The data is bad. They know it's bad. I know it's bad. You know it's bad. No one can offer an argument that the immigration, emigration or census figures from the 19th century are anything but a spotty guess as to what was really going on. It's the same darned reason that the military records aren't useful in this regard: they were inaccurate, miscounting who was involved in battle and who was wounded and died. This caused a lot of trouble after the war when pensions were being spread around to the very old. Quantifying that you were a veteran involved witness reports.
Doing statistical analysis on bad data produces an ambiguous result. There's no real arguing with that. The historians in question want the number to be higher. A bigger body count makes for a 'more wrenching' experience. I note the guys they quote generally have Civil War related publications. I'm sure there's a fiscal motive for them to agree. I just think the whole thing is full of baloney.
I actually dislike this kind of numeric analysis. I don't think it is appropriate for history. So there are 'missing people' from the 1860s...those missing people could easily have gone to Canada or Mexico. They could have emigrated to Europe. They could have headed out West and been out of touch with US authorities for years at a time, missing censuses and the like. They certainly had motivation to flee...there was a huge war with drafts on both sides going on, why not head out?
This study is certainly using census data, with all of its warts and flaws.
That might be the most idiotic thing I have ever read. What constitutes justice about paying money to a infinitesimal minority of the total affected people? What is justified about paying lawyers a salary for this boondoggle? You're trying to imply there was nothing better that could have been done with millions of dollars?
The courts shouldn't care about costs. Right. That's a pretty stupid attitude.
These guys insist on insulting our intelligence by stating that they're creating 'long term shareholder value' by selling assets. That's BS. The company is worth less today than it was yesterday, and Microsoft is worth more. How is a statement like that not tortious?
It's another government boondoggle. The government lacks a capability, remember? Sure, they spend a ton on salaries and office space, but in terms of actually accomplishing anything? Nothing.
Well, not for John Kiriakou, at least. It is interesting how the policies of the USG - let's confine this to defense and intelligence, shall we? - have essentially changed only in rhetorical ways since the 2008 election. Gitmo remains open. People are still being prosecuted over talking to journalists about waterboarding and rendition. We're still assassinating people. It would almost make you think that the politicians that were essentially calling GWB a war criminal might have been a bit less than wholly honest.
The statements of the CEO are irrelevant. The actions of the company are relevant. Google's actions have crept closer and closer to "evil" since they went public. When this changes, i'll reevaluate.
I dunno, I remember some situations where self-pleasure would have been heaven next to the alternative. Tooth rake and the lupus chick with the oily skin come to immediate mind.
No, the problem is non-practicing entities holding and enforcing patents. A practicing entity - a real company - has an incentive to not troll with its patents. Trolling with its patents would be painting a big target on its ass, as Apple and Yahoo are starting to find out. What does a non-practicing entity have to fear from trolling? No liability at all. It doesn't do anything!
While I agree that obvious patents suck, it's much harder to separate obvious from non-obvious. The USPTO doesn't inspire me to believe that it could ever fix the problem adequately. In comparison, it would be rather easy to say that non-practicing entities cannot bring patent claims.
I'm convinced a car that costs much more to own and operate than traditional vehicles is going to change the world. It's going to send GM back into bankruptcy. That will change the world for sure.
That's essentially what California is doing now. It isn't denominated like a tax, but the regulatory infrastructure has the same deadening effect on commerce. The unemployment rate speaks for itself.
Good memory, you are correct. It had "real mode" (640k) for XT/8086/8088 clones, "standard mode" (16mb/286 prot mode) for AT/286 class machines and "386 Enhanced mode" which gave you virtual 8086 DOS multitasking along with Windows proper.in a 64 megabyte address space. No one had more than 8mb in a 386 at the time anyway.
I wonder if those Columbine assholes had any clue how much harm they were doing to the rest of the world, or even cared. No one will ever know school like I did ever again.
Your links are on target. I guess I should expand: what we are doing now amounts to a reverse mortgage on our economic hegemony post-WWII. The mortgage is going to run out eventually - it's not far from the end now. What then? Do the tards have a plan for that?
1. To China, US technological superiority in the commercial sector IS a national security issue, so Clarke is just being disingenuous here. If the US were in the same role, we'd steal their commercial secrets, too. The fact that we don't want to just illustrates the advantage.
2. If we hadn't outsourced the more polluting and less skill intensive parts of our manufacturing base, we wouldn't be in this position.
2a. I know the thought pattern - I had it as a child back in the 70s - it was the "brown hordes" thought. What would happen if all the poor people in the world stormed the borders of the US? To avoid that, it sort of compels our hand to distribute the wealth and make this less desirable. So we did. Made it easy as hell for companies to outsource operations to the former Third World.
2b. The delusion started when people like GHW Bush claimed that we'd have an information economy. So the only advantage that the US would have was information? We'd all sit in offices and type things to each other? Seems like an invitation for people to steal our information and produce stuff that we can no longer produce ourselves.
At this point the whole plan looks like a suicide pact. Leave H1B out of it, and it's still a disaster. The tards in power aren't connecting the dots, even now.
Slashdot Mirror
The data is bad. They know it's bad. I know it's bad. You know it's bad. No one can offer an argument that the immigration, emigration or census figures from the 19th century are anything but a spotty guess as to what was really going on. It's the same darned reason that the military records aren't useful in this regard: they were inaccurate, miscounting who was involved in battle and who was wounded and died. This caused a lot of trouble after the war when pensions were being spread around to the very old. Quantifying that you were a veteran involved witness reports.
Doing statistical analysis on bad data produces an ambiguous result. There's no real arguing with that. The historians in question want the number to be higher. A bigger body count makes for a 'more wrenching' experience. I note the guys they quote generally have Civil War related publications. I'm sure there's a fiscal motive for them to agree. I just think the whole thing is full of baloney.
The data is known to be bad. You're the idiot.
I actually dislike this kind of numeric analysis. I don't think it is appropriate for history. So there are 'missing people' from the 1860s...those missing people could easily have gone to Canada or Mexico. They could have emigrated to Europe. They could have headed out West and been out of touch with US authorities for years at a time, missing censuses and the like. They certainly had motivation to flee...there was a huge war with drafts on both sides going on, why not head out?
This study is certainly using census data, with all of its warts and flaws.
You are. "American History" is exclusionary and the people you mention aren't Americans.
That might be the most idiotic thing I have ever read. What constitutes justice about paying money to a infinitesimal minority of the total affected people? What is justified about paying lawyers a salary for this boondoggle? You're trying to imply there was nothing better that could have been done with millions of dollars?
The courts shouldn't care about costs. Right. That's a pretty stupid attitude.
I don't see how Microsoft being the next Rambus is any better than AOL doing it themselves.
Where has AOL been smart over the last 15 years or so? When the market was saturated for free sign-up CDs, that was about the end of AOL's innovation.
These guys insist on insulting our intelligence by stating that they're creating 'long term shareholder value' by selling assets. That's BS. The company is worth less today than it was yesterday, and Microsoft is worth more. How is a statement like that not tortious?
It's another government boondoggle. The government lacks a capability, remember? Sure, they spend a ton on salaries and office space, but in terms of actually accomplishing anything? Nothing.
He is senile. If they'd offered a candidate that didn't seem like he'd need depends in the near future, i'd have voted for him.
Well, not for John Kiriakou, at least. It is interesting how the policies of the USG - let's confine this to defense and intelligence, shall we? - have essentially changed only in rhetorical ways since the 2008 election. Gitmo remains open. People are still being prosecuted over talking to journalists about waterboarding and rendition.
We're still assassinating people. It would almost make you think that the politicians that were essentially calling GWB a war criminal might have been a bit less than wholly honest.
At the risk of asking you to make a plug, which company might that be?
Tells you about the rigor of climate science, that's for certain.
The statements of the CEO are irrelevant. The actions of the company are relevant. Google's actions have crept closer and closer to "evil" since they went public. When this changes, i'll reevaluate.
I dunno, I remember some situations where self-pleasure would have been heaven next to the alternative. Tooth rake and the lupus chick with the oily skin come to immediate mind.
No, the problem is non-practicing entities holding and enforcing patents. A practicing entity - a real company - has an incentive to not troll with its patents. Trolling with its patents would be painting a big target on its ass, as Apple and Yahoo are starting to find out. What does a non-practicing entity have to fear from trolling? No liability at all. It doesn't do anything!
While I agree that obvious patents suck, it's much harder to separate obvious from non-obvious. The USPTO doesn't inspire me to believe that it could ever fix the problem adequately. In comparison, it would be rather easy to say that non-practicing entities cannot bring patent claims.
I'm convinced a car that costs much more to own and operate than traditional vehicles is going to change the world. It's going to send GM back into bankruptcy. That will change the world for sure.
That's essentially what California is doing now. It isn't denominated like a tax, but the regulatory infrastructure has the same deadening effect on commerce. The unemployment rate speaks for itself.
Specifically, back to 1983. It's a big step in that direction. Don't think for a moment that it can't happen again. It can.
Good memory, you are correct. It had "real mode" (640k) for XT/8086/8088 clones, "standard mode" (16mb/286 prot mode) for AT/286 class machines and "386 Enhanced mode" which gave you virtual 8086 DOS multitasking along with Windows proper.in a 64 megabyte address space. No one had more than 8mb in a 386 at the time anyway.
I wonder if those Columbine assholes had any clue how much harm they were doing to the rest of the world, or even cared. No one will ever know school like I did ever again.
Your links are on target. I guess I should expand: what we are doing now amounts to a reverse mortgage on our economic hegemony post-WWII. The mortgage is going to run out eventually - it's not far from the end now. What then? Do the tards have a plan for that?
There's no such thing as a Zelda rip-off. Zelda itself was a rip-off.
Now get off my lawn.
1. To China, US technological superiority in the commercial sector IS a national security issue, so Clarke is just being disingenuous here. If the US were in the same role, we'd steal their commercial secrets, too. The fact that we don't want to just illustrates the advantage.
2. If we hadn't outsourced the more polluting and less skill intensive parts of our manufacturing base, we wouldn't be in this position.
2a. I know the thought pattern - I had it as a child back in the 70s - it was the "brown hordes" thought. What would happen if all the poor people in the world stormed the borders of the US? To avoid that, it sort of compels our hand to distribute the wealth and make this less desirable. So we did. Made it easy as hell for companies to outsource operations to the former Third World.
2b. The delusion started when people like GHW Bush claimed that we'd have an information economy. So the only advantage that the US would have was information? We'd all sit in offices and type things to each other? Seems like an invitation for people to steal our information and produce stuff that we can no longer produce ourselves.
At this point the whole plan looks like a suicide pact. Leave H1B out of it, and it's still a disaster. The tards in power aren't connecting the dots, even now.
The AC is correct.
This post above deserves an upmod. Unfortunately, I can not comment further.