The "common goal" IS the perverse incentive. That's exactly what politicians sell: telling (lying to) people they share common goals to get their votes/money/rights. That's how government expands - by taking on more and more "common goals" with the people.
Provide evidence for that assertion. Just because someone claims to have a common goal, doesn't mean that they do.
Even if a successful malaria vaccine becomes quite widespread, there's little guarantee that after 25~50 years the parasite won't find a way to mutate and go back to it's killing/maiming ways.
That sounds like a pretty good deal. We can always come up with new vaccines. And at some point, our technology is going to advance to the point where we can take it out in the wild.
So having a huge amount of very disgruntled people
Depends how it's done. Contractors come and go. So if those 900 people were contractors, like Snowden, it might not make a difference in outcome (though in that case, the NSA was probably already creating some number of disgruntled contractors).
Or they might move these people into other decent paying work. If the ex-workers aren't experiencing a big decline in wages and no longer fall under those heavy security rules, then it's possible that most of them might see it as a promotion.
Only if you lower your standards on what passes for "worked".
I'm merely pointing out that is how you get things to work for projects bigger than what a single person can accomplish. It doesn't matter if you're launching something to orbit, building a cathedral, or bottling flavored carbonated water for mass consumption. Or siphoning considerable money from the public for that matter.
As to "like minded", I ignored your Steve Jobs story because liked minded doesn't mean similar mental characteristics or memories, it just means that people share some significant common goals, such as all employees of Apple do.
Return on investment is not a luxury.
Well, I sense you speak of ROI in a limited financial sense. When I speak of "return", I include intangibles that someone is willing to pay their own money for.
It's worth noting here that there's probably quite a bit being pursued by NASA that the various parties involved would be completely unwilling to commit their own funds to seeing through. When most of what an organization does is via other peoples' money, committed unwillingly, then that strikes me as a great example of what should not be done.
Let's go back to one other thing you said:
Getting help from like minded people usually ends in creating political entities who lobby for favors and privileges from government (or maybe they become the government and grant themselves privileges) instead of getting things done.
That's a lethal dynamic of our current society not an inevitable consequence of a bunch of people cooperating towards a common goal. When it's easier to lobby government for money rather than doing work, then we should blame the perverse incentives in place not discount such cooperation.
To be fair, the IB Times article doesn't do a very good job of explaining the lengths the researchers went to in order to avoid that.
In other words, it's yet another research paper where they claim to have dealt with an problem without actually having done so. For example, high precision results which are compared and fitted to an extremely poorly understood past.
Their way of getting around it was to ensure consistency at various time-steps
While I agree that this is an attempt to deal with my final concern below (about the biases that evolution puts into place) this is also a great way to introduce researcher biases into the final results. Recall that "time steps" are degree of change of the protein and have at best a vague positive correlation with the passage of time. So what "time steps" are important and how to group that high precision data? These are subjective choices that can influence the outcome.
For example, maybe they're actually reconstructing a much later period where universal selection pressure shifted all organisms a certain way. And there's the possibility that there were considerably more protein changes per unit time in the past (which had a more radioactive environment than today, both in background decay radiation on Earth and likely a higher cosmic ray background as well).
The procedures you describe wouldn't have gotten around the inherent biases of evolution. In language where the technique started, there isn't an inherent survival value to how you pronounce "father". Tribes who pronounced words in a certain way weren't more likely to die off. I don't think such evolutionary biases would show up in this method because organisms exhibiting those weaker protein patterns would have billions of years to go extinct and hence wouldn't be around to be measured today. And no matter how detailed a reconstruction you do, you aren't going to reconstruct extinct branches from existing organisms.
In the future, here's how to read scientific news stories
This is just the argument from authority fallacy.
I have no issue with speculative research like this or where it was published. What I have problems with is the considerable degree of false confidence associated with such research in this thread. For example, your complaint that "reasonably scientifically-minded people" are "bewildered" by this research is unfounded. The research has huge problems which you are downplaying.
Those people can also work to prevent that malnourishment just like they do in the developed world. Keep in mind that malaria doesn't just kill people, it also cripples people. If you're suffering from a bout of malaria, you're not helping feed your family.
For some reason, that bewilders a lot of reasonably scientifically-minded people.
Just because you can come up with one or more best fit versions from what currently survives, doesn't mean that they resemble the original source of the evolutionary pattern.
This has been done numerous times. For example, I prefer the minimal government version: libertarianism is an advocacy for a society with minimal governance sufficient to uphold individual freedom and property rights, the carrying out of contracts and other such agreements or cooperation, and the resolution of conflicts between members of the society (via the NAP).
That's an erroneous application of the fallacy. For example, if I said "All true Scotsmen are male natives or nationals of Scotland or men of Scottish descent", then I would be right, not echoing the fallacy, because that is the definition of Scotsmen.
When something is part of the definition, such as NAP is of libertarianism, then the "no true Scotsman" fallacy doesn't apply.
600 miles per hour is roughly 270 meters/second. Even if one brakes at the rate of a good car, roughly 0.7 gee, that's still stopping in about 40 seconds which would be good enough for most of the track. If simultaneously, the air flow is slowed down, then that gets rid of most of the danger in such a vehicle.
At that point, you just need to insure that for the strength of earthquakes that are likely to be experienced, that the track doesn't fail in a fatal way (such as dropping oh, 10 meters from a height to the ground or being buried under a large landslide).
Once you start delegating you will have layers and layers of delegation and nothing gets done.
I don't think you get the point. The definition of delegation isn't to throw layers of bureaucracy on a project or organization. It is to assign some degree of your authority to proxies.
He can only do a extremely small portion of this sort of project himself. That means a bunch of other people have to do most of the work. That is "delegation". Even if you look at this project in the sense of management, he can't manage directly more than a few dozen people. So he's going to have to delegate some management load onto other people. At some point, in order to run a large project well, you have to delegate.
So yes, delegation can result in a many layers-deep morass or it can eventually result in the successful completion of a large project. It depends on many factors beyond the act of delegation.
Hmm.... let's take the tax money pumped into Tesla, and repaid not from income but from bonds sold on the market. And the tax money being pumped into SpaceX...
This charge has merit. Currently, these two businesses and SolarCity (he is chairman of that business) all have acquired considerable public funding. I believe he is risking his own assets in these ventures, but it's not all coming from Musk and private investors.
That usually doesn't work. Getting help from like minded people usually ends in creating political entities who lobby for favors and privileges from government (or maybe they become the government and grant themselves privileges) instead of getting things done.
It's the way it's worked in the past. If you make a positive return on investment, whatever that means to you, so much the better.
It might be interesting if they scripted it as if the woman still had the mind of the original male Doctor. "man realizes how some people treat women" angle. "man can't wait to be a man again" "man spends too long in the shower washing his privates" I dunno.:)
Because that would be a real issue for an alien who was born into a culture which not only eliminated such stereotypes before humanity ever existed, but for which such sexes were an evolutionary vestige (Gallifreyans were sterile).
I've talked to too many Libertarians then. Nothing is solved. A room of 100 will have 100 different solutions, and no discussion as they all think they are right, so no reason to discuss it. I'm not posting strawmen. I'm posting reality. That you complain it's inconvenient doesn't make it a strawman.
Wait? You're complaining because libertarianism by its very nature isn't a monolithic belief system? Too bad.
As to the strawman thing. I get you don't think you're doing it. But you don't get to characterize libertarianism only by considering the most fucked up 5% or whatever of libertarianism, and not fall into the strawman trap.
And if I'm off the property (I note all rights belong to the property, and not to people), but close to it, and someone on the other property blows smoke in my face, that's aggression, even if I "could" walk away.
Again, what did I say about unprovoked assault? It's not just aggression but the initiation of aggression. One doesn't have to consider whose property you are standing on.
Second, so your body and personal space isn't property? Do tell.
You must "no true Scotsman" a lot. I've been in Libertarian meetings where there were discussions about the value of privatizing all roads, and instituting toll sidewalks. But when I bring up "toll sidewalks" I'm told that's a common distraction, but not a real Libertarian idea.
The Libertarian party can be just as hypocritical as it wants to be. But again, libertarianism and in that case, the Libertarian Party isn't a single unified belief system. Many people believe many things.
Further, as a political party, the Libertarians might all favor toll sidewalks or whatever, but never advocate for those relatively extreme measures because it just shoots them in the foot politically.
I will take reality over apologists lies. It's not a strawman if it's true. It's not an imaginary fake libertarian when it's real, and I witnessed it first-hand. I don't care if you don't like it or don't believe me. Your whining will not change reality, no matter how much you'd like it to.
Then do so and stop wasting your breath here. I would suggest starting to "take reality" by dropping those strawmen.
Well, they aren't talking with me. As I noted before, you're the only one here telling me what I'm supposedly saying - without crediting what I was actually saying.
Plus, using guns against a government (whether tyrannical or not) is not the same as using guns to enforce a minority view. In the latter case, your choice of targets can be far more broad than appointed agents of the State.
Some employers received waivers in 2010-2011. The waivers were authorized by the law only for the transition period to ensure continuity (provisions of the law phase in over a 10 year period, with the biggest chances occurring during the first 4 years). They are no longer in use.
The waivers were inordinately granted to allies of the Democrats, particularly labor unions. Second, we have yet to see what future allowances will be granted these allies after waivers cease to be viable.
A non-partisan review of the waivers by GAO found no impropriety.
Whatever. It's an executive branch organization which makes it partisan as far as I'm concerned. I see also that the GAO is unionized, which in this particular case makes for a strong conflict of interest (the waivers above strongly favor labor unions over other sorts of organizations).
This is one of the annoying reasons why it's such a pain having any discussion with you. Drop the strawmen. You haven't yet given a justification for this claim.
For example, in the property conflict earlier in this thread where one person owns all the property around a second person's property, it's solved via a right of way by which the first person has to grant to the second person. While I'm sure there's some libertarian out there whose view of property rights doesn't include this, basic property conflicts have been solved for a long time.
Your right to smoke is not greater than my right to not be assaulted by having smoke blown in my face
That's a non sequitur since assault without cause is naturally the initiation of aggression in the libertarian sense and hence, counter to libertarian principles. OTOH, the "right to smoke" probably wouldn't be recognized as such. It's just part of a massive blob of relatively harmless behavior that could be performed where allowed by the property owner.
So as I see it, you're comparing violation of a basic principle to a behavior that would be granted by libertarians under generous circumstances, calling both of them "rights", and then claiming that libertarians would support the violation of the basic principle over exercise of the behavior.
That doesn't make sense. I see no reason to debate what your imaginary fake libertarians would do or rationalize.
Slashdot Mirror
A "15 year pause" has nothing to worry us realists because it doesn't matter if you find a trend that is zero.
Go ahead. Knock yourself out finding as many as you like.
What you have to do is prove that the trend is different from the predictions we've made of 0.16C per decade.
If the trend is zero, then it is different from 0.16 C per decade. That wouldn't threaten realists.
The current warming is indeed beyond the Medieval Optimum by a significant margin
Where is the evidence for this claim? Need I remind you that no one has actually measured temperatures directly during the Medieval Optimum?
Right now the fire is something akin to what is happening in California.
Ok, where and what are these effects we're supposed to be seeing? Haven't you ever heard of confirmation bias?
The "common goal" IS the perverse incentive. That's exactly what politicians sell: telling (lying to) people they share common goals to get their votes/money/rights. That's how government expands - by taking on more and more "common goals" with the people.
Provide evidence for that assertion. Just because someone claims to have a common goal, doesn't mean that they do.
It's worth noting here that the NSA doesn't do humint because that isn't their job.
Even if a successful malaria vaccine becomes quite widespread, there's little guarantee that after 25~50 years the parasite won't find a way to mutate and go back to it's killing/maiming ways.
That sounds like a pretty good deal. We can always come up with new vaccines. And at some point, our technology is going to advance to the point where we can take it out in the wild.
So having a huge amount of very disgruntled people
Depends how it's done. Contractors come and go. So if those 900 people were contractors, like Snowden, it might not make a difference in outcome (though in that case, the NSA was probably already creating some number of disgruntled contractors).
Or they might move these people into other decent paying work. If the ex-workers aren't experiencing a big decline in wages and no longer fall under those heavy security rules, then it's possible that most of them might see it as a promotion.
Only if you lower your standards on what passes for "worked".
I'm merely pointing out that is how you get things to work for projects bigger than what a single person can accomplish. It doesn't matter if you're launching something to orbit, building a cathedral, or bottling flavored carbonated water for mass consumption. Or siphoning considerable money from the public for that matter.
As to "like minded", I ignored your Steve Jobs story because liked minded doesn't mean similar mental characteristics or memories, it just means that people share some significant common goals, such as all employees of Apple do.
Return on investment is not a luxury.
Well, I sense you speak of ROI in a limited financial sense. When I speak of "return", I include intangibles that someone is willing to pay their own money for.
It's worth noting here that there's probably quite a bit being pursued by NASA that the various parties involved would be completely unwilling to commit their own funds to seeing through. When most of what an organization does is via other peoples' money, committed unwillingly, then that strikes me as a great example of what should not be done.
Let's go back to one other thing you said:
Getting help from like minded people usually ends in creating political entities who lobby for favors and privileges from government (or maybe they become the government and grant themselves privileges) instead of getting things done.
That's a lethal dynamic of our current society not an inevitable consequence of a bunch of people cooperating towards a common goal. When it's easier to lobby government for money rather than doing work, then we should blame the perverse incentives in place not discount such cooperation.
To be fair, the IB Times article doesn't do a very good job of explaining the lengths the researchers went to in order to avoid that.
In other words, it's yet another research paper where they claim to have dealt with an problem without actually having done so. For example, high precision results which are compared and fitted to an extremely poorly understood past.
Their way of getting around it was to ensure consistency at various time-steps
While I agree that this is an attempt to deal with my final concern below (about the biases that evolution puts into place) this is also a great way to introduce researcher biases into the final results. Recall that "time steps" are degree of change of the protein and have at best a vague positive correlation with the passage of time. So what "time steps" are important and how to group that high precision data? These are subjective choices that can influence the outcome.
For example, maybe they're actually reconstructing a much later period where universal selection pressure shifted all organisms a certain way. And there's the possibility that there were considerably more protein changes per unit time in the past (which had a more radioactive environment than today, both in background decay radiation on Earth and likely a higher cosmic ray background as well).
The procedures you describe wouldn't have gotten around the inherent biases of evolution. In language where the technique started, there isn't an inherent survival value to how you pronounce "father". Tribes who pronounced words in a certain way weren't more likely to die off. I don't think such evolutionary biases would show up in this method because organisms exhibiting those weaker protein patterns would have billions of years to go extinct and hence wouldn't be around to be measured today. And no matter how detailed a reconstruction you do, you aren't going to reconstruct extinct branches from existing organisms.
In the future, here's how to read scientific news stories
This is just the argument from authority fallacy.
I have no issue with speculative research like this or where it was published. What I have problems with is the considerable degree of false confidence associated with such research in this thread. For example, your complaint that "reasonably scientifically-minded people" are "bewildered" by this research is unfounded. The research has huge problems which you are downplaying.
Those people can also work to prevent that malnourishment just like they do in the developed world. Keep in mind that malaria doesn't just kill people, it also cripples people. If you're suffering from a bout of malaria, you're not helping feed your family.
For some reason, that bewilders a lot of reasonably scientifically-minded people.
Just because you can come up with one or more best fit versions from what currently survives, doesn't mean that they resemble the original source of the evolutionary pattern.
Then define it in an objective manner.
This has been done numerous times. For example, I prefer the minimal government version: libertarianism is an advocacy for a society with minimal governance sufficient to uphold individual freedom and property rights, the carrying out of contracts and other such agreements or cooperation, and the resolution of conflicts between members of the society (via the NAP).
Yes, and when a male national of Scotland does not fit your stereotype
As I said, definition not stereotype.
Like I said, no true Scotsman.
That's an erroneous application of the fallacy. For example, if I said "All true Scotsmen are male natives or nationals of Scotland or men of Scottish descent", then I would be right, not echoing the fallacy, because that is the definition of Scotsmen.
When something is part of the definition, such as NAP is of libertarianism, then the "no true Scotsman" fallacy doesn't apply.
If you're going even 1000 miles per hour
Or you could go a little slower through the mountains. Half that speed and your turning radius is just over six miles which is much more reasonable.
600 miles per hour is roughly 270 meters/second. Even if one brakes at the rate of a good car, roughly 0.7 gee, that's still stopping in about 40 seconds which would be good enough for most of the track. If simultaneously, the air flow is slowed down, then that gets rid of most of the danger in such a vehicle.
At that point, you just need to insure that for the strength of earthquakes that are likely to be experienced, that the track doesn't fail in a fatal way (such as dropping oh, 10 meters from a height to the ground or being buried under a large landslide).
Once you start delegating you will have layers and layers of delegation and nothing gets done.
I don't think you get the point. The definition of delegation isn't to throw layers of bureaucracy on a project or organization. It is to assign some degree of your authority to proxies.
He can only do a extremely small portion of this sort of project himself. That means a bunch of other people have to do most of the work. That is "delegation". Even if you look at this project in the sense of management, he can't manage directly more than a few dozen people. So he's going to have to delegate some management load onto other people. At some point, in order to run a large project well, you have to delegate.
So yes, delegation can result in a many layers-deep morass or it can eventually result in the successful completion of a large project. It depends on many factors beyond the act of delegation.
Hmm.... let's take the tax money pumped into Tesla, and repaid not from income but from bonds sold on the market. And the tax money being pumped into SpaceX...
This charge has merit. Currently, these two businesses and SolarCity (he is chairman of that business) all have acquired considerable public funding. I believe he is risking his own assets in these ventures, but it's not all coming from Musk and private investors.
That usually doesn't work. Getting help from like minded people usually ends in creating political entities who lobby for favors and privileges from government (or maybe they become the government and grant themselves privileges) instead of getting things done.
It's the way it's worked in the past. If you make a positive return on investment, whatever that means to you, so much the better.
You know you could do it yourself. If the project is a bit bigger than you think you can handle, then get some help from like minded people.
It might be interesting if they scripted it as if the woman still had the mind of the original male Doctor. "man realizes how some people treat women" angle. "man can't wait to be a man again" "man spends too long in the shower washing his privates" I dunno. :)
Because that would be a real issue for an alien who was born into a culture which not only eliminated such stereotypes before humanity ever existed, but for which such sexes were an evolutionary vestige (Gallifreyans were sterile).
I've talked to too many Libertarians then. Nothing is solved. A room of 100 will have 100 different solutions, and no discussion as they all think they are right, so no reason to discuss it. I'm not posting strawmen. I'm posting reality. That you complain it's inconvenient doesn't make it a strawman.
Wait? You're complaining because libertarianism by its very nature isn't a monolithic belief system? Too bad.
As to the strawman thing. I get you don't think you're doing it. But you don't get to characterize libertarianism only by considering the most fucked up 5% or whatever of libertarianism, and not fall into the strawman trap.
And if I'm off the property (I note all rights belong to the property, and not to people), but close to it, and someone on the other property blows smoke in my face, that's aggression, even if I "could" walk away.
Again, what did I say about unprovoked assault? It's not just aggression but the initiation of aggression. One doesn't have to consider whose property you are standing on.
Second, so your body and personal space isn't property? Do tell.
You must "no true Scotsman" a lot. I've been in Libertarian meetings where there were discussions about the value of privatizing all roads, and instituting toll sidewalks. But when I bring up "toll sidewalks" I'm told that's a common distraction, but not a real Libertarian idea.
The Libertarian party can be just as hypocritical as it wants to be. But again, libertarianism and in that case, the Libertarian Party isn't a single unified belief system. Many people believe many things.
Further, as a political party, the Libertarians might all favor toll sidewalks or whatever, but never advocate for those relatively extreme measures because it just shoots them in the foot politically.
I will take reality over apologists lies. It's not a strawman if it's true. It's not an imaginary fake libertarian when it's real, and I witnessed it first-hand. I don't care if you don't like it or don't believe me. Your whining will not change reality, no matter how much you'd like it to.
Then do so and stop wasting your breath here. I would suggest starting to "take reality" by dropping those strawmen.
Well, they aren't talking with me. As I noted before, you're the only one here telling me what I'm supposedly saying - without crediting what I was actually saying.
Plus, using guns against a government (whether tyrannical or not) is not the same as using guns to enforce a minority view. In the latter case, your choice of targets can be far more broad than appointed agents of the State.
Some employers received waivers in 2010-2011. The waivers were authorized by the law only for the transition period to ensure continuity (provisions of the law phase in over a 10 year period, with the biggest chances occurring during the first 4 years). They are no longer in use.
The waivers were inordinately granted to allies of the Democrats, particularly labor unions. Second, we have yet to see what future allowances will be granted these allies after waivers cease to be viable.
A non-partisan review of the waivers by GAO found no impropriety.
Whatever. It's an executive branch organization which makes it partisan as far as I'm concerned. I see also that the GAO is unionized, which in this particular case makes for a strong conflict of interest (the waivers above strongly favor labor unions over other sorts of organizations).
Yes, and they are in a bad order.
This is one of the annoying reasons why it's such a pain having any discussion with you. Drop the strawmen. You haven't yet given a justification for this claim.
For example, in the property conflict earlier in this thread where one person owns all the property around a second person's property, it's solved via a right of way by which the first person has to grant to the second person. While I'm sure there's some libertarian out there whose view of property rights doesn't include this, basic property conflicts have been solved for a long time.
Your right to smoke is not greater than my right to not be assaulted by having smoke blown in my face
That's a non sequitur since assault without cause is naturally the initiation of aggression in the libertarian sense and hence, counter to libertarian principles. OTOH, the "right to smoke" probably wouldn't be recognized as such. It's just part of a massive blob of relatively harmless behavior that could be performed where allowed by the property owner.
So as I see it, you're comparing violation of a basic principle to a behavior that would be granted by libertarians under generous circumstances, calling both of them "rights", and then claiming that libertarians would support the violation of the basic principle over exercise of the behavior.
That doesn't make sense. I see no reason to debate what your imaginary fake libertarians would do or rationalize.