The creative class is failing because the middle class who would support them is shrinking. Instead of money going to thousands and thousands of small creative enterprises, it is going to only a few dozen large enterprises (i.e. the 'job craters').
There, fixed that for you. I think you may have been misinterpreting that phrase before.
I recently had the good fortune to end up at a pizza joint next to a table full of kids from one of the local "bible colleges". They were exitedly going over some project they were working on for a class where they'd go through all kinds of logical contortions based on tiny Bible verse snippets all to maintain their premise of the work itself being perfectly infallable and consistent.
It occurred to me that this was almost exactly like those trek geeks arguing over how seeming inconsistencies between episodes weren't really inconsistent due to (whatever). I couldn't shake the feeling that if Jesus himself came down to talk to these kids, it would go exactly like Shatner's old "Get a life" SNL skit.
Everybody complaining about the headline using the wrong word is absolutely right, but missing the point.
These aren't people who don't want their own kids reading something they don't like. A parent has full power to deal with that at home.
These are people complaining that other people's kids are reading things they personally don't want them to. Note that just about every "library" in the USA is run by some arm of the government. So if the librariies in question were to act on any of these complaints, it most certianly would constitute government censorship, and thus these are all attempts to get the government to censor materials some person doesn't agree with other people having free access to.
You are quite correct in your first two sentences, then make the editor's same mistake in reverse in the next. If you have evidence that none of those materials were in fact removed due to the complaints, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, either don't make the assertion, or don't complain when the editors make the same logical fallacy. You don't get it both ways.
Because its boring as hell, and nobody would watch through to the gripping part.
Try it on youtube yourself. Watch something boring for a good two minues, with all those interesting looking "related" links off to the right just begging to be clicked on. If you are under age 45 (MTV generation or younger), I give you 10 seconds before you start to get jittery, and 20 (30 tops) before you can't take it anymore and click a link.
I actually have seen protest videos with extra chuff on the front, and went through that exact process. The ironic thing was that there were sometimes still folks insisting the attackers were provoked prior to filming in the comments. If you just don't want to believe someone could be attacked unfairly, no amount of prior context will convince you.
There are actually rather a lot of places that take it, even where I live in Oklahoma. This includes my grocery store, my pharmacy, and a lot of the fast-food outlets I frequent. If they could get QuikTrip (the local convienence store champion) on board, it would work for most of the times I use my bank card today.
We've had the ability to create "Metro-style" apps for years. We just always called them "maximized modal windows" before.
So if computing with maximized modal windows has been available for years, why wasn't everybody doing it before? Because desktop users hate them, that's why.
They may be convienent on platforms with little real-estate and gawky touch controls, but on a desktop they make no sense whatsoever, and frustrate the crap out of users. It's as if Microsoft has finally realized that shoehorning a desktop OS onto a cellphone (WinMo) doesn't work well (Yay!), so their latest idea is to instead wedge a cellphone OS onto a desktop PC (WTF?)
I guess using the right tool for the job on each (iow: keeping them different) isn't an option for some reason. Presumably, some non-technical reason, as iPhone and Android users with desktops seem to have little trouble with the idea.
If these devices are harnessing energy from the vibrations, wouldn't they also act to dampen the vibrations as well? So if you hooked enough up to siphon off a noticeable amount of energy, you'd also be noticeably extending the life of the pipeline or bridge section in question.
Also, the way you put it sort of hurts the Austrians, at least in my eyes. Theory is useless without observations. Where observations are somewhat useful with the judicious use of statistics and large data sets.
The problem is that there really is no better way to put it. Austrian economics was an old school that simply did not believe you could apply the Scientific Method to Macroeconomics. Keynsians believed you could, at least to a limited extent. This is roughly equivalent to the switchover between "Natural Philosophy" and "Physics".
If you believe the Scientific Method is worth persuing in macroeconomics, then I'm afraid the Austrian School is just not for you. However, it is just perfect for folks who have ideas they strongly want to be true, and think they can make plausible-sounding arguments for.
Wow. that's weird. Your first paragraph could not possibly be one iota more correct (even emotionally). But your second is horribly wrong, I wonder that you didn't get a nosebleed going from one to the other.
If you actually look at the month-to-moth economic statistics during the depression, they track almost perfectly with government spending. There was even a nice little interlude in there where the government got worried about the deficit, cut back a bit, and the economic growth fell back with it. Luckily people actually cared about results in those days, so the government immediately picked the spending back up when they saw this.
You are right that people back home lived fairly austerely during the WWII. However, this was mostly because the entire available production capacity of the USA was going full tilt pumping out war supplies for the Allies. It wasn't that folks didn't have money, it was that there was nothing to buy, and the government strongly encouraged everyone to lend their disposable income to the government (in the form of US savings bonds). For obvious reasons, China and Japan weren't buying our government debt back then, so government borrowing had to come almost entirely from US citizens.
That analogy would make sense only if the theories of John Maynard Keynes [wikipedia.org] were as universally accepted as those of Einstein
Then it makes sense. I think perhaps you underestimate the amount of folks out there who don't accept Einstein's theories, instead preferring their own polished versions of older theories that are inherently untestable.
The thing about Keynesian Economics is that it actually attempts to bring some science into Economics (as much as is possible). The previous school of thought (commonly referred to as "Austrian") dismisses the idea of trying to test theories out of hand as infeasible, and tries to rely on logic. It is much more philosophy than science. That it has any purchase at all these days is more a testament to some folks fear of having their theories tested than its own inherent qualities.
Bascially, comparing Keynsian Economists to Austrian Economists is like comparing (early) Astronomers to Astrologers.
Here's how I explain what I do to people who don't understand programming.
I just say, "I tell computers what to do. They tell me to go screw myself..." (insert hand gesture here) "and do something else. Then I spend the rest of the day trying to figure out why."
You might have to change the hand gesuture and verbage a bit for second graders, but I think it would still work.
Political considerations aside, land in California is just a wee bit more expensive than in the Aletian Islands. Perhaps it has something to do with people actually wanting to live there.
Note that we bought the entire frigging state of Alaska for the 2011 equivalent of $161 Million.
Perhaps just the Northerners you are used to dealing with.
I had a friend who grew up in Philidelphia. When he moved to the South he started raving about how nice everyone was. I had to hurredly explain the difference between friendly and polite to him (yes, people will be polite to you when they actually hate your guts). He was clueless.
Well, if the "pointer bruising" bothers you, you could always use one of the myriad of other "native" compiler languages that doesn't rely on error-prone pointers for every damn little thing like C++ does. Ada, Delphi, and Eiffel spring to mind.
Then if these chemicals are found in drinking water, lakes or streams, you know where they came from, and can issue a massive fine to the oil company and well owner
...who then promptly declare bankrupcy and stick the locals (or perhaps eventually the Government) with the cleanup. Hopefully nobody died in the meantime.
How about instead we just not do the things that cause these little human-made disasters in the first place?
Slashdot Mirror
The creative class is failing because the middle class who would support them is shrinking. Instead of money going to thousands and thousands of small creative enterprises, it is going to only a few dozen large enterprises (i.e. the 'job craters').
There, fixed that for you. I think you may have been misinterpreting that phrase before.
...but in a totally non-gay way of course.
I recently had the good fortune to end up at a pizza joint next to a table full of kids from one of the local "bible colleges". They were exitedly going over some project they were working on for a class where they'd go through all kinds of logical contortions based on tiny Bible verse snippets all to maintain their premise of the work itself being perfectly infallable and consistent.
It occurred to me that this was almost exactly like those trek geeks arguing over how seeming inconsistencies between episodes weren't really inconsistent due to (whatever). I couldn't shake the feeling that if Jesus himself came down to talk to these kids, it would go exactly like Shatner's old "Get a life" SNL skit.
How sad for you. I currently have one within reach.
Everybody complaining about the headline using the wrong word is absolutely right, but missing the point.
These aren't people who don't want their own kids reading something they don't like. A parent has full power to deal with that at home.
These are people complaining that other people's kids are reading things they personally don't want them to. Note that just about every "library" in the USA is run by some arm of the government. So if the librariies in question were to act on any of these complaints, it most certianly would constitute government censorship, and thus these are all attempts to get the government to censor materials some person doesn't agree with other people having free access to.
Well, if you RTFA, you may notice that it made the list too in 2005 and 2001.
You are quite correct in your first two sentences, then make the editor's same mistake in reverse in the next. If you have evidence that none of those materials were in fact removed due to the complaints, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, either don't make the assertion, or don't complain when the editors make the same logical fallacy. You don't get it both ways.
Because its boring as hell, and nobody would watch through to the gripping part.
Try it on youtube yourself. Watch something boring for a good two minues, with all those interesting looking "related" links off to the right just begging to be clicked on. If you are under age 45 (MTV generation or younger), I give you 10 seconds before you start to get jittery, and 20 (30 tops) before you can't take it anymore and click a link.
I actually have seen protest videos with extra chuff on the front, and went through that exact process. The ironic thing was that there were sometimes still folks insisting the attackers were provoked prior to filming in the comments. If you just don't want to believe someone could be attacked unfairly, no amount of prior context will convince you.
This post has been designated the winner of the the prestigous "Best Use of a Car Analogy on Slashdot" award for September, 2011.
My current desktop is over 5 years old and I have no intention of upgrading it any time soon.
...he says before Diablo III comes out.
You got me curious, so I went and checked.
There are actually rather a lot of places that take it, even where I live in Oklahoma. This includes my grocery store, my pharmacy, and a lot of the fast-food outlets I frequent. If they could get QuikTrip (the local convienence store champion) on board, it would work for most of the times I use my bank card today.
We've had the ability to create "Metro-style" apps for years. We just always called them "maximized modal windows" before.
So if computing with maximized modal windows has been available for years, why wasn't everybody doing it before? Because desktop users hate them, that's why.
They may be convienent on platforms with little real-estate and gawky touch controls, but on a desktop they make no sense whatsoever, and frustrate the crap out of users. It's as if Microsoft has finally realized that shoehorning a desktop OS onto a cellphone (WinMo) doesn't work well (Yay!), so their latest idea is to instead wedge a cellphone OS onto a desktop PC (WTF?)
I guess using the right tool for the job on each (iow: keeping them different) isn't an option for some reason. Presumably, some non-technical reason, as iPhone and Android users with desktops seem to have little trouble with the idea.
If these devices are harnessing energy from the vibrations, wouldn't they also act to dampen the vibrations as well? So if you hooked enough up to siphon off a noticeable amount of energy, you'd also be noticeably extending the life of the pipeline or bridge section in question.
Tea Party to English translation: These particular scientific conclusions happen to be inconvienent for rich coroporations.
Since the amount of Bitcoins is limited, and as time goes on the early adopters get "richer" (since less is being mined),
OK. Now explain to me how this is not a pyramid scheme.
Also, the way you put it sort of hurts the Austrians, at least in my eyes. Theory is useless without observations. Where observations are somewhat useful with the judicious use of statistics and large data sets.
The problem is that there really is no better way to put it. Austrian economics was an old school that simply did not believe you could apply the Scientific Method to Macroeconomics. Keynsians believed you could, at least to a limited extent. This is roughly equivalent to the switchover between "Natural Philosophy" and "Physics".
If you believe the Scientific Method is worth persuing in macroeconomics, then I'm afraid the Austrian School is just not for you. However, it is just perfect for folks who have ideas they strongly want to be true, and think they can make plausible-sounding arguments for.
Wow. that's weird. Your first paragraph could not possibly be one iota more correct (even emotionally). But your second is horribly wrong, I wonder that you didn't get a nosebleed going from one to the other.
If you actually look at the month-to-moth economic statistics during the depression, they track almost perfectly with government spending. There was even a nice little interlude in there where the government got worried about the deficit, cut back a bit, and the economic growth fell back with it. Luckily people actually cared about results in those days, so the government immediately picked the spending back up when they saw this.
You are right that people back home lived fairly austerely during the WWII. However, this was mostly because the entire available production capacity of the USA was going full tilt pumping out war supplies for the Allies. It wasn't that folks didn't have money, it was that there was nothing to buy, and the government strongly encouraged everyone to lend their disposable income to the government (in the form of US savings bonds). For obvious reasons, China and Japan weren't buying our government debt back then, so government borrowing had to come almost entirely from US citizens.
That analogy would make sense only if the theories of John Maynard Keynes [wikipedia.org] were as universally accepted as those of Einstein
Then it makes sense. I think perhaps you underestimate the amount of folks out there who don't accept Einstein's theories, instead preferring their own polished versions of older theories that are inherently untestable.
The thing about Keynesian Economics is that it actually attempts to bring some science into Economics (as much as is possible). The previous school of thought (commonly referred to as "Austrian") dismisses the idea of trying to test theories out of hand as infeasible, and tries to rely on logic. It is much more philosophy than science. That it has any purchase at all these days is more a testament to some folks fear of having their theories tested than its own inherent qualities.
Bascially, comparing Keynsian Economists to Austrian Economists is like comparing (early) Astronomers to Astrologers.
FMC is Aerospace-ese for "Flight Management Computer". Lots of companies both big and small (USA and foreign) make them.
Here's how I explain what I do to people who don't understand programming.
I just say, "I tell computers what to do. They tell me to go screw myself..." (insert hand gesture here) "and do something else. Then I spend the rest of the day trying to figure out why."
You might have to change the hand gesuture and verbage a bit for second graders, but I think it would still work.
Political considerations aside, land in California is just a wee bit more expensive than in the Aletian Islands. Perhaps it has something to do with people actually wanting to live there.
Note that we bought the entire frigging state of Alaska for the 2011 equivalent of $161 Million.
Perhaps just the Northerners you are used to dealing with.
I had a friend who grew up in Philidelphia. When he moved to the South he started raving about how nice everyone was. I had to hurredly explain the difference between friendly and polite to him (yes, people will be polite to you when they actually hate your guts). He was clueless.
In that case, you could probably make a killing reselling WOOT! fanny packs among her tribe.
Well, if the "pointer bruising" bothers you, you could always use one of the myriad of other "native" compiler languages that doesn't rely on error-prone pointers for every damn little thing like C++ does. Ada, Delphi, and Eiffel spring to mind.
Then if these chemicals are found in drinking water, lakes or streams, you know where they came from, and can issue a massive fine to the oil company and well owner
...who then promptly declare bankrupcy and stick the locals (or perhaps eventually the Government) with the cleanup. Hopefully nobody died in the meantime.
How about instead we just not do the things that cause these little human-made disasters in the first place?