air environment, using a best guess method to figure out when the container is nearly pure argon or CO2.
Carbon dioxide is (in)famous for this property in Africa. Volcanoes will belch out CO2 every so often and it accumulates in depressions in the ground, where animals and children can be overcome by it. Here's an extreme example of it.
People, people - don't hate. Just conversate. And commentate.
"Some men just want to watch the world burn." - Alfred Pennyworth
"We can't outrun it. Turn to radial one-eight-zero, stop; one-five, stop. Full power to forward battle screens. Brace for impact."
The problem is not bank failure. The FDIC regularly seizes banks on Bank Failure Friday. Banks fail all the time:
http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html
The problem is the complete lack of any serious reform. Too Big To Fail, a major issue, is even worse today than it was in 2008. The failed banks are merged with larger banks with the government absorbing significant losses.
Basically, the current system uses tax money to fund Wall Street profits. Bad loans which the government insures or buys means tax money goes to make the loan good, making the lender whole, and leaves the taxpayer on the hook. With government debt at 100% GDP, the government should not be funneling money to Wall Street for pure profit, and getting nothing in return.
Tax money should be used for public goods, not Wall Street profits. That system has not changed in any significant way. The Too Big To Fail banks are completely and totally backstopped by the government. And that means these entities have a direct line to the public treasury.
Creative destruction is desperately necessary at the top. The people who orchestrated this debacle are still in power, both in finance and politics. They rose to the top because of their ability to create and prosper in this terribly flawed system. To think they'll voluntarily change it when it rewards them so handsomely is completely unrealistic.
X in this case is stupid and/or not motivated.
Y in this case is smart and/or motivated.
That's the issue the question is raising.
On the other hand, if you are in an environment which is below your "Peter Principle" level, you should try to find one which challenges you and improves your skill set.
Also, while it's important to have a strong sense of self, it's also important to be able to understand other people's points of view, if you wish to be successful in the work world, and are not that elite irreplaceable genius who is a pillar of the organization.
And obviously, yes, people should be willing to learn new things. Learning new things takes intelligence and actual effort. For everyone but the smart and motivated, this is not something they are keen to do.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
-- Lewis Carroll, "Through The Looking Glass"
From reading the article, it sounds like the Pauls are more afraid of the government than corporations, which is a mistake IMHO. Eisenhower talked of the Military-Industrial complex. It's all slowly merging into one giant GovCorp, where the politicians and top corporate executives entrench themselves further and further, scratching each other's backs.
There's the concept of "Creative Destruction." The working classes are well acquainted with it. The problem is that where it's needed most, at the top of the political system and in financial sectors, it's almost completely prevented from occurring.
The Economist had an interesting article entitled "The question of extractive elites."
From that article: "In an extractive economy, such as the Belgian Congo and its successor state, Zaire, a narrow elite seizes power and uses its control of resources to prevent social change... Much of current economic policy seems to be driven by the need to prop up banks, whether it is record-low interest rates across the developed world or the recent provision of virtually unlimited liquidity by the once-staid European Central Bank. The long-term effects of these policies, which may be hard to reverse, are difficult to assess."
Good catch.
FTA:
They apparently don't understand "Net Neutrality." They seem to think it's some political content issue rather than preventing throttling of packets based on their source or content.
The Internet allows the only real free flow of information nowadays. That's why keeping it open is so important. Without the Internet, the only information we'd get would come from CNN, Fox, BBC, ABC, CBS, etc.
The Internet is only free press. Hence the desire to keep it unfettered.
Assange better watch himself. The US is/has been involved in a lot of corruption in its politics and its financial sector, and it fields assassination teams around the world. However it's not going to directly kill Assange for embarrassing/inconveniencing it.
The same cannot be said for Russia and a host of other countries.
Unfortunately, maintenance tasks are often like this. Executives see them as only money sinks, not yielding any benefit. The public doesn't perceive any benefits when "things continue to work as normal." So maintenance gradually sinks. It's only when SHTF does the focus come back on maintenance.
Romney will say whatever he thinks he needs to, so he can get power. Much like most politicians.
It's not altruistic. Trying to raise the standard of living for all of society means they're less likely f-ck with me. It means they're less likely to be hungry and diseased and prone to civil unrest. Seeing them better off means they have fewer kids, they're less anti-social and hopefully more informed. These things are in MY benefit. And yours.
There is the concept of a "public good" - a good which would have too high a cost/benefit ratio for an individual or company to create but could be created if the society pooled its resources. Plus the benefits would be much higher to the individual than his contribution.
Then there is the concept of a "natural monopoly" - a business which has very high barriers to entry. Think of the infrastructure of a utility or water system, or a railroad.
So, yes - the private sector would probably come up with a few private roads, the use for which they would charge monopolistic costs.
Ultimately, society needs to determine what is best for the most people. Not just blindly espouse principals or concepts for which the rationale does not lead to the most public benefit. The Mafia is a business. It is left as an exercise to the reader why the Mafia business is prohibited by the society yet other businesses are allowed to exist.
Yep. A "derecho" : http://www.spc.noaa.gov/misc/AbtDerechos/derechofacts.htm
It's a weather phenomenon.