Yes, Apple should hire all those homeless people who spent their teens and twenties partying and smoking dope. Now they are in their 30s and unemployable and camping in homeless jungles. It is Apple's obligation to hire these people so that they can make something of their lives. Sí, se puede!
One of the more significant groups of homeless people are ex-servicemen. Another is those who were abused by parents and thrown out in their teens. Another is those with significant and untreated mental health conditions. Party animals - probably a small proportion.
The difference is when the government wastes money the taxpayers lose out. When the private sector wastes money the company goes out of business (or the government bails them out, but that's less than half the time).
It depends how competitive the market sector is, and how long the wastefulness continues.
It's easier, provided you have enough smaller aircraft, and people, to do it, and enough landing spots at each location.
For example, if everyone wants to fly to London, from New York, Paris, and Munich, you might run out of slots. If you make everyone go to Paris first, and get on a big plane, they don't. That's the bet Airbus made. Of course, in fact people want to go to Birmingham and Manchester too, not always through London, although to go across the Atlantic, often you do.
With automation, you could envisage many more small aircraft, landing more closely together, but the efficiency in terms of fuel per passenger probably wouldn't be very good.
These days Linux support for hardware is pretty good, and moderate diligence alleviates that risk. 15 years ago I would have agreed with you, and 10 years ago there were still some issues. In my personal experience there is now little that is not supported for the typical office environment. It's different if you are talking things like mass spectrometers, or some music hardware, but in those corner cases (which the Barcelona government might not even have) then you can buy an occasional Windows machine, although the TCO for those individual machines might be quite high.
The area that might his Barcelona the most might be quality of drivers for high end graphics cards for architectural work.
Europeans love to hate on American companies. Just see all of the court cases the European Union brings against American companies (Apple and Microsoft being the first two to spring to mind).
There are no European companies in IT that are so dominant, so the EU can't bring action against them.
Governments aren't necessarily horribly inefficient, though. If you look at healthcare, they seem to be quite efficient. However, any large organisation has pockets of inefficiency, and governments are no exception. Some of the inefficiency is driven by frequent changes of direction in policy, although that can also happen in any large organisation. Keeping track of government efficiency is a good thing, and the GAO serves that purpose nominally, and just about every Western nation has an equivalent, as well as the press
If the idea is to maximise the benefit to citizenry, then keeping a check on monopoly, which the FTC does, may fulfil this, as monopolies can lead to abuse (qv. Standard Oil).
On the other hand, there are a range of things that the private sector does better than government. For example, I certainly wouldn't want to buy government-designed clothing from an official government store!
Neural networks were studied before the 1970s. If you look at Hebbian learning, that started in the 1940s.
No, they don't work just like the brain, given that the brain is a combination of various elements that work in slightly different ways, and there are many neural networks which have little similarity to any of them.
The JavaScript implementation on web pages, is often annoying, if a bit less so with bigger sites with CDNs. On some sites it feels like I have to wait for 500 connections to third parties to load 100MB of code for the relevant 1MB of functions, and then have the page use up 1GB of RAM and cause swapping to disk. Even with a more modern machine with more RAM, add a faster connection than a decade ago, browsing the web is often a more frustrating experience.
that for many years the AGW fanatics were worshiping at the altar of Dr Hansen at NASA Goddard - who had a PHYSICS degree.
But then when Freeman Dyson (a very famous scientist with a PHYSICS degree) disagreed with many things pushed by the AGW crowd (including suggesting that they peel themselves away from the computer screens and very flawed computer models and put on some boots and go outside to do some REAL science) suddenly that very same qualification (a doctorate in physics) was no longer valid (for Dyson, anyway... aparently it's still fine for Hanson who proved his science cred by chaining himself to a fence at a protest).
One doctorate in physics is not the same as another, as they are quite specialised. Hansen's doctorate is more relevant to climate science. However, just because someone is eminent in a field, doesn't mean you should take their word - the final arbiter is evidence (e.g. reduction in arctic summer sea ice), a particular case in point being Pauling. I wouldn't trust Hansen to weigh in on Dyson's area of expertise (particle physics) with any authority, though. If Dyson is right on climate change, then the behaviour of the planet's systems will prove him right in time.
Sometimes people can seemingly cross fields, but often it is a case of applying a technique in one field to data in another, so in a sense it is remaining in the same field of expertise. An example might be the use of the mathematics of local interactions from cellular automata applied to the behaviour of flocks of birds, and showing the emergent behaviour.
The degree of precision claimed is often ridculous, 2.87 degrees in 20 yrs not 2.86 or 2.88. These bullshit artists take the average of a couple dozen papers guesses and claim like that is the number handed down by God.
Two points. The first is that there are statistical techniques that allow you to combine multiple estimates and have an overall one that is greater than the precision of the individual ones. This is pretty commonly in use. The second, is that part of your complaint is actually about communication of the research, not what the original papers, or the IPCC reports (which I have read a couple of - very dull) states.
Get over yourself people you aren't that good, you can't predict the weather 2 weeks.
Climate isn't weather, but composed of weather events over a long period, so not being able to predict the weather two weeks in advance (actually meterology is fairly good on this now). I can't predict if you toss a head or a tail (weather) but I can predict how many heads in a million throws (climate).
It's all the environmentalists fault. If they had simply stuck with global warming, we wouldn't be having this problem. !
Climate change is the original term, from the 1950s. Global warming didn't gain currency as a term until the late 1960s (the first reference I am aware of in the popular media is a BBC Reith lecture in 1968). Climate change and global warming have been common in the literature since the 1970s, with climate change still (AFAIK) being the dominant one throughout that period. There may be an issue with communication, but it doesn't lie with a change in term by climate scientists.
You may possibly blame climate scientists for not being sufficiently media-savvy to get their actual message across, but science communication (overall) is something that has really only got serious funding in the last 20 years, and it's still not a lot of funding. It's an issue across many branches of science, and I sometimes cringe when I see reports which I know are likely to be distortions of the research in numerous areas. The current suggested practice is to provide journalists with copy of various lengths that is accurate, so that they can fit accurate information into newspaper and other articles that is accurate, irrespective of the column inches available, so that their summarisation doesn't unfortunately change the sense of the report. And that's no disrespect to journalists - they have particular requirements to sell newspapers, and aren't scientists, and some discoveries include subtleties that can easily be lost in a few layers of editing in the minutes before a newspaper goes to print.
1) Climate models predict hyperbolic warming by now
No, they don't.
2) Temperature measurements don't come anywhere close despite some rather inventive methods of "adjusting" them and extreme warming seems to have "paused"
Temperatures are on track from Hansen's projections in 1988, broadly along RCP 8.5 emissions. The ten hottest years recorded have been this mllenium. There has been no pause.
3) Someone says they know why warming is paused -- it's in the oceans and it'll kill ocean life!!!
There has been no pause. Not much to explain on why.
4) Unfortunately, surface measurements of ocean waters show that the oceans are not warming anywhere close to the extent needed to hide the "predicted" warming
Surface temperatures are increasing at 0.1C/decade
5) Someone new says -- it's in the deep currents of the oceans where we don't measure and that's even worse!!!
The deep ocean is measured. There's been a considerable heat build up there, in terms of MJ. See Trenbeth et al.
6) Of course, there are no long-term historical measurements of deep ocean temperatures so this theory can't be proven or disproven
There are long term measurements, just not widespread and long term.
7) Yet, within a few years it's considered "fact" that deep ocean temperatures are warming and article after article appear how this is destroying much of our eco-system and we must do something now!!!
The deep oceans have warmed. How is it not a fact? You might dispute whether there is a long term trend, but you can't dispute the fact rationally.
8) Of course, the extreme predicted warming continues to be "paused", but since the true believers have faith in the "fact" that it's being stored deep in the oceans there's no reason for them to question their faith and look for other reasons why the warming is not coming anywhere close to original predictions.
The trend was 0.16C/decade, and since 2000 has been 0.12C/decade, assuming you bifurcate the series at 2000. If you plot through the whole period, then statistical analysis shows no actual change in trend. Picking 2000 is arbitrary.
9)... the cult had carbon tax credits passed in Congress (thank Republicans it didn't).... Of course, carbon tax credits are an example of "buying forgiveness from the gods for continued sinning" which is as old as all human religion.
It's not a perfect solution, perhaps, but is designed to bring to bear the force of market innovation by sending a pricing signal more strongly than is delivered by a failure to price externalities. It's an orthodox free market pricing mechanism, given an extra signalling impetus and was designed by free market proponents in the economics community.
Climate scientists making alarmist predictions is the same as religious cultists making prophecies and, like prophecies, they never quite come true
It's not at all similar, as the projections (they are not predictions, as they depend on emissions scenarios) are based on physical science. They've also been rather accurate globally, although it has taken a while for regional projections to become possible.
global warming alarmism "equals" just the newest end-of-the-world cult that describes it perfectly
There may be some who take what scientists say, and run with it. This doesn't mean that climate scientists should be tarred with that brush. That makes as much sense as blaming violence outside a soccer match on the players on the field.
I thought the missing heat (that which caused the pause for most of the first part of this millennia) was accumulating in the ocean...
Since the ten hottest years recorded have been in the current millenium, it doesn't seem much as a pause. Especially as the temperature trend is still up.
Hint: there hasn't been a pause.
Pseudo-random white noise generators certainly have a human contribution and are repeatable.
The problem is that if the human component is just choosing an existing PRNG algorithm, then the whole thing is still a collection of mathematical facts like a phone book, and thus clearly ineligible.
Would that also make algorithmically-generated music not capable of copyright either? People like Brian Eno use this technique. Or is there assumed creativity in the selection of the elements of the algorithm? Or is there something copyrightable in the output. Or does creating the algorithm itself, rather than using an existing algorithm (or PRNG) make it copyrightable?
The long term inherent and unavoidable insolvency of S.S. was not a concern of its creators;
Can you demonstrate that for all realistic values of funding and likely dependency ratios and longevity that it is unavoidably insolvent long-term and that the creators were likely to have known of any such condition, should it exist?
Automated updates does not mean that every single host applies the update at the same time though.
If you are testing on a subset, then deciding whether or not these then are applied to a wider set of machines, I am hard pressed to see how that is an auto-update and not a traditional test and release methodology.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, Apple should hire all those homeless people who spent their teens and twenties partying and smoking dope. Now they are in their 30s and unemployable and camping in homeless jungles. It is Apple's obligation to hire these people so that they can make something of their lives. Sí, se puede!
One of the more significant groups of homeless people are ex-servicemen. Another is those who were abused by parents and thrown out in their teens. Another is those with significant and untreated mental health conditions. Party animals - probably a small proportion.
The difference is when the government wastes money the taxpayers lose out. When the private sector wastes money the company goes out of business (or the government bails them out, but that's less than half the time).
It depends how competitive the market sector is, and how long the wastefulness continues.
I'd be very interested to learn more about the jobs you might have on offer.
The A380 is very efficient in terms of fuel per passenger, and is no faster than any other jet, so the comparison to Concorde doesn't make any sense.
It's easier, provided you have enough smaller aircraft, and people, to do it, and enough landing spots at each location.
For example, if everyone wants to fly to London, from New York, Paris, and Munich, you might run out of slots. If you make everyone go to Paris first, and get on a big plane, they don't. That's the bet Airbus made. Of course, in fact people want to go to Birmingham and Manchester too, not always through London, although to go across the Atlantic, often you do.
With automation, you could envisage many more small aircraft, landing more closely together, but the efficiency in terms of fuel per passenger probably wouldn't be very good.
Graph theory applies to both.
For a lot of basic use LibreOffice is fine. It's when there are lots of macros Excel shows advantages. I haven't tried lots of Macros with Office 365.
These days Linux support for hardware is pretty good, and moderate diligence alleviates that risk. 15 years ago I would have agreed with you, and 10 years ago there were still some issues. In my personal experience there is now little that is not supported for the typical office environment. It's different if you are talking things like mass spectrometers, or some music hardware, but in those corner cases (which the Barcelona government might not even have) then you can buy an occasional Windows machine, although the TCO for those individual machines might be quite high. The area that might his Barcelona the most might be quality of drivers for high end graphics cards for architectural work.
Europeans love to hate on American companies. Just see all of the court cases the European Union brings against American companies (Apple and Microsoft being the first two to spring to mind).
There are no European companies in IT that are so dominant, so the EU can't bring action against them.
Governments aren't necessarily horribly inefficient, though. If you look at healthcare, they seem to be quite efficient. However, any large organisation has pockets of inefficiency, and governments are no exception. Some of the inefficiency is driven by frequent changes of direction in policy, although that can also happen in any large organisation. Keeping track of government efficiency is a good thing, and the GAO serves that purpose nominally, and just about every Western nation has an equivalent, as well as the press
If the idea is to maximise the benefit to citizenry, then keeping a check on monopoly, which the FTC does, may fulfil this, as monopolies can lead to abuse (qv. Standard Oil).
On the other hand, there are a range of things that the private sector does better than government. For example, I certainly wouldn't want to buy government-designed clothing from an official government store!
Neural networks were studied before the 1970s. If you look at Hebbian learning, that started in the 1940s. No, they don't work just like the brain, given that the brain is a combination of various elements that work in slightly different ways, and there are many neural networks which have little similarity to any of them.
Or you point requests to jquery.org to your internal server that mirrors the real jquery.org
The TCO for a house is not just the mortgage, though.
Advertising and tracking is a corruption of what the internet was made for
The Internet was made for surviving WW3. Not much advertising was envisaged.
The JavaScript implementation on web pages, is often annoying, if a bit less so with bigger sites with CDNs. On some sites it feels like I have to wait for 500 connections to third parties to load 100MB of code for the relevant 1MB of functions, and then have the page use up 1GB of RAM and cause swapping to disk. Even with a more modern machine with more RAM, add a faster connection than a decade ago, browsing the web is often a more frustrating experience.
that for many years the AGW fanatics were worshiping at the altar of Dr Hansen at NASA Goddard - who had a PHYSICS degree.
But then when Freeman Dyson (a very famous scientist with a PHYSICS degree) disagreed with many things pushed by the AGW crowd (including suggesting that they peel themselves away from the computer screens and very flawed computer models and put on some boots and go outside to do some REAL science) suddenly that very same qualification (a doctorate in physics) was no longer valid (for Dyson, anyway... aparently it's still fine for Hanson who proved his science cred by chaining himself to a fence at a protest).
One doctorate in physics is not the same as another, as they are quite specialised. Hansen's doctorate is more relevant to climate science. However, just because someone is eminent in a field, doesn't mean you should take their word - the final arbiter is evidence (e.g. reduction in arctic summer sea ice), a particular case in point being Pauling. I wouldn't trust Hansen to weigh in on Dyson's area of expertise (particle physics) with any authority, though. If Dyson is right on climate change, then the behaviour of the planet's systems will prove him right in time.
Sometimes people can seemingly cross fields, but often it is a case of applying a technique in one field to data in another, so in a sense it is remaining in the same field of expertise. An example might be the use of the mathematics of local interactions from cellular automata applied to the behaviour of flocks of birds, and showing the emergent behaviour.
The degree of precision claimed is often ridculous, 2.87 degrees in 20 yrs not 2.86 or 2.88. These bullshit artists take the average of a couple dozen papers guesses and claim like that is the number handed down by God.
Two points. The first is that there are statistical techniques that allow you to combine multiple estimates and have an overall one that is greater than the precision of the individual ones. This is pretty commonly in use. The second, is that part of your complaint is actually about communication of the research, not what the original papers, or the IPCC reports (which I have read a couple of - very dull) states.
Get over yourself people you aren't that good, you can't predict the weather 2 weeks.
Climate isn't weather, but composed of weather events over a long period, so not being able to predict the weather two weeks in advance (actually meterology is fairly good on this now). I can't predict if you toss a head or a tail (weather) but I can predict how many heads in a million throws (climate).
98% refers to climate scientists, AFAIK.
It's all the environmentalists fault. If they had simply stuck with global warming, we wouldn't be having this problem. !
Climate change is the original term, from the 1950s. Global warming didn't gain currency as a term until the late 1960s (the first reference I am aware of in the popular media is a BBC Reith lecture in 1968). Climate change and global warming have been common in the literature since the 1970s, with climate change still (AFAIK) being the dominant one throughout that period. There may be an issue with communication, but it doesn't lie with a change in term by climate scientists. You may possibly blame climate scientists for not being sufficiently media-savvy to get their actual message across, but science communication (overall) is something that has really only got serious funding in the last 20 years, and it's still not a lot of funding. It's an issue across many branches of science, and I sometimes cringe when I see reports which I know are likely to be distortions of the research in numerous areas. The current suggested practice is to provide journalists with copy of various lengths that is accurate, so that they can fit accurate information into newspaper and other articles that is accurate, irrespective of the column inches available, so that their summarisation doesn't unfortunately change the sense of the report. And that's no disrespect to journalists - they have particular requirements to sell newspapers, and aren't scientists, and some discoveries include subtleties that can easily be lost in a few layers of editing in the minutes before a newspaper goes to print.
1) Climate models predict hyperbolic warming by now
No, they don't.
2) Temperature measurements don't come anywhere close despite some rather inventive methods of "adjusting" them and extreme warming seems to have "paused"
Temperatures are on track from Hansen's projections in 1988, broadly along RCP 8.5 emissions. The ten hottest years recorded have been this mllenium. There has been no pause.
3) Someone says they know why warming is paused -- it's in the oceans and it'll kill ocean life!!!
There has been no pause. Not much to explain on why.
4) Unfortunately, surface measurements of ocean waters show that the oceans are not warming anywhere close to the extent needed to hide the "predicted" warming
Surface temperatures are increasing at 0.1C/decade
5) Someone new says -- it's in the deep currents of the oceans where we don't measure and that's even worse!!!
The deep ocean is measured. There's been a considerable heat build up there, in terms of MJ. See Trenbeth et al.
6) Of course, there are no long-term historical measurements of deep ocean temperatures so this theory can't be proven or disproven
There are long term measurements, just not widespread and long term.
7) Yet, within a few years it's considered "fact" that deep ocean temperatures are warming and article after article appear how this is destroying much of our eco-system and we must do something now!!!
The deep oceans have warmed. How is it not a fact? You might dispute whether there is a long term trend, but you can't dispute the fact rationally.
8) Of course, the extreme predicted warming continues to be "paused", but since the true believers have faith in the "fact" that it's being stored deep in the oceans there's no reason for them to question their faith and look for other reasons why the warming is not coming anywhere close to original predictions.
The trend was 0.16C/decade, and since 2000 has been 0.12C/decade, assuming you bifurcate the series at 2000. If you plot through the whole period, then statistical analysis shows no actual change in trend. Picking 2000 is arbitrary.
9)... the cult had carbon tax credits passed in Congress (thank Republicans it didn't).... Of course, carbon tax credits are an example of "buying forgiveness from the gods for continued sinning" which is as old as all human religion.
It's not a perfect solution, perhaps, but is designed to bring to bear the force of market innovation by sending a pricing signal more strongly than is delivered by a failure to price externalities. It's an orthodox free market pricing mechanism, given an extra signalling impetus and was designed by free market proponents in the economics community.
Climate scientists making alarmist predictions is the same as religious cultists making prophecies and, like prophecies, they never quite come true
It's not at all similar, as the projections (they are not predictions, as they depend on emissions scenarios) are based on physical science. They've also been rather accurate globally, although it has taken a while for regional projections to become possible.
global warming alarmism "equals" just the newest end-of-the-world cult that describes it perfectly
There may be some who take what scientists say, and run with it. This doesn't mean that climate scientists should be tarred with that brush. That makes as much sense as blaming violence outside a soccer match on the players on the field.
I thought the missing heat (that which caused the pause for most of the first part of this millennia) was accumulating in the ocean...
Since the ten hottest years recorded have been in the current millenium, it doesn't seem much as a pause. Especially as the temperature trend is still up. Hint: there hasn't been a pause.
The problem is that if the human component is just choosing an existing PRNG algorithm, then the whole thing is still a collection of mathematical facts like a phone book, and thus clearly ineligible.
Would that also make algorithmically-generated music not capable of copyright either? People like Brian Eno use this technique. Or is there assumed creativity in the selection of the elements of the algorithm? Or is there something copyrightable in the output. Or does creating the algorithm itself, rather than using an existing algorithm (or PRNG) make it copyrightable?
The long term inherent and unavoidable insolvency of S.S. was not a concern of its creators;
Can you demonstrate that for all realistic values of funding and likely dependency ratios and longevity that it is unavoidably insolvent long-term and that the creators were likely to have known of any such condition, should it exist?
Automated updates does not mean that every single host applies the update at the same time though.
If you are testing on a subset, then deciding whether or not these then are applied to a wider set of machines, I am hard pressed to see how that is an auto-update and not a traditional test and release methodology.
Some people like a work-home separation.
I like it. I don't $350 a month like it.
You're not the target market, then. It might work for some people.
It might also work if you visit clients intermittently over the course of most days in a city that's somewhat remote from your home.