It's as much about PR as anything. Maybe it's actually about telling the NSA et al to piss off.
But sooner or later, a nice government official will show up and say "now gimme".
I'm no sure there really is a way to take data outside of jurisdictions now. Courts seem to think they aren't constrained in their decisions, any more... and all the governments are trading the data.
This actually sounds like now that we look closer, the waves are propagating in 3 dimensions, are much larger than we've previously thought, and much more of a big deal.
But for a very long time we've probably though "waves, on top of the water, got it"... and now they're saying "waves, propagating in 3D and getting bigger and far more powerful".
This new research, which involved placing several long mooring lines from the seafloor to buoys at the surface, with instruments at intervals all along the lines, has decisively resolved that question, Peacock says: The waves grow larger as they propagate. Prior measurements, the new work found, had been drawn from too narrow a slice of the region, resulting in conflicting results â" rather like the fable of blind men describing an elephant. The new, more comprehensive data has now resolved the mystery.
I don't think we're re-defining wave, so much as understanding what all that entails.
So, maybe we need to look at your dictionary.com definition as being "woefully inadequete to explain what is really happening".
If you've ever seen a high speed picture of an explosion and see the bubble of the shock wave, it's propagating in a sphere, and not just along the surface.
This isn't some new and inconsistent definition of wave. But it is something which says they're realizing how much more complex it actually is.
Except you have to remember that this "average" over fleets is not a measured average.
The EPA has a formula to calculate MPG. It is old, and largely wrong. But it is the ONLY way you can describe fuel economy by law.
It isn't average fuel efficiency over time"... it's "average estimated fuel efficiency appiled over a fleet as of when they pulled the estimation out of their asses using a faulty formula with very constrained assumptions".
It's definitely NOT a known quantity.
So when the GP says "Fuel efficiency is not "known" it is Estimated by a govt agency"... they are 100% correct.
It is not a real, representative number... it is a number derived from a specific test, and the extrapolated and treated as factual.
But don't for a minute think this is measured over time or a known quantity. It's anything but.
Yeah, but is the claim that it's a conspiracy plausible or even credible?
Because, you know, the guy who suggests a massive conspiracy among climate scientists, the UN, and everybody else involved.. contrasted against a handful of people who say it must be a conspiracy... well, I'm more inclined to think the ones claiming the conspiracy are the irrational ones.
This smacks of "I don't like the implications of your science, so I'm going to claim a conspiracy". Which makes you a batshit crazy idiot, not correct about identifying that there is a conspiracy.
If anything, those with economic interest in the status quo are spending massive amounts of money to muddy the waters and sow doubt.
Funny, I read it as "is it a good idea to walk around on a roof wearing a VR headset while showing off your fine-grained resolution GPS because you could fall off?"
Or, alternatively, you're a moron who is talking out of your ass.
There exist legal limitations on freedom of speech. And just because a group wraps itself up in the first amendment doesn't make it sincere.
I have heard entities say "hey, it's our right to boycott", only to say that if someone boycotts them their freedom of speech is being endangered. They don't apply the same standard, because somehow it's different.
Because humans are irrational and self serving.
Like your entire post.
If American want to keep shooting one another, I don't give a crap.
So, by convention (not by rule AFAIK), we have vast majorities and small/tiny minorities.
Vast implies big or far reaching. But, oddly, you can have a vast emptiness... which is a whole lotta nothin'.
For some real fun, google for how many times you can use "had" in a sentence and still have it be correct. Or that sentence made purely out of the word buffalo.
In their complaint, they claim that a State Department agency called the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) violated their first amendment right to free speech by telling Defense Distributed that it couldn't publish a 3-D printable file for its one-shot plastic pistol known as the Liberator, along with a collection of other printable gun parts, on its website.
So, just as a hypothetical... would Defense Distributed support someone publishing the names, addresses, SSNs, names of children and the schools they attend for the members of Defense Distributed?
Or is their robust defense of freedom of speech limited solely to commercial activities? Might they even suggest that not all information falls under freedom of speech or serves the public good?
As often as not, corporations make what they claim is a principled stand, which really amounts to "Yarg, we want to make money".
The people running the companies are absolutely short-term obsessed. The people buying the stocks are gambling and have long since stopped caring about fundamentals, and instead go on hype.
The irrational stock market and the terrible management both exist.
For some reason, people voluntarily throw reason to the winds when they see a startup. When a company is valued at 50 years worth of projected revenue, the market has become a farce.
All publicly traded companies are short term obsessed, but if you can keep the hype machine going loudly enough, the market will opt to ignore reality and stick with it.
The stock market doesn't seem to understand long-term investment in any meaningful way.
It's like that old joke about the young and the old bulls... Hey, let's run down there and fuck one of those cows. No, let's walk down and fuck them all.
Instead of asking your employees to knock their brains out, read the fucking Mythical Man Month and realize that the death march is an idiotic way to do things which doesn't really work.
Too many companies are being ran by MBAs who have no understanding of how to build stuff, and think 9 women can have a baby in a month. Or even that 4 women working really long hours can do it in half the time.
The problem is companies are being ran by short sighted idiots who don't understand the nature of their business.
Yes, Cuba does need business and capital, it does need to expand its economy, it does need better infrastructure, and the unfinished/rough cinderblock construction is everywhere.
They have lots of poverty, and lots of problems. Their internal transportation is a mess.
It's also true that I've met many educated people working on resorts because they could make far more money.
I am not disagreeing with a single thing you said.
What I am saying is Cuba's tourism industry is already stretched beyond what it can handle, and is in desperate need of some re-vamping and improving... but that suddenly bringing in a few million extra tourists will not immediately fix these problems, but will exaggerate them.
If you just unleash the economic chaos on them and hope everything will sort itself out, you'll do a lot of damage to them. And, as you say, if that change is exploitative it will harm them even further.
I'm not saying this isn't a sign of improvement for Cuba. But I also don't think suddenly saying "OK, two more million tourists, deal with it" will work... because I already know for a fact that their tourist industry is straining at the seams.
In the short term, this has the potential to be more harmful than beneficial, because you can't just go full steam ahead and expect that to ramp up like it would be in a first world country.
Anyway, I just related the textbook version; I wasn't aware of any US military deployments in Cuba (besides them leasing the Guantanamo Bay facility)
Leasing? America is NOT "leasing" Guantanamo in any legitimate use of that word.
America jammed the Platt Amendment into Cuba's Constitution at the end of a war, which unilaterally said "we get to keep a navy base here"... in effect "we own joo, bitches".
Cuba has never cashed the checks, has repeatedly said they don't consent to Guantanamo, and don't want the Americans there.
Guantanamo is basically a forcible military presence in a foreign country.
It sure as fuck isn't 'leased' in any honest meaning of 'lease'.
Starting in 1901 when the US jammed the Platt Amendment into the Cuiban Constitution which America said entitles them to keep a naval base in Cuba (that's what Guantanamo is).
Carrying forward, the US was a backer of Batista, who was a petty little thug who did things like:
Back in power, Batista suspended the 1940 Constitution and revoked most political liberties, including the right to strike. He then aligned with the wealthiest landowners who owned the largest sugar plantations, and presided over a stagnating economy that widened the gap between rich and poor Cubans.[5] Batista's increasingly corrupt and repressive government then began to systematically profit from the exploitation of Cuba's commercial interests, by negotiating lucrative relationships with the American mafia, who controlled the drug, gambling, and prostitution businesses in Havana, and with large multinational American corporations that had invested considerable amounts of money in Cuba.[5][6] To quell the growing discontent amongst the populaceâ"which was subsequently displayed through frequent student riots and demonstrationsâ"Batista established tighter censorship of the media, while also utilizing his anti-Communist secret police to carry out wide-scale violence, torture and public executions; ultimately killing anywhere from 1,000 to 20,000 people.[7][8] For several years until 1959, the Batista government received financial, military, and logistical support from the United States.[9]
But, as always happens, he was a thug and a dictator but friendly to US business interests. So America liked him.
Basically the Cubans were poor and starving under a terrible government who cared more about US interests than its own citizens.
The American Mafia is largely whose stuff was nationalized:
In the 1950s, Havana served as "a hedonistic playground for the world's elite", producing sizable gambling, prostitution and drug profits for American Mafiosos, corrupt law-enforcement officials, and their politically elected cronies.[38] In fact, drugs, be it marijuana or cocaine, were so plentiful at the time that one American magazine in 1950 proclaimed "Narcotics are hardly more difficult to obtain in Cuba than a shot of rum. And only slightly more expensive."[38]
In a bid to profit from such an environment, Batista established lasting relationships with organized crime, notably with American mobsters Meyer Lansky and Lucky Luciano, and under his rule Havana became known as "the Latin Las Vegas."[39] Batista and Lansky formed a friendship and business relationship that flourished for a decade. During a stay at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York in the late 1940s, it was mutually agreed that, in return for kickbacks, Batista would give Lansky and the Mafia control of Havana's racetracks and casinos.[40]
So, let's not pretend that Cuba wasn't already under a corrupt dictatorship under which the citizens suffered hugely.
I'm not defending everything Castro did, but everyone likes to conveniently the history of American supported dictators allowing American organized crime to treat the nation as their own private playground.
Batista and the crooks really needed to go. And I'm afraid I have little sympathy for them.
Americans like to act like Castro overthrew a benign government, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Don't just look at the last 50 years, look at the last 100.
If you think an influx of money will magically fix a country which has a limited infrastructure and widespread poverty you're foolish and naive.
Maybe in the long run it will improve things.
In the short run I predict it will create a shitstorm which will be to the detriment of the Cubans.
You can't go from being embargoed to not embargoed overnight and expect that to work well at all. It simply doesn't work that way.
Until they can build up their infrastructure, and make some systemic changes to their economy, a sudden influx of Americans looking for McDonald's and five star resorts will not have good outcomes for Cuba.
I think it's long overdue to get rid of the embargo, but there's no way in hell I believe opening the floodgates to American tourists will have anything but a disruptive and negative effect for the immediate future.
Slashdot Mirror
It's as much about PR as anything. Maybe it's actually about telling the NSA et al to piss off.
But sooner or later, a nice government official will show up and say "now gimme".
I'm no sure there really is a way to take data outside of jurisdictions now. Courts seem to think they aren't constrained in their decisions, any more ... and all the governments are trading the data.
No, I don't think so.
This actually sounds like now that we look closer, the waves are propagating in 3 dimensions, are much larger than we've previously thought, and much more of a big deal.
But for a very long time we've probably though "waves, on top of the water, got it" ... and now they're saying "waves, propagating in 3D and getting bigger and far more powerful".
I don't think we're re-defining wave, so much as understanding what all that entails.
So, maybe we need to look at your dictionary.com definition as being "woefully inadequete to explain what is really happening".
If you've ever seen a high speed picture of an explosion and see the bubble of the shock wave, it's propagating in a sphere, and not just along the surface.
This isn't some new and inconsistent definition of wave. But it is something which says they're realizing how much more complex it actually is.
yesnomaybekthanksbye?
I just simply don't believe that ... oooh, shiny ... oh, gotta do my timesheets, it's Friday.
What was I saying?
Except you have to remember that this "average" over fleets is not a measured average.
The EPA has a formula to calculate MPG. It is old, and largely wrong. But it is the ONLY way you can describe fuel economy by law.
It isn't average fuel efficiency over time" ... it's "average estimated fuel efficiency appiled over a fleet as of when they pulled the estimation out of their asses using a faulty formula with very constrained assumptions".
It's definitely NOT a known quantity.
So when the GP says "Fuel efficiency is not "known" it is Estimated by a govt agency" ... they are 100% correct.
It is not a real, representative number ... it is a number derived from a specific test, and the extrapolated and treated as factual.
But don't for a minute think this is measured over time or a known quantity. It's anything but.
But, honestly though ... if a corporation is charged in federal court, will they pay a fine, or will someone do jail time?
Because if the corporation will pay a fine, but a person would get jail time ... that's pretty much what a double standard means.
So before you go all full-metal asshole on the poor guy, ask yourself, has anybody from a corporation who does this kind of crap gone to jail?
If doing something on behalf of a corporation means you don't go to jail, there more assuredly is a double standard.
Yeah, but is the claim that it's a conspiracy plausible or even credible?
Because, you know, the guy who suggests a massive conspiracy among climate scientists, the UN, and everybody else involved .. contrasted against a handful of people who say it must be a conspiracy ... well, I'm more inclined to think the ones claiming the conspiracy are the irrational ones.
This smacks of "I don't like the implications of your science, so I'm going to claim a conspiracy". Which makes you a batshit crazy idiot, not correct about identifying that there is a conspiracy.
If anything, those with economic interest in the status quo are spending massive amounts of money to muddy the waters and sow doubt.
LOL, I mean, come on ... "I personally saw individual gold atoms deposited as a nanobridge on a graphene substrate. In 2010."
How could I not?
Which basically says "as long as we get our money back we don't give a fuck what happens to you".
Which tells me they should be sharing some liability or they'll just keep being greedy bastards.
Relax, it's a joke. :-P
LOL, and it's Topper for the win!!
Yeah, but the people who name these things are usually the press with an interest in selling copy.
There's always someone who will be outraged.
Funny, I read it as "is it a good idea to walk around on a roof wearing a VR headset while showing off your fine-grained resolution GPS because you could fall off?"
Or, alternatively, you're a moron who is talking out of your ass.
There exist legal limitations on freedom of speech. And just because a group wraps itself up in the first amendment doesn't make it sincere.
I have heard entities say "hey, it's our right to boycott", only to say that if someone boycotts them their freedom of speech is being endangered. They don't apply the same standard, because somehow it's different.
Because humans are irrational and self serving.
Like your entire post.
If American want to keep shooting one another, I don't give a crap.
Majorities are big, minorities are small ...
So, by convention (not by rule AFAIK), we have vast majorities and small/tiny minorities.
Vast implies big or far reaching. But, oddly, you can have a vast emptiness ... which is a whole lotta nothin'.
For some real fun, google for how many times you can use "had" in a sentence and still have it be correct. Or that sentence made purely out of the word buffalo.
Those will really hurt. ;-)
Don't worry about that ... at that point the machines will just take over and wipe is out anyway. ;-)
Equivalent? No.
But the question (for which I don't pose an answer) is "do we accept there are valid limitations on free speech, and if so what defines that?"
Some entities are awfully quick to cite freedom of speech, and then just as quick to deny it from others.
So that "principled" stance is often self-serving bullshit.
So, just as a hypothetical ... would Defense Distributed support someone publishing the names, addresses, SSNs, names of children and the schools they attend for the members of Defense Distributed?
Or is their robust defense of freedom of speech limited solely to commercial activities? Might they even suggest that not all information falls under freedom of speech or serves the public good?
As often as not, corporations make what they claim is a principled stand, which really amounts to "Yarg, we want to make money".
Sadly, no, I don't think we can.
-gate has apparently become cultural shorthand for or "scandal". Some people probably don't even know the origins of it any more.
I fear it's cromulency is no longer up for debate, even if it doesn't embiggen the language.
I think we're stuck with at this point.
The people running the companies are absolutely short-term obsessed. The people buying the stocks are gambling and have long since stopped caring about fundamentals, and instead go on hype.
The irrational stock market and the terrible management both exist.
For some reason, people voluntarily throw reason to the winds when they see a startup. When a company is valued at 50 years worth of projected revenue, the market has become a farce.
All publicly traded companies are short term obsessed, but if you can keep the hype machine going loudly enough, the market will opt to ignore reality and stick with it.
The stock market doesn't seem to understand long-term investment in any meaningful way.
It's like that old joke about the young and the old bulls ... Hey, let's run down there and fuck one of those cows. No, let's walk down and fuck them all.
Instead of asking your employees to knock their brains out, read the fucking Mythical Man Month and realize that the death march is an idiotic way to do things which doesn't really work.
Too many companies are being ran by MBAs who have no understanding of how to build stuff, and think 9 women can have a baby in a month. Or even that 4 women working really long hours can do it in half the time.
The problem is companies are being ran by short sighted idiots who don't understand the nature of their business.
Yes, Cuba does need business and capital, it does need to expand its economy, it does need better infrastructure, and the unfinished/rough cinderblock construction is everywhere.
They have lots of poverty, and lots of problems. Their internal transportation is a mess.
It's also true that I've met many educated people working on resorts because they could make far more money.
I am not disagreeing with a single thing you said.
What I am saying is Cuba's tourism industry is already stretched beyond what it can handle, and is in desperate need of some re-vamping and improving ... but that suddenly bringing in a few million extra tourists will not immediately fix these problems, but will exaggerate them.
If you just unleash the economic chaos on them and hope everything will sort itself out, you'll do a lot of damage to them. And, as you say, if that change is exploitative it will harm them even further.
I'm not saying this isn't a sign of improvement for Cuba. But I also don't think suddenly saying "OK, two more million tourists, deal with it" will work ... because I already know for a fact that their tourist industry is straining at the seams.
In the short term, this has the potential to be more harmful than beneficial, because you can't just go full steam ahead and expect that to ramp up like it would be in a first world country.
Leasing? America is NOT "leasing" Guantanamo in any legitimate use of that word.
America jammed the Platt Amendment into Cuba's Constitution at the end of a war, which unilaterally said "we get to keep a navy base here" ... in effect "we own joo, bitches".
Cuba has never cashed the checks, has repeatedly said they don't consent to Guantanamo, and don't want the Americans there.
Guantanamo is basically a forcible military presence in a foreign country.
It sure as fuck isn't 'leased' in any honest meaning of 'lease'.
There's more to it than that. Far more.
Starting in 1901 when the US jammed the Platt Amendment into the Cuiban Constitution which America said entitles them to keep a naval base in Cuba (that's what Guantanamo is).
Carrying forward, the US was a backer of Batista, who was a petty little thug who did things like:
But, as always happens, he was a thug and a dictator but friendly to US business interests. So America liked him.
Basically the Cubans were poor and starving under a terrible government who cared more about US interests than its own citizens.
The American Mafia is largely whose stuff was nationalized:
So, let's not pretend that Cuba wasn't already under a corrupt dictatorship under which the citizens suffered hugely.
I'm not defending everything Castro did, but everyone likes to conveniently the history of American supported dictators allowing American organized crime to treat the nation as their own private playground.
Batista and the crooks really needed to go. And I'm afraid I have little sympathy for them.
Americans like to act like Castro overthrew a benign government, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Don't just look at the last 50 years, look at the last 100.
If you think an influx of money will magically fix a country which has a limited infrastructure and widespread poverty you're foolish and naive.
Maybe in the long run it will improve things.
In the short run I predict it will create a shitstorm which will be to the detriment of the Cubans.
You can't go from being embargoed to not embargoed overnight and expect that to work well at all. It simply doesn't work that way.
Until they can build up their infrastructure, and make some systemic changes to their economy, a sudden influx of Americans looking for McDonald's and five star resorts will not have good outcomes for Cuba.
I think it's long overdue to get rid of the embargo, but there's no way in hell I believe opening the floodgates to American tourists will have anything but a disruptive and negative effect for the immediate future.