No there is "nothing wrong with that" but I doubt that is the case in TFS. What you're thinking of is a technical writer, they are not particularly cheap and you only really see them in projects a tad larger than the two person operation described in TFS. In my experience people who understand the development lifcycle (the new guy in TFS) are more expensive than the 'genius' who grows something useful in their cubicle that ends up taking more time than they have got to maintain. IMHO the 'genius' in TFS sounds threatened by someone "doing it right" and simply doesn't want to know about it.
In other words: The "super-engineer's" baby is growing up, wether he likes it or not.
Note that due to the diversity in the scale and percieved importance of any particular project there is no magic "one shoe fits all" recipie for what "doing it right" actually means, although the main ingedients are common knowledge amoungst "good" practitioners.
"You were trying to be funny and sarcastic but ended up bing insightful by mistake."
It was no mistake, my point is you cannot eliminate distributers of one kind or another and have an economy. Of course you are free not to deal with those you don't like.
And what is it with US milk, people tell me it lasts for weeks - the (homgonised/pasturised) milk here lasts 3 days in the fridge.
"People naturally have a strong sense of private property, and most people naturally respect most of other people's property."
Your "ism" makes you believe it's foundation is natural, see my horse batering strawman in the thread above. Fuck the spelling, ism's are all the same. Besides, I'm only "biringing it on" to entertain myself here...
You start by claiming capitalisim trumps government as if they somehow exist independent of each other. Then you say "bring it on". Now you claim democray is useless unless you are the one who gets to decide who wins. I suppose the next thing you will tell me is it's all about "individual Freedom". (PC compiler - strawman warning 101)
Free government and Free markets are Free in that you are Free to participate. No one is promising you will win the lottery or be able to elect yourself as the local dog catcher. If you want to claim you are not Free to opt out of Free government AND/OR Free markets then I agree that Freely choosing to do so is not a viable option in most of the western world. Notice I said "not viable", you are Free to try but WE THE PEOPLE reserve the right to subject YOU to OUR laws on OUR turf.
However there are large areas down here in Oz that if you skip your visa nobody will find you, you might even last a week before the crows start picking the eyes out of your corpse. If you want to shop around a bit more, maybe look outside the west, there is probably at least a third of the planet where you could Freely choose to live without a government and consequently without a market, Free or otherwise.
Now I will happily burn my own strawmen, as above, if you stop making a fool of yourself by lecturing an old fart on humannature.
"...as if [the GFC] somehow disproved the claim markets have an overwhelmingly better track record than do governments, democratic or otherwise."
Capitalisim is great and all but how is it possible without law, and how is law effective without enforcement? - And please let's not talk about everyone bartering for horses out of the goodness of their hearts, that's just as fantasmagorical as the socilist's sharing and caring paradise.
"Face it, democracy is broken. Always was, always will be, because it tries to fight human nature. Compare to capitalism: for all its faults, capitalism has done fantastically well for us because it thrives on [percieved] self-interest.
So you are saying that people don't vote for their percieved self-intrest? - Where are these people and how can I get these self-sacraficing souls to vote for my self-interests?
BTW: I have nothing against convincing adverts, if you are convinced by an advert then you are simply naive.
I admit I'm not above sensantionalist headlines but it wasn't intended as a slur on geographers. I also agree it requires a good deal of science to actually perform terrestrial measurments, and that geographical data is an essential input to the Earth sciences. To paraphrase Mr Spock; without it we are arguing in a factual vacum.
However the point I was trying to make is the data itself is not science, it's a series of one or more observations which themselves may be the result of experimentation or calculation. In my (possibly narrow definition) science is using the observations to build a conceptual model and then predicting/testing further observations from that model. Of course this becomes a bit recursive when talking about models for accurate observation (eg: the urban heat island effect is related to geographical location).
In other words: Data is the fertilizer of science, models are it's fruits.
Yep and most geeks would have noticed the grammatical error because they know 47% is the wrong answer for the water question. However this geek is going to nitpick their damned servey and say that particular question is geography not science! Like the ability to spell correctly it's purely a function of memory.
Bullshit serveys such as this one do nothing except reinforce the notion that science is some sort of dictionary of unrelated factoids that one can pick and choose from to suit their needs. I think the survey authors need to update their stats and count themselves amoungst those who do not understand the meaning of the term "basic science".
OTOH the Earth orbit question is a "basic science" question since it requires basic knowledge of how our calendar is related to celestial mechanics. I have no idea about the other questions since I didn't RTFA.
/pimp_slap
Australia has never really had a gun culture, in particular hand guns have always been shuned even though cops do carry a side arm. Not saying gun violence doesn't happen but when it does it's a major news story. As far as I can tell "the right to bear arms" is purely a cultural and historical thing so I don't think the Aussie/British anti-gun culture would work in the US without a generational shift in attitudes. In other words de-escalation is harder than escalation since it requires a measure of mutual trust.
"They should be calling you sir. You should be dealing with them in a polite but not deferential manner. Otherwise you are recognising that they hold some form of authority 'at large' over you, rather than merely an authority which is activated by a combination of the valid application of democratically passed laws and your conduct"
MEARLY??? What other form of valid authority is there?
I'm also an Aussie, the correct way to address an Aussie cop is "Officer", "Yes officer", "No officer", "I should know better officer", "I tell my kids the same thing officer". Try it next time one pulls you over and you KNOW you are in the wrong. Never have I been more sorry than when as a long-haired freak in the 70's I turned to my g/f and said (just a little too loudly) "the dipshit is checking my rego because he thinks I stole the bike".
However I agree, if you think you are right keep using "officer" to adress them and treat them as reasonable human beings while stating your case ONCE, leave the arguments for the court room. Oh and if you do find yourself in court don't lean on the wittness box and talk to the judge as if you were down the pub talking to your mates, trust me when I say pissing a judge off is much worse than arguing with a cop.
Notice also that the cops over here will call you "Sir" on certain occasions, usually when they are deadly serious about what they are asking you to do and haven't yet established your name. Does the phrase "Can I see you license sir" ring any bells or do they use that language on me because I'm an old fart?
None of this is subservience it's plain old fashioned respect (both ways). Also a healthy dose of humility when you know your in the wrong doesn't hurt anything, except maybe one's ego.
It's not about anyone's ability to adhere to every single law, nor is it about honesty, it's about your ability to piss off the cop enough that he pulls some obscure law out of his arse - I know it's hard to belive but cops are kinda like humans with a uniform.
Their job is to keep the peace, the job of the judicary is to work out the legal fine print and who was/wasn't being "reasonable". Try treating the cops with the same respect you want them to show you and you will be amazed at how quickly they "lighten up". Also you do realise your original post describes the good cop/bad cop routine, right? - Do you know why they are taught to do that? Did you know they do it to prospective recruits for the same reason?
My question is; why is "indentifying a pattern" not an "evolutionary adaptation", or for that matter why is it not "instinctual"? Is the adult urge to make simple everyday plans to find nourishment not as strong as a baby's urge to suckle?
"There is a VERY important difference here."
I know sweet FA about the field beyond what I see in Attenbourgh documentries but I'm sure the researchers who spend a long time contemplating these things realise that categorizing congnative abilities along nature vs nurture lines is not as usefull as it once was considered to be. OTOH there will always be those who think humans have a magical quality that somehow makes our species less constrained by it's DNA and the environment it finds itself in.
They used to be called "The wild man of Borneo". Many tribes who live near chimps have traditionally seen them the same way they see other human tribes in the area, ie: just another bunch of sub-humans.
"...avoiding being caught executing the plan. Does that imply a guilty conscience to some degree, or only fear of his handlers?"
While not taking anything away from the chimp, my dog won't burry a bone if anyone is watching. Also it's "guilty" behaviour gives away the fact it was sleeping on the couch when it heard me pull into the driveway.
Slashdot Mirror
"[nanotubes]...currently impossible to make more than a trace amount of."
Only for large values of "trace amounts" such as this proposed 400 ton/yr plant that when completed will compete with existing plants.
Also it maybe obvious to some but I'm having difficulty is understanding how this discovery would help in production of said nanotubes?
No there is "nothing wrong with that" but I doubt that is the case in TFS. What you're thinking of is a technical writer, they are not particularly cheap and you only really see them in projects a tad larger than the two person operation described in TFS. In my experience people who understand the development lifcycle (the new guy in TFS) are more expensive than the 'genius' who grows something useful in their cubicle that ends up taking more time than they have got to maintain. IMHO the 'genius' in TFS sounds threatened by someone "doing it right" and simply doesn't want to know about it.
In other words: The "super-engineer's" baby is growing up, wether he likes it or not.
Note that due to the diversity in the scale and percieved importance of any particular project there is no magic "one shoe fits all" recipie for what "doing it right" actually means, although the main ingedients are common knowledge amoungst "good" practitioners.
"maybe you should try a car analogy instead."
To paraphrase Monty Python; I am not an individual.
"Freedom"
Just Another Word for Nothing Left to Lose
"You were trying to be funny and sarcastic but ended up bing insightful by mistake."
It was no mistake, my point is you cannot eliminate distributers of one kind or another and have an economy. Of course you are free not to deal with those you don't like.
And what is it with US milk, people tell me it lasts for weeks - the (homgonised/pasturised) milk here lasts 3 days in the fridge.
"People naturally have a strong sense of private property, and most people naturally respect most of other people's property."
Your "ism" makes you believe it's foundation is natural, see my horse batering strawman in the thread above. Fuck the spelling, ism's are all the same. Besides, I'm only "biringing it on" to entertain myself here...
You start by claiming capitalisim trumps government as if they somehow exist independent of each other. Then you say "bring it on". Now you claim democray is useless unless you are the one who gets to decide who wins. I suppose the next thing you will tell me is it's all about "individual Freedom". (PC compiler - strawman warning 101)
Free government and Free markets are Free in that you are Free to participate. No one is promising you will win the lottery or be able to elect yourself as the local dog catcher. If you want to claim you are not Free to opt out of Free government AND/OR Free markets then I agree that Freely choosing to do so is not a viable option in most of the western world. Notice I said "not viable", you are Free to try but WE THE PEOPLE reserve the right to subject YOU to OUR laws on OUR turf.
However there are large areas down here in Oz that if you skip your visa nobody will find you, you might even last a week before the crows start picking the eyes out of your corpse. If you want to shop around a bit more, maybe look outside the west, there is probably at least a third of the planet where you could Freely choose to live without a government and consequently without a market, Free or otherwise.
Now I will happily burn my own strawmen, as above, if you stop making a fool of yourself by lecturing an old fart on human nature.
Now get off MY armchair, punk!
"I will only buy music directly from the artist."
/sarcasm
Do you only buy milk from the cow? - I mean let's face it, agriculture is full of arseholes that would make the RIAA blush.
"...as if [the GFC] somehow disproved the claim markets have an overwhelmingly better track record than do governments, democratic or otherwise."
Capitalisim is great and all but how is it possible without law, and how is law effective without enforcement? - And please let's not talk about everyone bartering for horses out of the goodness of their hearts, that's just as fantasmagorical as the socilist's sharing and caring paradise.
"Face it, democracy is broken. Always was, always will be, because it tries to fight human nature. Compare to capitalism: for all its faults, capitalism has done fantastically well for us because it thrives on [percieved] self-interest.
So you are saying that people don't vote for their percieved self-intrest? - Where are these people and how can I get these self-sacraficing souls to vote for my self-interests?
BTW: I have nothing against convincing adverts, if you are convinced by an advert then you are simply naive.
I admit I'm not above sensantionalist headlines but it wasn't intended as a slur on geographers. I also agree it requires a good deal of science to actually perform terrestrial measurments, and that geographical data is an essential input to the Earth sciences. To paraphrase Mr Spock; without it we are arguing in a factual vacum.
However the point I was trying to make is the data itself is not science, it's a series of one or more observations which themselves may be the result of experimentation or calculation. In my (possibly narrow definition) science is using the observations to build a conceptual model and then predicting/testing further observations from that model. Of course this becomes a bit recursive when talking about models for accurate observation (eg: the urban heat island effect is related to geographical location).
In other words: Data is the fertilizer of science, models are it's fruits.
Thanks for the translation.
"Do the hard-core keepers get offended because calling one an "Orang" implies it is human?"
Dunno, the only "hard-core keepers" I've met are of the bondage variety. A "wierd tribe" indeed...
"Say, an economist, like me."
"an economist"
An example would require knowledge and his message is "only bad people eat the fruit of the knowledge tree".
Yep and most geeks would have noticed the grammatical error because they know 47% is the wrong answer for the water question. However this geek is going to nitpick their damned servey and say that particular question is geography not science! Like the ability to spell correctly it's purely a function of memory.
/pimp_slap
Bullshit serveys such as this one do nothing except reinforce the notion that science is some sort of dictionary of unrelated factoids that one can pick and choose from to suit their needs. I think the survey authors need to update their stats and count themselves amoungst those who do not understand the meaning of the term "basic science".
OTOH the Earth orbit question is a "basic science" question since it requires basic knowledge of how our calendar is related to celestial mechanics. I have no idea about the other questions since I didn't RTFA.
Australia has never really had a gun culture, in particular hand guns have always been shuned even though cops do carry a side arm. Not saying gun violence doesn't happen but when it does it's a major news story. As far as I can tell "the right to bear arms" is purely a cultural and historical thing so I don't think the Aussie/British anti-gun culture would work in the US without a generational shift in attitudes. In other words de-escalation is harder than escalation since it requires a measure of mutual trust.
"They should be calling you sir. You should be dealing with them in a polite but not deferential manner. Otherwise you are recognising that they hold some form of authority 'at large' over you, rather than merely an authority which is activated by a combination of the valid application of democratically passed laws and your conduct"
MEARLY??? What other form of valid authority is there?
"Officer" is the Aussie equivalent of "Sir"
I'm also an Aussie, the correct way to address an Aussie cop is "Officer", "Yes officer", "No officer", "I should know better officer", "I tell my kids the same thing officer". Try it next time one pulls you over and you KNOW you are in the wrong. Never have I been more sorry than when as a long-haired freak in the 70's I turned to my g/f and said (just a little too loudly) "the dipshit is checking my rego because he thinks I stole the bike".
However I agree, if you think you are right keep using "officer" to adress them and treat them as reasonable human beings while stating your case ONCE, leave the arguments for the court room. Oh and if you do find yourself in court don't lean on the wittness box and talk to the judge as if you were down the pub talking to your mates, trust me when I say pissing a judge off is much worse than arguing with a cop.
Notice also that the cops over here will call you "Sir" on certain occasions, usually when they are deadly serious about what they are asking you to do and haven't yet established your name. Does the phrase "Can I see you license sir" ring any bells or do they use that language on me because I'm an old fart?
None of this is subservience it's plain old fashioned respect (both ways). Also a healthy dose of humility when you know your in the wrong doesn't hurt anything, except maybe one's ego.
Thank-you, I'll take that as a compliment. And no, you can't take it back!
It's not about anyone's ability to adhere to every single law, nor is it about honesty, it's about your ability to piss off the cop enough that he pulls some obscure law out of his arse - I know it's hard to belive but cops are kinda like humans with a uniform.
Their job is to keep the peace, the job of the judicary is to work out the legal fine print and who was/wasn't being "reasonable". Try treating the cops with the same respect you want them to show you and you will be amazed at how quickly they "lighten up". Also you do realise your original post describes the good cop/bad cop routine, right? - Do you know why they are taught to do that? Did you know they do it to prospective recruits for the same reason?
My question is; why is "indentifying a pattern" not an "evolutionary adaptation", or for that matter why is it not "instinctual"? Is the adult urge to make simple everyday plans to find nourishment not as strong as a baby's urge to suckle?
"There is a VERY important difference here."
I know sweet FA about the field beyond what I see in Attenbourgh documentries but I'm sure the researchers who spend a long time contemplating these things realise that categorizing congnative abilities along nature vs nurture lines is not as usefull as it once was considered to be. OTOH there will always be those who think humans have a magical quality that somehow makes our species less constrained by it's DNA and the environment it finds itself in.
They used to be called "The wild man of Borneo". Many tribes who live near chimps have traditionally seen them the same way they see other human tribes in the area, ie: just another bunch of sub-humans.
"...avoiding being caught executing the plan. Does that imply a guilty conscience to some degree, or only fear of his handlers?"
While not taking anything away from the chimp, my dog won't burry a bone if anyone is watching. Also it's "guilty" behaviour gives away the fact it was sleeping on the couch when it heard me pull into the driveway.
"Near as I can tell, they're well past 1984 which was supposed to be a "if the commies ran Britain" kind of story anyway."
I recently spent 5 weeks traveling the UK in a rental, I got one speeding ticket via a camera but nobody tried to strap a rat to my face?
Repeat after me: There is no border between "instinct" and "cogent thought".
Brilliant, even though the explaination of that quote is somewhat garbled.
"We rarely see the cop that lets small infractions slide."
That comment says more about you than it does about cops.