No, you're not quite there yet. To be an appropriate Slashdot summary it should go:
In the past sixteen (base 10) years, Marathon runners (people who run 42.195 km (or 26 miles) for recreation, god rest their souls) have cut the word record from 2 hours six minutes and twenty three seconds to 2 hours three minutes and twenty three seconds, further improvment's will become progressively harder to achieve.*
*spelling and punctuation errors intentional
Not to mention the motivation for this article was fact that the 2:03 minute barrier was just broken and the current world isn't 2:03:23 but 2:02:57.
You know, the Moon's right there (*looking around briefly*), somewhere. The same template could be applied to establishing an observatory on either of the poles in one of those nice, permanently shady craters. It would be a lot cheaper, a lot safer and arguably add a great deal more to science. Is the Moon no longer sexy enough to capture people's imagination?
Exactly. I see two major advantages to a Moon base.
1) You have the ability to re-supply them on a reasonable schedule when you inevitably discover they need critical item X or they're all going to die.
2) People can come back so it doesn't have to be a one way trip.
If you want to go to Mars a Moon base should be a pre-requisite as a proof of concept to make sure your system actually works. Sure the environment is slightly more challenging but it doesn't compare to the challenge caused by the distance and gravity well of Mars. The fact they're not talking about going to the Moon tells me they're not really serious about going to Mars either.
The solution to this is easy, it's just ones America's puritan's can't swallow. You send over terminally ill volunteers who have a short time to live anyways. You use them as the non-vaccinated group. If they contract Ebola, you allow them an assisted death (OH THE HORROR/THINK OF BABY JESUS). Everyone wins.
So your control group consists of people in poor health and weak immune systems?
Any experimental intervension will look effective against that control.
The current research University system was designed for a period of rapid expansion. Post-secondary education started as a luxury available to the elite and turned into a standard part of the middle class experience. To expand the supply of teachers each Professor had to train multiple other Professors, even then this was insufficient so you could still get an tenure track position without a PhD.
But for the last few decades the percentage of University students has stabilized and the number of Professors with it. Thus the system designed to pump out Professors has created an oversupply, one of the places where those unused PhDs build up is in postdocs.
The solution is either to train fewer PhDs or to create more pure research jobs to use the PhDs we produce.
It's "Discovery by a civilized man", so Norsemen mustn't count.
Essentially, to discover a continent you apparently need: 1 - To be white. 2 - A cup of tea. (ideally, with biscuits) 3 - A towel.
To discover a continent you need to find a continent your culture wasn't previously aware of.
So early Native Americans discovered the Americas while coming over from Siberia.
A long time later the Thule (ancestors of the Inuit) also came from Siberia and discovered North America.
Then the Norse discovered the Americas from Europe, but that knowledge wasn't really preserved even among Norse culture.
Meaning the Americas were still available to be discovered by Columbus when he sailed over.
The reason we generally consider Columbus to discover North America is because most of us are culturally white Europeans and for us his was the discovery that stuck around.
If you consider an uncontacted tribe in the Amazon jungle, have one of those tribesmen go on a long journey and find Rio De Janeiro. Within his tribe I'd say that tribeman had discovered Rio De Janeiro.
Svoboda and Pravy Sektor are not Putin's inventions...
Neither are the UK Independence party, Golden Dawn in Greece, the National Front in France, or the various Tea Party groups in the US, and in elections they all did about as well as Svoboda or better.
Do you think Britain, Greece, France, and the US are overrun by Nazis?
I'm all for fun, but in a country that just overthrew a dictator and is fighting a war against separatists nutjobs, spending all this money for this, it's hard to think they are just doing that for fun. And as a star wars fan, using star wars characters for evil is really despicable. Fuck Putin.
Only a small section of the country is actively at war, outside of that region the conflict is a major issue, but it's not really going to affect their daily lives too much. They're still hugely concerned with the war, but they're still going to live their lives.
If anything this is a great idea, Putin's spent months selling the idea that Ukraine is overflowing with Nazi's. There's not much better way to counteract that narrative than to run Star Wars characters in the elections.
depression is a terrible fate from which to suffer. only the strong-willed survive, as the weak kill themselves after depression has feasted upon their souls.
I'm not sure that's accurate. I went through a really brutal depression where I had essentially no will-power yet I wasn't suicidal for a moment. Maybe that would have changed if the depression was worse but I suspect there was some other factor at work. It's probably different for different people but I think one of the big problems is a complete loss of hope and a perception of suicide as the answer and a way to escape the pain. In this case strong will can be a problem, when you're depressed you have no hope for the future, the only thing that lies ahead is more depression. It's a lie, things can change and get much better, and you know that's the case, but you don't really believe it. In this scenario if someone truly see suicide as an answer then a strong will might cause them to follow through on the extreme solution rather than doing the little things that seem pointless but might help in the long run.
I think the key to fighting depression and suicidal tendencies is to find something else that brings purpose and hope to their lives. If entrepreneurs are at greater risk I suspect it's due to two reasons. First their focus on business means less time is spent finding other reasons for purpose. And second, one of the reasons to become an entrepreneur is to find meaning and purpose because you can't find it elsewhere. Case in point, I'm in the process of trying to get an Internet startup going right now. One of the reasons is I have a great idea and I think I can pull it off, but the other reason is I can't find a lot of meaning and purpose in my life right now, but I think this startup will have a lot of meaning and purpose and I want to share in that purpose.
In what way do you think this isn't illegal anti-competitive behaviour?
This effectively creates a system where the bigger vendors have serious competitive advantage over smaller ones, as they get to patch their systems in private, while leaving smaller players out in the cold until they get large enough to join the cabal. It will only be a matter of time before one vendor advertises that their security vigilance is better than another, executed on the back of private information.
If there is a patch available, it should be announced and distributed immediately. If there's no patch and no temporary mitigation strategy, then minimizing disclosure is probably fine.
It's not illegal anti-competitive behaviour because the intent isn't to be anti-competitive, it's to reduce the number of victims.
The problem with your proposal is you're creating an additional security risk in the name of fairness.
...is that you force everyone to follow the letter of the law instead of the intent of the law. One reason why "plain English" laws are better for the populous even though they may be harder for the lawyers and the courts.
They way the current system is supposed to work is someone fights one of these prosecutions and a precedent is set, and the higher the court involved in the fight the more widely applicable the precedent. It seems like this is one area where, even under child porn laws, the first ammendment should protect her from prosecution.
So unless you lived under a rock, most people knew there was a security bug out there (why else would the big cloud providers be forcing a restart of all my VMs?) We didn't know what it was, and because I'm not part of the preferred client group my servers didn't get patched prior to disclosure. So for me, no this isn't sufficient. I prefer the more open way of doing it, versus fixing it in a closed "preferred client" way that they handled this.
What more open way do you propose?
With this approach the major vendors got patched first, while you and the attackers both got some forewarning that a vulnerability and patch were going to be made available and got to find out about both at the same time.
In a more open system the only real difference seems to be the major vendors would end up in the same boat as you, having to race the attackers to apply the patch. It removes a comparative advantage they have but seems to make users less secure in general. Maybe the disclosure list could be larger but I'm not sure of a system that allows all of the users to be patched before any of the attackers find out about the exploit.
I mean, some open source projects don't actually have anyone doing live support and a patch happens when someone "gets around to it".
True but a delayed publication of the bug isn't really going to affect them.
And some exploits are out there whether you say anything or not. Slashdot users pretty regularly complain about this with bumper sticker wisdom about "security through obscurity".
I'm not sure that specific complaint is that common. Certainly if a project sits on a security bug for months, or even years, then the security through obscurity criticism is valid. But the vast majority seem to feel it's alright to wait a couple weeks to get a patch together and inform the major users, that seems to be the fastest way to protect the most people as quickly as possible.
And just because the deployments are all fixed, doesn't mean someone has used that. Heartbleed(cited in the summary) was fixable within a couple days on every major linux distro with a simple update. That didn't mean no one got hacked.
All-in-all, sure it's a good policy, but not the magic perfect, oh-lets-all-be-like-xen thing the summary makes it out to be.
AFAIK Heartbleed was fixed before the disclosure, but the multiple discoveries caused OpenSSL to push up the disclosure timeline so not every distro had time to get a patch together.
On the contrary I think Shellshock was bungled a bit, I can't find a firm timeline of who discovered what when but the bug went public before there was even a working patch, much less one pushed out to the major distros. It was definitely the wrong way to do things.
Although the work doesn't provide a definitive answer, it rules out one possible explanation. [R]esearchers point to three different factors that could independently or in combination have rid Brown’s body of HIV.
Unfortunately the summary forgets to mention the explanation that was ruled out or even clearly delineate the three different factors (though the latter was more the fault of the original article).
From my reading of TFA:
Explanation 1: Conditioning: The radiation that destroyed his immune system also killed off the HIV (because HIV lives in the cells of the immune system).
Explanation 2: Shiny new immune system: The new bone marrow had a mutation that was immune to HIV and that cured him (maybe by detecting and killing HIV infected cells?).
Explanation 3: Graft vs host: The new immune system killed off his old one, not just the HIV infected cells but all the old immune systems cells including those infected with HIV.
So the researchers took chimps, extracted some stem cells (bone marrow?), infected them with SHIV (Simian HIV), destroyed their immune systems with radiation, then reinjected the uninfected stem cells.
The SHIV quickly came back which rules out explanation 1.
That being said it kinda dodges the question of why they need more HB1s after laying off a ton of people whom presumably had the necessary qualifications.
You cannot presume that. While it's certainly possible that some of them did have the necessary qualifications, it is also quite possible (likely even) that most did not. If you fire an engineer you cannot replace them with an accountant or even necessarily a different engineer with a different skill set. Even if they did have the qualifications that does not mean they were available and willing to work in the jobs that Microsoft had available. To make up an example, if they fire some guy in Finland from Nokia because they want the development to take place in the US, it's quite likely the guy might not want to move to the US to take the job that is available. Maybe he has family and cannot easily relocate.
The person has to have the right qualifications, be available to do the work, be willing to locate themselves to where the work is and cost the right amount.
Alright, I'll buy that. I still feel Kamela's statement doesn't really address the question, but then again, the question was posted by the author of the summary and wasn't asked of Kamela, so he can't really be blamed for dodging a question he wasn't asked:)
who later explained that about 60% of Microsoft's workforce is in the U.S., yet it makes 68% of its profits overseas
Which is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to software. There is no need at all in software to match development costs to geographic locations.
But it's relevant to the protectionist arguments people use.
People essentially claim that hiring workers outside the US is dishonest because they're an American company making money from the US. But most of their business (or at least their profit) comes from outside the US, if Microsofts' worker distribution matched its profit distribution (which may not be highly related to revenue distribution) then only about 30% of the workforce would be in the US. The current state of the company structure means that when other countries buy MS products they're putting money disproportionately into the US.
That being said it kinda dodges the question of why they need more HB1s after laying off a ton of people whom presumably had the necessary qualifications.
"Emanuel says that Americans seem to be obsessed with exercising, doing mental puzzles, consuming various juice and protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to cheat death and prolong life as long as possible."
Omitting the fad stuff, exercise and eating well improve the length of time you will remain healthy. The quote makes it sound like taking care of yourself will just let you hang on by your fingernails for a little bit longer. The opposite is actually true. Exercise, diet and mental engagement in particular improve health and mental function in old age, not necessarily overall longevity.
If you want to be a healthy octogenarian, take care of yourself now. If you want to be frail and going in for your third bypass operation, don't.
Exactly. If you want to discourage anything it's the heavy health care and heroic end of life measures used to slightly prolong low quality life. But he seems to be specifically talking about low cost measures designed to prolong high quality life. If you want a point to stop choose the point when quality of life drops off drastically. And if you want a simple cut-off (like his 75 number) choose something like being unable to live independently, or being unable to engage in topical conversation (notwithstanding disabled people).
I think a lot of people do pretty well until the last year or two when things go downhill rapidly, no point moving that last year forward but you may want to shorten its duration.
If they can't communicate their idea in a simple readable summary, they're probably not worth listening to anyway.
Btw, who else loves the irony of someone complaining about "impenetrable jargon" while writing things like "Aristotelian 'science'", "Baconian science", "policy options we as a polity", and making a bunch of incoherent sentences.
This isn't the first study to suggest that taking artificial sweeteners in drinks is bad and correlated to obesity (though they didn't actually test a direct connection to obesity in this study). Previously the theory was that the artificial sweeteners caused greater hunger later on by priming the body to expect a rush of sugar calories and getting nothing instead. One implication of that theory was that artificial sweeteners in conjunction with a real meal might still cause less weight gain than real sugar.
This study might change that if the negative effects on the gut bacteria happen even in the presence of other food.
Does anyone know if there's artificial sweetener studies that tackle the question of whether taking them in conjunction with real food makes a difference?
Fundamental question with what should be a simple answer. We pursue enterprise to benefit ourselves and profit. Not to serve as revenue generator to the state. The state is supposed to serve the people; not the other way around, but we keep coming around and forgetting the lessons of history and the basic nature of man.
If the state were not exceeding its mandate to serve the people, taxes would be acceptable and nobody would put that much effort into avoiding them because their result would continue to appeal to our interests. But there's never enough money for the state to be all the things it is promising to be, so the states are inventing structures for self-preservation of systems fundamentally doomed to fail.
Fine we implement your libertarian paradise and taxes drop drastically.
You've done nothing to fix this problem because you misunderstood it.
Corporations don't avoid taxes because they're too high, they do it because it's profitable. Corporations compete by competing at the margins, if a competitor in your libertarian paradise goes from a very low tax rate to a slightly lower tax rate then you'll have to follow otherwise you'll be at a competitive disadvantage. If you are a libertarian this shouldn't be a surprise but gospel. The essence of libertarianism is people acting as rational self-actors, so why would you expect corportations to leave free money on the table just because the pile is a bit smaller?
That is one of the most idiotic replies I have ever received. You sir are trolling, and inventing statements never made to troll with.
I'll admit I should have granted more leniency because the OP mentioned Gore, and as such was already political. But you still took the opportunity to take a shot at Obama and talk about Agenda 21 and I don't see why were either of those were relevant. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with talking about either in general, but when you take a comment with political content and respond by injecting additional political commentary it suggests you're more interested in the politics than the science.
Why do I get the feeling your opinions are driven by partisanship instead of science and economics?
Probably because instead of asking for my opinion you provide your own. You can read my post history, I'm anything but partisan on just about every subject. False dilemmas don't really address problems, they merely cover them up.
I wasn't projecting anything. You may not be partisan in the sense of Republican/Democrat but the fact your comment grinds unrelated policial axes suggests that ideology is very present, at least in the context of that comment.
The point is that less ice in Antarctica was bad because it would contribute to sea levels rising. If global warming is helping reduce sea levels, then this is a good thing, right? (Yes, I know thermal expansion probably is the main driver, so it's still probably going to be a net "bad.")
Well given that 5 years ago Al Gore said in 5 years time the Arctic will be completely ice free and it's completely covered in ice still, I would say they have a point. Back to the drawing board with the models at least. If there is one. Which I doubt.
Why are you talking about the Arctic in an article about the Antarctic?
Furthermore why are you talking about Al Gore and models? Sure Gore is somewhat important in his role as an advocate, but Al Gore saying something wrong doesn't mean the models are wrong, it's means Al Gore is a politician who doesn't know the science. I'm not up to date on the models but I never got the impression that an ice free artic in this timeframe was the consensus of the scientists (sure, some thought it could happen, but that's not the same thing).
Slashdot Mirror
No, you're not quite there yet. To be an appropriate Slashdot summary it should go:
In the past sixteen (base 10) years, Marathon runners (people who run 42.195 km (or 26 miles) for recreation, god rest their souls) have cut the word record from 2 hours six minutes and twenty three seconds to 2 hours three minutes and twenty three seconds, further improvment's will become progressively harder to achieve.*
*spelling and punctuation errors intentional
Not to mention the motivation for this article was fact that the 2:03 minute barrier was just broken and the current world isn't 2:03:23 but 2:02:57.
You know, the Moon's right there (*looking around briefly*), somewhere. The same template could be applied to establishing an observatory on either of the poles in one of those nice, permanently shady craters. It would be a lot cheaper, a lot safer and arguably add a great deal more to science. Is the Moon no longer sexy enough to capture people's imagination?
Exactly. I see two major advantages to a Moon base.
1) You have the ability to re-supply them on a reasonable schedule when you inevitably discover they need critical item X or they're all going to die.
2) People can come back so it doesn't have to be a one way trip.
If you want to go to Mars a Moon base should be a pre-requisite as a proof of concept to make sure your system actually works. Sure the environment is slightly more challenging but it doesn't compare to the challenge caused by the distance and gravity well of Mars. The fact they're not talking about going to the Moon tells me they're not really serious about going to Mars either.
The solution to this is easy, it's just ones America's puritan's can't swallow. You send over terminally ill volunteers who have a short time to live anyways. You use them as the non-vaccinated group. If they contract Ebola, you allow them an assisted death (OH THE HORROR/THINK OF BABY JESUS). Everyone wins.
So your control group consists of people in poor health and weak immune systems?
Any experimental intervension will look effective against that control.
The current research University system was designed for a period of rapid expansion. Post-secondary education started as a luxury available to the elite and turned into a standard part of the middle class experience. To expand the supply of teachers each Professor had to train multiple other Professors, even then this was insufficient so you could still get an tenure track position without a PhD.
But for the last few decades the percentage of University students has stabilized and the number of Professors with it. Thus the system designed to pump out Professors has created an oversupply, one of the places where those unused PhDs build up is in postdocs.
The solution is either to train fewer PhDs or to create more pure research jobs to use the PhDs we produce.
It's "Discovery by a civilized man", so Norsemen mustn't count.
Essentially, to discover a continent you apparently need:
1 - To be white.
2 - A cup of tea. (ideally, with biscuits)
3 - A towel.
To discover a continent you need to find a continent your culture wasn't previously aware of.
So early Native Americans discovered the Americas while coming over from Siberia.
A long time later the Thule (ancestors of the Inuit) also came from Siberia and discovered North America.
Then the Norse discovered the Americas from Europe, but that knowledge wasn't really preserved even among Norse culture.
Meaning the Americas were still available to be discovered by Columbus when he sailed over.
The reason we generally consider Columbus to discover North America is because most of us are culturally white Europeans and for us his was the discovery that stuck around.
If you consider an uncontacted tribe in the Amazon jungle, have one of those tribesmen go on a long journey and find Rio De Janeiro. Within his tribe I'd say that tribeman had discovered Rio De Janeiro.
im so sick of the lying. both poles have jncreased 40% or more accordibg to daily mail
Clearly it's absolutely true because you read it in the Daily Mail.
Svoboda and Pravy Sektor are not Putin's inventions...
Neither are the UK Independence party, Golden Dawn in Greece, the National Front in France, or the various Tea Party groups in the US, and in elections they all did about as well as Svoboda or better.
Do you think Britain, Greece, France, and the US are overrun by Nazis?
I'm all for fun, but in a country that just overthrew a dictator and is fighting a war against separatists nutjobs, spending all this money for this, it's hard to think they are just doing that for fun. And as a star wars fan, using star wars characters for evil is really despicable. Fuck Putin.
Only a small section of the country is actively at war, outside of that region the conflict is a major issue, but it's not really going to affect their daily lives too much. They're still hugely concerned with the war, but they're still going to live their lives.
If anything this is a great idea, Putin's spent months selling the idea that Ukraine is overflowing with Nazi's. There's not much better way to counteract that narrative than to run Star Wars characters in the elections.
depression is a terrible fate from which to suffer. only the strong-willed survive, as the weak kill themselves after depression has feasted upon their souls.
I'm not sure that's accurate. I went through a really brutal depression where I had essentially no will-power yet I wasn't suicidal for a moment. Maybe that would have changed if the depression was worse but I suspect there was some other factor at work. It's probably different for different people but I think one of the big problems is a complete loss of hope and a perception of suicide as the answer and a way to escape the pain. In this case strong will can be a problem, when you're depressed you have no hope for the future, the only thing that lies ahead is more depression. It's a lie, things can change and get much better, and you know that's the case, but you don't really believe it. In this scenario if someone truly see suicide as an answer then a strong will might cause them to follow through on the extreme solution rather than doing the little things that seem pointless but might help in the long run.
I think the key to fighting depression and suicidal tendencies is to find something else that brings purpose and hope to their lives. If entrepreneurs are at greater risk I suspect it's due to two reasons. First their focus on business means less time is spent finding other reasons for purpose. And second, one of the reasons to become an entrepreneur is to find meaning and purpose because you can't find it elsewhere. Case in point, I'm in the process of trying to get an Internet startup going right now. One of the reasons is I have a great idea and I think I can pull it off, but the other reason is I can't find a lot of meaning and purpose in my life right now, but I think this startup will have a lot of meaning and purpose and I want to share in that purpose.
In what way do you think this isn't illegal anti-competitive behaviour?
This effectively creates a system where the bigger vendors have serious competitive advantage over smaller ones, as they get to patch their systems in private, while leaving smaller players out in the cold until they get large enough to join the cabal. It will only be a matter of time before one vendor advertises that their security vigilance is better than another, executed on the back of private information.
If there is a patch available, it should be announced and distributed immediately. If there's no patch and no temporary mitigation strategy, then minimizing disclosure is probably fine.
It's not illegal anti-competitive behaviour because the intent isn't to be anti-competitive, it's to reduce the number of victims.
The problem with your proposal is you're creating an additional security risk in the name of fairness.
...is that you force everyone to follow the letter of the law instead of the intent of the law. One reason why "plain English" laws are better for the populous even though they may be harder for the lawyers and the courts.
They way the current system is supposed to work is someone fights one of these prosecutions and a precedent is set, and the higher the court involved in the fight the more widely applicable the precedent. It seems like this is one area where, even under child porn laws, the first ammendment should protect her from prosecution.
So unless you lived under a rock, most people knew there was a security bug out there (why else would the big cloud providers be forcing a restart of all my VMs?) We didn't know what it was, and because I'm not part of the preferred client group my servers didn't get patched prior to disclosure. So for me, no this isn't sufficient. I prefer the more open way of doing it, versus fixing it in a closed "preferred client" way that they handled this.
What more open way do you propose?
With this approach the major vendors got patched first, while you and the attackers both got some forewarning that a vulnerability and patch were going to be made available and got to find out about both at the same time.
In a more open system the only real difference seems to be the major vendors would end up in the same boat as you, having to race the attackers to apply the patch. It removes a comparative advantage they have but seems to make users less secure in general. Maybe the disclosure list could be larger but I'm not sure of a system that allows all of the users to be patched before any of the attackers find out about the exploit.
I mean, some open source projects don't actually have anyone doing live support and a patch happens when someone "gets around to it".
True but a delayed publication of the bug isn't really going to affect them.
And some exploits are out there whether you say anything or not. Slashdot users pretty regularly complain about this with bumper sticker wisdom about "security through obscurity".
I'm not sure that specific complaint is that common. Certainly if a project sits on a security bug for months, or even years, then the security through obscurity criticism is valid. But the vast majority seem to feel it's alright to wait a couple weeks to get a patch together and inform the major users, that seems to be the fastest way to protect the most people as quickly as possible.
And just because the deployments are all fixed, doesn't mean someone has used that. Heartbleed(cited in the summary) was fixable within a couple days on every major linux distro with a simple update. That didn't mean no one got hacked.
All-in-all, sure it's a good policy, but not the magic perfect, oh-lets-all-be-like-xen thing the summary makes it out to be.
AFAIK Heartbleed was fixed before the disclosure, but the multiple discoveries caused OpenSSL to push up the disclosure timeline so not every distro had time to get a patch together.
On the contrary I think Shellshock was bungled a bit, I can't find a firm timeline of who discovered what when but the bug went public before there was even a working patch, much less one pushed out to the major distros. It was definitely the wrong way to do things.
According to the summary
Although the work doesn't provide a definitive answer, it rules out one possible explanation. [R]esearchers point to three different factors that could independently or in combination have rid Brown’s body of HIV.
Unfortunately the summary forgets to mention the explanation that was ruled out or even clearly delineate the three different factors (though the latter was more the fault of the original article).
From my reading of TFA:
Explanation 1: Conditioning: The radiation that destroyed his immune system also killed off the HIV (because HIV lives in the cells of the immune system).
Explanation 2: Shiny new immune system: The new bone marrow had a mutation that was immune to HIV and that cured him (maybe by detecting and killing HIV infected cells?).
Explanation 3: Graft vs host: The new immune system killed off his old one, not just the HIV infected cells but all the old immune systems cells including those infected with HIV.
So the researchers took chimps, extracted some stem cells (bone marrow?), infected them with SHIV (Simian HIV), destroyed their immune systems with radiation, then reinjected the uninfected stem cells.
The SHIV quickly came back which rules out explanation 1.
That being said it kinda dodges the question of why they need more HB1s after laying off a ton of people whom presumably had the necessary qualifications.
You cannot presume that. While it's certainly possible that some of them did have the necessary qualifications, it is also quite possible (likely even) that most did not. If you fire an engineer you cannot replace them with an accountant or even necessarily a different engineer with a different skill set. Even if they did have the qualifications that does not mean they were available and willing to work in the jobs that Microsoft had available. To make up an example, if they fire some guy in Finland from Nokia because they want the development to take place in the US, it's quite likely the guy might not want to move to the US to take the job that is available. Maybe he has family and cannot easily relocate.
The person has to have the right qualifications, be available to do the work, be willing to locate themselves to where the work is and cost the right amount.
Alright, I'll buy that. I still feel Kamela's statement doesn't really address the question, but then again, the question was posted by the author of the summary and wasn't asked of Kamela, so he can't really be blamed for dodging a question he wasn't asked :)
who later explained that about 60% of Microsoft's workforce is in the U.S., yet it makes 68% of its profits overseas
Which is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to software. There is no need at all in software to match development costs to geographic locations.
But it's relevant to the protectionist arguments people use.
People essentially claim that hiring workers outside the US is dishonest because they're an American company making money from the US. But most of their business (or at least their profit) comes from outside the US, if Microsofts' worker distribution matched its profit distribution (which may not be highly related to revenue distribution) then only about 30% of the workforce would be in the US. The current state of the company structure means that when other countries buy MS products they're putting money disproportionately into the US.
That being said it kinda dodges the question of why they need more HB1s after laying off a ton of people whom presumably had the necessary qualifications.
From the summary:
"Emanuel says that Americans seem to be obsessed with exercising, doing mental puzzles, consuming various juice and protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to cheat death and prolong life as long as possible."
Omitting the fad stuff, exercise and eating well improve the length of time you will remain healthy. The quote makes it sound like taking care of yourself will just let you hang on by your fingernails for a little bit longer. The opposite is actually true. Exercise, diet and mental engagement in particular improve health and mental function in old age, not necessarily overall longevity.
If you want to be a healthy octogenarian, take care of yourself now. If you want to be frail and going in for your third bypass operation, don't.
Exactly. If you want to discourage anything it's the heavy health care and heroic end of life measures used to slightly prolong low quality life. But he seems to be specifically talking about low cost measures designed to prolong high quality life. If you want a point to stop choose the point when quality of life drops off drastically. And if you want a simple cut-off (like his 75 number) choose something like being unable to live independently, or being unable to engage in topical conversation (notwithstanding disabled people).
I think a lot of people do pretty well until the last year or two when things go downhill rapidly, no point moving that last year forward but you may want to shorten its duration.
A rule of thumb:
If they can't communicate their idea in a simple readable summary, they're probably not worth listening to anyway.
Btw, who else loves the irony of someone complaining about "impenetrable jargon" while writing things like "Aristotelian 'science'", "Baconian science", "policy options we as a polity", and making a bunch of incoherent sentences.
This isn't the first study to suggest that taking artificial sweeteners in drinks is bad and correlated to obesity (though they didn't actually test a direct connection to obesity in this study). Previously the theory was that the artificial sweeteners caused greater hunger later on by priming the body to expect a rush of sugar calories and getting nothing instead. One implication of that theory was that artificial sweeteners in conjunction with a real meal might still cause less weight gain than real sugar.
This study might change that if the negative effects on the gut bacteria happen even in the presence of other food.
Does anyone know if there's artificial sweetener studies that tackle the question of whether taking them in conjunction with real food makes a difference?
Fundamental question with what should be a simple answer. We pursue enterprise to benefit ourselves and profit. Not to serve as revenue generator to the state. The state is supposed to serve the people; not the other way around, but we keep coming around and forgetting the lessons of history and the basic nature of man.
If the state were not exceeding its mandate to serve the people, taxes would be acceptable and nobody would put that much effort into avoiding them because their result would continue to appeal to our interests. But there's never enough money for the state to be all the things it is promising to be, so the states are inventing structures for self-preservation of systems fundamentally doomed to fail.
Fine we implement your libertarian paradise and taxes drop drastically.
You've done nothing to fix this problem because you misunderstood it.
Corporations don't avoid taxes because they're too high, they do it because it's profitable. Corporations compete by competing at the margins, if a competitor in your libertarian paradise goes from a very low tax rate to a slightly lower tax rate then you'll have to follow otherwise you'll be at a competitive disadvantage. If you are a libertarian this shouldn't be a surprise but gospel. The essence of libertarianism is people acting as rational self-actors, so why would you expect corportations to leave free money on the table just because the pile is a bit smaller?
That is one of the most idiotic replies I have ever received. You sir are trolling, and inventing statements never made to troll with.
I'll admit I should have granted more leniency because the OP mentioned Gore, and as such was already political. But you still took the opportunity to take a shot at Obama and talk about Agenda 21 and I don't see why were either of those were relevant. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with talking about either in general, but when you take a comment with political content and respond by injecting additional political commentary it suggests you're more interested in the politics than the science.
Why do I get the feeling your opinions are driven by partisanship instead of science and economics?
Probably because instead of asking for my opinion you provide your own. You can read my post history, I'm anything but partisan on just about every subject. False dilemmas don't really address problems, they merely cover them up.
I wasn't projecting anything. You may not be partisan in the sense of Republican/Democrat but the fact your comment grinds unrelated policial axes suggests that ideology is very present, at least in the context of that comment.
The point is that less ice in Antarctica was bad because it would contribute to sea levels rising. If global warming is helping reduce sea levels, then this is a good thing, right? (Yes, I know thermal expansion probably is the main driver, so it's still probably going to be a net "bad.")
Sea ice is irrelevant to sea levels.
Land ice matters for sea levels, and the land ice is shrinking.
Only four sentences and you find time to take unrelated shots at Obama and the UN (Agenda 21).
Why do I get the feeling your opinions are driven by partisanship instead of science and economics?
Well given that 5 years ago Al Gore said in 5 years time the Arctic will be completely ice free and it's completely covered in ice still, I would say they have a point. Back to the drawing board with the models at least. If there is one. Which I doubt.
Why are you talking about the Arctic in an article about the Antarctic?
Furthermore why are you talking about Al Gore and models? Sure Gore is somewhat important in his role as an advocate, but Al Gore saying something wrong doesn't mean the models are wrong, it's means Al Gore is a politician who doesn't know the science. I'm not up to date on the models but I never got the impression that an ice free artic in this timeframe was the consensus of the scientists (sure, some thought it could happen, but that's not the same thing).
Btw, on that topic the Arctic ice is still shrinking.