And then it did again. Space-time has curvature and energy - that sure isn't the classical meaning 'empty' space. The aether just wasn't material in the sense it was originally conceived.
Similarly, dark matter is *something* which is explaining a wide variety of observed phenomena with several limits on what it could possibly be. The name is just a matter of labelling.
...but beyond that it's simply guesswork. Until you know, keep lots of options open.
If it were easy to distinguish paradigm-shifting new technologies from fads then everyone could do it. The proliferation of technologies is perhaps a sign of a bubble, or perhaps a sign that none of the 'innovations' in, say, the Web, or mobile devices, has quite got it right, and the first one that does will take the computing world by storm.
But frankly, with the experience cited in the summary - machine learning, Java, C++, client and server web development - areas like desktop application development or embedded systems really should not be radical leaps.
It's basic civics to understand why citizens are supposed to be concerned about government abuse of its power - because the result is ineffective or incompetent police/justice/whatever services, not because it's offensive in some abstract ideological sense.
Though it occurs elsewhere, it's primarily a US problem. In the US, the Constitution is often regarded as nearly sacred revelation, with the result that, like regular sacred revelation, people embrace the rule without having any understanding of it, and therefore fail to recognize when the rule has simply been bypassed.
Dignity is only the start. It's security theatre, nothing else. Their function is to manufacture fear the same as a factory manufactures auto parts.
This is not an error or a misjudgement; causing people the maximum of harassment with the most egregious violations of legal rights and doing so with the minimum of justification is the goal. In IT terms, it's a feature, not a bug.
Anyone thinking the TSA will be reined in because of a public outcry or legal challenges is completely missing the point.
None of the structural flaws in the economy have been fixed (or even acknowledged), so it's a given there is a bubble of some sort happening. Or perhaps several.
Sigh. It raises the question. To "beg the question" means something completely different. Here is a simple rule of thumb of when that phrase should be used: never.
"Beg" is just (in the context of questions) an old-fashioned word for 'ask'.
The problem is people use it to mean a) an answer that merely restates the question (asking the same question a second time) or b) an answer that is incomplete without the answer to an immediate follow-up question (providing a deficient answer that merely raises a trivially new question without having provided any useful information).
The ambiguity is annoying.
Though not as much as other people overreacting to it.
During the transition period, the Pentagon will murder whoever the CIA asks them to, and vice versa, and it will be impossible to pin blame on either of them.
After the transition, the CIA will probably keep using drones the same way as before, just keeping it slightly more secret, and pulling out different legal nonsense when they get caught.
An individual ordinary life is not interesting in terms of the big picture, but ordinary life itself is of great interest to historians, since it's not the same as ordinary life in another period or another place, and it's the context in which extraordinary lives were lived.
We don't need *everyone's* lives, just a representative sample, but, given that technology makes this easy, it doesn't take a great deal of interest to justify it for the people doing it Compared to 'reality' TV the life of an ancestor five or six generations back might be an hour or so of worthwhile entertainment to a future descendant.
Rational versus irrational is not quite the way to look at it. Some of it is short-term versus long-term.
Their situation is unstable and the government's control is precarious. The population's desperation makes them unpredictable. Therefore they are constantly focused on actively pre-empting revolution, and that means being constantly focused on short-term goals. Provocative rhetoric might start an unwinnable war a year from now but keeps the civilian population from thinking for another day.
Daylight Savings Time makes perfect sense at higher latitudes, where there is little value in having daylight at 3:00am or 4:00am so it would be worthwhile to move it into the evening.
But there is a cost and an inconvenience, and there are lots of places where the change in daylight pattern is not a sufficient benefit to justify it, and it's done mainly out of inertia.
Sadly, the time change dates in the US are hopelessly unsuited to Canada, but Canada imitated the US rules because too many people have lives that revolve around the schedules of US television.
...what evidence does he have that we act that way when dealing with real civilization threats or difficult engineering challenges?
The problem will arise when the solution is frightening expensive and although the general problem is understood, the specifics will have uncertainties. Politicians *will* evade problems where they are sincerely (or opportunistically) uncertain that immediate sacrifice is needed.
This is exactly what we have now with climate change.
Slashdot Mirror
If terrorist surveillance information isn't enough, then the banks will have only one logical next step: operate their own armed aerial drones.
What can I do about friends who borrow my car but always bring it back with fresh dents and scratches and new unsettling engine noises?
Like luminiferous aether existed until it didn't.
And then it did again. Space-time has curvature and energy - that sure isn't the classical meaning 'empty' space. The aether just wasn't material in the sense it was originally conceived.
Similarly, dark matter is *something* which is explaining a wide variety of observed phenomena with several limits on what it could possibly be. The name is just a matter of labelling.
...but beyond that it's simply guesswork. Until you know, keep lots of options open.
If it were easy to distinguish paradigm-shifting new technologies from fads then everyone could do it. The proliferation of technologies is perhaps a sign of a bubble, or perhaps a sign that none of the 'innovations' in, say, the Web, or mobile devices, has quite got it right, and the first one that does will take the computing world by storm.
But frankly, with the experience cited in the summary - machine learning, Java, C++, client and server web development - areas like desktop application development or embedded systems really should not be radical leaps.
It's basic civics to understand why citizens are supposed to be concerned about government abuse of its power - because the result is ineffective or incompetent police/justice/whatever services, not because it's offensive in some abstract ideological sense.
Though it occurs elsewhere, it's primarily a US problem. In the US, the Constitution is often regarded as nearly sacred revelation, with the result that, like regular sacred revelation, people embrace the rule without having any understanding of it, and therefore fail to recognize when the rule has simply been bypassed.
Dignity is only the start. It's security theatre, nothing else. Their function is to manufacture fear the same as a factory manufactures auto parts.
This is not an error or a misjudgement; causing people the maximum of harassment with the most egregious violations of legal rights and doing so with the minimum of justification is the goal. In IT terms, it's a feature, not a bug.
Anyone thinking the TSA will be reined in because of a public outcry or legal challenges is completely missing the point.
None of the structural flaws in the economy have been fixed (or even acknowledged), so it's a given there is a bubble of some sort happening. Or perhaps several.
Because after every other crash, we picked up the pieces and the market was stable and then there were never any more crashes.
They did paperwork for $60 000 of expenses.
No chance that that was what they spent.
Tax people are familiar with the difference.
Sigh. It raises the question. To "beg the question" means something completely different. Here is a simple rule of thumb of when that phrase should be used: never.
"Beg" is just (in the context of questions) an old-fashioned word for 'ask'.
The problem is people use it to mean
a) an answer that merely restates the question (asking the same question a second time)
or
b) an answer that is incomplete without the answer to an immediate follow-up question (providing a deficient answer that merely raises a trivially new question without having provided any useful information).
The ambiguity is annoying.
Though not as much as other people overreacting to it.
Turmoil is a natural healthy part of democracy (which the US still was back then), especially during elections.
During the transition period, the Pentagon will murder whoever the CIA asks them to, and vice versa, and it will be impossible to pin blame on either of them.
After the transition, the CIA will probably keep using drones the same way as before, just keeping it slightly more secret, and pulling out different legal nonsense when they get caught.
Does this mean the President can still murder his own citizens whenever he feels like it?
Well, not legally, obviously, but if he can do it secretly, the law will count for as much as a politician's promise.
An individual ordinary life is not interesting in terms of the big picture, but ordinary life itself is of great interest to historians, since it's not the same as ordinary life in another period or another place, and it's the context in which extraordinary lives were lived.
We don't need *everyone's* lives, just a representative sample, but, given that technology makes this easy, it doesn't take a great deal of interest to justify it for the people doing it Compared to 'reality' TV the life of an ancestor five or six generations back might be an hour or so of worthwhile entertainment to a future descendant.
Of course, it's still mostly about ego...
On my task bar I only saw "US To Deploy B..."
and immediately thought "US To Deploy Billions of Dollars".
Which pretty much is what this is about.
Rational versus irrational is not quite the way to look at it. Some of it is short-term versus long-term.
Their situation is unstable and the government's control is precarious. The population's desperation makes them unpredictable. Therefore they are constantly focused on actively pre-empting revolution, and that means being constantly focused on short-term goals. Provocative rhetoric might start an unwinnable war a year from now but keeps the civilian population from thinking for another day.
And none of the predictions from the 12th century have been wrong before!
My beliefs are different - they're the correct ones!
...and will there be a -€0.01 or -$0.01 option if that is truly how much a web page is worth after robbing me of 2 minutes of my life?
Daylight Savings Time makes perfect sense at higher latitudes, where there is little value in having daylight at 3:00am or 4:00am so it would be worthwhile to move it into the evening.
But there is a cost and an inconvenience, and there are lots of places where the change in daylight pattern is not a sufficient benefit to justify it, and it's done mainly out of inertia.
Sadly, the time change dates in the US are hopelessly unsuited to Canada, but Canada imitated the US rules because too many people have lives that revolve around the schedules of US television.
Sure, until someone says eighth of March.
Not to mention the fact that when a date is written *only* in numbers there is no longer any guarantee what language it's in.
...what evidence does he have that we act that way when dealing with real civilization threats or difficult engineering challenges?
The problem will arise when the solution is frightening expensive and although the general problem is understood, the specifics will have uncertainties. Politicians *will* evade problems where they are sincerely (or opportunistically) uncertain that immediate sacrifice is needed.
This is exactly what we have now with climate change.
He doesn't add anything to his profession
I disagree. I think he's a great example for other circus performers.
How is that vengeance? They haven't destroyed anything in Saudi Arabia. Not yet at least.
...is remove any potential human error by developing an artificial intelligence to completely computerize operations. We could call it Skynet.