I also started "programming" with pencil and paper. It was the mid-eighties, I lived in Oz and didn't own a computer, I read about Conway's "Game of life" in SciAm and spent an unatural amount of time using my head as the computer and drawing the output on paper. I was hooked and a couple of months later bought a second hand Apple2.
I'd be surprised if what was spent on climate denial propoganda was as high as $50M/yr, where as just one research sattelite can be up to $1B. Ingnoring the morals of spreading FUD, the anti-AGW propogandists are good at what they do, they get spectacular results from what little they spend.
It's not that old farts like me can't figure it out, it's that we have mastered the art of getting someone else to do our menial taskes. This old joke may enlighten you...
Gradkid; "How do you have your tea, Granpa?"
Grandpa; "I don't know........ask your Grandma".
There's no such thing as "questioning arrest", the correct term is "detained for questioning", and no "detained" does not automatically mean detained against one's will.
The only unfair thing is taxing wealthy people way more just because they *happen* to be more successful (whatever the reason).
The reason matters, rich people recieve the greatest benifit from society so they pay the most back. Personally I would not be complaining about an income that attracted a million dollar tax bill at the rates Americans pay.
Which is why you'd use something like a Genetic Algorithm to get a close enough approximation
Or good old Linear programming, which gives you a global optimization over the problem space rather than a random local optimization. It's not a new idea, this stuff is part of a branch of mathematics called "operations research" (logistics to Americans), it was invented by the pioneers of computer science in WW2 and is now routine for all sorts of things from economic models to flight scheduling.
The basic problem with both approaches can be seen right here in the comments, ie: you have to define what it is your optimizing. TFA is talking about optimizing the number of tax code pages while keeping everything else constant. Judging by the comments here, I don't think that populist goal is worth the political ruckus it would create.
Ah yes, the good old 1800's when a young boy called Thomas Edison was dragged to the town square and publicly beaten by his father, and all the good town folk nodded in approval.
[T]he more important thing, I think, is that over the years I have often (but not always) discovered that opposing ideas I find on Slashdot have some merit behind them. Hence when someone says something I think it wrong I will often trust it enough to check into it a little and see whether I need to re-evaluate my position. This is why I like Slashdot.
The reason I like slashdot is because there is a larger than normal proportion of usesr (such as yourself) who at least attempt to practice the most important yet most difficult part of being a genuine skeptic, ie: self-skepticisim.
If this data (and I call it data, because it isn't useful enough to be called knowledge), were good for anything, then why doesn't the private industry seem interested in it[?] This type of research is just welfare for otherwise bright individuals who decided to get an ivory tower education so they could spend their lives on meaningless pursuits.
Because private industry isn't interested in "meaning", they're interested in profit. Oh, and "fixing the earth" is a political problem, not a resource problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I also started "programming" with pencil and paper. It was the mid-eighties, I lived in Oz and didn't own a computer, I read about Conway's "Game of life" in SciAm and spent an unatural amount of time using my head as the computer and drawing the output on paper. I was hooked and a couple of months later bought a second hand Apple2.
Are you Autistic, or just a moron who can't comprehend simple English?
Can a scientist be not "evolutionary"? Can you be an "creationist scientist"? Is creationism even considered "science"?
1. Yes, but they're very unlikely to be correct.
2. Yes, you can be a walking oxymoron.
3. No, "god did it" is a bald assertion.
No, just hypocritical.
Global warming is caused by the emission of gases, mostly CO2, but also CFC replacements that are 1000s of times more potent than CO2.
We burn ~7,000,000,000 tonnes of coal every year, CFC replacements are irrelevant by comparison.
I'd be surprised if what was spent on climate denial propoganda was as high as $50M/yr, where as just one research sattelite can be up to $1B. Ingnoring the morals of spreading FUD, the anti-AGW propogandists are good at what they do, they get spectacular results from what little they spend.
I always find fishing raises my blood pressure
Fishing is much more relaxing when you stop worrying about the fish.
The Earthquake will start at the international dateline and head in a westerly direction.
It's not that old farts like me can't figure it out, it's that we have mastered the art of getting someone else to do our menial taskes. This old joke may enlighten you...
Gradkid; "How do you have your tea, Granpa?"
Grandpa; "I don't know........ask your Grandma".
No, how about you google it and let us know.
If you want absolute certainty, join a religion.
what we are seeing here is a refinement of what interstellar 'dust' is really composed of.
Yep, that's it in a nutshell.
The paper is not a new idea, it's evidence for an old idea.
The "Iron Lady" was a chemist from Oxford, 'nuff said.
There's no such thing as "questioning arrest", the correct term is "detained for questioning", and no "detained" does not automatically mean detained against one's will.
He wasn't arrested, just questioned.
The only unfair thing is taxing wealthy people way more just because they *happen* to be more successful (whatever the reason).
The reason matters, rich people recieve the greatest benifit from society so they pay the most back. Personally I would not be complaining about an income that attracted a million dollar tax bill at the rates Americans pay.
Which is why you'd use something like a Genetic Algorithm to get a close enough approximation
Or good old Linear programming, which gives you a global optimization over the problem space rather than a random local optimization. It's not a new idea, this stuff is part of a branch of mathematics called "operations research" (logistics to Americans), it was invented by the pioneers of computer science in WW2 and is now routine for all sorts of things from economic models to flight scheduling.
The basic problem with both approaches can be seen right here in the comments, ie: you have to define what it is your optimizing. TFA is talking about optimizing the number of tax code pages while keeping everything else constant. Judging by the comments here, I don't think that populist goal is worth the political ruckus it would create.
Ah yes, the good old 1800's when a young boy called Thomas Edison was dragged to the town square and publicly beaten by his father, and all the good town folk nodded in approval.
Translation: the federal government/current administration has to approve of the way you handle controversial views. What could possibly go wrong?
Translation: (noun) What was heard, not what was said.
[T]he more important thing, I think, is that over the years I have often (but not always) discovered that opposing ideas I find on Slashdot have some merit behind them. Hence when someone says something I think it wrong I will often trust it enough to check into it a little and see whether I need to re-evaluate my position. This is why I like Slashdot.
The reason I like slashdot is because there is a larger than normal proportion of usesr (such as yourself) who at least attempt to practice the most important yet most difficult part of being a genuine skeptic, ie: self-skepticisim.
If this data (and I call it data, because it isn't useful enough to be called knowledge), were good for anything, then why doesn't the private industry seem interested in it[?] This type of research is just welfare for otherwise bright individuals who decided to get an ivory tower education so they could spend their lives on meaningless pursuits.
Because private industry isn't interested in "meaning", they're interested in profit. Oh, and "fixing the earth" is a political problem, not a resource problem.
If they're not famous why are they trying to gag facebook and twitter?
Because they don't want to become famous by having their personal tradgedy plastered all over the internet.
Has Disney or its affiliates at any time in the last 25+ years made anything in reference to ST6.
Does Apple have an orchard? - Trademarking ST6 is more a matter of bad taste than bad law.
I did not say there was no difference between physical and intellectual property, but you did a fine job of attacking your strawman.