All mammals are, by definition, born with the ability to digest milk, therefore they have the genes to do that. It can happen that those genes are epi-genitically turned off in adults that are not exposed to milk. However, the genes would be still there.
Thus I'm extremely doubtful that any genetic studies could have revealed the lack of milk digesting genes. And since I don't see how they could assess any epi-genetic state of a long dead individual I really wonder about how they arrived at that conclusion.
You are gluing together disparate e-mails to try to create a grand conspiracy. As I said I don't think it's overtly about wages. But with such a policy one could expect some wage manipulation to arise and hence some e-mails to that effect. But I still don't think that was the primary goal.
I suspect that this was not overtly about wages. It was about retention. You can't just say, well they could have paid them more to retain them. As the e-mails indicate regardless of any feasible wages it would always be possible to offer higher wages to a subset of employees that could cripple the organization. That's what this was about. People are not simply interchangeable. When you hire someone it's also an investment of your core strength into them. So in the short term yes perhaps a few employees could have been enticed by higher wages but then ensuing self destructive battle would have damaged all the companies fitness, lowering everyones wages. So it's not a give this lowered wages.
This is one problem that collective bargaining does address. It tries to maximize employee wages over the long run and side effect is that trade unions also normlaize wages across all the companies. But the union is always balancing a companies ability to pay with killing the golden goose.
I can't say what the original scientific article determined but I'm fairly certain the news report and the summary of it are either wildly incorrect or grossly understate the issue.
from the news article:
The team found that between 17 and 36 per cent of smog produced in China in 2006 came from factories making goods for export. One-fifth of those goods are destined for the US.
The modelling revealed that on any given day in 2006, goods made in China for the US market accounted for up to a quarter of the sulphate smog over the western US.
So lets do the arithmetic: (0.17+0.36)/2 * (1/5) = 0.05
so 5 % of China smog is from US goods and this 5% causes 25% of W. US sulphate.
But wait what about the other 95% of china smog? We need to multiply that US smog by 20 to get it's contribution.
therefore 20*25% = 500% of W. US sulphate comes from china!!! those sneaky rascals are exporting 5 times as much sulphate tot eh US as they produce in total!
For this to make any sense one would have to assume that the sulphate produced in china for US bound goods, selectively finds its way to the US, leaving behind all other chinese made sulphate. This seems absurd. I suppose if winds didn't homgenize the chinese smog, and say all the western chinese smog selectively went one direction and just a tiny regional area that accounted for nearly all the US made goods happened to be nearly the entire source of the US bound smog, then this might be true.
But you would think that the article would have mentioned this extraordinary property and name this magic place in china that is the sole source of US smog.
0) they are transferring the O2 fluid to fluid not fluid to gas which requires more energy to dedolvate it 1) they are selectively filtering for 02 using very advanced filters, so they don't have to pay the price of desolvating all the useless N2 as well 2) their filters can be powered (not just holes but can be chemically driven with active energy input) so they can use a smaller surface area to get more O2. 3) cold blooded 4) no brains to speak of (those mothers guzzle oxygen) 5) extremely efficient forward motion means that when they move they filter lots of water. when they are still they don't use much energy (they don't even have to support themselves against gravity)
Basically, it would take processing 24 gallons of water per minute with 100% efficiency (unlikely) to provide a human with enough oxygen. No way can this work as described.
However it might possibly be a start. When humans breath they don't use all the oxygen in the air up. so one could reprocess that air (as rebreathers do) and then supplement that using this device to make a better rebreather.
Yes, I agree. Approval voting has much to be desired, especially it's simplicity of implementation and its assymtotic approach to rangevoting without all the complexity. I was discussing instant run-off voting and how transitivity violations arise so I did not bring this up.
Oops, I deleted a key point from my comment. Arrows result shows that even if every individual has a transitive preference order, that a group does not always have a transitive preference order. in terms of Condorect voting this would mean that under rare cases one can have A > B, B > C and C>A, which is a non-tranistive cycle for the groups combined preferences.
Thus one way to explain non-trainsitive behaviour in individuals would be to postulate that internally individuals are groups! your left brain wants one thing and your right brain wants something else, and your penis might have yet another opinion on the subject. When you merger those individually transitive preferences you can get a non-transitive outcome that must be resolved by some ad hoc tie resolution protocol.
So the point is non]-transitive behaviour can emerge not simply as a devious stratgy about future choices but also simply when one has a mult-objective preference function to satisfy. Neither of these is irrational.
Your comment and and the article remind me of strategies employed in voting systems. Arrow famously put forth arrows axioms of fairness for selecting a voting system, one of those axioms was the irrelevance to alternatives when comparing two canadidates. that is, your preference for candidate A over candidate B should not change if candidate C runs or not. We also believe that preferences are transitive, and transitivity should mean you can rank your preferences in a set of candidates. The interesting thing he showed was there was no possible voting system that could satisfy all of the axioms for a group of people under all circumstances. However, there is one voting system does work under most non-pathological systems. And this is Condorcet voting also known as "majority rule, ranked preference.". IN this system everyone ranks the candidates then to tally you consider each possible pair of candidates and momentarily consider the outcome if none of the other candidates existed. If, as is nearly always the case, one candidate would beat all the other candidates in a pairwise battle this person is the winner. In rare cases where that's not true, special handling rules can be invoked.
What's amusing about this is that this nearly optimal ranked preference voting protocol is both simple and known. Yet most ranked preference voting is implemented as Instant Runnoff voting which is one of the worst possible ways to tabulate and frequently violates arrows axioms of fairness. The problem with Instant runoff voting is that it falls victim to the strategy you are using to get more of the chocolate for your self: strategically mis-ranking your preferences. Another problem with Instant run-off voting when there are three or more nearly equal strength candidates. It tends to pick wing parties over centrist parties--- which intuitively should tell you something is wrong. Here's and example of that:
suppose I have a left, center and Right candidates names L,C and R. you can imagine ranking after vote tablualtion might look like this:
R > C > L 35% C > R > L 16% C > L > R 15% L > C > R 34%
Now who should win? Well if R had not run then C would have beat L in a landslide 66% to 34%. Likewise C beats R 65% to 34%. So clearly C is the person a majority will be happy with no matter who else is running. But what does instant Run-off voting do? Well it tabluates the first round of preferences: 35 to 32 to 34 for R:C:L and then since C has the lowest first round vote, C is removed. Then we move to the second round and there, without C in the race, R beats in the ratio 51 to 49%.
Which is nuts because 66 % of the voters prefer C to L!
So be sure to laugh at people who tell you they want instant run-off voting. sadly this is what is mainly being implemented.
In contrast, traditional public schools which fail students do not close and are allowed to fail students year after year after year. Closing a charter school is a feature, not a bug.
I understand your argument but you entirely missed my point. my point was not that this darwinian processing will produce the best schools, it's that charter schools that survive in rarified niches pull up the average. You have observer bias in that you only can see the successes. You don't see the underserved areas and it doesnt mean the successful ones are better than the public schools if we restricted attention to just the niches where public schools succeed.
Private schools come and go. if you start 100 private schools then some time later most will be out of business. A few, ones that could draw good students from wealthy families, will remain. If you now compare those to public schools they may shine. Bussinesses that succeed always look like their outperforming the governments delivery of similar services. In aggregate, including all the places they fail, they may not. How many failed charter schools did Bill Gates look into. How many of those failed before they even chartered because the demographics just would not work.
one would be dumb to take a loan denominated in bitcoin. Since the supply is limited, someone eventually loses (defaults) by simple math. With inflation, this doesn't have to happen, as new money enters the system. Which is why we have fiat. This is also why people get so cranky about "fractional reserve lending".
I can't make the slightest bit of sense out of any of your assertions. Why would I not want to make a loan in bitcoin. People loaned gold for millennia and it's supply is limited. The purpose of interest on loans is precisely so everyone benefits. And inflation has nothing at all to do with the viability of a loan-- it's completely compensated by the interest rate. No this is not why we have Fiat money or just as sensibly, by we have Fiat cars. And I suspect you have no clue what fracitional reserve lending is.
Did you write this or did your cat sit on the keyboard?
For example, a weak measurement can detect the presence of a photon by the deflection it causes when it bounces off a mirror. However, this does not change the photon's quantum state.
Cough.... say what? If the photon produces a measurable deflection of the mirror then it transferred energy to the mirror. Therefore the QM state of the photon was changed. This sounds like a bunch of rubbish.
I plan to start a company that flies blimps over football stadiums and broadcasts video of the games. Afterall they are letting the light from the stadium radiate into the environment so I'm entitled to pick it up and rebroadcast it without any compensation to the football teams.
This souncs a lot like the too big to fail issue with our financial systems dependence on the sound judgement and intentions of banks. This banking problem arose when glass-stegal's repeal essentially deregualted banks and let them manage their own affairs.
But acutally it harkens back much further. In the early days of the US there was no common currency. banks issued their own script and this failed when the banks manipulated it. Later on after we had a common currency, we still had too much exposure to bank mismangement. The federal reserve was not sufficient. And of course we all know about the depression.
Bit coin lacks this sort of regulation. A bit coin "bank" does not have a federal reserve rate to assure that the money supply doesn't mulitply. And it has no regulation on too big to fail for these mining consortia.
They tested this for the next ipad. While apple felt the 5 second battery life was too short to be practical, the beta testers were more concerned about the apple shaped 3rd degree burns imprinted on their thighs and palms
Ghostery says their business model is tracking how effectively penetrating the trackers are and, ironically, selling that info back to the tracker companies to improve their tracking. In some sense they are dependent on most people not using their tracker blocking service-- it's a sampling device for them. They say they don't market information about your browsing habits. I have wondered if they also sell the ability to let some trackers penetrate their veil, but I suspect that's too small a market to interest them because too few people use ghostery and doing that would undermine their userbase.
But he also thought we'd have a colony on the moon, be living under a global population control regime, eating at multi-flavored algae bars, and letting machines prepare us personalized meals
multi-flavor algae: Sodium alginate is a major food additive. many flavors.
global population control regime:
china we all know about:
uzbekistan: forced sterilization or IUD.
india: more than two children and you can't particiapte in many elective offices
iran: manadatory contraception to obtain marriage lic.
USA: ask Sarah Palin what she thinks of Title X
Israel: ordered sterilizations.
Slashdot Mirror
All mammals are, by definition, born with the ability to digest milk, therefore they have the genes to do that. It can happen that those genes are epi-genitically turned off in adults that are not exposed to milk. However, the genes would be still there.
Thus I'm extremely doubtful that any genetic studies could have revealed the lack of milk digesting genes. And since I don't see how they could assess any epi-genetic state of a long dead individual I really wonder about how they arrived at that conclusion.
You are gluing together disparate e-mails to try to create a grand conspiracy. As I said I don't think it's overtly about wages. But with such a policy one could expect some wage manipulation to arise and hence some e-mails to that effect. But I still don't think that was the primary goal.
I suspect that this was not overtly about wages. It was about retention. You can't just say, well they could have paid them more to retain them. As the e-mails indicate regardless of any feasible wages it would always be possible to offer higher wages to a subset of employees that could cripple the organization. That's what this was about. People are not simply interchangeable. When you hire someone it's also an investment of your core strength into them. So in the short term yes perhaps a few employees could have been enticed by higher wages but then ensuing self destructive battle would have damaged all the companies fitness, lowering everyones wages. So it's not a give this lowered wages.
This is one problem that collective bargaining does address. It tries to maximize employee wages over the long run and side effect is that trade unions also normlaize wages across all the companies. But the union is always balancing a companies ability to pay with killing the golden goose.
I can't say what the original scientific article determined but I'm fairly certain the news report and the summary of it are either wildly incorrect or grossly understate the issue.
from the news article:
The team found that between 17 and 36 per cent of smog produced in China in 2006 came from factories making goods for export. One-fifth of those goods are destined for the US.
The modelling revealed that on any given day in 2006, goods made in China for the US market accounted for up to a quarter of the sulphate smog over the western US.
So lets do the arithmetic:
(0.17+0.36)/2 * (1/5) = 0.05
so 5 % of China smog is from US goods and this 5% causes 25% of W. US sulphate.
But wait what about the other 95% of china smog? We need to multiply that US smog by 20 to get it's contribution.
therefore 20*25% = 500% of W. US sulphate comes from china!!! those sneaky rascals are exporting 5 times as much sulphate tot eh US as they produce in total!
For this to make any sense one would have to assume that the sulphate produced in china for US bound goods, selectively finds its way to the US, leaving behind all other chinese made sulphate. This seems absurd. I suppose if winds didn't homgenize the chinese smog, and say all the western chinese smog selectively went one direction and just a tiny regional area that accounted for nearly all the US made goods happened to be nearly the entire source of the US bound smog, then this might be true.
But you would think that the article would have mentioned this extraordinary property and name this magic place in china that is the sole source of US smog.
Or the article is wild BS.
Apple's remote desktop combined with back to my mac seems to be all you need for mac to mac.
0) they are transferring the O2 fluid to fluid not fluid to gas which requires more energy to dedolvate it
1) they are selectively filtering for 02 using very advanced filters, so they don't have to pay the price of desolvating all the useless N2 as well
2) their filters can be powered (not just holes but can be chemically driven with active energy input) so they can use a smaller surface area to get more O2.
3) cold blooded
4) no brains to speak of (those mothers guzzle oxygen)
5) extremely efficient forward motion means that when they move they filter lots of water. when they are still they don't use much energy (they don't even have to support themselves against gravity)
Here's a nice analysis:
http://deepseanews.com/2014/01/triton-not-dive-or-dive-not-there-is-no-triton/
Basically, it would take processing 24 gallons of water per minute with 100% efficiency (unlikely) to provide a human with enough oxygen. No way can this work as described.
However it might possibly be a start. When humans breath they don't use all the oxygen in the air up. so one could reprocess that air (as rebreathers do) and then supplement that using this device to make a better rebreather.
Yes, I agree. Approval voting has much to be desired, especially it's simplicity of implementation and its assymtotic approach to rangevoting without all the complexity. I was discussing instant run-off voting and how transitivity violations arise so I did not bring this up.
Oops, I deleted a key point from my comment. Arrows result shows that even if every individual has a transitive preference order, that a group does not always have a transitive preference order. in terms of Condorect voting this would mean that under rare cases one can have A > B, B > C and C>A, which is a non-tranistive cycle for the groups combined preferences.
Thus one way to explain non-trainsitive behaviour in individuals would be to postulate that internally individuals are groups! your left brain wants one thing and your right brain wants something else, and your penis might have yet another opinion on the subject. When you merger those individually transitive preferences you can get a non-transitive outcome that must be resolved by some ad hoc tie resolution protocol.
So the point is non]-transitive behaviour can emerge not simply as a devious stratgy about future choices but also simply when one has a mult-objective preference function to satisfy. Neither of these is irrational.
Your comment and and the article remind me of strategies employed in voting systems. Arrow famously put forth arrows axioms of fairness for selecting a voting system, one of those axioms was the irrelevance to alternatives when comparing two canadidates. that is, your preference for candidate A over candidate B should not change if candidate C runs or not. We also believe that preferences are transitive, and transitivity should mean you can rank your preferences in a set of candidates. The interesting thing he showed was there was no possible voting system that could satisfy all of the axioms for a group of people under all circumstances. However, there is one voting system does work under most non-pathological systems. And this is Condorcet voting also known as "majority rule, ranked preference.". IN this system everyone ranks the candidates then to tally you consider each possible pair of candidates and momentarily consider the outcome if none of the other candidates existed. If, as is nearly always the case, one candidate would beat all the other candidates in a pairwise battle this person is the winner. In rare cases where that's not true, special handling rules can be invoked.
What's amusing about this is that this nearly optimal ranked preference voting protocol is both simple and known. Yet most ranked preference voting is implemented as Instant Runnoff voting which is one of the worst possible ways to tabulate and frequently violates arrows axioms of fairness. The problem with Instant runoff voting is that it falls victim to the strategy you are using to get more of the chocolate for your self: strategically mis-ranking your preferences. Another problem with Instant run-off voting when there are three or more nearly equal strength candidates. It tends to pick wing parties over centrist parties--- which intuitively should tell you something is wrong. Here's and example of that:
suppose I have a left, center and Right candidates names L,C and R. you can imagine ranking after vote tablualtion might look like this:
R > C > L 35%
C > R > L 16%
C > L > R 15%
L > C > R 34%
Now who should win? Well if R had not run then C would have beat L in a landslide 66% to 34%. Likewise C beats R 65% to 34%. So clearly C is the person a majority will be happy with no matter who else is running. But what does instant Run-off voting do? Well it tabluates the first round of preferences: 35 to 32 to 34 for R:C:L and then since C has the lowest first round vote, C is removed. Then we move to the second round and there, without C in the race, R beats in the ratio 51 to 49%.
Which is nuts because 66 % of the voters prefer C to L!
So be sure to laugh at people who tell you they want instant run-off voting. sadly this is what is mainly being implemented.
Just make the name some useless symbol like Prince did. Or make it something that no magazine will print.
I would suggest "chrome dome" as in the absence of a Fedora.
In contrast, traditional public schools which fail students do not close and are allowed to fail students year after year after year. Closing a charter school is a feature, not a bug.
I understand your argument but you entirely missed my point. my point was not that this darwinian processing will produce the best schools, it's that charter schools that survive in rarified niches pull up the average. You have observer bias in that you only can see the successes. You don't see the underserved areas and it doesnt mean the successful ones are better than the public schools if we restricted attention to just the niches where public schools succeed.
Private schools come and go. if you start 100 private schools then some time later most will be out of business. A few, ones that could draw good students from wealthy families, will remain. If you now compare those to public schools they may shine. Bussinesses that succeed always look like their outperforming the governments delivery of similar services. In aggregate, including all the places they fail, they may not. How many failed charter schools did Bill Gates look into. How many of those failed before they even chartered because the demographics just would not work.
one would be dumb to take a loan denominated in bitcoin.
Since the supply is limited, someone eventually loses (defaults) by simple math.
With inflation, this doesn't have to happen, as new money enters the system.
Which is why we have fiat.
This is also why people get so cranky about "fractional reserve lending".
I can't make the slightest bit of sense out of any of your assertions. Why would I not want to make a loan in bitcoin. People loaned gold for millennia and it's supply is limited. The purpose of interest on loans is precisely so everyone benefits. And inflation has nothing at all to do with the viability of a loan-- it's completely compensated by the interest rate. No this is not why we have Fiat money or just as sensibly, by we have Fiat cars. And I suspect you have no clue what fracitional reserve lending is.
Did you write this or did your cat sit on the keyboard?
from the summary:
For example, a weak measurement can detect the presence of a photon by the deflection it causes when it bounces off a mirror. However, this does not change the photon's quantum state.
Cough.... say what? If the photon produces a measurable deflection of the mirror then it transferred energy to the mirror. Therefore the QM state of the photon was changed. This sounds like a bunch of rubbish.
I plan to start a company that flies blimps over football stadiums and broadcasts video of the games. Afterall they are letting the light from the stadium radiate into the environment so I'm entitled to pick it up and rebroadcast it without any compensation to the football teams.
This souncs a lot like the too big to fail issue with our financial systems dependence on the sound judgement and intentions of banks. This banking problem arose when glass-stegal's repeal essentially deregualted banks and let them manage their own affairs.
But acutally it harkens back much further. In the early days of the US there was no common currency. banks issued their own script and this failed when the banks manipulated it. Later on after we had a common currency, we still had too much exposure to bank mismangement. The federal reserve was not sufficient. And of course we all know about the depression.
Bit coin lacks this sort of regulation. A bit coin "bank" does not have a federal reserve rate to assure that the money supply doesn't mulitply. And it has no regulation on too big to fail for these mining consortia.
But for proper security I change my name every 3 months. My last name was abner27#doub1eday.
Ecuador Military: 7500 people
Amazon employees: 110,000 people.
Googles contentious rip off of Java is called Dalvik. In what aspects is it different than JAVA for security?
LMAO
They tested this for the next ipad. While apple felt the 5 second battery life was too short to be practical, the beta testers were more concerned about the apple shaped 3rd degree burns imprinted on their thighs and palms
Ghostery says their business model is tracking how effectively penetrating the trackers are and, ironically, selling that info back to the tracker companies to improve their tracking. In some sense they are dependent on most people not using their tracker blocking service-- it's a sampling device for them. They say they don't market information about your browsing habits. I have wondered if they also sell the ability to let some trackers penetrate their veil, but I suspect that's too small a market to interest them because too few people use ghostery and doing that would undermine their userbase.
But he also thought we'd have a colony on the moon, be living under a global population control regime, eating at multi-flavored algae bars, and letting machines prepare us personalized meals
multi-flavor algae: Sodium alginate is a major food additive. many flavors.
global population control regime:
china we all know about:
uzbekistan: forced sterilization or IUD.
india: more than two children and you can't particiapte in many elective offices
iran: manadatory contraception to obtain marriage lic.
USA: ask Sarah Palin what she thinks of Title X
Israel: ordered sterilizations.
Auomated custom meal preparation robots:
http://www.psfk.com/2012/11/burger-making-robot.html#!rgOyn
Automated labor sparks malaise:
Foxcon suicide fences. no layoffs just repetitive work that machines won't do.