You and your repliers are all missing one crucial point. External costs. Burning a gallon of gas damages the environment and the user of the gas doesn't pay for the damages. Further, burning a gallon of gas removes a gallon of gas from the total supply - forever.
1.) What is burned is never replaced. So, the per gallon price should take into account the opportunity cost of burning that gallon of gas in the future. 2.) Burning a gallon of gas damages the environment. I'm not a chemist, so you'd have to ask someone else for the specifics. But the damage done is not paid for by the person who burns the gallon of gas. Therefore, the tradeoff between damage done and energy utilized can not be made. (Several years ago, this damage cost was estimated at $12/gallon.)
These two factors, and whatever I'm forgetting or not explaining fully, form most of the reasons I've heard for increasing per gallon taxes.
who would you rather have split the atom first? Nazi Germany?
I would have preferred Bell Labs to patent the first nuclear weapon. Then we'd have one company for all countries to 'license' their nuclear weapons from.
Scientists, on the other hand, are more likely to be welfare-staters, because their science funding and grantsmanship culture is ever more dependent on the state.
So many things wrong with this idea.
1.) Academic findings benefit all humanity, since they are publicly available. (Read that a couple times.) 2.) I would venture that most scientists are employed outside of academia. (I.E. they're producers..) (Unless you're defining a scientist as someone in a science field that never applies science. That's a rather arbitrary distinction since all applied subjects rely on theoretical constructs, and rife for counter examples.) 3.) There's a fundamental question that your statement begs at. That fundamental question threatens the nature of our civilization. 'Pure' science subjects (theoretical physics, theoretical chemistry, pure math, and so on) are probably best funded by a government. Ideally, they would be conducted in a vacuum outside of the economy (maybe then all results would be trustable). But, short of that, broad reaching government funding probably works best. Even number theory has its applications, and I doubt any developments would be made in number theory without government funding. 4.) Contrast professor pay with industry pay sometime. Be careful to include years of experience, as professor positions require constant research into new areas. A tenured professor probably has dozens of published articles and roughly a decade worth of work experience. In short, they're experts at the top of their fields. In industry, they would be paid at the top end.
It could also be that life, as we know it, is not the only way that life can exist. Maybe the factors we find so key (liquid water, planetary e&m field, etc) are more like the specifics of our own existence than the specifics of all existence.
Yes, "earth-like" is a misnomer and short sighted. But, believing we know the true nature of life across the universe is a whole other category of short sighted.
I have it on good authority that 99% of all studies find exactly what the author(s) wanted them to find all along.
Somewhat off topic, but you're just complaining about stylistic form. If you're reading a report then the author has already:
1.) Worked out his/her theory. 2.) Collected whatever data were necessary to test that theory. 3.) Ran and analyzed whatever results he/she came up with. 4.) Wrote the very article you're reading in a way that sounds like all of those steps just followed logically and naturally. No bumps, no hiccups, no rejected data requests, no oddball last minute 'anythings', etc etc.
That last bit is the part you're complaining about. It's far easier to tell the story as though everything went to plan. For that matter, readers don't like too many details.
I don't know -- I get the impression that he's bitter about his ALS and says there's no God b/c he has his condition.
Well at least he's doing something about it. Trying to prove there is no god and all.. Most people are to lazy to try...
It's a misnomer to say physics presumes the non-existence of a god. I further fail to see a link between studying black-holes and anything related to god.
That's a difference between science and religion, by the way. All scientific hypothesis must be testable for them ever to become theories. TESTABLE. If a hypothesis can never be tested...it's slipped over to the religion side of things.
I don't know -- I get the impression that he's bitter about his ALS and says there's no God b/c he has his condition.
Got a reference to back that up?
I've heard he's not a pleasant person to work with in the past. But, I think it's a stretch to say his work in physics has been fueled by some deep hate of his condition and a rage toward some guilty god......I bet it's more likely a chance to explore the universe outside of his rather confined body.
Should be: "For some reason, Android advocates who trashed Microsoft for the same behavior ignore it when it comes from a multibillion dollar advertising company that happens to push Linux."
Wow, I'm sorry you and the above got modded down so much.
Your comments aren't over rational and contain no foul language...yours, particularly, contains nothing remotely like a personal attack. (The GP does discuss one person directly, but in a brief and mostly objective way.)
This is so true and so rarely discussed. Adam Smith--so beloved of talking-head capitalists--thought publicly held corporations were a terrible idea, but somehow that part of the message never comes up on CNBC when they're discussing the invisible hand.
I wish people actually read Smith's work, directly, more often.
I think they'd find he's much farther left than otherwise expected. (Other times he's just quaintly hundreds of years out of date. Nails one at a time? ha!)
1.) philosophy. currently reading "existentialism: from dostoevsky to sartre". Very good, if you can commit to it. The Karl Jaspers excerpts really encapsulate my favored view of existentialism. 2.) Hemingway. 3.) Isaac Asimov. 4.) John K. Galbraith
Yeah, if they want to avoid fragmentation, BSD seems the way to go. (CCL == BSD, I think?) 30 years later and we don't have distributions of BSD, we have 'branches'.
Where does this term come from? I mean, are we talking about a business/institution here or what? I think it just means some large group of computers that some small set of professionals are responsible for maintaining...but at other times "enterprise" is used to actually refer to the overlying business structure. In that case, shouldn't we be referring to "the business" and not "the enterprise"?
So, instead of answering the question, you argue that I'm just not smart enough to see the obvious? How quaint.
No where did I say you weren't smart enough to understand something. I said that I doubt you'll ever have an appreciation for astronomical research, it's goals, and it's place in the world. You can prove me wrong by simply:
1.) Coming up with a compelling alternative to projects such as this as a national investment in R&D. Would you prefer finance researchers create new financial products such as more mortgage-backed securities or credit-default swaps? 2.) Proving that projects such as this study have never and can never design nor research something useful to society. 3.) Admitting you were wrong and that looking into the stars can teach us all a thing or two.
I would argue that the question of whether humans occupy a privileged position in the universe does affect the decision making of many people.
...in how they relate to each other, the non-human life on this planet, and our collective environment from second to second, day to day, year to year, generation to generation, and so on and so on.
Not too long ago, believing the earth wasn't the center of the universe could get a person killed. Remove certain strong beliefs and people wont feel they can throw anyone to the fire for simple, erroneous judgements. This leads to enhanced freedom from persecution and greater general happiness, I recon. Maybe learning we're not unique will lead us to treating our world with more respect.
To not waste space, I'll also give a short list of NASA-research impacted inventions: -microwaves: --everything from the microwave oven, the cell phone, GPS, and wireless internet signals are understood through techniques originally used by NASA.
-velcro --originally designed for space suits
-any number of materials engineering breakthroughs --all I know is, without carefully designed, ceramic tiles, going into space would always be a one way trip. I'm not a mat. engineer, but I'm sure those ceramics have helped all sorts of industrial processes. (Say, electrical power generation where you've got tons of heat to insulate and transport. Or, simply moving heat away from a CPU, perhaps?)
Now what? Everybody says, "Woohoo!" and goes home? I just don't see how this has any importance, whatsoever, because I don't see how it can have any measurable effect on any decision made by anyone on this planet in the foreseeable future.
If you don't already see the importance in discovering life outside of our own planet, then I doubt you ever will. Go out into the world sometime, enjoy it, and see if you don't come back wanting more life in this universe. (Please note, I said 'into the world'. The 'world' is not just the human world. The human portion of this world is only the tiniest fraction of the greater whole. As Ed Abbey would say: Go to a national park, park your car, get out, and crawl on your stomach across the rocks and plants. Maybe, just maybe, then you'll learn something. He and I both doubt you will, but if you do that long enough your chances are better.)
It's about actually helping charities (if it were to actually work, which it seems like it might not).
Robin Hood wasn't running for President, in case you forgot the story.
Do you honestly think any (honest) charities out there actually want stolen contributions?
If you want to help someone, ask that *someone* what they need. I'd bet they'd appreciate honest, volunteer IT work more than dishonest funds (that they ultimately can't accept). If that sounds like trash, well, program up a two dollar app and donate the proceeds. There are ways to make an honest contribution to society with l33t hacker sk1LL
Sometime over the past few decades, people have forgotten that major cultural changes were preceded by essays, speeches, and persuasive arguments, endorsed by displays of public support. Now, "protesting" has turned into an orgy of destruction and disruption, in the hopes of extorting change.
Bingo! Somehow, I've noticed a distinct turn away from the written word. We don't have time for it. "Oh, I have to read something? Forget it, I'll go play Angry Birds."
That might just be the people I know, though...this city has that affect upon people.
Why can't they just make a wikipedia style disambiguation page? It's the obvious, adult, fair solution that a hoarde of lawyers would never come up with.
I agree, though I still like FB's decision. (That feel weird to say to anyone else?)
Can we just agree that Apple hardware articles are flamebait by default, especially the ones about the mere possibility of new Apple hardware, and stop frickin posting them?
Plenty of the more popular things posted on this site are polarizing. Look at some of the things that aren't polarizing, how many comments they get, and contrast with the number of comments here. I'd argue it'd be irrational to not run stories that *always* get a large number of comments.
I love the theoretical physics posts, for instance, but they usually average 30-50 comments. This Apple post, though, might run 100 comments (or more) and it's just on screen size!
of doing that and if say you have blu rays that like 25-50GB per disk.
That's a really good point. BD movies would fill a tb drive in 20-40 movies. That's bad, but not crippling. I doubt a carrousel BD changer for 20-40 disks would be much cheaper (and you can always expand a FS).
I still think backing physical content up on HDs and then long-term storing the physical copies wins.
Slashdot Mirror
You and your repliers are all missing one crucial point. External costs. Burning a gallon of gas damages the environment and the user of the gas doesn't pay for the damages. Further, burning a gallon of gas removes a gallon of gas from the total supply - forever.
1.) What is burned is never replaced. So, the per gallon price should take into account the opportunity cost of burning that gallon of gas in the future.
2.) Burning a gallon of gas damages the environment. I'm not a chemist, so you'd have to ask someone else for the specifics. But the damage done is not paid for by the person who burns the gallon of gas. Therefore, the tradeoff between damage done and energy utilized can not be made. (Several years ago, this damage cost was estimated at $12/gallon.)
These two factors, and whatever I'm forgetting or not explaining fully, form most of the reasons I've heard for increasing per gallon taxes.
who would you rather have split the atom first? Nazi Germany?
I would have preferred Bell Labs to patent the first nuclear weapon. Then we'd have one company for all countries to 'license' their nuclear weapons from.
What could possibly go wrong?
Scientists, on the other hand, are more likely to be welfare-staters, because their science funding and grantsmanship culture is ever more dependent on the state.
So many things wrong with this idea.
1.) Academic findings benefit all humanity, since they are publicly available. (Read that a couple times.)
2.) I would venture that most scientists are employed outside of academia. (I.E. they're producers..) (Unless you're defining a scientist as someone in a science field that never applies science. That's a rather arbitrary distinction since all applied subjects rely on theoretical constructs, and rife for counter examples.)
3.) There's a fundamental question that your statement begs at. That fundamental question threatens the nature of our civilization. 'Pure' science subjects (theoretical physics, theoretical chemistry, pure math, and so on) are probably best funded by a government. Ideally, they would be conducted in a vacuum outside of the economy (maybe then all results would be trustable). But, short of that, broad reaching government funding probably works best. Even number theory has its applications, and I doubt any developments would be made in number theory without government funding.
4.) Contrast professor pay with industry pay sometime. Be careful to include years of experience, as professor positions require constant research into new areas. A tenured professor probably has dozens of published articles and roughly a decade worth of work experience. In short, they're experts at the top of their fields. In industry, they would be paid at the top end.
So, the limiting process would be how much oxygen there is out there, how often it co-exists with hydrogen, and how often there's 'a spark'?
It could also be that life, as we know it, is not the only way that life can exist. Maybe the factors we find so key (liquid water, planetary e&m field, etc) are more like the specifics of our own existence than the specifics of all existence.
Yes, "earth-like" is a misnomer and short sighted. But, believing we know the true nature of life across the universe is a whole other category of short sighted.
I have it on good authority that 99% of all studies find exactly what the author(s) wanted them to find all along.
Somewhat off topic, but you're just complaining about stylistic form. If you're reading a report then the author has already:
1.) Worked out his/her theory.
2.) Collected whatever data were necessary to test that theory.
3.) Ran and analyzed whatever results he/she came up with.
4.) Wrote the very article you're reading in a way that sounds like all of those steps just followed logically and naturally. No bumps, no hiccups, no rejected data requests, no oddball last minute 'anythings', etc etc.
That last bit is the part you're complaining about. It's far easier to tell the story as though everything went to plan. For that matter, readers don't like too many details.
I don't know -- I get the impression that he's bitter about his ALS and says there's no God b/c he has his condition.
Well at least he's doing something about it. Trying to prove there is no god and all.. Most people are to lazy to try...
It's a misnomer to say physics presumes the non-existence of a god. I further fail to see a link between studying black-holes and anything related to god.
That's a difference between science and religion, by the way. All scientific hypothesis must be testable for them ever to become theories. TESTABLE. If a hypothesis can never be tested...it's slipped over to the religion side of things.
I don't know -- I get the impression that he's bitter about his ALS and says there's no God b/c he has his condition.
Got a reference to back that up?
I've heard he's not a pleasant person to work with in the past. But, I think it's a stretch to say his work in physics has been fueled by some deep hate of his condition and a rage toward some guilty god... ...I bet it's more likely a chance to explore the universe outside of his rather confined body.
Made the following Monday probably the worst case of "the Mondays" ever...
Should be: "For some reason, Android advocates who trashed Microsoft for the same behavior ignore it when it comes from a multibillion dollar advertising company that happens to push Linux."
Wow, I'm sorry you and the above got modded down so much.
Your comments aren't over rational and contain no foul language...yours, particularly, contains nothing remotely like a personal attack. (The GP does discuss one person directly, but in a brief and mostly objective way.)
This is so true and so rarely discussed. Adam Smith--so beloved of talking-head capitalists--thought publicly held corporations were a terrible idea, but somehow that part of the message never comes up on CNBC when they're discussing the invisible hand.
I wish people actually read Smith's work, directly, more often.
I think they'd find he's much farther left than otherwise expected. (Other times he's just quaintly hundreds of years out of date. Nails one at a time? ha!)
1.) philosophy. currently reading "existentialism: from dostoevsky to sartre". Very good, if you can commit to it. The Karl Jaspers excerpts really encapsulate my favored view of existentialism.
2.) Hemingway.
3.) Isaac Asimov.
4.) John K. Galbraith
woops...meant "+1 interesting"...
Yeah, but unfortunately I think they just want free labor.
Yeah, if they want to avoid fragmentation, BSD seems the way to go. (CCL == BSD, I think?) 30 years later and we don't have distributions of BSD, we have 'branches'.
Where does this term come from? I mean, are we talking about a business/institution here or what? I think it just means some large group of computers that some small set of professionals are responsible for maintaining...but at other times "enterprise" is used to actually refer to the overlying business structure. In that case, shouldn't we be referring to "the business" and not "the enterprise"?
So, instead of answering the question, you argue that I'm just not smart enough to see the obvious? How quaint.
No where did I say you weren't smart enough to understand something. I said that I doubt you'll ever have an appreciation for astronomical research, it's goals, and it's place in the world. You can prove me wrong by simply:
1.) Coming up with a compelling alternative to projects such as this as a national investment in R&D. Would you prefer finance researchers create new financial products such as more mortgage-backed securities or credit-default swaps?
2.) Proving that projects such as this study have never and can never design nor research something useful to society.
3.) Admitting you were wrong and that looking into the stars can teach us all a thing or two.
I would argue that the question of whether humans occupy a privileged position in the universe does affect the decision making of many people.
...in how they relate to each other, the non-human life on this planet, and our collective environment from second to second, day to day, year to year, generation to generation, and so on and so on.
Not too long ago, believing the earth wasn't the center of the universe could get a person killed. Remove certain strong beliefs and people wont feel they can throw anyone to the fire for simple, erroneous judgements. This leads to enhanced freedom from persecution and greater general happiness, I recon. Maybe learning we're not unique will lead us to treating our world with more respect.
To not waste space, I'll also give a short list of NASA-research impacted inventions:
-microwaves:
--everything from the microwave oven, the cell phone, GPS, and wireless internet signals are understood through techniques originally used by NASA.
-velcro
--originally designed for space suits
-any number of materials engineering breakthroughs
--all I know is, without carefully designed, ceramic tiles, going into space would always be a one way trip. I'm not a mat. engineer, but I'm sure those ceramics have helped all sorts of industrial processes. (Say, electrical power generation where you've got tons of heat to insulate and transport. Or, simply moving heat away from a CPU, perhaps?)
Now what? Everybody says, "Woohoo!" and goes home? I just don't see how this has any importance, whatsoever, because I don't see how it can have any measurable effect on any decision made by anyone on this planet in the foreseeable future.
If you don't already see the importance in discovering life outside of our own planet, then I doubt you ever will. Go out into the world sometime, enjoy it, and see if you don't come back wanting more life in this universe. (Please note, I said 'into the world'. The 'world' is not just the human world. The human portion of this world is only the tiniest fraction of the greater whole. As Ed Abbey would say: Go to a national park, park your car, get out, and crawl on your stomach across the rocks and plants. Maybe, just maybe, then you'll learn something. He and I both doubt you will, but if you do that long enough your chances are better.)
It's about actually helping charities (if it were to actually work, which it seems like it might not).
Robin Hood wasn't running for President, in case you forgot the story.
Do you honestly think any (honest) charities out there actually want stolen contributions?
If you want to help someone, ask that *someone* what they need. I'd bet they'd appreciate honest, volunteer IT work more than dishonest funds (that they ultimately can't accept). If that sounds like trash, well, program up a two dollar app and donate the proceeds. There are ways to make an honest contribution to society with l33t hacker sk1LL
Sometime over the past few decades, people have forgotten that major cultural changes were preceded by essays, speeches, and persuasive arguments, endorsed by displays of public support. Now, "protesting" has turned into an orgy of destruction and disruption, in the hopes of extorting change.
Bingo! Somehow, I've noticed a distinct turn away from the written word. We don't have time for it. "Oh, I have to read something? Forget it, I'll go play Angry Birds."
That might just be the people I know, though...this city has that affect upon people.
Why can't they just make a wikipedia style disambiguation page? It's the obvious, adult, fair solution that a hoarde of lawyers would never come up with.
I agree, though I still like FB's decision. (That feel weird to say to anyone else?)
It's this or the other thing that's a year away: the US presidential election.
Choose your poison.
Can we just agree that Apple hardware articles are flamebait by default, especially the ones about the mere possibility of new Apple hardware, and stop frickin posting them?
Plenty of the more popular things posted on this site are polarizing. Look at some of the things that aren't polarizing, how many comments they get, and contrast with the number of comments here. I'd argue it'd be irrational to not run stories that *always* get a large number of comments.
I love the theoretical physics posts, for instance, but they usually average 30-50 comments. This Apple post, though, might run 100 comments (or more) and it's just on screen size!
of doing that and if say you have blu rays that like 25-50GB per disk.
That's a really good point. BD movies would fill a tb drive in 20-40 movies. That's bad, but not crippling. I doubt a carrousel BD changer for 20-40 disks would be much cheaper (and you can always expand a FS).
I still think backing physical content up on HDs and then long-term storing the physical copies wins.