"Because private industry did such a great job of evacuating the city of New Orleans before hurricane Katrina."
100% of those with PRIVATE means of transport out of New Orleans before Katrina hit did survive. However, many (the are still counting bodies) of those who depended on GOVERNMENT transport out of New Orleans perished.
I know you are trying to be sarcastic, but that attempt is undermined by the literal truch of your statement; The performance of the private sector in moving people out of New Orleans prior to the storm was very good. The performance of goverment was horrible. This indeed suggests that disaster response would improve by replacing reliance on goverment with privately-owned means of escape; pick up grandma in the nursing home and drive her to safety, don't rely on George Bush to rescue her.
Driving away in private vehicles before the storm hit worked. We just need to encourage people evacuating in cars to take others with them. What if congress offered a bounty of $10,000.00/person transported out of the way of an oncoming natural disaster, how many lives would that save, and how money would that save, assuming corresponding cuts in FEMA's budget?
After looking over the site, I suspect that "The High Technology Crime Investigation Association (HTCIA)" is a front; it is really a for-profit money-making venture, not a legitimate professional association, as it presents itself. For a genuine professional association, they make too strong an effort to convince us that's what they are. It would work like this: A few guys collect the attendance and membership fees, keeping a big profit for themselves. The fees are paid by governments. The conference attendees, mostly law enforcement officials, receive some stupid advice. Masquerading as a professional organization instead of a for-profit business creates good will, helping them to fleece taxpayers.
The content of the training seminars is especially suspicious. Really, how easy is it to uncover the "secret" history files of "alternative" web browsers? I timed myself, and it took me about 90 seconds using Google to work out some good keywords and find the answer. See the first link in my google search.
Something else suspicious about this professional training: Because the source code for Firefox is available for free to the public, which is not the case with Internet Explorer, it should be easier, not more difficult, to uncover where and how Firefox logs history.
I would predict much different results if the question had not been "what percentage of science papers are wrong" but "what percentage of your own science papers are wrong".
A better survey would have discounted ego by asking both questions.
To spell it out: The possibility is that each scientist believes axiomatically "I am right and others are wrong". Because the majority of papers which any scientist reads are written by other scientists, each scientist judges most papers to be wrong. The survey results confound the egos of scientists with the accuracy of their papers. The difference between the average ratings of scientists judging their own papers vs. those of others is a measure of their egos.
It must be true that most scientists are wrong: If most scientists say that most papers are wrong, and the papers are really right, then most scientists are wrong in saying that most papers are wrong. Otherwise, if most papers are wrong, then most scientists are wrong for haven written those papers.
Some of the reasons, fair or not, for why Microsoft has earned a reputation for evil:
- Maintaining market dominance using closed standards. For example, the Microsoft Word file format. - Embrace-and-extend. Adopting an open format, then corrupting the standard by deviating from the specification. For example Java and Kerberos. - LONG latency in security patches and too many exploits. - Devious scheming against competitors: the Halloween documents.
Well I could go on, but there is probably no need for that here... coals to Newcastle.
Some reasons why Google is earning a reputation for Evil:
- They have attracted many customers by providing a superior product. - They attract star employees by providing better working conditions.
Others have made the point and I agree, Google hatred bowls down to jealousy, envy and anti-capitalism. The success of Google, much like the success of Apple's iPod, owes primarily to the superiority of the product, not to evil corporate machinations. They are winning market share fairly. Good for them. Good for their employees. Good for their investors. Good for their customers. GENUINE innovation makes everyone better off, except for those competing against it.
Persecution of students by public school officials is a national crisis. Public school officials have dictatorial authority over children and are unaccountable to parents.
I predict that the initial "killer app" for these things will be arcade gaming. I figure:
1. It is an insanely great, irresistable technology for gaming. 2. It is still too expensive for home gaming. 3. People who can not afford to buy their own will still pay to play one in an arcade.
Computers and game consoles replaced the pay-to-play arcade games which boomed in the 80's. That's because the price of computing fell so low that owning your own game machine became a better bargain than travelling to an arcade and paying a fee to use one. The same conditions which supported arcades in the past, awsome gaming hardware unafordable in the home market, may have returned here.
Do you have an attention deficit or something? Life is nothing but a constant stream of interruptions. You filter it out. If the beeping of an IM window compels you to break away from what you're doing, there's something wrong with you.
According to this article appearing here, that's horeshit. Secondly, if you choose to ignore the beep and keep working, then YOU ARE NOT MESSAGING. Which was exactly my point: People who have serious work to do not IM. So in disagreement, you provide a point which in fact supports my position.
Measuring communication efficiency in WPM? Claude Shannon must be turning in his grave.
The rate of information transfer as measured in bits/second increases as WPM increases. WPM suffices for the purpose of comparing rates of transmission in natural language. Converting WPM to units of bits/second does change the comparative rates.
What this survey tell us is that IM is a toy for kids, not a serious communication tool for adults. Yet the summary conveys the attitude that "old people" are deficient because they do not IM. If you are a kid with time to waste, IM might be a fun way to play with your friends. Yet that children spend their time playing with a disruptive and inefficient communications medium is no basis for criticizing adults who have better things to do with their lives.
As an adult, I have a serious job which requires concentrating for long periods without interruption. I can't afford to be interrupted every time one of my friends wants to IM me. Email and phones are just a better solution for serious professionals whose time matters to them and who need to concentrate without interruption.
In the working world, the intended topic of conversation usually passes a threshold of seriousness or necessity before placing a phone call. So you tend to only get the more important interruptions. Voice conversation are also a much more efficient form of communication, just measure in WPM. Most people can speak a lot faster than they can type. And your emai waits for you.
After missing out on the money fest the last time around, I'd be a fool not to market myself as a y2.005k consultant this time around.
You might say there is nothing to really worry about here, but all the more reason to sell yourself to clients. If there is no real threat, there is no danger that you will fail.
There is a much simpler and more convincing argument for why ethanol fuel production is wasteful than the type presented in TFA:
If the value of ethanol produced is greater than the value of resources consumed in its production then government subsidies would be unnecessary. If ethanol production yielded more value than it consumed, then ethanol would be produced voluntarily without subsidies. The fact that ethanol production only exists where subsidized tells you that it must be wasteful.
If there were a magic box named "ethanol production" which could turn $1.00 worth of corn and fossil fuel inputs into $2.00 worth of ethanol, government would not have to pay corporations to use it. It is because that, in reality, ethanol production turns $1.00 worth of fossil fuels into less than $1.00 worth of ethanol that corporations only will produce ethanol on the condition that governments repay them for the value of resources wasted in its production.
If you approach the problem from physics, by calculating energy yields at each stage, the embodied energy of the equipment, it's lifetime, and inventory all the inputs that is a very hard problem. So any result is open to much disputation. If you approach the problem from economics, it is very simple: Ethanol costs more to produce than the value of resources produced, therefore it is wasteful.
You might say, "you are leaving out the externalities". Including them works against ethanol; topsoil erosion from farming, deforestation, pollution from refineries, pollution from the fossil fuels consumed it its production. Directly consuming energy used to produce ethanol must have fewer externalities than consuming more than that amount of energy in the production of ethanol and then consuming the ethanol. In both cases you produce and consume energy, but in the latter you produce and consume more energy, and additionally there are the externalities of ethanol production ittself.
I was unclear. I did not intend to imply that scientists were typically weasels. I meant only that there is a high concentration those in my own vicinity. Generally my expereience has been the same as yours.
"Starting in the 1960s, and just reaching a fever pitch, we have millions of christians who swear that their bible/religion/church says that the Earth is only 6000 years old."
The Bible is a moral argument expressed allegorically; It is a fable, the literal truth of which is irrelevant to the conveyance of its message. Biblical tales are illustrative, not syllogistic. Such was an older, enlightened conception of Christianity. Though everywhere uncouth to question the literal truth of the Bible, in sophisticated circles (not Tennessee) literal interpretation was recognized to be unimportant to its message.
Consider the fable (though not Biblical) of the tortoise and the hair, in which the hair becomes overconfident, oversleeps, and loses a foot race to a much slower opponent: his rival, the tortoise. The moral of that story, to not become overconfident and slack off, is in no way undermined by the complete lack of historical and scientific evidence that turtles and rabbits ever have, or possess the capacity to, voluntarily organize and participate in racing competitions.
There is a right way and a wrong way to read the Bible. The sort of person who feels he needs archeological evidence for the famous turtle-vs-hair face off is also incapable reading the Bible correctly. The problem is, that is exactly the sort of person who reads it today.
Christianity in the United States has become low-brow; A faith whose followers predominantly overlook the central thematic messages of the Bible and fixate absurdly upon literal statements within. With limited capacity for abstract reason and inability to recognize moral themes conveyed by example, literal statements are the only territory which they recognize. Literal statements are the only territory which they know to defend.
Ever notice how intelligent people with strong religious convictions, or suspicions, -Buckly and Knuth come to mind here- do not insist on the literal truth of the Bible? For increasingly few, religion is philosophy, not a doctrinarian cult.
I work in science department at a large university and what srikes me is the degree to which scientists here are ethical about science, but only science. In all other aspects - lying to their employees, misdirecting funding, fudging non-scientific reports- they are devious lying weasels. But they are adamantly against fudging data, I have never seen it or even suspected.
Slashdot Mirror
the flavor packet is down there somewhere.
I both lost and regained the ability to digest milk as an adult.
This is more likely due to changes in your intestinal flora over time than evolving at the age of 29 a gene for adult production of lactase.
"Because private industry did such a great job of evacuating the city of New Orleans before hurricane Katrina."
100% of those with PRIVATE means of transport out of New Orleans before Katrina hit did survive. However, many (the are still counting bodies) of those who depended on GOVERNMENT transport out of New Orleans perished.
I know you are trying to be sarcastic, but that attempt is undermined by the literal truch of your statement; The performance of the private sector in moving people out of New Orleans prior to the storm was very good. The performance of goverment was horrible. This indeed suggests that disaster response would improve by replacing reliance on goverment with privately-owned means of escape; pick up grandma in the nursing home and drive her to safety, don't rely on George Bush to rescue her.
Driving away in private vehicles before the storm hit worked. We just need to encourage people evacuating in cars to take others with them. What if congress offered a bounty of $10,000.00/person transported out of the way of an oncoming natural disaster, how many lives would that save, and how money would that save, assuming corresponding cuts in FEMA's budget?
After looking over the site, I suspect that "The High Technology Crime Investigation Association (HTCIA)" is a front; it is really a for-profit money-making venture, not a legitimate professional association, as it presents itself. For a genuine professional association, they make too strong an effort to convince us that's what they are. It would work like this: A few guys collect the attendance and membership fees, keeping a big profit for themselves. The fees are paid by governments. The conference attendees, mostly law enforcement officials, receive some stupid advice. Masquerading as a professional organization instead of a for-profit business creates good will, helping them to fleece taxpayers.
The content of the training seminars is especially suspicious. Really, how easy is it to uncover the "secret" history files of "alternative" web browsers? I timed myself, and it took me about 90 seconds using Google to work out some good keywords and find the answer. See the first link in my google search.
Something else suspicious about this professional training: Because the source code for Firefox is available for free to the public, which is not the case with Internet Explorer, it should be easier, not more difficult, to uncover where and how Firefox logs history.
I work in a *very* big company (can't say right now, in the office... but we're possibly the biggest on Earth by at least one metric)
Not hard to guess where.
I would predict much different results if the question had not been "what percentage of science papers are wrong" but "what percentage of your own science papers are wrong".
A better survey would have discounted ego by asking both questions.
To spell it out: The possibility is that each scientist believes axiomatically "I am right and others are wrong". Because the majority of papers which any scientist reads are written by other scientists, each scientist judges most papers to be wrong. The survey results confound the egos of scientists with the accuracy of their papers. The difference between the average ratings of scientists judging their own papers vs. those of others is a measure of their egos.
It must be true that most scientists are wrong: If most scientists say that most papers are wrong, and the papers are really right, then most scientists are wrong in saying that most papers are wrong. Otherwise, if most papers are wrong, then most scientists are wrong for haven written those papers.
Some of the reasons, fair or not, for why Microsoft has earned a reputation for evil:
- Maintaining market dominance using closed standards. For example, the Microsoft Word file format.
- Embrace-and-extend. Adopting an open format, then corrupting the standard by deviating from the specification. For example Java and Kerberos.
- LONG latency in security patches and too many exploits.
- Devious scheming against competitors: the Halloween documents.
Well I could go on, but there is probably no need for that here... coals to Newcastle.
Some reasons why Google is earning a reputation for Evil:
- They have attracted many customers by providing a superior product.
- They attract star employees by providing better working conditions.
Others have made the point and I agree, Google hatred bowls down to jealousy, envy and anti-capitalism. The success of Google, much like the success of Apple's iPod, owes primarily to the superiority of the product, not to evil corporate machinations. They are winning market share fairly. Good for them. Good for their employees. Good for their investors. Good for their customers. GENUINE innovation makes everyone better off, except for those competing against it.
Persecution of students by public school officials is a national crisis. Public school officials have dictatorial authority over children and are unaccountable to parents.
You can read more about it at Zerointelligence.net.
You can read about what is Mambo CMS here.
I predict that the initial "killer app" for these things will be arcade gaming. I figure:
1. It is an insanely great, irresistable technology for gaming.
2. It is still too expensive for home gaming.
3. People who can not afford to buy their own will still pay to play one in an arcade.
Computers and game consoles replaced the pay-to-play arcade games which boomed in the 80's. That's because the price of computing fell so low that owning your own game machine became a better bargain than travelling to an arcade and paying a fee to use one. The same conditions which supported arcades in the past, awsome gaming hardware unafordable in the home market, may have returned here.
What this survey tell us is that IM is a toy for kids, not a serious communication tool for adults. Yet the summary conveys the attitude that "old people" are deficient because they do not IM. If you are a kid with time to waste, IM might be a fun way to play with your friends. Yet that children spend their time playing with a disruptive and inefficient communications medium is no basis for criticizing adults who have better things to do with their lives. As an adult, I have a serious job which requires concentrating for long periods without interruption. I can't afford to be interrupted every time one of my friends wants to IM me. Email and phones are just a better solution for serious professionals whose time matters to them and who need to concentrate without interruption. In the working world, the intended topic of conversation usually passes a threshold of seriousness or necessity before placing a phone call. So you tend to only get the more important interruptions. Voice conversation are also a much more efficient form of communication, just measure in WPM. Most people can speak a lot faster than they can type. And your emai waits for you.
After missing out on the money fest the last time around, I'd be a fool not to market myself as a y2.005k consultant this time around.
You might say there is nothing to really worry about here, but all the more reason to sell yourself to clients. If there is no real threat, there is no danger that you will fail.
"This keyboard looks like a great way to easily explore the capabilities of powerful apps especially for beginner users."
You use Blender, I presume.
There is a much simpler and more convincing argument for why ethanol fuel production is wasteful than the type presented in TFA:
If the value of ethanol produced is greater than the value of resources consumed in its production then government subsidies would be unnecessary. If ethanol production yielded more value than it consumed, then ethanol would be produced voluntarily without subsidies. The fact that ethanol production only exists where subsidized tells you that it must be wasteful.
If there were a magic box named "ethanol production" which could turn $1.00 worth of corn and fossil fuel inputs into $2.00 worth of ethanol, government would not have to pay corporations to use it. It is because that, in reality, ethanol production turns $1.00 worth of fossil fuels into less than $1.00 worth of ethanol that corporations only will produce ethanol on the condition that governments repay them for the value of resources wasted in its production.
If you approach the problem from physics, by calculating energy yields at each stage, the embodied energy of the equipment, it's lifetime, and inventory all the inputs that is a very hard problem. So any result is open to much disputation. If you approach the problem from economics, it is very simple: Ethanol costs more to produce than the value of resources produced, therefore it is wasteful.
You might say, "you are leaving out the externalities". Including them works against ethanol; topsoil erosion from farming, deforestation, pollution from refineries, pollution from the fossil fuels consumed it its production. Directly consuming energy used to produce ethanol must have fewer externalities than consuming more than that amount of energy in the production of ethanol and then consuming the ethanol. In both cases you produce and consume energy, but in the latter you produce and consume more energy, and additionally there are the externalities of ethanol production ittself.
Everybody wants prosthetic
Foreheads on their real heads
Everybody wants prosthetic
Foreheads on their real heads
You claimed air conditioners were "unbelievably efficient". I endorsed your statement by disbeleiving it.
"Air conditioners are unbelievably cheap and unbelievably efficient nowadays."
....right?
I don't believe that. So you are
I was unclear. I did not intend to imply that scientists were typically weasels. I meant only that there is a high concentration those in my own vicinity. Generally my expereience has been the same as yours.
"Starting in the 1960s, and just reaching a fever pitch, we have millions of christians who swear that their bible/religion/church says that the Earth is only 6000 years old."
The Bible is a moral argument expressed allegorically; It is a fable, the literal truth of which is irrelevant to the conveyance of its message. Biblical tales are illustrative, not syllogistic. Such was an older, enlightened conception of Christianity. Though everywhere uncouth to question the literal truth of the Bible, in sophisticated circles (not Tennessee) literal interpretation was recognized to be unimportant to its message.
Consider the fable (though not Biblical) of the tortoise and the hair, in which the hair becomes overconfident, oversleeps, and loses a foot race to a much slower opponent: his rival, the tortoise. The moral of that story, to not become overconfident and slack off, is in no way undermined by the complete lack of historical and scientific evidence that turtles and rabbits ever have, or possess the capacity to, voluntarily organize and participate in racing competitions.
There is a right way and a wrong way to read the Bible. The sort of person who feels he needs archeological evidence for the famous turtle-vs-hair face off is also incapable reading the Bible correctly. The problem is, that is exactly the sort of person who reads it today.
Christianity in the United States has become low-brow; A faith whose followers predominantly overlook the central thematic messages of the Bible and fixate absurdly upon literal statements within. With limited capacity for abstract reason and inability to recognize moral themes conveyed by example, literal statements are the only territory which they recognize. Literal statements are the only territory which they know to defend.
Ever notice how intelligent people with strong religious convictions, or suspicions, -Buckly and Knuth come to mind here- do not insist on the literal truth of the Bible? For increasingly few, religion is philosophy, not a doctrinarian cult.
I work in science department at a large university and what srikes me is the degree to which scientists here are ethical about science, but only science. In all other aspects - lying to their employees, misdirecting funding, fudging non-scientific reports- they are devious lying weasels. But they are adamantly against fudging data, I have never seen it or even suspected.
Looks like you are correct.
By the way, Elisha Otis, inventer of the safety elevator, died in an elevator accident.