"No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby"
Don't care? I don't know about that. If they don't care it's probably ignorance.
If you travel around the world, and you read the local newspapers (presuming you can read the language), what you discover is that the world relies on us for a lot of their science and social science research. Articles discussing air pollution will cite EPA studies of the United States because they simply don't have any data at all for their own country.
Now for some years I worked with public health agencies as a vendor, including CDC. Once I was at the Fort Collins where their vector borne disease division is headquartered. I just arrived, when all my meetings were cancelled: they were scrambling a team to go to East Africa, I think because of a Rift Valley Fever outbreak. Why would they do that? Because CDC practices a kind of forward-based defense of US public health: stop the infection over there before it makes it over here. They do that because the kinds of places these pathogens emerge don't have the scientific resources to track and characterize the problem, much less deal with it.
The US is at present still a scientific hyperpower. The world depends on our scientific capabilities. If we step back from that role, places like Europe and China will take up some of the slack, but our scientific might is indispensable.
The hiring manager cares. You go in and everybody you talk to is delighted to have someone with such great resume. Then you met the person you'd be reporting to and he's a lot younger than you. You get a very different vibe; he's cautious, because he's afraid what you're really after is his job. Or at the very least you think you know more than he does, which you probably do.
Then don't encrypt and click through the security warning if for some reason the computational costs are a problem.
From the developer's standpoint, the question is which default behavior causes more harm over the entire user base: treating http as secure enough when users are exchanging sensitive information, or putting up a nagging message the user has to click through (or add the site to a whiteliest) when he doesn't want encryption for some reason.
True, but it still doesn't do you any good to apply to a job where they'll look at your resume and discard it because you have too much experience. Or if you trim the resume they'll figure it out in the interview.
Well, if you've ever made any maps with GIS, you'd know that maps aren't just any old artifacts; they're *tools* that support specific *tasks*. Driving from 123 Sesame St to 456 Maple is only one of many possible things you can do with a map. There's deciding whether a park you haven't visited would be a good place to take your toddler. If you've ever done this, you know that you use multiple kinds of details in that particular task. Is the park bordered by busy roads? Does it have a fence? Are there nearby businesses that might have a bathroom?
I use Google Maps to scout new fishing spots -- I'm looking for places where there is access to a likely looking stream, but not so obvious that there will be someone there already. You can do similar kinds of screening for locating places you might want to visit when you're thinking about opening a business. For these kinds of things you need multiple layers of detail, and those layers have to be visually organized.
Maps are like pocket knives. You can whittle with a Swiss Army knife, but it's not as good as a purpose-made whittling knife. Adding details layers to maps is like adding blades to a Swiss Army knife; sure it becomes more versatile, but at some point it becomes more awkward to use for certain tasks. The difference is with maps you can use graphic design to emphasize certain features and de-emphasize others. This reduces visual clutter, and makes it easier to use -- sometimes even when the de-emphasized features are needed for a particular tasks. Tasks proceed in steps and each step needs different information. You use high contrast for details that the user scans for, and low visual contrast is acceptable for steps where he's focused on one spot.
"Productivity" is probably the wrong word here. "Activity" might be better.
People often start doing *too* many things when they don't know *what* to do. You see this with entrepreneurs who are failing at that difficult transition from tiny early startup to something too big for one person. These people are in a high status position, but they don't know what to do with it. What they should do is make the transition from hands-on idea man to corporate leader, hire someone who can do that, or sell out. What they often end up doing is torpedoing their own business with unproductive or even counter-productive activity.
People sometimes act as if suffering makes them deserving. Voluntarily partaking in useless suffering only makes you deserving of scorn. The best advice you can give someone who is overextended in his business is this: "focus on the stuff that really energizes you, hire people to do the stuff that drains you *then let them do their f'in job*."
I've worked with many scientists, helping them prepare proposals and in some cases even draft responses to peer reviews. Never do they invoke anything like the concept of truth.
In science closest thing to "truth" you have "consensus", but it functions very differently in reasoning. Contradicting the truth means you're wrong, end of story. Contradicting consensus means you carry a burden of proof.
The first presidential election I can remember is Nixon-Humphrey. Having observed the Republican Party for decades now, he biggest change in the party came with the post-Nixon absorption of the Dixiecrats. And the big new thing they brought into the Republican Party wasn't racism, it was the kind of romanticism that makes nostalgia for the Confederacy possible.
Prior to the Southern Strategy the ideology of the Republican Party was Burkean Conservatism, a kind of hard-headed skepticism of far-fetched ideas and idealistic theories. Edmund Burke was the sort of conservative who could enthusiastically support the monarchy while regarding monarchists as idiots. He liked monarchy not because it was the ideal form of government, but because Britons had figured out how to make it work.
The party's new (n.b.) form of conservatism seeks to create (or return to) a perfected society. In other words it is kind of radical idealism, without Burkean pragmatism or respect for the world's complexity. That's what allows men like Roy Moore to say things would be better if we went back to just the first 10 Constitutional Amendments, which of course would re-establish slavery, empower states to abridge the rights and seize the property of individuals without due process, and take away the vote from women. It would also reinstate the system in which the runner-up for president became vice-president, which proved to be unworkable. Only a radical could entertain the notion of such change, and only a romantic would advocate for this particular change.
The thing is, Romney was probably the best candidate the Republicans put forth since Bob Dole -- who would have been a great old-school Republican president. But in present American politics a man of that kind of substance falls between two chairs. He's not a progressive, nor is he a romantic figure who fires radical reactionary passions. He's the kind of choice you'd make with your head, not your heart.
There was already evidence pointing toward North Korea, and other more credible sources have come to that conclusion. And as big a deal as WannaCry was for affected businesses and IT people, it's hard to see how this has much political impact for the White House.
Given North Korea's proven nuclear activities as well as criminal activities like counterfeiting, drugs, terrorism, slavery, and nuclear technology transfer, falsely adding WannaCry to the list would be gilding the lily.
All politicians lie, because all *people* lie. But that doesn't make everyone equally honest. Nor are politicians equally dishonest.
The highest degree of honesty consistent with success as a politician is what I call the prosecutorial standard. At a trial a prosecutor is actually expected to omit facts that might weaken his case (lies of omission). He is expected to present facts in an unfairly damning light (lies by equivocation).But he's not allowed to outright fabricate evidence. That would be a crime. The reason this standard works is that the prosecutor has an opponent who is highly trained in spotting the kinds of lies he's allowed to use, and who presents a rebuttal: the defense attorney. The jury understands that both the prosecutor and defense attorney are presenting misleading arguments, their job is to produce from those lies a more accurate and nuanced picture of the truth.
There is one other very important factor in the prosecutorial standard of honesty: the prosecutor is expected to believe that the verdict he is pursuing is the correct one. A defense attorney has no such duty.
A politician who only lies within the bounds of the prosecutorial standard of honesty can reasonably be called an "honest" politician, although we should take it for granted that he lies. Even though he is a liar, we can count on an "honest" politician pursuing a result he actually believes in, and his statements to generally be factually defensible (the very lowest possible standard of honesty), even when they're deliberately misleading. A democracy can live with this rather low standard of honesty as long as the politician has political opponents who will rebut him. This doesn't work quite so well as it does in the courts, because in the real world there is usually more than two sides to a question. Nor does it work when politicians on both sides of a question have been co-opted by donors.
I'd argue that most people aren't even prepared to deal with higher standards of honesty than prosecutorial honesty. There is one group that routinely adheres to much higher standards of honesty, and that's scientists. But laymen misconstrue the "on the one hand/on the other hand" style of discourse scientists are trained in as prevarication. Most people can't tell the difference between dancing around the truth and wresting with it.
It's interesting that you bring up cell phone service, because that's what they ISPs want to do -- be like cell carriers used to be before Apple forced them to open their networks, selling packages of network applications. Cell phones before the iPhone had cameras, but hardly anyone used them because the only way to get them off was to subscribe to the carrier's "picture mail" service.
Anti-net neutrality is all a bout monetizing user choices, which means that Internet service provider choices will become more difficult. Do I want to give up Hulu to get access to Netflix? Service offerings will start to look like Cable TV packages, simplifying choices we haven't had to make up until now.
Now what flat Earthers will actually tell you about weather balloon pictures is that they're actually the result of the fisheye lens effect. And here's the thing: they're mostly right about that! The dramatic curvature you see on balloon videos is a result of using a wide-angle lens.
However the fisheye effect doesn't affect the center of the image, where you can see the curvature. It's subtle. It's also missing in some shots. That's because the curvature as seen from the lower stratosphere is so subtle it can easily be obliterated by high cloud cover, when the clouds are quite a bit nearer to you than the horizon.
What you need is a shot where the camera is centered on a clear view of the horizon, and then you look at only the center of the image. It's visible, but again it's quite subtle.
He'd be better off letting the balloon go higher with a lighter payload. A steam rocket with its massive pressure vessel is going to take more off your maximum altitude than it contributes.
The first humans to see the curvature of the Earth were US Army captains Albert Stevens and Orvil Anderson, who achieved an altitude of 22km in the Helium-filled Explorer II balloon on November 11, 1935. This would be the way to go. The record for a hot-air balloon ascent is 21 km, which would be sufficient to detect the curvature of the Earth if your gondola sported a porthole with a sufficiently wide field of view.
But the easiest and cheapest sensory evidence you can get is from a camera lofted into the stratosphere by a weather balloon. For under $150 you can buy a ballon with a burst height of over 35 km. You could probably rig the entire mission for under $1000.
Slashdot Mirror
"No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby"
And what's more nobody will be able to edit that information, only add to it.
Don't care? I don't know about that. If they don't care it's probably ignorance.
If you travel around the world, and you read the local newspapers (presuming you can read the language), what you discover is that the world relies on us for a lot of their science and social science research. Articles discussing air pollution will cite EPA studies of the United States because they simply don't have any data at all for their own country.
Now for some years I worked with public health agencies as a vendor, including CDC. Once I was at the Fort Collins where their vector borne disease division is headquartered. I just arrived, when all my meetings were cancelled: they were scrambling a team to go to East Africa, I think because of a Rift Valley Fever outbreak. Why would they do that? Because CDC practices a kind of forward-based defense of US public health: stop the infection over there before it makes it over here. They do that because the kinds of places these pathogens emerge don't have the scientific resources to track and characterize the problem, much less deal with it.
The US is at present still a scientific hyperpower. The world depends on our scientific capabilities. If we step back from that role, places like Europe and China will take up some of the slack, but our scientific might is indispensable.
Actually it's how you get killer mutant bird flu. Which is worse. You can't stop flu by shooting it in the head.
I took two years off because one of my kids was sick. Killed my career.
The hiring manager cares. You go in and everybody you talk to is delighted to have someone with such great resume. Then you met the person you'd be reporting to and he's a lot younger than you. You get a very different vibe; he's cautious, because he's afraid what you're really after is his job. Or at the very least you think you know more than he does, which you probably do.
Then don't encrypt and click through the security warning if for some reason the computational costs are a problem.
From the developer's standpoint, the question is which default behavior causes more harm over the entire user base: treating http as secure enough when users are exchanging sensitive information, or putting up a nagging message the user has to click through (or add the site to a whiteliest) when he doesn't want encryption for some reason.
True, but it still doesn't do you any good to apply to a job where they'll look at your resume and discard it because you have too much experience. Or if you trim the resume they'll figure it out in the interview.
Well, if you've ever made any maps with GIS, you'd know that maps aren't just any old artifacts; they're *tools* that support specific *tasks*. Driving from 123 Sesame St to 456 Maple is only one of many possible things you can do with a map. There's deciding whether a park you haven't visited would be a good place to take your toddler. If you've ever done this, you know that you use multiple kinds of details in that particular task. Is the park bordered by busy roads? Does it have a fence? Are there nearby businesses that might have a bathroom?
I use Google Maps to scout new fishing spots -- I'm looking for places where there is access to a likely looking stream, but not so obvious that there will be someone there already. You can do similar kinds of screening for locating places you might want to visit when you're thinking about opening a business. For these kinds of things you need multiple layers of detail, and those layers have to be visually organized.
Maps are like pocket knives. You can whittle with a Swiss Army knife, but it's not as good as a purpose-made whittling knife. Adding details layers to maps is like adding blades to a Swiss Army knife; sure it becomes more versatile, but at some point it becomes more awkward to use for certain tasks. The difference is with maps you can use graphic design to emphasize certain features and de-emphasize others. This reduces visual clutter, and makes it easier to use -- sometimes even when the de-emphasized features are needed for a particular tasks. Tasks proceed in steps and each step needs different information. You use high contrast for details that the user scans for, and low visual contrast is acceptable for steps where he's focused on one spot.
"Productivity" is probably the wrong word here. "Activity" might be better.
People often start doing *too* many things when they don't know *what* to do. You see this with entrepreneurs who are failing at that difficult transition from tiny early startup to something too big for one person. These people are in a high status position, but they don't know what to do with it. What they should do is make the transition from hands-on idea man to corporate leader, hire someone who can do that, or sell out. What they often end up doing is torpedoing their own business with unproductive or even counter-productive activity.
People sometimes act as if suffering makes them deserving. Voluntarily partaking in useless suffering only makes you deserving of scorn. The best advice you can give someone who is overextended in his business is this: "focus on the stuff that really energizes you, hire people to do the stuff that drains you *then let them do their f'in job*."
Experience has shown, actually.
I've worked with many scientists, helping them prepare proposals and in some cases even draft responses to peer reviews. Never do they invoke anything like the concept of truth.
In science closest thing to "truth" you have "consensus", but it functions very differently in reasoning. Contradicting the truth means you're wrong, end of story. Contradicting consensus means you carry a burden of proof.
Scientists don't deal with truth, they deal with evidence. If you don't understand that, you don't understand science.
The first presidential election I can remember is Nixon-Humphrey. Having observed the Republican Party for decades now, he biggest change in the party came with the post-Nixon absorption of the Dixiecrats. And the big new thing they brought into the Republican Party wasn't racism, it was the kind of romanticism that makes nostalgia for the Confederacy possible.
Prior to the Southern Strategy the ideology of the Republican Party was Burkean Conservatism, a kind of hard-headed skepticism of far-fetched ideas and idealistic theories. Edmund Burke was the sort of conservative who could enthusiastically support the monarchy while regarding monarchists as idiots. He liked monarchy not because it was the ideal form of government, but because Britons had figured out how to make it work.
The party's new (n.b.) form of conservatism seeks to create (or return to) a perfected society. In other words it is kind of radical idealism, without Burkean pragmatism or respect for the world's complexity. That's what allows men like Roy Moore to say things would be better if we went back to just the first 10 Constitutional Amendments, which of course would re-establish slavery, empower states to abridge the rights and seize the property of individuals without due process, and take away the vote from women. It would also reinstate the system in which the runner-up for president became vice-president, which proved to be unworkable. Only a radical could entertain the notion of such change, and only a romantic would advocate for this particular change.
The thing is, Romney was probably the best candidate the Republicans put forth since Bob Dole -- who would have been a great old-school Republican president. But in present American politics a man of that kind of substance falls between two chairs. He's not a progressive, nor is he a romantic figure who fires radical reactionary passions. He's the kind of choice you'd make with your head, not your heart.
There was already evidence pointing toward North Korea, and other more credible sources have come to that conclusion. And as big a deal as WannaCry was for affected businesses and IT people, it's hard to see how this has much political impact for the White House.
Given North Korea's proven nuclear activities as well as criminal activities like counterfeiting, drugs, terrorism, slavery, and nuclear technology transfer, falsely adding WannaCry to the list would be gilding the lily.
All politicians lie, because all *people* lie. But that doesn't make everyone equally honest. Nor are politicians equally dishonest.
The highest degree of honesty consistent with success as a politician is what I call the prosecutorial standard. At a trial a prosecutor is actually expected to omit facts that might weaken his case (lies of omission). He is expected to present facts in an unfairly damning light (lies by equivocation).But he's not allowed to outright fabricate evidence. That would be a crime. The reason this standard works is that the prosecutor has an opponent who is highly trained in spotting the kinds of lies he's allowed to use, and who presents a rebuttal: the defense attorney. The jury understands that both the prosecutor and defense attorney are presenting misleading arguments, their job is to produce from those lies a more accurate and nuanced picture of the truth.
There is one other very important factor in the prosecutorial standard of honesty: the prosecutor is expected to believe that the verdict he is pursuing is the correct one. A defense attorney has no such duty.
A politician who only lies within the bounds of the prosecutorial standard of honesty can reasonably be called an "honest" politician, although we should take it for granted that he lies. Even though he is a liar, we can count on an "honest" politician pursuing a result he actually believes in, and his statements to generally be factually defensible (the very lowest possible standard of honesty), even when they're deliberately misleading. A democracy can live with this rather low standard of honesty as long as the politician has political opponents who will rebut him. This doesn't work quite so well as it does in the courts, because in the real world there is usually more than two sides to a question. Nor does it work when politicians on both sides of a question have been co-opted by donors.
I'd argue that most people aren't even prepared to deal with higher standards of honesty than prosecutorial honesty. There is one group that routinely adheres to much higher standards of honesty, and that's scientists. But laymen misconstrue the "on the one hand/on the other hand" style of discourse scientists are trained in as prevarication. Most people can't tell the difference between dancing around the truth and wresting with it.
Myths are supposed to be truthful, not factual.
the year the frog noticed the water was getting kind of hot.
Man woman
Try it.
If you're going to quote network poetry it could at least be a SONET.
Colonize the swamp.
I misread the headline as saying "America's Rant Crisis May Be Ending."
It's interesting that you bring up cell phone service, because that's what they ISPs want to do -- be like cell carriers used to be before Apple forced them to open their networks, selling packages of network applications. Cell phones before the iPhone had cameras, but hardly anyone used them because the only way to get them off was to subscribe to the carrier's "picture mail" service.
Anti-net neutrality is all a bout monetizing user choices, which means that Internet service provider choices will become more difficult. Do I want to give up Hulu to get access to Netflix? Service offerings will start to look like Cable TV packages, simplifying choices we haven't had to make up until now.
Well, are we to construe it as SingleSpeak or DoubleSpeak?
Well, you can use an analog camera.
Now what flat Earthers will actually tell you about weather balloon pictures is that they're actually the result of the fisheye lens effect. And here's the thing: they're mostly right about that! The dramatic curvature you see on balloon videos is a result of using a wide-angle lens.
However the fisheye effect doesn't affect the center of the image, where you can see the curvature. It's subtle. It's also missing in some shots. That's because the curvature as seen from the lower stratosphere is so subtle it can easily be obliterated by high cloud cover, when the clouds are quite a bit nearer to you than the horizon.
What you need is a shot where the camera is centered on a clear view of the horizon, and then you look at only the center of the image. It's visible, but again it's quite subtle.
He'd be better off letting the balloon go higher with a lighter payload. A steam rocket with its massive pressure vessel is going to take more off your maximum altitude than it contributes.
The first humans to see the curvature of the Earth were US Army captains Albert Stevens and Orvil Anderson, who achieved an altitude of 22km in the Helium-filled Explorer II balloon on November 11, 1935. This would be the way to go. The record for a hot-air balloon ascent is 21 km, which would be sufficient to detect the curvature of the Earth if your gondola sported a porthole with a sufficiently wide field of view.
But the easiest and cheapest sensory evidence you can get is from a camera lofted into the stratosphere by a weather balloon. For under $150 you can buy a ballon with a burst height of over 35 km. You could probably rig the entire mission for under $1000.