"You know, like 90% of all other published research in the psychological sciences." Or maybe 98% of that research is somewhat or mostly wacky?
Maybe the actual issue: The smart people in Norway are avoiding military service?
Another subject about Norway:
Norway is rehabilitative, not destructive, to those who commit crimes. Michael Moore's film, Where to Invade Next explored the system in Norway, and prompted articles like this one: Why Norway's prison system is so successful. Quote from that article: "... when criminals in Norway leave prison, they stay out. It has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world at 20%. The US has one of the highest: 76.6% of prisoners are re-arrested within five years."
Being destructive to those who commit crimes is another crime, a crime committed by the government.
1) "One thing that killed the [Texas] SSC was an undeserved reputation for over-spending."
I don't agree with "undeserved". The project leaders did not explain their spending sufficiently that people with little technical knowledge could understand it. That was my impression.
2) "People have been asking which party killed the Superconducting Super Collider. The answer is... both of them. The key Senate vote came in 1993, when Democrats controlled Congress. All told, 26 Democrats voted to kill the project and 29 voted to keep it; 31 Republicans voted to kill and 13 voted to maintain funding."
"One thing that killed the TexasSSC was an undeserved reputation for over-spending." I don't agree with "undeserved". The project leaders did not explain their spending sufficiently that people with little technical knowledge could understand it. That was my impression.
"People have been asking which party killed the Superconducting Super Collider. The answer is... both of them. The key Senate vote came in 1993, when Democrats controlled Congress. All told, 26 Democrats voted to kill the project and 29 voted to keep it; 31 Republicans voted to kill and 13 voted to maintain funding."
I said "Most people her age don't understand computer technology, and don't want to understand." Most people, not all.
I've known many people who responded like the stories say Hillary did.
My opinion: Hillary Clinton showed many, many times in many ways that she was not deeply logical. She exhibited the behavior of people I've known who didn't want to try to understand technology.
Did Hillary Clinton give any deeply insightful ideas when she was Secretary of State? None of which I am aware. It seemed to me that she lacked depth everywhere, not just concerning technology.
This story, Understanding Hillary, says she is admired by her co-workers, and only weak in elections. It has seemed to me that she is weak everywhere in public.
"Maybe it's because she has almost no credibility and the only ones voting for her were doing it of party reasons, anti-trump reasons, or for gender reasons."
Good points. It seemed to me that she was often surprisingly lacking in logical understanding.
In all the news about Hillary Clinton's email servers, I never saw ANYTHING that would indicate Hillary Clinton has any technical knowledge.
I think it is likely that technically-knowledgeable people like those who comment on Slashdot accidentally overestimate the technical knowledge of others. Possibilities:
1) Hillary plugged in her own email server and configured email accounts. (Makes me laugh.)
2) Someone arranged Hillary's office for her. Who has never been revealed, apparently.
Many people think the October 28, 2016 message from James Comey about Hillary's emails was enough to cause people to avoid voting for her. See the bottom third of page 197 for the beginning of his discussion of that.
To me, Comey seems like someone who realizes the importance of social sophistication, struggles for greater social understanding, but often does not deal well with social issues.
How much oil is used to make plastic?: "Although crude oil is a source of raw material (feedstock) for making plastics, it is not the major source of feedstock for plastics production in the United States."
Natural gas is less polluting. Still a problem, but not as much of a problem as using oil.
"CMPC is a Chilean pulp and paper company, being one of the biggest in Latin America.... Revenue: US$ 5.1 billion (2017)"
Another plant: CELCO Valdivia Pulp Mill pollution: "The company had been dumping more dioxins and heavy metals than had been approved by the regulating agencies into the river from a waste tube that had been approved by the authorities. It had also been producing far above levels approved in its Environmental Impact Assessment, and was cited for multiple violations of environmental and health laws."
"In July 2007 CELCO agreed to pay CLP$614 millions to Valdivian tourism companies to avoid legal actions for supposed losses of the tourism sector of Valdivia due to contamination of Carlos Anwandter Nature Sanctuary."
"The Secretary of State for the Environment said that, despite having large financial and technical resources, CELCO had an extremely poor environmental record."
Stores in and near Portland, Oregon stopped supplying plastic bags. The reason appeared to be that International Paper (world map) has a plant near Portland.
Paper is far more damaging to the environment. First, a huge truck must go to a place where there are trees. The trees are cut and trucked to a processing plant. The plant uses poisonous chemicals to make the paper.
The problem appears to be that there is not sufficient identification and recycling of waste. Plastic should not be allowed in streams and rivers.
Paper buried in trash areas can eventually degrade, but that usually doesn't happen because there is usually not enough oxygen to support the breakdown process.
Ugly problem: Billionaires must spend time deciding what to do with their money.
Who has a better life? A surfer who pays his parents $500 per month to live in their basement, or a billionaire? A serious investigation of all the associated details may sometimes indicate that the surfer has a better life.
Maybe the surfer is not doing anything that is destructive to other people.
Bill Gates said he still manages Microsoft: "I'm there about 15 percent of the time." Even though he is rich, Bill Gates spends his time managing a company that took advantage of technical limits (People can't change operating systems easily.) to abuse people.
"... Windows 10 is useless as an operating system, it's just a toy made by monkeys."
Joke: Yes, Windows 10 is useless. However, the World Huge Association of Monkeys, WHAM!, says you are not sufficiently respectful of monkeys. Monkeys act in their own self-interest.
With Windows 10, Microsoft has been extremely self-destructive. If Microsoft had spent a billion dollars running ads trying to get negative responses from professionals who are knowledgeable about computers, those ads would not have been as effective as Windows 10 at destroying whatever positive thoughts people had about Microsoft.
This is not correct: You said, "The open source community often would talk about the Bill Gates/Ballmer era tactic of embrace, extend, extinguish, and that's all well and good but neither of those people work at the company now."
I see some sense in what you said. However, when Steve Jobs was alive and healthy, he was good at making sure Apple was presented in a way that communicated well and efficiently. Part of the problem I see with Intel is sloppy communicating.
Quote: Meltdown "breaks the most fundamental isolation between user applications and the operating system", according to Google. This flaw most strongly affects Intel processors because of the aggressive way they handle speculative execution, though a few ARM cores are also susceptible."
I don't agree with the analysis in the parent comment.
This amazing quote from the Slashdot story demonstrates an avoidance of reality, in my opinion: "We are not buying GitHub to turn it into Microsoft; we are buying GitHub because we believe in the importance of developers, and in GitHub's unique role in the developer community," explains Friedman.
My opinion: Microsoft bought GitHub because it expects to make money. To begin evaluating GitHub's future, consider what Microsoft did to Skype and LinkedIn.
Harvard Business Review article: Why Microsoft Is Willing to Pay So Much for GitHub. Quote from that article: "GitHub was acquired for close to 30x annual recurring revenue (an astronomical multiple)."
Another quote from the Harvard Business Review article:
"In other words, Microsoft is not paying $7.5 billion for GitHub for its ability to make money (its financial value). It's paying for the access it gets to the legions of developers who use GitHub's code repository products on a daily basis (the company's strategic value) -- so they can be guided into the Microsoft developer environment, where the real money is made."
In my opinion that statement damages the reputation of the Harvard Business Review. What it really means is something like this: "... legions of developers can be FORCED into the Microsoft developer environment, where the real money is made."
Quote from that article: "Intel is experiencing 'an unrelenting demand for compute performance driven by the continuing growth of data and the need to process, analyze, store, and share that data.' "
Slashdot Mirror
Article: Portland, Oregon insufficient city management: Examples in 9 areas (PDF file). When I tell people about the article, they say, "Only 9?".
1) Portland city management is allowing the construction of large buildings with no parking.
2) The traffic is TERRIBLE.
3) The pollution is extremely unpleasant during the summer. It appears that there is no effective pollution management.
It is uncomfortable for me that a U.S. president is said to do things that are developed, communicated, and recommended by agencies and staff.
I think credit should be given in detail to everyone who was involved.
"So...you're saying it was physics research."
I think most people won't understand why that's funny.
I've worked with Physicists who were distant from the social world.
Exactly.
"You know, like 90% of all other published research in the psychological sciences." Or maybe 98% of that research is somewhat or mostly wacky?
Maybe the actual issue: The smart people in Norway are avoiding military service?
Another subject about Norway:
Norway is rehabilitative, not destructive, to those who commit crimes. Michael Moore's film, Where to Invade Next explored the system in Norway, and prompted articles like this one: Why Norway's prison system is so successful. Quote from that article: "... when criminals in Norway leave prison, they stay out. It has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world at 20%. The US has one of the highest: 76.6% of prisoners are re-arrested within five years."
Being destructive to those who commit crimes is another crime, a crime committed by the government.
Because of many issues like that, my impression is that Microsoft is sloppily managed.
More detail in this story: Why the Higgs boson wasn't discovered in America.
2 quotes:
1) "One thing that killed the [Texas] SSC was an undeserved reputation for over-spending."
I don't agree with "undeserved". The project leaders did not explain their spending sufficiently that people with little technical knowledge could understand it. That was my impression.
2) "People have been asking which party killed the Superconducting Super Collider. The answer is... both of them. The key Senate vote came in 1993, when Democrats controlled Congress. All told, 26 Democrats voted to kill the project and 29 voted to keep it; 31 Republicans voted to kill and 13 voted to maintain funding."
More detail in this story: Why the Higgs boson wasnâ(TM)t discovered in America.
Quotes:
"One thing that killed the TexasSSC was an undeserved reputation for over-spending." I don't agree with "undeserved". The project leaders did not explain their spending sufficiently that people with little technical knowledge could understand it. That was my impression.
"People have been asking which party killed the Superconducting Super Collider. The answer is... both of them. The key Senate vote came in 1993, when Democrats controlled Congress. All told, 26 Democrats voted to kill the project and 29 voted to keep it; 31 Republicans voted to kill and 13 voted to maintain funding."
"They cancelled it ... because they could not see the immediate benefit..."
Apparently it is possible that there will never be any benefit.
I said "Most people her age don't understand computer technology, and don't want to understand." Most people, not all.
I've known many people who responded like the stories say Hillary did.
My opinion: Hillary Clinton showed many, many times in many ways that she was not deeply logical. She exhibited the behavior of people I've known who didn't want to try to understand technology.
Did Hillary Clinton give any deeply insightful ideas when she was Secretary of State? None of which I am aware. It seemed to me that she lacked depth everywhere, not just concerning technology.
This story, Understanding Hillary, says she is admired by her co-workers, and only weak in elections. It has seemed to me that she is weak everywhere in public.
"Maybe it's because she has almost no credibility and the only ones voting for her were doing it of party reasons, anti-trump reasons, or for gender reasons."
Good points. It seemed to me that she was often surprisingly lacking in logical understanding.
However, look at this article: Hillary Clinton Jokes About Wiping Email Server 'With A Cloth Or Something'. Hillary: "What? Like with a cloth or something?" she asked, then laughed. "I don't know how it works digitally at all."
That was NOT "joking". Hillary is now 70 years old. Most people her age don't understand computer technology, and don't want to understand.
Those are helpful points.
In all the news about Hillary Clinton's email servers, I never saw ANYTHING that would indicate Hillary Clinton has any technical knowledge.
I think it is likely that technically-knowledgeable people like those who comment on Slashdot accidentally overestimate the technical knowledge of others. Possibilities:
1) Hillary plugged in her own email server and configured email accounts. (Makes me laugh.)
2) Someone arranged Hillary's office for her. Who has never been revealed, apparently.
I'm currently reading A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership by James Comey.
Many people think the October 28, 2016 message from James Comey about Hillary's emails was enough to cause people to avoid voting for her. See the bottom third of page 197 for the beginning of his discussion of that.
To me, Comey seems like someone who realizes the importance of social sophistication, struggles for greater social understanding, but often does not deal well with social issues.
No need to mod down. It was intended as a joke.
How much oil is used to make plastic?: "Although crude oil is a source of raw material (feedstock) for making plastics, it is not the major source of feedstock for plastics production in the United States."
Natural gas is less polluting. Still a problem, but not as much of a problem as using oil.
"CMPC is a Chilean pulp and paper company, being one of the biggest in Latin America. ... Revenue: US$ 5.1 billion (2017)"
Another plant: CELCO Valdivia Pulp Mill pollution: "The company had been dumping more dioxins and heavy metals than had been approved by the regulating agencies into the river from a waste tube that had been approved by the authorities. It had also been producing far above levels approved in its Environmental Impact Assessment, and was cited for multiple violations of environmental and health laws."
"In July 2007 CELCO agreed to pay CLP$614 millions to Valdivian tourism companies to avoid legal actions for supposed losses of the tourism sector of Valdivia due to contamination of Carlos Anwandter Nature Sanctuary."
"The Secretary of State for the Environment said that, despite having large financial and technical resources, CELCO had an extremely poor environmental record."
Stores in and near Portland, Oregon stopped supplying plastic bags. The reason appeared to be that International Paper (world map) has a plant near Portland.
Paper is far more damaging to the environment. First, a huge truck must go to a place where there are trees. The trees are cut and trucked to a processing plant. The plant uses poisonous chemicals to make the paper.
The problem appears to be that there is not sufficient identification and recycling of waste. Plastic should not be allowed in streams and rivers.
Paper buried in trash areas can eventually degrade, but that usually doesn't happen because there is usually not enough oxygen to support the breakdown process.
Thanks for the excellent link: Cobalt mining for lithium ion batteries has a high human cost.
Also, lithium ion batteries age and lose storage capacity. They are very expensive to buy and replace.
That is an example of an issue I mentioned. Always examine all the surrounding information.
I said that Bill Gates apparently spends part of his time being abusive. Maybe there are other things he does that are helpful: Cascade Investment.
I did not criticize the "other billionaires".
Ugly problem: Billionaires must spend time deciding what to do with their money.
Who has a better life? A surfer who pays his parents $500 per month to live in their basement, or a billionaire? A serious investigation of all the associated details may sometimes indicate that the surfer has a better life.
Maybe the surfer is not doing anything that is destructive to other people.
Bill Gates said he still manages Microsoft: "I'm there about 15 percent of the time." Even though he is rich, Bill Gates spends his time managing a company that took advantage of technical limits (People can't change operating systems easily.) to abuse people.
Examples of abuse by Microsoft and Bill Gates:
Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made. "Buried in the service agreement is permission to poke through everything on your PC."
7 ways Windows 10 pushes ads at you.
Microsoft again forced upgrades on Win10 machines specifically set to block updates (March 12, 2018)
Abusing people is a really, really ugly life.
"... Windows 10 is useless as an operating system, it's just a toy made by monkeys."
Joke: Yes, Windows 10 is useless. However, the World Huge Association of Monkeys, WHAM!, says you are not sufficiently respectful of monkeys. Monkeys act in their own self-interest.
With Windows 10, Microsoft has been extremely self-destructive. If Microsoft had spent a billion dollars running ads trying to get negative responses from professionals who are knowledgeable about computers, those ads would not have been as effective as Windows 10 at destroying whatever positive thoughts people had about Microsoft.
Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made. "Buried in the service agreement is permission to poke through everything on your PC."
7 ways Windows 10 pushes ads at you.
Microsoft again forced upgrades on Win10 machines specifically set to block updates (March 12, 2018)
This is not correct: You said, "The open source community often would talk about the Bill Gates/Ballmer era tactic of embrace, extend, extinguish, and that's all well and good but neither of those people work at the company now."
Bill Gates said he still manages Microsoft: "I'm there about 15 percent of the time."
Microsoft has become EVEN MORE extremely abusive, in my opinion, and the opinion of many others. Two of many, many examples:
Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made. "Buried in the service agreement is permission to poke through everything on your PC."
7 ways Windows 10 pushes ads at you.
Microsoft again forced upgrades on Win10 machines specifically set to block updates (March 12, 2018)
I see some sense in what you said. However, when Steve Jobs was alive and healthy, he was good at making sure Apple was presented in a way that communicated well and efficiently. Part of the problem I see with Intel is sloppy communicating.
Here is a discussion of the problems with the vulnerability called Meltdown, which you didn't mention in your comment: Meltdown and Spectre FAQ: How the critical CPU flaws affect PCs and Macs.
Quote: Meltdown "breaks the most fundamental isolation between user applications and the operating system", according to Google. This flaw most strongly affects Intel processors because of the aggressive way they handle speculative execution, though a few ARM cores are also susceptible."
Embrace, extend, and extinguish
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish: How Microsoft Plans to Get Rid of Linux/Android (April 20, 2015) That article contains these links:
Microsoft Hates Linux -- Part I -- The UEFI Attack on GNU/Linux
Microsoft Hates Linux -- Part II -- Patent Lawsuits Against Android/Linux Still Going On, New Ones Filed
Microsoft Hates Linux -- Part III -- Abducting the Competition (Android)
Microsoft Hates Linux -- Part IV -- Deleting, Attacking Android/Linux From Within
Microsoft Hates Linux -- Part V -- Dumping and Surveillance to Counter GNU/Linux Insurgence
Microsoft Hates Linux -- Part VI -- Propaganda Wars Against Free Software Facilitated While Media Control is Secured and Abused
Is this analysis correct?
Microsoft bought access to the code of GitHub's paying customers.
I don't agree with the analysis in the parent comment.
This amazing quote from the Slashdot story demonstrates an avoidance of reality, in my opinion: "We are not buying GitHub to turn it into Microsoft; we are buying GitHub because we believe in the importance of developers, and in GitHub's unique role in the developer community," explains Friedman.
My opinion: Microsoft bought GitHub because it expects to make money. To begin evaluating GitHub's future, consider what Microsoft did to Skype and LinkedIn.
Harvard Business Review article: Why Microsoft Is Willing to Pay So Much for GitHub. Quote from that article: "GitHub was acquired for close to 30x annual recurring revenue (an astronomical multiple)."
Another quote from the Harvard Business Review article:
"In other words, Microsoft is not paying $7.5 billion for GitHub for its ability to make money (its financial value). It's paying for the access it gets to the legions of developers who use GitHub's code repository products on a daily basis (the company's strategic value) -- so they can be guided into the Microsoft developer environment, where the real money is made."
In my opinion that statement damages the reputation of the Harvard Business Review. What it really means is something like this: "... legions of developers can be FORCED into the Microsoft developer environment, where the real money is made."
Even though Intel is sloppily managed in many ways, Intel does well because there is a huge worldwide need for faster and better processors.
One story: Is Intel a Buy? The chip giant's stock should be due for a huge correction after soaring 48% higher over the last year, right? Well, not so fast.
Quote from that article: "Intel is experiencing 'an unrelenting demand for compute performance driven by the continuing growth of data and the need to process, analyze, store, and share that data.' "