Of course that doesn't explain the heaven part, but social memory tends to be persistent, and the fact we're talking about people moving house implies a certain age threshold. I'd be curious about any trends in the answers he's received tbh, as 20+ years is quite a long time...
Repetition does play a key-role, obviously, in enforcing lies
Even despite of agreeing with that statement, it doesn't describe the problem here. This article is about ignorance (vaccines provoking problems rather than solving them; a misconception which might have appeared for whatever reason) being reinforced with the repetition of reasonable explanations (sensible proofs about vaccines being good, which are misunderstood as lies by the target individuals who might be even plainly ignoring that new information).
Are you suggesting, as seems implicit in your statement, that vaccines never cause problems?
Fanatics don't want to actually confirm/dismiss their assumptions, to accept that they might have been wrong all the time, to be responsible for all the consequences of their errors, etc. For them, there is no difference between reasonable or unreasonable critics; everything either supports or attacks their blind beliefs.
The main problem is that in the 1960ies and 1970ies, Global Cooling was a threat.
No, it wasn't. Stop parroting memes based on FUD & bullshit.
It may not have been a threat but it was certainly reported as being a threat (source: my memory of reading articles in serious papers and magazines - albeit I was doing that reading in the 80's).
However, it was not 'considered' a threat in the same way, or to the same degree, that AGW is 'considered' today.
His death was a tragic loss. It makes me sad when I think I'm never going to read another new Bank's sci fi. Fortunately there's still a couple of his fiction novels that I haven't read yet.
Alastair Reynolds comes close, however, and what he writes, for the most part, counts as 'decent real SF'.
can it answer the question which heroes are over- or underpowered?
Assumption detected...;-)
In a game of rock paper scissors which hand sign is overpowered? It seems to me that it's this balance of power that the game devs are aiming for. Which then leads back to your question... and, in fairness, your final point.
It was obvious that e-sports will be short-lived because bots are going to beat us all within a short time
Only if they're allowed to enter. Otherwise, sanitised computers with only the required software (i.e. the game in question) installed will ensure the competition is limited to the human participants you can see on the gaming stage. Online gaming, on the other hand, is already exactly as you say. The various cheats and hacks that already exist make playing many online "pvp" games an exercise in frustration and futility.
Having said that however, what amazes me about the entire subject is what no-one mentions: Responsibility.
I'm not talking about responsible development of AI, I'm talking about our responsibilities to any true AI we create. If we have a child we, as parents, have a responsibility to feed it, nurture it, educate it, socialise it, and so on, at least until it becomes an adult in its own right (How we might decide this, for a new form of life is subject for another discussion). Surely we would have the same responsibilities to any other truly intelligent entity we 'give birth' to? And with that responsibility would come the one that says we can no longer, on a whim, just decide to turn it off.
To be honest, until mankind steps up and is willing to assume responsibility I'm not sure we deserve these 'children', and if we blindly push ahead regardless I can't help but wonder if we don't deserve everything we get.*
*Okay, so this is hyperbole! Damning the majority of the human race because of the ignorance and 'sociopathy' of the few is not something I advocate, but sometimes I do despair...
As it happens I have read it, but it appears I'm too tolerant of the 'diversity of opinions' to burn someone at the stake for giving his honest (if, as already stated, unpopular) opinion, in response to a request for his opinion. It appears Google's senior management do not see things the same way. In fairness I can see why they'd be upset by the title and some of the contents of his memo, but the, in my opinion, overreaction by them, the bloggers who hyped (and misrepresented) the story, the liberal media (who I generally agree with on most things), and some of the other employees at Google is vastly out of proportion to his 'crime'.
Regarding the censorship issue I guess I was thinking about it from a moral perspective, rather than a purely legal one. It's not that I don't understand the difference between a business and the government, but that doesn't mean I have to agree that it shouldn't still apply, as a general principle, in all walks of life. Besides, I wasn't arguing in a court of law:-)
Although 'scumbag' was a bit harsh, I confess my first reaction on reading about that complaint was similar to yours.
However, having followed the links back to the source of that titbit I think you might be misunderstanding / misrepresenting the situation somewhat. By my reading, he did not file the complaint with the NLRB until after his memo was made public (by someone other than him, and presumably not at his behest) and it was clear that the shit was hitting the fan. That sounds more like a necessary act of self defense, rather than a premeditated act of malice.
As to whether he wanted to start a fight*... I can't speak for his motivations, only he can do that, but, now that things have gotten really messy, we'd unfortunately have to take anything he says regarding them with a pinch of salt - however presumption of innocence is still a useful guiding principle in my opinion.
*If you'd phrased it as "he was willing to take (an unpopular) part in an uncomfortable discussion" we'd have no disagreement. But, please consider, if censorship is bad how can self censorship, for fear of violating the status quo, be any better?
I get it, Google had to fire this guy because all the SJWs said "I won't work with a shitlord like him."
Sarcasm noted, point made, although the language used opens you up to 'boomerang abuse'.
Continuing with GP for a moment:
So if another company was packed with racists who said "I won't work with an African-American" then I guess they better fire that guy too. Nothing personal, we gotta fire you when the majority hates you!
Although the two situations are not quite the same, race being something you cannot discriminate against while personal opinion is not similarly protected, the situations are close enough that the comparison holds validity, and you are clearly correct. They're firing the wrong person / people.
And now to your misrepresentation:
It has nothing to do with SJWs and more to do with destroying the cohesiveness of a team and making other team members uncomfortable by making disparaging comments about them due to their gender.
You've repeated this accusation again and again over the last few days, in this thread and others related to the subject. Each time someone corrects you, yet it doesn't seem to have got through. Firstly he did not make 'disparaging' comments about anyone, based on gender* or otherwise. Secondly the only people destroying the cohesiveness of the 'team' are those saying "I will not work with that person".
* Just in case it's not been clear from everything that's been written, suggesting that there might be biological reasons why a mythical average woman might not want to work in a technological career is not being disparaging, not to women in general, nor to specific women already working in technology. You know why not? Because there's no such thing as the 'average woman', which explains my use of the word mythical. Suggesting that a system of positive discrimination, when it comes to making hiring decisions, might not be the best way to address any perceived workplace gender inequality is not being disparaging** to women, it's a (to me) bloody obvious statement about the standard of your hires.
**However, at this point I can see that anyone within any minority grouping that has been hired under such a system might reasonably ask themselves "Was I hired on my ability, or for 'the other' reason?" Was this the author's intention? Honestly, I can't speak for him, though, given everything else he wrote I strongly suspect not. If anything it's a disparagement of the system, not any specific hires under it. Moreover, Is it important? No, not really. If you've been hired, if you're now doing your job competently, who cares? And, sorry to say, if you do still care, if you're one of those who having had this spectre raised in your mind refuse to work with the author of the memo then you're no longer doing your job, at all, let alone competently, and it is you that needs letting go, not the author.
If a labor pool is available, it is likely that someone else would invest or start a business there instead. So this factory may just be replacing one set of jobs with another.
Except, of course, that free movement of labour is also one of the tenets of the free market. And, yeah, I know some people may not be able to move for 'social' reasons, but there's always plenty more people, somewhere, who can. So, other than starting a local business, the only reason to start is business there is because it's going to make more money there than starting it elsewhere.
The difference is that the alternative jobs wouldn't get any tax breaks...
Exactly my point above (Yes, you may call me cynical)
...so the people of Wisconsin might have been better off if they had declined Foxconn's offer.
I suspect it's more a case that Foxconn said something like "We're going to be investing in a factory in the US, who's going to offer to 'benefit' from our largesse?" and the various states fell over themselves in an orgy of mutual back scratching: "We'll start the bidding at a 5% tax break, for 2000 jobs over a 10 year period", "No, come here instead, we'll offer a 10% tax rebate, for 3000 jobs, guaranteed for 10 years", and so on...
And, just to return to the beginning: They say that Christopher Columbus was the first economist. When he left to discover America, he didn't know where he was going; when he got there he didn't know where he was; and it was all done on a government grant.
Interesting article, and graphs, for all that they're 4 to 5 years old now, but so much wrong with what you wrote...
So the theory has no proof
So the graphs* you're citing as evidence (or lack of evidence, w/e), which clearly show a trend of warming over the last 30 years, albeit not in line with the climate models of the time, aren't evidence of warming? I'm puzzled, how is a graph showing warming not evidence of warming?
ALL THE MODELS ARE WRONG THAT MEANS THE THEORY IS WRONG
I have a model of the solar system, an orrery. It shows the relative position of the planets and moons as they orbit. The strange thing is, over time the position of the planets and moons in the model cease to exactly mirror their positions in reality. Does this mean the theory of gravity, or general relativity, is wrong**? Or is it that the solar system is complex, while the orrery is a simple model, and over time errors will accumulate?
That aside, your premise does not support your conclusion. The model being wrong doesn't, in itself, say anything about the underlying theory. Even the article you linked to doesn't say that, merely that (the NASA scientist quoted suspects that) some of the feedback effects, specifically that of water vapour, are being incorrectly modeled.
IF GLOBAL WARMING WAS CAUSED BY HUMAN INDUCED CO2 EMISSIONS THE MODELS WOULDN'T BE COMPLETELY FUCKING WRONG
If only the atmosphere were as 'simple' as your arguments, I suspect the models would match recorded data (even those data that disagree with each other) perfectly.
retards
Does a retard know he's a retard? I don't feel particularly stupid, not in isolation nor in comparison to most people I meet. Projection? Pfft, not important, and not particularly nice, either way!
*Graphs show tropospheric temperatures for an area to 20 degrees either side of the equator. They don't show warming for the rest of the atmosphere, nor sea temperatures.
**Yeah, so some scientific theories aren't 'right' (Newtonian gravity for example) per se, but they do provide us with a 'good enough to be getting on with' idea, that mirrors reality closely enough for most purposes. Knowing it's not the entire story doesn't stop us not falling off the planet...
While you make a very good point I thought the article was actually about how the 'next billion' would input their wishes to computers, not how computers would be delivering the information.
So, reverse the situation, as you describe it... and you end up with something like this
Yes, voice recognition is getting better, just ask Siri, Google, or Alexa, but I'd still call it a recipe for frustration in anything but the simplest and most ideal situation.
I honestly do not fully understand all the Musk / Tesla hate that's been going on recently, particularly on slashdot, however...
Stockholders have floated Tesla's value to such highs because they're invested in the future of the company
If memory serves even Elon said fairly recently that he thought Tesla stock was 'overpriced'. (No, sorry I do not have any citation for that, just a vague memory - can't say it troubles me one way or the other)
Now I generally don't follow share prices but, if my memory is correct, that would explain the rumours of the recent shorts on Tesla's stock. Taking those rumours along with the fact that the share price didn't take a downward correction following Elon's announcement I guess that means there's some people that potentially stand to lose a fair amount of money, and, further, stand to not make vastly larger sums of money.
My heart bleeds for them!/s
As for these bonds, from everything I've seen over the last couple of years, I'd have no hesitation in buying them as a 'sensible' investment*.
*I am not an investment advisor. What I'd consider sensible might not be sensible for you. The value of any investment you make can go down as well as up, blah blah blah...
Not pick-up trucks, They're called pick-up trucks. The larger vehicles called trucks in the US are what are called lorries in the UK.
Hmm, we tend to refer to them as "Chelsea Tractors", you know, the 4WD vehicles that have never seen a road outside of London and the home counties, and are generally only used for ferrying Tarquin and Arabella to prep school and back, or the weekly shop to Waitrose.
It does appear that I have been guilty of "defend(ing) on the bias of intuition alone, teaching methods that are not the most effective". Not that I'd ever have suggested doing away with directed learning, or that I'd use unguided learning in blatantly inappropriate situations (for example with students with no fore-knowledge or existing schema), but reading that has provided plenty of food for thought.
In a discussion of global warming the temperature of the earth during the late heavy bombardment (or indeed any time period in which man didn't exist) is irrelevant.
Sneering, and telling people they're wrong, whilst being only technically correct yourself, by ignoring the implicit context is essentially trolling.
Why then does being rated a troll come as any surprise to you?
The Dollar is a reserve currency, albeit currently the majority one, accounting for just under two thirds of foreign exchange holdings. There are maybe half a dozen major currencies that are used, the second largest being the Euro, which accounts for about 20% of the total.
and so by definition the US has to run a trade deficit,
With your original statement (premise) being incorrect your inference is similarly wrong. The US could be exporting goods and services to other countries to the same degree it's importing them, but being paid for them in Euros (European Union), or Sterling (UK), or Renminbi (China), or Yen (Japan) and so on. That it's not is the reason there is such a predominance of the Dollar as a reserve currency... Well, that's also untrue, to a degree, as there's a host of historical reasons why the dollar is the dominant currency, but in a simplistic balance of trade equation the statement holds. Your 'argument' puts the cart before the horses however.
Interesting thought: leaders of other countries like to complain about some imagined benefit the US gains from the dollar as reserve currency, one 'benefit' of which is said to be a stronger-than-it-should-be dollar; but anytime any of their currencies appreciate, they immediately move to stem the rise by -- for instance-- selling the local currency and buying US treasuries.
Heh, this much is true, but that has more to do with maintaining exchange rates and thus export pricing, which is a roundabout way of saying engaging in protectionism. Very sensible for a country that wants to maintain its manufacturing industry (for example).
Another interesting thought: reserve currency status requires a floating rate with VERY liquid markets able to absorb any size trade at any time of day or night. Talk of anything supplanting the dollar is way premature, it will be decades before the renminbi or any other currency is ready; and why would anyone want to give up control of their currency for the perceived benefits?
Again, I have to point out the dollar is not the only reserve currency, it's simply the largest. I'd also like to point out that when the dollar became the de-facto standard it wasn't the largest, sterling was. That it became the largest was in part social (Yen and Deutchmarks were not in favour for some strange reason), in part political (governments decided to make the dollar a key part of global reserve currencies) and in part due to the strength of the US economy over that latter part of the 20th century.
Now ask yourself, is global politics the same today? Are the same social bonds (on a national scale) in place? Which economies are the most powerful, and how fast are they growing, relatively?
Your conclusions, especially with regards the timescale, are shaky at best.
The current players seem to prefer being able to maintain strategic weakness against the dollar, while simultaneously jawboning about how awful it is that that lazy Americans run big deficits and exhibit a 'savings shortage'.
Well, DUH!;-)
The US trade imbalance has nothing to do with cultural factors, lazy workers, or similar nonsense--it is required by the simple algebra of capital and current accounts.
Yes, and no. It has little to do with lazy workers etc. but it is not 'required' as you suggest. More it is a byproduct of multiple state actors operating in a global free market economy (and some 'unwise' decisions by US politicians).
From TFS: In place of the lecture, "cases are presented"
Which sounds a lot like a lecture. Where's the "active learning"? Students are supposed to be doing stuff themselves. Having pre-prepared cases presented to them is not "active".
There are medical schools in the UK that have been doing this sort of thing for years now, although rather than "cases" they present "case-studies", and ask their classes to work through them. In other words the students are doing exactly what they would once they become doctors, in a safe environment, where no-one is reliant upon their calculations or diagnoses, and where the outcomes are known, and can be discussed in detail at the end. Initial indications are that this involved form of learning is far superior to a chalk and talk lecture covering the same subject matter.
Programming ought to be ideal for active learning. It would be, if the majority of students were motivated enough to study materialbefore coming to class. Reality intervenes: too few bachelor's students are that mature and that organized.
Can't really disagree with any of that. I was one of those immature BSc. CS students, too many years ago now, and that remains one of my life's regrets. However, most of my peers managed to motivate themselves to do at least the necessary minimum.
The best compromise I have found is to lecture the first half of the period, and help students work on exercises during the second half. Our periods are 3-4 hours, and no one wants a lecture that long anyway.
I suspect no-one wants a 2 hour long lecture either. There's a reason good courses vary their structure, including: lectures, labs, group work, self study, seminars and tutorials. Each of these elements serves its own purpose, focusing on different aspects of 'educatability' (And no, I'm not really talking about learning styles here, more soft skills, like focus, concentration, sociability, self direction, motivation, etc.)
But the next administrator who comes along and tells me to stop lecturing entirely needs to catch one upside the head.
I think the only way for a baseline neutral is opposing views. I don't think CNN's or Fox's bias are bad. I think they are both equally biased in opposite directions. By regularly paying attention to both of them, you can get a fairly neutral view.
Sounds fine in principle, but this is exactly how we ended up with "teach the controversy" the "global warming debate" and the "vaccination scare".
Opposing views do not always have the same weight or basis in fact. Presenting them as if they do does not make the presentation baseline neutral, it biases it towards the lunatic fringe.
Politicisation of science is just about the worst thing that could have happened both for politics and for science!
... That is a horrible thing to say. If we can eliminate genetic disease we should. Those people that are plagued by those diseases will be better off.
Whilst I tend to agree with you there are 'diseases' for which opinion is divided, such as some forms of congenital deafness. There are some parents who vociferously argue against curing their progeny, saying that it takes away as much as it gives. I'm not deaf, so I can't comment from a personal perspective, but, given that one's first language influences neuronal development (or at least development of thought processes), having a child whose primary means of communication is sign language would seems to give weight to this opinion.
We have the luxury to question 'should a technology be developed' because others recognized that it should even when they didn't understand all the huge implications. Our lives are better because of it.
You could equally argue that we have that luxury to question whether a technology should be developed because others recognised that it shouldn't, even when they didn't understand all the implications. You don't need to understand all the implications to recognise that one that you can see is a deal breaker.
Please note, I'm partly playing Devil's Advocate here, but do genuinely think that responsible research, based on informed discussion (along the lines of what took place at Asilomar back when biotech crossed the line from science fiction to real science) is a better way forward than an unregulated free for all. However I also strongly suspect, given my penchant for science fiction, that the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. What we can imagine, someone will attempt, somewhere...
Of course you are, until someone takes all your stuff you cry like a bitch that not enough is being done to protect you.
You don't know me, so I'll forgive your projection.
It was Churchill who said "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter"
Churchill also said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others". So unless you another another suggestion, we're stuck with democracy, and based on all recent elections, most people prefer a little security in their lives.
Actually I do have another suggestion, although it's not aimed at doing away with democracy just elections. The short version is to have a government actually of the people, where our MP's are chosen in the same way as we choose juries, randomly. This system, known as sortition, completely negates the worst aspects, as I see it, of politics, although it does introduce other 'issues' that would need to be addressed (that's in the long version).
And, yes, once more I am keenly aware of the irony of disparaging the 'average voter' then suggesting they be made an MP. Fortunately I can see shades of grey...
Fascinating that it takes about ten seconds with Google to prove my claims are correct yet you seem utterly uninterested in even that minor effort. Speaks volumes about your desire to know the truth of the situation.
Fascinating that you can both take offence at an innocuous comment, and completely misconstrue the point...
I did not, and do not, disagree with what you wrote, nor was it news to me.
My point was that, despite being correct,your post got modded down while the GP's, being broadly incorrect, did not.
In other words my original 'fascination' was with the thought processes of the moderators.
Would you like a glass of water to help wash down the taste of crow? Care to admit you're wrong so you don't seem so much like a smug, ignorant ass?
Now, perhaps you'd care to point out, in my original post, where I was "wrong"? Or perhaps you'd care to step off your high horse for a second, so you can read what was actually written, as opposed to ranting at what was not said?
Were you planning on 'requiring' everybody to register their opinion?
*And beware over-glorification of democracy, after all that's how we (the UK) ended up voting to leave the EU, even though less than half the population voted to do so. We also voted against changing the way we voted (i.e the Alternative Vote) a few years ago, even though, with the possible exception of one or two edge cases, it was a 'fairer' system.
It was Churchill who said "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter", and while I can see the irony in quoting a politician 'arguing' against democracy in a thread dealing with the plans of a Home Secretary who would love nothing more than to do away with democracy, you have to admit he did have a point.
Slashdot Mirror
I can hazard a guess:
Something they've seen.
Of course that doesn't explain the heaven part, but social memory tends to be persistent, and the fact we're talking about people moving house implies a certain age threshold. I'd be curious about any trends in the answers he's received tbh, as 20+ years is quite a long time...
Repetition does play a key-role, obviously, in enforcing lies
Even despite of agreeing with that statement, it doesn't describe the problem here. This article is about ignorance (vaccines provoking problems rather than solving them; a misconception which might have appeared for whatever reason) being reinforced with the repetition of reasonable explanations (sensible proofs about vaccines being good, which are misunderstood as lies by the target individuals who might be even plainly ignoring that new information).
Are you suggesting, as seems implicit in your statement, that vaccines never cause problems?
Fanatics don't want to actually confirm/dismiss their assumptions, to accept that they might have been wrong all the time, to be responsible for all the consequences of their errors, etc. For them, there is no difference between reasonable or unreasonable critics; everything either supports or attacks their blind beliefs.
Think carefully, before you answer...
No, it wasn't. Stop parroting memes based on FUD & bullshit.
It may not have been a threat but it was certainly reported as being a threat (source: my memory of reading articles in serious papers and magazines - albeit I was doing that reading in the 80's).
However, it was not 'considered' a threat in the same way, or to the same degree, that AGW is 'considered' today.
His death was a tragic loss. It makes me sad when I think I'm never going to read another new Bank's sci fi. Fortunately there's still a couple of his fiction novels that I haven't read yet.
Alastair Reynolds comes close, however, and what he writes, for the most part, counts as 'decent real SF'.
can it answer the question which heroes are over- or underpowered?
Assumption detected... ;-)
In a game of rock paper scissors which hand sign is overpowered? It seems to me that it's this balance of power that the game devs are aiming for. Which then leads back to your question ... and, in fairness, your final point.
It was obvious that e-sports will be short-lived because bots are going to beat us all within a short time
Only if they're allowed to enter. Otherwise, sanitised computers with only the required software (i.e. the game in question) installed will ensure the competition is limited to the human participants you can see on the gaming stage. Online gaming, on the other hand, is already exactly as you say. The various cheats and hacks that already exist make playing many online "pvp" games an exercise in frustration and futility.
Wish I had mod points left!
Having said that however, what amazes me about the entire subject is what no-one mentions: Responsibility.
I'm not talking about responsible development of AI, I'm talking about our responsibilities to any true AI we create. If we have a child we, as parents, have a responsibility to feed it, nurture it, educate it, socialise it, and so on, at least until it becomes an adult in its own right (How we might decide this, for a new form of life is subject for another discussion). Surely we would have the same responsibilities to any other truly intelligent entity we 'give birth' to? And with that responsibility would come the one that says we can no longer, on a whim, just decide to turn it off.
To be honest, until mankind steps up and is willing to assume responsibility I'm not sure we deserve these 'children', and if we blindly push ahead regardless I can't help but wonder if we don't deserve everything we get.*
*Okay, so this is hyperbole! Damning the majority of the human race because of the ignorance and 'sociopathy' of the few is not something I advocate, but sometimes I do despair...
Fair points.
As it happens I have read it, but it appears I'm too tolerant of the 'diversity of opinions' to burn someone at the stake for giving his honest (if, as already stated, unpopular) opinion, in response to a request for his opinion. It appears Google's senior management do not see things the same way. In fairness I can see why they'd be upset by the title and some of the contents of his memo, but the, in my opinion, overreaction by them, the bloggers who hyped (and misrepresented) the story, the liberal media (who I generally agree with on most things), and some of the other employees at Google is vastly out of proportion to his 'crime'.
Regarding the censorship issue I guess I was thinking about it from a moral perspective, rather than a purely legal one. It's not that I don't understand the difference between a business and the government, but that doesn't mean I have to agree that it shouldn't still apply, as a general principle, in all walks of life. Besides, I wasn't arguing in a court of law :-)
Although 'scumbag' was a bit harsh, I confess my first reaction on reading about that complaint was similar to yours.
However, having followed the links back to the source of that titbit I think you might be misunderstanding / misrepresenting the situation somewhat. By my reading, he did not file the complaint with the NLRB until after his memo was made public (by someone other than him, and presumably not at his behest) and it was clear that the shit was hitting the fan. That sounds more like a necessary act of self defense, rather than a premeditated act of malice.
As to whether he wanted to start a fight*... I can't speak for his motivations, only he can do that, but, now that things have gotten really messy, we'd unfortunately have to take anything he says regarding them with a pinch of salt - however presumption of innocence is still a useful guiding principle in my opinion.
*If you'd phrased it as "he was willing to take (an unpopular) part in an uncomfortable discussion" we'd have no disagreement. But, please consider, if censorship is bad how can self censorship, for fear of violating the status quo, be any better?
From GP:
I get it, Google had to fire this guy because all the SJWs said "I won't work with a shitlord like him."
Sarcasm noted, point made, although the language used opens you up to 'boomerang abuse'.
Continuing with GP for a moment:
So if another company was packed with racists who said "I won't work with an African-American" then I guess they better fire that guy too. Nothing personal, we gotta fire you when the majority hates you!
Although the two situations are not quite the same, race being something you cannot discriminate against while personal opinion is not similarly protected, the situations are close enough that the comparison holds validity, and you are clearly correct. They're firing the wrong person / people.
And now to your misrepresentation:
It has nothing to do with SJWs and more to do with destroying the cohesiveness of a team and making other team members uncomfortable by making disparaging comments about them due to their gender.
You've repeated this accusation again and again over the last few days, in this thread and others related to the subject. Each time someone corrects you, yet it doesn't seem to have got through. Firstly he did not make 'disparaging' comments about anyone, based on gender* or otherwise. Secondly the only people destroying the cohesiveness of the 'team' are those saying "I will not work with that person".
* Just in case it's not been clear from everything that's been written, suggesting that there might be biological reasons why a mythical average woman might not want to work in a technological career is not being disparaging, not to women in general, nor to specific women already working in technology. You know why not? Because there's no such thing as the 'average woman', which explains my use of the word mythical. Suggesting that a system of positive discrimination, when it comes to making hiring decisions, might not be the best way to address any perceived workplace gender inequality is not being disparaging** to women, it's a (to me) bloody obvious statement about the standard of your hires.
**However, at this point I can see that anyone within any minority grouping that has been hired under such a system might reasonably ask themselves "Was I hired on my ability, or for 'the other' reason?" Was this the author's intention? Honestly, I can't speak for him, though, given everything else he wrote I strongly suspect not. If anything it's a disparagement of the system, not any specific hires under it. Moreover, Is it important? No, not really. If you've been hired, if you're now doing your job competently, who cares? And, sorry to say, if you do still care, if you're one of those who having had this spectre raised in your mind refuse to work with the author of the memo then you're no longer doing your job, at all, let alone competently, and it is you that needs letting go, not the author.
Many economists would disagree.
And many would agree, and many would disagree with both of the previous groups, and still more would disagree with all the others.
Remember, economists assume everything except responsibility!
If a labor pool is available, it is likely that someone else would invest or start a business there instead. So this factory may just be replacing one set of jobs with another.
Except, of course, that free movement of labour is also one of the tenets of the free market. And, yeah, I know some people may not be able to move for 'social' reasons, but there's always plenty more people, somewhere, who can. So, other than starting a local business, the only reason to start is business there is because it's going to make more money there than starting it elsewhere.
The difference is that the alternative jobs wouldn't get any tax breaks...
Exactly my point above (Yes, you may call me cynical)
...so the people of Wisconsin might have been better off if they had declined Foxconn's offer.
I suspect it's more a case that Foxconn said something like "We're going to be investing in a factory in the US, who's going to offer to 'benefit' from our largesse?" and the various states fell over themselves in an orgy of mutual back scratching: "We'll start the bidding at a 5% tax break, for 2000 jobs over a 10 year period", "No, come here instead, we'll offer a 10% tax rebate, for 3000 jobs, guaranteed for 10 years", and so on...
And, just to return to the beginning: They say that Christopher Columbus was the first economist. When he left to discover America, he didn't know where he was going; when he got there he didn't know where he was; and it was all done on a government grant.
Interesting article, and graphs, for all that they're 4 to 5 years old now, but so much wrong with what you wrote...
So the theory has no proof
So the graphs* you're citing as evidence (or lack of evidence, w/e), which clearly show a trend of warming over the last 30 years, albeit not in line with the climate models of the time, aren't evidence of warming? I'm puzzled, how is a graph showing warming not evidence of warming?
ALL THE MODELS ARE WRONG
THAT MEANS THE THEORY IS WRONG
I have a model of the solar system, an orrery. It shows the relative position of the planets and moons as they orbit. The strange thing is, over time the position of the planets and moons in the model cease to exactly mirror their positions in reality. Does this mean the theory of gravity, or general relativity, is wrong**? Or is it that the solar system is complex, while the orrery is a simple model, and over time errors will accumulate?
That aside, your premise does not support your conclusion. The model being wrong doesn't, in itself, say anything about the underlying theory. Even the article you linked to doesn't say that, merely that (the NASA scientist quoted suspects that) some of the feedback effects, specifically that of water vapour, are being incorrectly modeled.
IF GLOBAL WARMING WAS CAUSED BY HUMAN INDUCED CO2 EMISSIONS THE MODELS WOULDN'T BE COMPLETELY FUCKING WRONG
If only the atmosphere were as 'simple' as your arguments, I suspect the models would match recorded data (even those data that disagree with each other) perfectly.
retards
Does a retard know he's a retard? I don't feel particularly stupid, not in isolation nor in comparison to most people I meet. Projection? Pfft, not important, and not particularly nice, either way!
*Graphs show tropospheric temperatures for an area to 20 degrees either side of the equator. They don't show warming for the rest of the atmosphere, nor sea temperatures.
**Yeah, so some scientific theories aren't 'right' (Newtonian gravity for example) per se, but they do provide us with a 'good enough to be getting on with' idea, that mirrors reality closely enough for most purposes. Knowing it's not the entire story doesn't stop us not falling off the planet...
While you make a very good point I thought the article was actually about how the 'next billion' would input their wishes to computers, not how computers would be delivering the information.
So, reverse the situation, as you describe it ... and you end up with something like this
Yes, voice recognition is getting better, just ask Siri, Google, or Alexa, but I'd still call it a recipe for frustration in anything but the simplest and most ideal situation.
I honestly do not fully understand all the Musk / Tesla hate that's been going on recently, particularly on slashdot, however...
Stockholders have floated Tesla's value to such highs because they're invested in the future of the company
If memory serves even Elon said fairly recently that he thought Tesla stock was 'overpriced'. (No, sorry I do not have any citation for that, just a vague memory - can't say it troubles me one way or the other)
Now I generally don't follow share prices but, if my memory is correct, that would explain the rumours of the recent shorts on Tesla's stock. Taking those rumours along with the fact that the share price didn't take a downward correction following Elon's announcement I guess that means there's some people that potentially stand to lose a fair amount of money, and, further, stand to not make vastly larger sums of money.
My heart bleeds for them! /s
As for these bonds, from everything I've seen over the last couple of years, I'd have no hesitation in buying them as a 'sensible' investment*.
*I am not an investment advisor. What I'd consider sensible might not be sensible for you. The value of any investment you make can go down as well as up, blah blah blah...
It is because in Britain they are called Lorry.
Not pick-up trucks, They're called pick-up trucks. The larger vehicles called trucks in the US are what are called lorries in the UK.
Hmm, we tend to refer to them as "Chelsea Tractors", you know, the 4WD vehicles that have never seen a road outside of London and the home counties, and are generally only used for ferrying Tarquin and Arabella to prep school and back, or the weekly shop to Waitrose.
Or, for the book worms amongst us...
(And it's a damn good read!)
Thank you, I had not seen that review before.
It does appear that I have been guilty of "defend(ing) on the bias of intuition alone, teaching methods that are not the most effective". Not that I'd ever have suggested doing away with directed learning, or that I'd use unguided learning in blatantly inappropriate situations (for example with students with no fore-knowledge or existing schema), but reading that has provided plenty of food for thought.
My thanks again!
It kinda comes down to context.
In a discussion of global warming the temperature of the earth during the late heavy bombardment (or indeed any time period in which man didn't exist) is irrelevant.
Sneering, and telling people they're wrong, whilst being only technically correct yourself, by ignoring the implicit context is essentially trolling.
Why then does being rated a troll come as any surprise to you?
The dollar is the reserve currency
The Dollar is a reserve currency, albeit currently the majority one, accounting for just under two thirds of foreign exchange holdings. There are maybe half a dozen major currencies that are used, the second largest being the Euro, which accounts for about 20% of the total.
and so by definition the US has to run a trade deficit,
With your original statement (premise) being incorrect your inference is similarly wrong. The US could be exporting goods and services to other countries to the same degree it's importing them, but being paid for them in Euros (European Union), or Sterling (UK), or Renminbi (China), or Yen (Japan) and so on. That it's not is the reason there is such a predominance of the Dollar as a reserve currency... Well, that's also untrue, to a degree, as there's a host of historical reasons why the dollar is the dominant currency, but in a simplistic balance of trade equation the statement holds. Your 'argument' puts the cart before the horses however.
Interesting thought: leaders of other countries like to complain about some imagined benefit the US gains from the dollar as reserve currency, one 'benefit' of which is said to be a stronger-than-it-should-be dollar; but anytime any of their currencies appreciate, they immediately move to stem the rise by -- for instance-- selling the local currency and buying US treasuries.
Heh, this much is true, but that has more to do with maintaining exchange rates and thus export pricing, which is a roundabout way of saying engaging in protectionism. Very sensible for a country that wants to maintain its manufacturing industry (for example).
Another interesting thought: reserve currency status requires a floating rate with VERY liquid markets able to absorb any size trade at any time of day or night. Talk of anything supplanting the dollar is way premature, it will be decades before the renminbi or any other currency is ready; and why would anyone want to give up control of their currency for the perceived benefits?
Again, I have to point out the dollar is not the only reserve currency, it's simply the largest. I'd also like to point out that when the dollar became the de-facto standard it wasn't the largest, sterling was. That it became the largest was in part social (Yen and Deutchmarks were not in favour for some strange reason), in part political (governments decided to make the dollar a key part of global reserve currencies) and in part due to the strength of the US economy over that latter part of the 20th century.
Now ask yourself, is global politics the same today? Are the same social bonds (on a national scale) in place? Which economies are the most powerful, and how fast are they growing, relatively?
Your conclusions, especially with regards the timescale, are shaky at best.
The current players seem to prefer being able to maintain strategic weakness against the dollar, while simultaneously jawboning about how awful it is that that lazy Americans run big deficits and exhibit a 'savings shortage'.
Well, DUH! ;-)
The US trade imbalance has nothing to do with cultural factors, lazy workers, or similar nonsense--it is required by the simple algebra of capital and current accounts.
Yes, and no. It has little to do with lazy workers etc. but it is not 'required' as you suggest. More it is a byproduct of multiple state actors operating in a global free market economy (and some 'unwise' decisions by US politicians).
From TFS: In place of the lecture, "cases are presented"
Which sounds a lot like a lecture. Where's the "active learning"? Students are supposed to be doing stuff themselves. Having pre-prepared cases presented to them is not "active".
There are medical schools in the UK that have been doing this sort of thing for years now, although rather than "cases" they present "case-studies", and ask their classes to work through them. In other words the students are doing exactly what they would once they become doctors, in a safe environment, where no-one is reliant upon their calculations or diagnoses, and where the outcomes are known, and can be discussed in detail at the end. Initial indications are that this involved form of learning is far superior to a chalk and talk lecture covering the same subject matter.
Programming ought to be ideal for active learning. It would be, if the majority of students were motivated enough to study materialbefore coming to class. Reality intervenes: too few bachelor's students are that mature and that organized.
Can't really disagree with any of that. I was one of those immature BSc. CS students, too many years ago now, and that remains one of my life's regrets. However, most of my peers managed to motivate themselves to do at least the necessary minimum.
The best compromise I have found is to lecture the first half of the period, and help students work on exercises during the second half. Our periods are 3-4 hours, and no one wants a lecture that long anyway.
I suspect no-one wants a 2 hour long lecture either. There's a reason good courses vary their structure, including: lectures, labs, group work, self study, seminars and tutorials. Each of these elements serves its own purpose, focusing on different aspects of 'educatability' (And no, I'm not really talking about learning styles here, more soft skills, like focus, concentration, sociability, self direction, motivation, etc.)
But the next administrator who comes along and tells me to stop lecturing entirely needs to catch one upside the head.
Amen brother!
I think the only way for a baseline neutral is opposing views. I don't think CNN's or Fox's bias are bad. I think they are both equally biased in opposite directions. By regularly paying attention to both of them, you can get a fairly neutral view.
Sounds fine in principle, but this is exactly how we ended up with "teach the controversy" the "global warming debate" and the "vaccination scare".
Opposing views do not always have the same weight or basis in fact. Presenting them as if they do does not make the presentation baseline neutral, it biases it towards the lunatic fringe.
Politicisation of science is just about the worst thing that could have happened both for politics and for science!
Clearly it's both, funny because it's true.
... That is a horrible thing to say. If we can eliminate genetic disease we should. Those people that are plagued by those diseases will be better off.
Whilst I tend to agree with you there are 'diseases' for which opinion is divided, such as some forms of congenital deafness. There are some parents who vociferously argue against curing their progeny, saying that it takes away as much as it gives. I'm not deaf, so I can't comment from a personal perspective, but, given that one's first language influences neuronal development (or at least development of thought processes), having a child whose primary means of communication is sign language would seems to give weight to this opinion.
We have the luxury to question 'should a technology be developed' because others recognized that it should even when they didn't understand all the huge implications. Our lives are better because of it.
You could equally argue that we have that luxury to question whether a technology should be developed because others recognised that it shouldn't, even when they didn't understand all the implications. You don't need to understand all the implications to recognise that one that you can see is a deal breaker.
Please note, I'm partly playing Devil's Advocate here, but do genuinely think that responsible research, based on informed discussion (along the lines of what took place at Asilomar back when biotech crossed the line from science fiction to real science) is a better way forward than an unregulated free for all. However I also strongly suspect, given my penchant for science fiction, that the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. What we can imagine, someone will attempt, somewhere...
I'm ok with it too, and accept the risk.
Of course you are, until someone takes all your stuff you cry like a bitch that not enough is being done to protect you.
You don't know me, so I'll forgive your projection.
It was Churchill who said "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter"
Churchill also said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others". So unless you another another suggestion, we're stuck with democracy, and based on all recent elections, most people prefer a little security in their lives.
Actually I do have another suggestion, although it's not aimed at doing away with democracy just elections. The short version is to have a government actually of the people, where our MP's are chosen in the same way as we choose juries, randomly. This system, known as sortition, completely negates the worst aspects, as I see it, of politics, although it does introduce other 'issues' that would need to be addressed (that's in the long version).
And, yes, once more I am keenly aware of the irony of disparaging the 'average voter' then suggesting they be made an MP. Fortunately I can see shades of grey...
Fascinating that it takes about ten seconds with Google to prove my claims are correct yet you seem utterly uninterested in even that minor effort. Speaks volumes about your desire to know the truth of the situation.
Fascinating that you can both take offence at an innocuous comment, and completely misconstrue the point...
I did not, and do not, disagree with what you wrote, nor was it news to me.
My point was that, despite being correct,your post got modded down while the GP's, being broadly incorrect, did not.
In other words my original 'fascination' was with the thought processes of the moderators.
Would you like a glass of water to help wash down the taste of crow? Care to admit you're wrong so you don't seem so much like a smug, ignorant ass?
Now, perhaps you'd care to point out, in my original post, where I was "wrong"? Or perhaps you'd care to step off your high horse for a second, so you can read what was actually written, as opposed to ranting at what was not said?
I'm ok with it too, and accept the risk.
Were you planning on 'requiring' everybody to register their opinion?
*And beware over-glorification of democracy, after all that's how we (the UK) ended up voting to leave the EU, even though less than half the population voted to do so. We also voted against changing the way we voted (i.e the Alternative Vote) a few years ago, even though, with the possible exception of one or two edge cases, it was a 'fairer' system.
It was Churchill who said "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter", and while I can see the irony in quoting a politician 'arguing' against democracy in a thread dealing with the plans of a Home Secretary who would love nothing more than to do away with democracy, you have to admit he did have a point.
Unlike myself... ;-)
As you were.