It's a little disappointing to see definitions narrowed subjectively...please post definitive source...may lead to interesting debate. OTOH...open source components of robotics platforms are worthy of note. Several ag companies (think commodity organizations) have sorted corn, etc by the kernel at very high speeds for many years using air jets to select/deselect off-color, irregularly shaped kernels...but the rudimentary tech, while fairly simple, is not OS...could be the rate of performance gains and cost-benefit would improve with more eyes on problem...might even reach the farm level, where the help could tilt the balance of power toward the producer.
It is very cool...and it has the potential to re-cast the balance of the productivity vs labor equation in the manufacturing sector. I think what most folks respond to negatively is about government start-up money (public risk) that is potentially privatised into a less than benevolent monopoly (private profits). Advanced agreements like corporate citizenship covenants (explicit social contracts) might be very handy in easing the transition pains potentially caused by such disruptive advancements.
Equality is not exclusively a communist goal. I'm wondering how you separate the notion people are willing to pay more for better targeted, higher quality and/or cooperative products? I'm pretty sure your pessimistic view has no more power than an optimistic one. On the other hand, I will say (while we are talking "trips") that robotics appears to be viewed as a disruptive force more often than before...and it's a good thing to advocate reason and humanity to ease the (potentially inevitable) transition pains. Vote your conscience with your wallet.
TROLL... makes me 50 shades of sad. Please...allocate the time and energy to understand something before you speak definitively about it. The mortgage crisis was caused by the implied leverage of insured investments...which became a global pathology in the banking/investment industry. This TROLL is akin to blaming the sheep for being eaten at the watering hole because they must drink. It became an epidemic because the institutionals made so much money running it up. What occurred was criminal at so many levels it is apparent this simplistic, deflective troll is beyond absurd and insulting.
HOW DOES THIS GET MODDED UP TO 5...INFORMATIVE?
Thanks for your remarks if you are genuinely trying to educate me to the "party line", but the naivete of your apparent belief makes me a little sad...you skip over the obvious institutional preference and try to sell me that it helps me too...then you want to sell "the market can't handle" the information so dark pools are kept dark to protect the market? I am simply saying I can make more money (and protect my money better) with complete, accurate and timely information. The institutionals have enough advantage.
Please don't lecture me about price and the bad old days...reasonable regulatory options have zero chance of being explored, much less passed. I guess next you are going to sell the old "we just don't know what to do" argument...here in the 21st century we have raised the art of regulation to a baroque form of the expression. Take a deep breath and rethink your position...you are not only being played but you are trying to become a mouthpiece. There is an antidote for the potion...but you will have to first be honest with yourself.
You can't sell equality and secrecy without first selling "trust me"....and I don't.
Diverting an order into a dark pool is meant to HIDE information from HFT guys.
Reminds me of the rationale for surveillance. Secrecy is needed because of the boogey man...precisely the wrong approach. Give everyone equal access to the same information and require complete disclosure...same effect...cannot avoid having to choose who to trust.
Doesn't every heist begin with moving the victim to an "unlit" room?
...so the analytics vendors become third party "contract discriminators" (not greatly different from "third party torturers!" or "data collectors?"). I have long seen discrimination as the rationale for the secrecy behind "Fair Isaac". At the end of the day...doesn't the public (an individual) have the right to know the metrics applied to him at a policy level...such metrics could essentially be considered extra-judicial accusations...should we not be guaranteed the opportunity to face policy accusations as well...or at least know the rules? I'm pretty sure this is one of the underlying principals of the civil rights movement...at some level, institutionalized racial discrimination provided a safe hiding place for the darkest of man's intentions. Naturally we are struggling to come to terms with the social implications of this "new science"...lest we forget that it is not only manipulable, but fallible. Hopefully we can get a handle on it before it becomes yet another source of public shame or worse.
My favorite part is the obligatory insult to anyone who disagrees with you. FYI, as a mining operation, actual recovery labor cost is not a material concern in the long run (gnats and camels). Paying "big" taxes should not eliminate environmental responsibility...I don't think O&G should get the tax breaks/incentives they get now...it's a "national energy policy" thing...I don't expect you to understand that either but have a look at the cost/tax structure and some alternate information sources for yourself...you might realize your arguments simply don't make sense. I have no desire to educate you but the O&G companies do...its called misinformation...and you have obviously taken the potion. Next party platform issue...drilling restrictions...right by the playbook...just get in the sound byte. I think I will choose to position myself as your your opposition and simply agree to disagree before you hurt yourself trying to actually "deconstruct" something you obviously don't understand. I don't normally respond to TV driven lines of irrationality. May I assist your spelling and or word usage...http://grammartips.homestead.com/than.html...damages your credibility even before you comments might. Never argue with a fool...
THIS...is the problem. Easy as the practical limit, generic to remain indistinguishable (or at least harmless) yet ineffective as an aggregator of sentiment or momentum. What's missing may be more fundamental. Isn't this really about transparency and accountability (the answer is yes if you have ever ought information about such conduct). Such ethical conundrums require an element of will/desire to preserve a baseline of integrity as a first line of defense (self governance). Failing that, the cascade of increasing resistance to discovery/censure has to be de-railed and the monetary requirement removed. Corruption is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the presence of apathy...it must be prioritized. Once embedded, there is no simple solution.
This appeal's underlying agenda is perfect for sheeple looking for place to conveniently off load their emotional burden...however it completely lacks credibility in its attempt to tie the price trend of energy to the responsibility for ecological damage. Further, implying that energy pockets the cost of prevention/remediation is specious...at a minimum. Attempts to reverse the psychology with a conspiracy theory is sadly laughable. Next the author posits that fracking is driven solely by market price considerations...which is only the convenient half of the equation implying that if constraints of ecological responsibility were lifted the price would come down and fracking would not be as profitable...bullshit...plain and simple bullshit. First...the inconvenient half of the equation is that if the cost of fracking went up enough to make it less profitable...say from environmental regulations/responsibility, for example...then it would also be less attractive....and we might still have unspoilt ground water supplies in reserve for our offspring. Additionally, fracking is process generally used to extend the life of low pressure/flow wells which generally implies they have already been in production and are probably paid out (except in the case of a change of ownership which establishes a new basis to be worked off). Consequently, virtually any revenue from a paid well is generally considered "gravy"...so the deals are substantially less brittle to commodity price variations...meaning that de-regulating actions such as easing ecological constraints actually tend to drive the incidence of risky behavior (think cheap deadly chemicals and an increase in low margin plays). But the Good Lord only knows we wouldn't want to be part of a conspiracy against our friends in the energy sector. Then he finishes up with a defeatist ploy that batteries could never work so we should just give up and give our friends in the energy sector what they need to provide us with cheap, boundless energy...you know...because THAT is their mission statement...being the altruistic lot they are...because further batteries will only be affordable to the wealthy? Please...for the love of Mike...someone explain how this post got modded up to 5 Insightful...it is complete rubbish.
Ha...a very efficient pre-process step for high quality compost is the swine/bovine/equine alimentary...however said pre-process does little to prevent germination of grain seed. As such, a/b/e soil additives from exclusively fed sources could carry a premium price to account for shifting traditionally post-process steam treatment (to prevent undesirable germination) to a pre-process via the local brewery. In fact, I distinctly remember (sorry, too lazy to run down the reference) an FDA study on grain alcohol production quoting the commercial benefit of animal fodder resulting from alcohol processing by-products. This kind of logic (akin to the commerce clause in reach) could end up as a rationale for the highly suspect FDA to become a an impediment to virtually any aspect of our daily lives by virtue of its connection to the food chain...everything is on its way to somewhere in the ecosystem. It is a matter of proximate cause...and clearly a stretch. There are plenty of ways to track feeding for public health surveillance without creating additional unnecessary burden.
Pardon my straight forward reply...but that's plain stupid...it is the definition of insanity...unless you want to support the development of a surveillance state...then nevermind...perfect plan. This appointment is an epic blunder on so many levels it defies imagination. These guys have to believe there is no reason to avoid the appearance of impropriety...potentially coercion could explain it. Tin foil hat time.
This cavalier approach to the protection of rights of industry does not account for the potential that careful, specified products could be accomplished by a well funded adversary. Or do you believe these groups do not exist? Makes me sad and tired.
CNC technology in prototyping has been around for years...only very expensive to purchase, highly technical to operate, and difficult to pay for in a non-production environment because of the cost of set-up. For 3D printing to go mainstream several gaps may have to be filled in the production cucle. The purchase price is definitely lower...which makes paying for it more likely. Unfortunately, for these specialised machines to spit out merchantable products requires a fairly large collaboration of expertise unavailable to the average user...from material science to design specification to integration of potential products. If the "3D printing industry" can close these gaps more cost effectively than their competition, then they may succeed. However, my first thought always moves to "What advancements have been quietly made in CNC machining industry that mirror the popular 3D printing advancements?"...and how will those plastic parts compete with other materials as the gaps begin to fill in...because those improvements will ultimately be available to all groups. Admittedly, I haven't given stereolithography a fair assessment because of the material constraint. By the time I have invested all the design and specification into a part, I realize material selection is only a small part of the total cost of the first n parts...so, I don't risk my investment on questionable selection of materials. Possibly what may be missing in this discussion is the realization that there is a huge difference between prototyping and production. Prototyping is where the disciplines aggregate...and when functioning properly...collaborate to make the best decisions from the pallette of alternatives. Right now, if you can specify what you want, you can have short run parts machined cost effectively in a variety of places. Moving the 3D part out of prototyping to compete in production will not be easy. It makes me wonder if those interested in 3D printing have a clear understanding of the CNC alternatives and where in the design/production cycle the 3D printed part actually belongs.
As a retired instrument maker, I can only say there is a LOT more to distinguishing an instrument than the sound it emanates. First, sound and vibration are inherently fragile and travel though both the air (the "sound") and materials of the instrument (the "report" - a tactile impression). Secondly, the set-up of the instrument is very personal and is sorted out over time for optimum results. Discernment of instruments in such tests have all the credibility of food taste test on advertising. This is not to say I believe current valuations are reasonable or justified...but to attempt to disprove the existence of differences in these instruments only proves the existence of an agenda on the part of the tester.
As the/. collective honed the "facist" term to a more concise local meaning, the quality of discussion improved because its application came to imply a certain mindset. Lately, fundamentalism has been getting a lot of air-time. Collectively developing inclusive definitions of the various tropes of fundamentalism will also facilitate discussions in this vein of exploring edge conditions of superstition and reductionist thinking...and particularly in the service of "scientific" rigor as a sole source of "truth". There is (and rightfully should be) a defensible position between scientific "proof" and anecdotal evidence...else we risk loss of black-swan type discoveries/advancements and the value of unexplainable evidence prior to the advent of the mythical "wholly deterministic" state. The pessimistic view that labels a sense of wonder as pseudo-science is no more valid than the optimistic view that refuses to acknowledge the shortcomings of scientific methods. Likely the critical difference (very difficult to teach in the classroom) lies in judgement of the intent of the purveyor which, if appended to each item in the bullet list, would make for a much more meaningful conversation...as that is where this discussion must inevitably lead if critical thinking is the goal. Critical thought must then recognized as an applied process (hopefully improved by new information and trial/error) with the potential to produce wildly divergent reinforcement (positive/negative) in the absence of ongoing open interpretation (momentum). For example, when negative impacts of policy implementation are ignored or not recognized or simply misunderstood (unaffective)...it is easy to find examples of false positive reinforcement. However the critical differentiator lies in intent, more fully evidenced in the causal chain. Thus the difference between a politician and a statesman, the value of reputation (interpretation of the causal chain) and importance of ongoing interpretation of experience, new information and the ability to shift point-of-view (open minded education) hinges on intent...and must be tempered with restraint and tolerance as to content and patience guidance concerning intent. Intent is often a proxy for the subjective “why” of the common 5 part objective scientific or investigative presentation (who/what/when/where/why) and should always be reserved as subjective. Honest observers will readily acknowledge numerous historical instances of failings connected to the “why” regardless of how much “scientific” evidence points to an accepted interpretation of an outcome. The scientific method is brittle, narrow and easily subverted...we should try to keep that in mind lest we begin to believe it can be a proxy for truth or intent,
building on this...poking fun (or sneering) at science is actually an identity function among a suspicious segment of the population that does not trust science and actually looks down on those that do...as lacking in common sense and/or moral fibre. This section is absolutely in love with the pre-fundamentalist, magical thought that their faith obviates science. It's an underlying code of communication among people who want to believe simplicity is an answer to its own question. The world has become too complex for some humans to find peace within it. Faith simplifies this dilemma. Naturally, if you are seeking answers where you should not be meddling, then you lack sufficient faith to be trusted to behave...and will have to be suppressed by the faithful. Fundamentalist thought is a defense manifestation to the steady drone of underlying messages teaching hopelessness/helplessness.
Well said...the 'ol "ignorance is bliss" tendency is the primary tool of the fact interpretation/argument. It doesn't exist if you can't prove it...so be happy, Unfortunately our understanding of "the forces that shape our reality" have no influence on trends or outcome. There are other planes of understanding a problem... common sense for example. Our atmosphere is finite...how difficult can it be to agree to limit destruction."Brinkmanship" arguments are fundamentally flawed and typically overwhelmed by agenda (routinely hidden). Consensus building is far too easily defeated by denial where facts are mere avoidance... agenda is the battleground. To be productive this argument has to be moved to discovery of underlying motivations...it is a negotiation that has yet to be couched in honest terms. Likely it will not be resolved until it is. Further argument at this stage of the dilemma is counter-productive...pursuit lends credibility. An honest approach may be to treat denial as ignorance and move beyond it...simply refuse to engage (or re-engage) brinkmanship. The underlying problem may be, for example, that developing nations recognize the distinct possibility of a hidden agenda to perpetuate the imbalance of resource allocation. The bridge to these solutions will likely be built on trust...for those who say (or want to act like) it isn't a high priority. The "fuck 'em and feed 'em fish heads" crowd...you know who your are. Ultimately, we have to take responsibility for balancing (or removing) this group's power.
I completely agree with the decentralization of authority thing...but I think its more about decentralization of earnings...which is not a bad word. The problem I see is that the decentralization of both make it difficult to compete with the corporate model because of mission creep (some would call it loss), distribution of risk and the resulting poverty of capital. At the end of the day...that's what makes Red Hat and their ilk successful...that and the recognition that a good programmer actually deserves to get paid for his work..particularly if he wants no part of the inherent risk of plying his trade (writing software) and just wants to be a regular guy (not a disciple). The best thing Canonical/Shuttleworth could do might be to put a carrot on that stick he seems to like to carry around. On time and feature projects may require different motivation when the complexity and scale of projects reach a critical mass. It's real glamorous to develop "new" products but it's a different game as a product matures...starts to look like real work doesn't it...almost enough to want money for doing it.
True...a tax overhaul won't single-handedly fix the problems...but it could be a good start. Redistribution of wealth through taxation (not necessarily of/to a population group, per se) has historically been a preferred tool of governments to not only enforce social contracts but stimulate growth and investment. It will take many years to overcome the massive shift of wealth created by the "mortgage crisis"...if we ever can. Our fundamental denial of the value of money (0% interest rates) and refusal to accurately calculate fundamental economic indicators have created an environment that favors "access to money" over productivity...nothing more than spin...sadly you can't rely on spin to discover or correct such problems...so we are flying blind...riding the reputation of our fathers (and our betters apparently). "Service economy"...my foot...we're trying to make a living selling each other insurance and advice...may not be long til nobody's buying our promises or advice...so we better figure out this transition to automation pretty quickly so we can get productivity out of the equation...because it killing our resource allocation pitch to the rest of the world.
Funny...just when none of us believed Mr. Ciccone's arrogance could be surpassed...AT&T attempts to pull off a "righteous" argument? This from one of the very few companies to have ever been "broken up" in a federal anti-trust action. Should we wait for the 'ol "sheer magnitude and frequency" allegations in an attempt to whip up support...or simply expect it to begin raining cats. I would feel sorry for them (and their installed base of imperfect, but profitable contracts)... but I'm gonna go with finding it amusing (mixed with a little sweet "turn-about, fair play"). This appears to be jealousy that they are no longer in the cat-bird seat of arbitrary and capricious rate setting...with a side of determination to get back in the position they pay their lobbyists/attorneys/politicians to keep them in. So...YES INDEED...I agree we need to level the playing field, sir...just not how you envision it. Any service, profession or industry that enjoys past or present public protection/incentive must submit to rate and profitabilty regulation...since you hold righteousness so dear. We should also consider re-setting the return-on-investment (ROI) calculation for lobbyists, and political contributions...that such a calculation exists...is a symbol of pervasive abuse, a sad reminder of how far from our core values we have strayed and a bold, taunting statement of your regard. Since we are talking equity, Mr. Ciccone...yours is the arrogance that offends...you are not as safe (or insulated) as you want to believe...your carefully laid plans could easily become illusions as well.
...but then there is the "gene pool" argument..and the counter that says society is so drastically contrived it no longer resembles our native (innate) programming. There are apologists, revenge-ists, evangelists, balance worshipers and cynics. Personally, I believe we may have evolved a society that has emasculated so many of our balancing instincts that we have begun to veer off course simply from the time separation of the act and the penalty...which could, in some way, be remedied by making room for more immediate responses...take dueling for example. Who among us hasn't experienced truly righteous desire to take matters into their own tied hands as a matter of justifiable principal. We are bound to an inherently inadequate system of redress...maybe there should be a few acceptable shortcuts that sorta balance out "playing the system" with immediate, actionable consequences. I'm just saying our blind allegiance to the rule of law (society) simply does not acknowledge that clever perversions commonly go unpunished (or are rewarded). What we rarely seem to get around to is how to alleviate what drives the quiet (or not so quiet) desperation that ultimately drives a reasonable percentage of "criminal" acts. We seem perfectly comfortable sitting in judgement behind the "letter of the law" while the "spirit of the law" is trampled into unrecognizable form. It seems human nature to search for competitive advantage rather than cooperative opportunities...maybe we could begin to think more about incentives/punishment from a fundamental respect for and codification of "morality"...yes...that's also a slippery slope...but likely a lot of the appeal of fundamentalist law...and not devoid of reasonable justification in its ideal form. Sadly it is very difficult to hit the middle ground (happy medium). It also follows that as our population nears "carrying capacity", a more nuanced and responsive justice (and resource allocation) system will become more important. I doubt the two can remain so cleanly separated in the future as the primary determinant appears to favor "power" (established advantage). It's almost an intractable problem...convincing an entrenched group to relinquish advantage or see another viewpoint. It's just a little to easy to talk about codified violation (and punishment) without addressing root cause...
Slashdot Mirror
It's a little disappointing to see definitions narrowed subjectively...please post definitive source...may lead to interesting debate. OTOH...open source components of robotics platforms are worthy of note. Several ag companies (think commodity organizations) have sorted corn, etc by the kernel at very high speeds for many years using air jets to select/deselect off-color, irregularly shaped kernels...but the rudimentary tech, while fairly simple, is not OS...could be the rate of performance gains and cost-benefit would improve with more eyes on problem...might even reach the farm level, where the help could tilt the balance of power toward the producer.
It is very cool...and it has the potential to re-cast the balance of the productivity vs labor equation in the manufacturing sector. I think what most folks respond to negatively is about government start-up money (public risk) that is potentially privatised into a less than benevolent monopoly (private profits). Advanced agreements like corporate citizenship covenants (explicit social contracts) might be very handy in easing the transition pains potentially caused by such disruptive advancements.
Equality is not exclusively a communist goal. I'm wondering how you separate the notion people are willing to pay more for better targeted, higher quality and/or cooperative products? I'm pretty sure your pessimistic view has no more power than an optimistic one. On the other hand, I will say (while we are talking "trips") that robotics appears to be viewed as a disruptive force more often than before...and it's a good thing to advocate reason and humanity to ease the (potentially inevitable) transition pains. Vote your conscience with your wallet.
TROLL ... makes me 50 shades of sad. Please...allocate the time and energy to understand something before you speak definitively about it. The mortgage crisis was caused by the implied leverage of insured investments...which became a global pathology in the banking/investment industry. This TROLL is akin to blaming the sheep for being eaten at the watering hole because they must drink. It became an epidemic because the institutionals made so much money running it up. What occurred was criminal at so many levels it is apparent this simplistic, deflective troll is beyond absurd and insulting.
HOW DOES THIS GET MODDED UP TO 5...INFORMATIVE?
Thanks for your remarks if you are genuinely trying to educate me to the "party line", but the naivete of your apparent belief makes me a little sad...you skip over the obvious institutional preference and try to sell me that it helps me too...then you want to sell "the market can't handle" the information so dark pools are kept dark to protect the market? I am simply saying I can make more money (and protect my money better) with complete, accurate and timely information. The institutionals have enough advantage.
Please don't lecture me about price and the bad old days...reasonable regulatory options have zero chance of being explored, much less passed. I guess next you are going to sell the old "we just don't know what to do" argument...here in the 21st century we have raised the art of regulation to a baroque form of the expression. Take a deep breath and rethink your position...you are not only being played but you are trying to become a mouthpiece. There is an antidote for the potion...but you will have to first be honest with yourself.
You can't sell equality and secrecy without first selling "trust me"....and I don't.
Diverting an order into a dark pool is meant to HIDE information from HFT guys.
Reminds me of the rationale for surveillance. Secrecy is needed because of the boogey man...precisely the wrong approach. Give everyone equal access to the same information and require complete disclosure...same effect...cannot avoid having to choose who to trust.
Doesn't every heist begin with moving the victim to an "unlit" room?
...so the analytics vendors become third party "contract discriminators" (not greatly different from "third party torturers!" or "data collectors?"). I have long seen discrimination as the rationale for the secrecy behind "Fair Isaac". At the end of the day...doesn't the public (an individual) have the right to know the metrics applied to him at a policy level...such metrics could essentially be considered extra-judicial accusations...should we not be guaranteed the opportunity to face policy accusations as well...or at least know the rules? I'm pretty sure this is one of the underlying principals of the civil rights movement...at some level, institutionalized racial discrimination provided a safe hiding place for the darkest of man's intentions. Naturally we are struggling to come to terms with the social implications of this "new science"...lest we forget that it is not only manipulable, but fallible. Hopefully we can get a handle on it before it becomes yet another source of public shame or worse.
My favorite part is the obligatory insult to anyone who disagrees with you. FYI, as a mining operation, actual recovery labor cost is not a material concern in the long run (gnats and camels). Paying "big" taxes should not eliminate environmental responsibility...I don't think O&G should get the tax breaks/incentives they get now...it's a "national energy policy" thing...I don't expect you to understand that either but have a look at the cost/tax structure and some alternate information sources for yourself...you might realize your arguments simply don't make sense. I have no desire to educate you but the O&G companies do...its called misinformation...and you have obviously taken the potion. Next party platform issue...drilling restrictions...right by the playbook...just get in the sound byte. I think I will choose to position myself as your your opposition and simply agree to disagree before you hurt yourself trying to actually "deconstruct" something you obviously don't understand. I don't normally respond to TV driven lines of irrationality. May I assist your spelling and or word usage...http://grammartips.homestead.com/than.html...damages your credibility even before you comments might. Never argue with a fool...
THIS...is the problem. Easy as the practical limit, generic to remain indistinguishable (or at least harmless) yet ineffective as an aggregator of sentiment or momentum. What's missing may be more fundamental. Isn't this really about transparency and accountability (the answer is yes if you have ever ought information about such conduct). Such ethical conundrums require an element of will/desire to preserve a baseline of integrity as a first line of defense (self governance). Failing that, the cascade of increasing resistance to discovery/censure has to be de-railed and the monetary requirement removed. Corruption is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the presence of apathy...it must be prioritized. Once embedded, there is no simple solution.
This appeal's underlying agenda is perfect for sheeple looking for place to conveniently off load their emotional burden...however it completely lacks credibility in its attempt to tie the price trend of energy to the responsibility for ecological damage. Further, implying that energy pockets the cost of prevention/remediation is specious...at a minimum. Attempts to reverse the psychology with a conspiracy theory is sadly laughable. Next the author posits that fracking is driven solely by market price considerations...which is only the convenient half of the equation implying that if constraints of ecological responsibility were lifted the price would come down and fracking would not be as profitable...bullshit...plain and simple bullshit. First...the inconvenient half of the equation is that if the cost of fracking went up enough to make it less profitable...say from environmental regulations/responsibility, for example...then it would also be less attractive....and we might still have unspoilt ground water supplies in reserve for our offspring. Additionally, fracking is process generally used to extend the life of low pressure/flow wells which generally implies they have already been in production and are probably paid out (except in the case of a change of ownership which establishes a new basis to be worked off). Consequently, virtually any revenue from a paid well is generally considered "gravy"...so the deals are substantially less brittle to commodity price variations...meaning that de-regulating actions such as easing ecological constraints actually tend to drive the incidence of risky behavior (think cheap deadly chemicals and an increase in low margin plays). But the Good Lord only knows we wouldn't want to be part of a conspiracy against our friends in the energy sector. Then he finishes up with a defeatist ploy that batteries could never work so we should just give up and give our friends in the energy sector what they need to provide us with cheap, boundless energy...you know...because THAT is their mission statement...being the altruistic lot they are...because further batteries will only be affordable to the wealthy? Please...for the love of Mike...someone explain how this post got modded up to 5 Insightful...it is complete rubbish.
Ha...a very efficient pre-process step for high quality compost is the swine/bovine/equine alimentary...however said pre-process does little to prevent germination of grain seed. As such, a/b/e soil additives from exclusively fed sources could carry a premium price to account for shifting traditionally post-process steam treatment (to prevent undesirable germination) to a pre-process via the local brewery. In fact, I distinctly remember (sorry, too lazy to run down the reference) an FDA study on grain alcohol production quoting the commercial benefit of animal fodder resulting from alcohol processing by-products. This kind of logic (akin to the commerce clause in reach) could end up as a rationale for the highly suspect FDA to become a an impediment to virtually any aspect of our daily lives by virtue of its connection to the food chain...everything is on its way to somewhere in the ecosystem. It is a matter of proximate cause...and clearly a stretch. There are plenty of ways to track feeding for public health surveillance without creating additional unnecessary burden.
Seriously...are you saying this isn't a fundamental question? Wow, No wonder it isn't working so well
Pardon my straight forward reply...but that's plain stupid...it is the definition of insanity...unless you want to support the development of a surveillance state...then nevermind...perfect plan. This appointment is an epic blunder on so many levels it defies imagination. These guys have to believe there is no reason to avoid the appearance of impropriety...potentially coercion could explain it. Tin foil hat time.
...makes little difference...the dolphin is pretty safe
This cavalier approach to the protection of rights of industry does not account for the potential that careful, specified products could be accomplished by a well funded adversary. Or do you believe these groups do not exist? Makes me sad and tired.
CNC technology in prototyping has been around for years...only very expensive to purchase, highly technical to operate, and difficult to pay for in a non-production environment because of the cost of set-up. For 3D printing to go mainstream several gaps may have to be filled in the production cucle. The purchase price is definitely lower...which makes paying for it more likely. Unfortunately, for these specialised machines to spit out merchantable products requires a fairly large collaboration of expertise unavailable to the average user...from material science to design specification to integration of potential products. If the "3D printing industry" can close these gaps more cost effectively than their competition, then they may succeed. However, my first thought always moves to "What advancements have been quietly made in CNC machining industry that mirror the popular 3D printing advancements?" ...and how will those plastic parts compete with other materials as the gaps begin to fill in...because those improvements will ultimately be available to all groups. Admittedly, I haven't given stereolithography a fair assessment because of the material constraint. By the time I have invested all the design and specification into a part, I realize material selection is only a small part of the total cost of the first n parts...so, I don't risk my investment on questionable selection of materials. Possibly what may be missing in this discussion is the realization that there is a huge difference between prototyping and production. Prototyping is where the disciplines aggregate...and when functioning properly...collaborate to make the best decisions from the pallette of alternatives. Right now, if you can specify what you want, you can have short run parts machined cost effectively in a variety of places. Moving the 3D part out of prototyping to compete in production will not be easy. It makes me wonder if those interested in 3D printing have a clear understanding of the CNC alternatives and where in the design/production cycle the 3D printed part actually belongs.
As a retired instrument maker, I can only say there is a LOT more to distinguishing an instrument than the sound it emanates. First, sound and vibration are inherently fragile and travel though both the air (the "sound") and materials of the instrument (the "report" - a tactile impression). Secondly, the set-up of the instrument is very personal and is sorted out over time for optimum results. Discernment of instruments in such tests have all the credibility of food taste test on advertising. This is not to say I believe current valuations are reasonable or justified...but to attempt to disprove the existence of differences in these instruments only proves the existence of an agenda on the part of the tester.
As the /. collective honed the "facist" term to a more concise local meaning, the quality of discussion improved because its application came to imply a certain mindset. Lately, fundamentalism has been getting a lot of air-time. Collectively developing inclusive definitions of the various tropes of fundamentalism will also facilitate discussions in this vein of exploring edge conditions of superstition and reductionist thinking...and particularly in the service of "scientific" rigor as a sole source of "truth". There is (and rightfully should be) a defensible position between scientific "proof" and anecdotal evidence...else we risk loss of black-swan type discoveries/advancements and the value of unexplainable evidence prior to the advent of the mythical "wholly deterministic" state. The pessimistic view that labels a sense of wonder as pseudo-science is no more valid than the optimistic view that refuses to acknowledge the shortcomings of scientific methods. Likely the critical difference (very difficult to teach in the classroom) lies in judgement of the intent of the purveyor which, if appended to each item in the bullet list, would make for a much more meaningful conversation...as that is where this discussion must inevitably lead if critical thinking is the goal. Critical thought must then recognized as an applied process (hopefully improved by new information and trial/error) with the potential to produce wildly divergent reinforcement (positive/negative) in the absence of ongoing open interpretation (momentum). For example, when negative impacts of policy implementation are ignored or not recognized or simply misunderstood (unaffective)...it is easy to find examples of false positive reinforcement. However the critical differentiator lies in intent, more fully evidenced in the causal chain. Thus the difference between a politician and a statesman, the value of reputation (interpretation of the causal chain) and importance of ongoing interpretation of experience, new information and the ability to shift point-of-view (open minded education) hinges on intent...and must be tempered with restraint and tolerance as to content and patience guidance concerning intent. Intent is often a proxy for the subjective “why” of the common 5 part objective scientific or investigative presentation (who/what/when/where/why) and should always be reserved as subjective. Honest observers will readily acknowledge numerous historical instances of failings connected to the “why” regardless of how much “scientific” evidence points to an accepted interpretation of an outcome. The scientific method is brittle, narrow and easily subverted...we should try to keep that in mind lest we begin to believe it can be a proxy for truth or intent,
building on this...poking fun (or sneering) at science is actually an identity function among a suspicious segment of the population that does not trust science and actually looks down on those that do...as lacking in common sense and/or moral fibre. This section is absolutely in love with the pre-fundamentalist, magical thought that their faith obviates science. It's an underlying code of communication among people who want to believe simplicity is an answer to its own question. The world has become too complex for some humans to find peace within it. Faith simplifies this dilemma. Naturally, if you are seeking answers where you should not be meddling, then you lack sufficient faith to be trusted to behave...and will have to be suppressed by the faithful. Fundamentalist thought is a defense manifestation to the steady drone of underlying messages teaching hopelessness/helplessness.
Well said...the 'ol "ignorance is bliss" tendency is the primary tool of the fact interpretation/argument. It doesn't exist if you can't prove it...so be happy, Unfortunately our understanding of "the forces that shape our reality" have no influence on trends or outcome. There are other planes of understanding a problem... common sense for example. Our atmosphere is finite...how difficult can it be to agree to limit destruction."Brinkmanship" arguments are fundamentally flawed and typically overwhelmed by agenda (routinely hidden). Consensus building is far too easily defeated by denial where facts are mere avoidance ... agenda is the battleground. To be productive this argument has to be moved to discovery of underlying motivations...it is a negotiation that has yet to be couched in honest terms. Likely it will not be resolved until it is. Further argument at this stage of the dilemma is counter-productive...pursuit lends credibility. An honest approach may be to treat denial as ignorance and move beyond it...simply refuse to engage (or re-engage) brinkmanship. The underlying problem may be, for example, that developing nations recognize the distinct possibility of a hidden agenda to perpetuate the imbalance of resource allocation. The bridge to these solutions will likely be built on trust...for those who say (or want to act like) it isn't a high priority. The "fuck 'em and feed 'em fish heads" crowd...you know who your are. Ultimately, we have to take responsibility for balancing (or removing) this group's power.
Too bad we have "secret documents or lists" upon which the gov't acts...just to get a little closer to the problem.
I completely agree with the decentralization of authority thing...but I think its more about decentralization of earnings...which is not a bad word. The problem I see is that the decentralization of both make it difficult to compete with the corporate model because of mission creep (some would call it loss), distribution of risk and the resulting poverty of capital. At the end of the day...that's what makes Red Hat and their ilk successful...that and the recognition that a good programmer actually deserves to get paid for his work..particularly if he wants no part of the inherent risk of plying his trade (writing software) and just wants to be a regular guy (not a disciple). The best thing Canonical/Shuttleworth could do might be to put a carrot on that stick he seems to like to carry around. On time and feature projects may require different motivation when the complexity and scale of projects reach a critical mass. It's real glamorous to develop "new" products but it's a different game as a product matures...starts to look like real work doesn't it...almost enough to want money for doing it.
True...a tax overhaul won't single-handedly fix the problems...but it could be a good start. Redistribution of wealth through taxation (not necessarily of/to a population group, per se) has historically been a preferred tool of governments to not only enforce social contracts but stimulate growth and investment. It will take many years to overcome the massive shift of wealth created by the "mortgage crisis"...if we ever can. Our fundamental denial of the value of money (0% interest rates) and refusal to accurately calculate fundamental economic indicators have created an environment that favors "access to money" over productivity...nothing more than spin...sadly you can't rely on spin to discover or correct such problems...so we are flying blind...riding the reputation of our fathers (and our betters apparently). "Service economy"...my foot...we're trying to make a living selling each other insurance and advice...may not be long til nobody's buying our promises or advice...so we better figure out this transition to automation pretty quickly so we can get productivity out of the equation...because it killing our resource allocation pitch to the rest of the world.
Funny...just when none of us believed Mr. Ciccone's arrogance could be surpassed...AT&T attempts to pull off a "righteous" argument? This from one of the very few companies to have ever been "broken up" in a federal anti-trust action. Should we wait for the 'ol "sheer magnitude and frequency" allegations in an attempt to whip up support...or simply expect it to begin raining cats. I would feel sorry for them (and their installed base of imperfect, but profitable contracts) ... but I'm gonna go with finding it amusing (mixed with a little sweet "turn-about, fair play"). This appears to be jealousy that they are no longer in the cat-bird seat of arbitrary and capricious rate setting...with a side of determination to get back in the position they pay their lobbyists/attorneys/politicians to keep them in. So...YES INDEED...I agree we need to level the playing field, sir...just not how you envision it. Any service, profession or industry that enjoys past or present public protection/incentive must submit to rate and profitabilty regulation...since you hold righteousness so dear. We should also consider re-setting the return-on-investment (ROI) calculation for lobbyists, and political contributions...that such a calculation exists...is a symbol of pervasive abuse, a sad reminder of how far from our core values we have strayed and a bold, taunting statement of your regard. Since we are talking equity, Mr. Ciccone...yours is the arrogance that offends...you are not as safe (or insulated) as you want to believe...your carefully laid plans could easily become illusions as well.
...but then there is the "gene pool" argument..and the counter that says society is so drastically contrived it no longer resembles our native (innate) programming. There are apologists, revenge-ists, evangelists, balance worshipers and cynics. Personally, I believe we may have evolved a society that has emasculated so many of our balancing instincts that we have begun to veer off course simply from the time separation of the act and the penalty...which could, in some way, be remedied by making room for more immediate responses...take dueling for example. Who among us hasn't experienced truly righteous desire to take matters into their own tied hands as a matter of justifiable principal. We are bound to an inherently inadequate system of redress...maybe there should be a few acceptable shortcuts that sorta balance out "playing the system" with immediate, actionable consequences. I'm just saying our blind allegiance to the rule of law (society) simply does not acknowledge that clever perversions commonly go unpunished (or are rewarded). What we rarely seem to get around to is how to alleviate what drives the quiet (or not so quiet) desperation that ultimately drives a reasonable percentage of "criminal" acts. We seem perfectly comfortable sitting in judgement behind the "letter of the law" while the "spirit of the law" is trampled into unrecognizable form. It seems human nature to search for competitive advantage rather than cooperative opportunities...maybe we could begin to think more about incentives/punishment from a fundamental respect for and codification of "morality"...yes...that's also a slippery slope...but likely a lot of the appeal of fundamentalist law...and not devoid of reasonable justification in its ideal form. Sadly it is very difficult to hit the middle ground (happy medium). It also follows that as our population nears "carrying capacity", a more nuanced and responsive justice (and resource allocation) system will become more important. I doubt the two can remain so cleanly separated in the future as the primary determinant appears to favor "power" (established advantage). It's almost an intractable problem...convincing an entrenched group to relinquish advantage or see another viewpoint. It's just a little to easy to talk about codified violation (and punishment) without addressing root cause...