No we can't, because University of Wisconsin is ambiguous. Yes, UW-Madison is the flagship school, but that doesn't mean it's the only one. UMass-Amherst and UC-Berkeley are in the same boat.
Vernon: Listen, Betty, don't start up with your white zone shit again. Betty: Oh really, Vernon? Why pretend, we both know perfectly well what this is about. You want me to have an abortion. Vernon: It's really the only sensible thing to do, if its done safely. Therapeutically there's no danger involved.
How does a little egg on the Governments face = endangering troops?
While I don't agree with this sort of logic, here's the way the military thinks about the Wikileaks papers: 1. If the public hears about how stupid, ineffective, and immoral the war is via Wikileaks (or any other source), the public will stop supporting the war. 2. If the public stops supporting the war, Congress and the President will eventually stop supporting the war. 3. If politicians stop supporting the war, the President will have to order the troops to retreat. 4. If President orders the troops to retreat, they'll be demoralized, which will make them fight less effectively.
Of course, a reasonably smart person might notice that the real story here is that stupid, ineffective, and immoral wars end in a democracy.
Consider this possibility if you will: 1. Short sell a stock. 2. Pay off some crowdsourcers in China or some other foreign nation where law enforcement is a bit lax to submit info that makes it look like an otherwise sound company is engaged in some flim-flam, which will cause the SEC to start investigating. 3. Watch the stock drop as people find out about the SEC investigation. 4. Cover your short, and possibly even buy up some extra. 5. Watch the stock go up as people find out that the SEC has dropped its investigation due to a lack of any real evidence. 6. PROFIT!!!
Imagine this scenario: 1. Short sell a stock. 2. Submit apparently crowdsourced information that would prompt the SEC to investigate the company. 3. Stock drops like a rock due to the SEC investigation. 4. Cover your short before anyone can figure out that there's nothing to investigate.
The Keynesians do have one strong point in their favor: there's a lot of evidence that Keynesian spending helped during the Great Depression. I mean, look at what happened to the national debt during WWII, when the US managed to crawl out of the mess they were in: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/USDebt.png Bush and Obama haven't gone anywhere remotely near where FDR went to finance that war.
The EMH supporters, on the other hand, have not had their theories demonstrably having the effects they expected.
Of course, there's another way of looking at this: all software sucks, all hardware sucks, all economic theories suck. We haven't come remotely close to figuring it out.
Which part of the unprecedented peace and prosperity of the 1990s would you qualify as "making matters much worse?"
The K Street Project, for one. Other parts of the story of the 1990's that really hurt were the free trade agreements such as NAFTA, which wrecked most of the remaining industry in the US.
As far as the "prosperity" part of the story, that's suspect, because the median incomes were mostly unchanged. And for the "peace" part, you only get peace if you ignore Somalia, the Balkans, Rwanda, occasional bombing raids into Iraq, the beginnings of fighting between the US and Al Qaeda, and the Oklahoma City Bombings.
Alternately, we recognize that our primitive ancestors weren't stupid, and came up with concepts like taking turns staying awake and looking out for trouble while everyone else slept.
Or some other crazy options: 1. Live near your job. Has a side benefit of making your commute much much shorter. 2. Your local public transit system. 3. Telecommuting.
From a purely technical standpoint, I'm still not seeing the benefits of a ship-borne data center. For such a system to be useful, you still have to connect it to the shore somehow, and you still need a significant power source, both of which rather necessitate tying your data center up to a dock. As far as cooling with seawater, that's a nifty idea, but one that could just as easily be done by running some pipes from the shoreline.
So that suggests that the motivation for this isn't technical at all, but legal. As in "we need a way to get all our stuff into international waters relatively quickly". Which means these are not financial backers or "anchor tenants" I'd want to have anything to do with.
Many 'consultants' don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about, but get away with just making up facts because their audience doesn't have the slightest clue either. Why go through all the hard work of actual research or peer-reviewed articles when you can get paid big bucks for just spouting off something that sounds good?
The simple fact is that children aren't interested in sex
Not exactly. Most research on the subject has suggested that kids are in fact curious about sex as much as anything else. They want to know where babies come from, they play "doctor", may explore other people's bodies, and generally know how to masturbate by age 7 or so. What's unusual among young kids is actually having intercourse with someone else, but a wide range of sexual behavior has been observed in kids of all ages.
As far as nudity goes, your average kid sees their first breast between the ages of 0 and 1 day, is quite familiar with their own body by age 4 or so, and probably has seen genitals of someone of the opposite gender.
The myth here is that children are innocent about all things sexual. You're at practically no risk of exposing them to something they've never seen before, something they've never heard before, or an act they've never heard of before.
If we accept the idea that weapons can't be banned to protect the citizenry from government tyranny, so I assume you won't mind a couple of guys named Mahmoud and Ahmed having a nuclear bomb in New York City, right?
Well, if you can't allow normal citizens to have nuclear weapons, surely you wouldn't mind them having a chemical or biological weapon?
Well, maybe a chemical or biological weapon is too dangerous. So how about a simple conventional bomb, maybe the size of a rental truck?
Ok, no conventional bombs. How about some hand grenades? How about M-16's? How about sniper rifles?
The point is, you have to draw a line somewhere between ok and not ok. If we take the absolutist position that all weapons are fine, then we do run the risk of giving somebody the right to carry a nuke into Manhattan. If we take the absolutist position that all weapons are evil, then you wind up not being able to carry a 2" knife. Presumably, somewhere in between is reasonably ground.
"More than qualified" is a tougher sell. For instance, one of the top alternatives to Kagan was Diane Wood, who has experience as a Supreme Court clerk, a law professor, an assistant Attorney General, private practice, and 15 years on the Seventh Circuit. In addition to her opinions, she's published a huge amount of legal scholarship. That's what I call qualified. Or you can compare with David Souter, who prior to serving on SCOTUS had worked in the Attorney General's office of NH for a decade, then served on state court benches for 12 years, and the First Circuit for 4 years.
Kagan's resume, by contrast, made Clarence Thomas's look extensive.
Waiting for her to hear a few cases so we can see what she really thinks.
The problem is that nowadays presidents aim to nominate people with as little documentation of what they really think as they can get away with. Then we go through Senate confirmation hearings which are largely a chance for the membership of the Senate Judiciary Committee to play for the cameras while the potential justice avoids answering any questions.
The technique of falsely accusing somebody in order to ruin their life isn't exactly new though.
For instance, studies of false accusations of rape (yes, they do happen) have found that a significant percentage of them were revenge for the accusee breaking up with the accuser (another top reason was trying to explain unexpected pregnancy). There have also been cases of falsely accusing people of all sorts of things in order to gain an advantage in divorce proceedings. And of course the old standby of accusing one's boss of sexual harassment.
What Schmidt actually meant was "True transparency and anonymity on the Internet will become a thing of the past because we here at Google can make a bundle by eliminating it. Advertisers, governments, you want it, we got it!"
You had completely the wrong solution to this situation: Better would be to sell your Civ game to a jerk with higher grades than you for $45. Still cheaper than the full $50 for him, recovers your grades, ruins his, and means you only lost $5.
Oh, and if you play real life like you would Civ, then club him over the head and take the game back, then repeat the process with another person you don't like.
More like a music industry that was starting from the ground up, and hadn't achieved the same lobbying clout as other industries at the time, such as railroads and finance. The railroads in particular were notorious for basically showing up in Washington DC with a few trunks full of cash and inviting each congressman in turn to take his share. That's why to "railroad" a bill through is to more-or-less force it without any consideration of the merits.
By comparison, the music industry at the time was basically a motley collection of small-time publishers, with massive competition. The closest thing there was to a significant recording industry at the time was player piano rolls.
Slashdot Mirror
No we can't, because University of Wisconsin is ambiguous. Yes, UW-Madison is the flagship school, but that doesn't mean it's the only one. UMass-Amherst and UC-Berkeley are in the same boat.
The WHITE ZONE is for loading and unloading only
Vernon: Listen, Betty, don't start up with your white zone shit again.
Betty: Oh really, Vernon? Why pretend, we both know perfectly well what this is about. You want me to have an abortion.
Vernon: It's really the only sensible thing to do, if its done safely. Therapeutically there's no danger involved.
You know, there's another solution to this perennial boredom problem: Reading other people's email.
How does a little egg on the Governments face = endangering troops?
While I don't agree with this sort of logic, here's the way the military thinks about the Wikileaks papers:
1. If the public hears about how stupid, ineffective, and immoral the war is via Wikileaks (or any other source), the public will stop supporting the war.
2. If the public stops supporting the war, Congress and the President will eventually stop supporting the war.
3. If politicians stop supporting the war, the President will have to order the troops to retreat.
4. If President orders the troops to retreat, they'll be demoralized, which will make them fight less effectively.
Of course, a reasonably smart person might notice that the real story here is that stupid, ineffective, and immoral wars end in a democracy.
Get your kid up and let him watch. So what if he's a little tired at school the next day?
At least in the US, most kids aren't going to school in early August.
Consider this possibility if you will:
1. Short sell a stock.
2. Pay off some crowdsourcers in China or some other foreign nation where law enforcement is a bit lax to submit info that makes it look like an otherwise sound company is engaged in some flim-flam, which will cause the SEC to start investigating.
3. Watch the stock drop as people find out about the SEC investigation.
4. Cover your short, and possibly even buy up some extra.
5. Watch the stock go up as people find out that the SEC has dropped its investigation due to a lack of any real evidence.
6. PROFIT!!!
Imagine this scenario:
1. Short sell a stock.
2. Submit apparently crowdsourced information that would prompt the SEC to investigate the company.
3. Stock drops like a rock due to the SEC investigation.
4. Cover your short before anyone can figure out that there's nothing to investigate.
YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA---
What, Howard Dean is there too?
The Keynesians do have one strong point in their favor: there's a lot of evidence that Keynesian spending helped during the Great Depression. I mean, look at what happened to the national debt during WWII, when the US managed to crawl out of the mess they were in:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/USDebt.png
Bush and Obama haven't gone anywhere remotely near where FDR went to finance that war.
The EMH supporters, on the other hand, have not had their theories demonstrably having the effects they expected.
Of course, there's another way of looking at this: all software sucks, all hardware sucks, all economic theories suck. We haven't come remotely close to figuring it out.
Which part of the unprecedented peace and prosperity of the 1990s would you qualify as "making matters much worse?"
The K Street Project, for one. Other parts of the story of the 1990's that really hurt were the free trade agreements such as NAFTA, which wrecked most of the remaining industry in the US.
As far as the "prosperity" part of the story, that's suspect, because the median incomes were mostly unchanged. And for the "peace" part, you only get peace if you ignore Somalia, the Balkans, Rwanda, occasional bombing raids into Iraq, the beginnings of fighting between the US and Al Qaeda, and the Oklahoma City Bombings.
Alternately, we recognize that our primitive ancestors weren't stupid, and came up with concepts like taking turns staying awake and looking out for trouble while everyone else slept.
You know, that's the RCMP's answer to everything.
Not true, not true. If you pie a politician, you'll get a very very stern talking to from the RCMP.
Or some other crazy options:
1. Live near your job. Has a side benefit of making your commute much much shorter.
2. Your local public transit system.
3. Telecommuting.
From a purely technical standpoint, I'm still not seeing the benefits of a ship-borne data center. For such a system to be useful, you still have to connect it to the shore somehow, and you still need a significant power source, both of which rather necessitate tying your data center up to a dock. As far as cooling with seawater, that's a nifty idea, but one that could just as easily be done by running some pipes from the shoreline.
So that suggests that the motivation for this isn't technical at all, but legal. As in "we need a way to get all our stuff into international waters relatively quickly". Which means these are not financial backers or "anchor tenants" I'd want to have anything to do with.
Many 'consultants' don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about, but get away with just making up facts because their audience doesn't have the slightest clue either. Why go through all the hard work of actual research or peer-reviewed articles when you can get paid big bucks for just spouting off something that sounds good?
The simple fact is that children aren't interested in sex
Not exactly. Most research on the subject has suggested that kids are in fact curious about sex as much as anything else. They want to know where babies come from, they play "doctor", may explore other people's bodies, and generally know how to masturbate by age 7 or so. What's unusual among young kids is actually having intercourse with someone else, but a wide range of sexual behavior has been observed in kids of all ages.
As far as nudity goes, your average kid sees their first breast between the ages of 0 and 1 day, is quite familiar with their own body by age 4 or so, and probably has seen genitals of someone of the opposite gender.
The myth here is that children are innocent about all things sexual. You're at practically no risk of exposing them to something they've never seen before, something they've never heard before, or an act they've never heard of before.
If we accept the idea that weapons can't be banned to protect the citizenry from government tyranny, so I assume you won't mind a couple of guys named Mahmoud and Ahmed having a nuclear bomb in New York City, right?
Well, if you can't allow normal citizens to have nuclear weapons, surely you wouldn't mind them having a chemical or biological weapon?
Well, maybe a chemical or biological weapon is too dangerous. So how about a simple conventional bomb, maybe the size of a rental truck?
Ok, no conventional bombs. How about some hand grenades? How about M-16's? How about sniper rifles?
The point is, you have to draw a line somewhere between ok and not ok. If we take the absolutist position that all weapons are fine, then we do run the risk of giving somebody the right to carry a nuke into Manhattan. If we take the absolutist position that all weapons are evil, then you wind up not being able to carry a 2" knife. Presumably, somewhere in between is reasonably ground.
"Everyone knows" is clearly wrong.
"More than qualified" is a tougher sell. For instance, one of the top alternatives to Kagan was Diane Wood, who has experience as a Supreme Court clerk, a law professor, an assistant Attorney General, private practice, and 15 years on the Seventh Circuit. In addition to her opinions, she's published a huge amount of legal scholarship. That's what I call qualified. Or you can compare with David Souter, who prior to serving on SCOTUS had worked in the Attorney General's office of NH for a decade, then served on state court benches for 12 years, and the First Circuit for 4 years.
Kagan's resume, by contrast, made Clarence Thomas's look extensive.
Waiting for her to hear a few cases so we can see what she really thinks.
The problem is that nowadays presidents aim to nominate people with as little documentation of what they really think as they can get away with. Then we go through Senate confirmation hearings which are largely a chance for the membership of the Senate Judiciary Committee to play for the cameras while the potential justice avoids answering any questions.
The technique of falsely accusing somebody in order to ruin their life isn't exactly new though.
For instance, studies of false accusations of rape (yes, they do happen) have found that a significant percentage of them were revenge for the accusee breaking up with the accuser (another top reason was trying to explain unexpected pregnancy). There have also been cases of falsely accusing people of all sorts of things in order to gain an advantage in divorce proceedings. And of course the old standby of accusing one's boss of sexual harassment.
And of course, there's an excellent source of proof that human beings can get themselves killed in amazingly stupid ways: The Darwin Awards.
What Schmidt actually meant was "True transparency and anonymity on the Internet will become a thing of the past because we here at Google can make a bundle by eliminating it. Advertisers, governments, you want it, we got it!"
He plays first base.
You had completely the wrong solution to this situation: Better would be to sell your Civ game to a jerk with higher grades than you for $45. Still cheaper than the full $50 for him, recovers your grades, ruins his, and means you only lost $5.
Oh, and if you play real life like you would Civ, then club him over the head and take the game back, then repeat the process with another person you don't like.
More like a music industry that was starting from the ground up, and hadn't achieved the same lobbying clout as other industries at the time, such as railroads and finance. The railroads in particular were notorious for basically showing up in Washington DC with a few trunks full of cash and inviting each congressman in turn to take his share. That's why to "railroad" a bill through is to more-or-less force it without any consideration of the merits.
By comparison, the music industry at the time was basically a motley collection of small-time publishers, with massive competition. The closest thing there was to a significant recording industry at the time was player piano rolls.