"It may be, for example, that female patients are less good at volunteering the important information .."
Possibly men and women just communicate differently. Women, in general, might have developed better communication skill and normally carry the 'nuance' load in conversations. If that were the case, then matters such as heart attacks might distract them enough to drop the load for the moment. Most of the male doctors, having never learned the skill, fall down when they need to pick it up.
Not complaining for no reason. Wikipedia really does bother me. An article written in Britannica is normally written by a single person and the article has a 'voice'. The articles in Wikipedia all come across as an attempt to present information. But human beings want their information presented in context, the human context. It is great to read an article written by an enthusiastic person. That enthusiasm, that the writer really considers the material great stuff, makes it more of 'great stuff' to me, the reader. The Wikipedia articles do not come across this way. They present the information. Period.
It is not that hard to find information on a subject. Sometimes you have to include "-amazon" and a few others in the search field. There are also whole categories, such as medicine, that people can find the best information elsewhere.
I guess I came across as ranting and apologize for that.
John
In many ways Wikipedia is a depressing creation. The Internet is a sea of information. The search engines are quite good. If you search on a word or an event, you get good information. In areas, particularly commercial, you have to wade through crazed advertising. In areas political you have to wade through swamps filled with monsters. So what? Wikipedia doesn't do any better in these areas. Instead Wikipedia presents dumbed down versions of things and because it is a little easier than using a search engine, people use it. How is it different from people using Amazon though it destroys their local jobs? Or using Uber no matter how it behaves? People will flock to things perceived as easier or cheaper. People will continue to use Wikipedia. Saying that its loss would lessen the value of the Internet shows a lack of understanding about the Internet, yet does show an understanding about people.
John
Yes, and I will enjoy robot cars. Yet when I drive I am aware that it is only my competence that prevents me from dying or killing someone else. And, yes, every driver with enough miles under his belt has had occasional blind luck that saved him from doing either one of those. What bothers me is the general loss of physical competence in the population. People just don't know at a gut level how the physical world works. Drivers get some training in it and robot cars will take that away. Most people could not bring down a tree safely. Most people don't even know how protect themselves when they fall. I said I like the idea of robot cars, but the only way people learn about physical reality is through risk, injury, and possible death. An argument can always be made that an activity that encompasses these three things should be modified or banned. Is this good?
John
The original parent said "for the past century" and this is correct, California did have the climate. You can state that conditions have changed. They have, indeed, but not in such a way as to imply the falseness of the quoted sentence.
It is just a matter of playing fair in an argument.
"the very purpose of those leaves" comes too close to "birds have wings in order to fly". Evolution does not work like that. What you say is clear enough, though, no problem with that. I just suffer from the failing of trying to reform the world regarding how evolution actually works.
John
If Google can withdraw from China, a huge market, then other companies do not have an excuse. They are in those countries because they can make money and don't really care what else happens. If Indiana fought back hard against them, they would just run to the federal government and, through the use of political donations and lobbyists, get their way. With a few exceptions, how can anyone defend big companies in this day and age?
I enjoyed your description of the shells going through and just leaving holes. That indicates one builds ships larger than necessary with lots more empty space. This makes it harder to hit something important. Possibly one might even build empty hulls with propulsion systems, just to give the enemy more targets. All depends on the value of the empty hulls versus the value of completing the mission.
The dust causes a problem only when it becomes so dense as to completely obscure the paint. The dust will heat up from sunlight and also heat up from the radiation from the paint. As the dust heats it will radiate infra-red back towards the paint. As long as the paint supports some level of heat conduction 'horizontally' through the paint, those tiny areas of paint that are not obscured by dust will start to radiate more and more until heat equilibrium is again established.
A light covering of dust that covered 50% of the paint would have an insignificant effect.
To improve the paint, they should add a layer of water-repellant material. The material would have to allow the transmission of the paint's radiation, but that should not be a problem. That water-repellant layer would greatly enhance the breakup of deposition of dust, dirt, and 'stuff' on the paint into small and tiny clusters. As long as the human eye can see the correct color of the paint through the grime, the paint can likely function effectively.
Your response took thought. No easy solution exists. The Internet is still quite new, as far as human generations go. It has always been 90% hype and will likely remain so for at least another 10 years. More and more, though, the sub-cultures grow. Reddit is a very good thing. There are thousands of other small communities. Likely, over the course of time, information will disseminate differently than in the past. It will percolate through these groups, each of which has its own standards as to trustworthy speakers. At least we can hope. The US has historically careened towards its future, bouncing off every wall it could find before getting there. It does make for a wild ride.
John
Global warming is happening. I agree. Many scientists and organizations have spoken irresponsibly, with great hyperbole of doom and gloom. Those that did got more attention. Those that got more attention are the ones more people heard about. Now that many of the things said have not come to pass does reflect on them. How can you say otherwise? People have enough distractions with jobs that don't pay enough. If they hear reports about something awful about to happen and it doesn't happen, what do you expect them to do? Even though global warming is happening, that sentence by Al Gore comes from a twisty lawyer knowing most people won't parse it properly. Don't let him off for saying that. He wanted attention and he got it. He, and others, deserved to be hammered.
When you hear a prediction, you ascribe a degree of confidence to it. If some of your friends say they will be on time to leave for the game, you can start walking to your car knowing they will pull in before you get to it. Others - for others you have back-up plans for going alone. The above statements were made by people representing themselves to be trustworthy in their statements. You can't know everybody in the world and have established personal opinions of their trustworthiness. You hope to be able to trust people with educations and in positions of responsibilities. These people and organizations made their statements. You may say they only made predictions. Very well, they were only predictions and they were not at fault when the predictions failed. That being the case, we must reduce our level of trust in them. That is what people are really doing when they call them liars. They are saying they can't be trusted. Considering the vehemence surrounding many of those predictions, how are people wrong to no longer trust them?
For some reason Slashdot would not load yesterday for me.
Two points.
I would feel much different if there were not subsidies. These people get a government handout that people like me have to make up.
Peak capacity is a problem. The utilities have to maintain enough on-line facilities to handle some selected peak capacity. Solar homes having a connection to the grid and not using it is like having a big house with an electrical system suitable for a small house. As long as no one turns on all the lights at the same time, everything is fine. When they do, demand exceeds supply and brownouts and blackouts occur. My bills will always reflect that cost. A solar home that has an even energy balance, does not, but the owners sure want that capacity available if something goes wrong.
I like solar power, but most people go into solar power now because of financial calculation. I have little sympathy for them.
If homes with the solar panels had electrical storage systems and disconnected from the utility, the utility would not have a case. It's hard for me to understand why people attack the utility when the money types get a free ride paid for by those who can't cash in. The crowd that can afford the solar panels can afford to chip in to help support the utility. I live in an apartment. Why should my bills have to help cover the extra capacity needed when the solar panel people have a bad day and want the power.
He deserves the Congressional Medal of Honor. What he did took courage far beyond that shown by normal mortals. Few life insurance companies, even now, would give him the normal terms for his age.
You put small clips on the bottom of the cable trays. In a corner of the room you have a pot with a plant such as a philodendron. It grows up to the cable trays and along.
I've seen this done just using bent paper clips hanging from the frames holding ceiling tiles. It made for a great office with all that green overhead. Light-weight office plants won't bother the cables if they curl a bit into the trays. If someone is working in the tray, she can just cut off anything in the way.
The office I saw used philodendron, but there may be better plants; it depends on the green thumbs available.
I am in on this completely if car always remains under my authority. Driving is a waste of my life for the most part. I would not get upset at other drivers, I would not be aware of them. The parent is very right. However, being in a vehicle that can be taken over by government control makes me squirm. If the car only goes where I tell it and does not pull over for the police without my authorization, then the world will be great.
This treats human beings as if they were replaceable robots. In many ways I look forward to a future where actual robots do much of the work. I would trust them much more than most doctors I have met.
There are times, however, when human compassion makes all the difference. These nurses that were fired, will their replacements be as good? If they are not, do you consider the fact that the replacements have the flu vaccine a fair trade?
Gosh. The power to do good comes intertwined with the ability to do evil. So what if Occupy was using techniques frequently used by criminals? Most of life is grey and the powers that be will cheerfully point at the dark in some grey in order to ban the white, all done to benefit a particular group, most often a group in power looking out for itself. The Guardian posted a vile tale, all too believable.
It costs money to make power and large expensive facilities. You can supplement with wind and solar. Those certainly are worth it for the individual, but not for the group. Power generation must always consider the worst case. If the Fimbulwinter strikes for a month, covering everything with snow and wind turbines with ice, society will require power supplied by industrial grade facilities.
People should install solar panels, yet someone must pay to maintain the huge infrastructure and facilities for when all else fails. A possible solution is that when a person with solar panels requires power from the grid, the rates shoot way up to help pay for having that power available instantaneously when they have a problem with their own. This would discourage some people from installing solar panels, it would encourage others to become completely self-sufficient. In the long run this will prove the best solution; in the short run the power infra-structure must be maintained and paid for whether or not people use solar panels.
Solar panels should not be allowed to put power to the grid. It will cost everybody more in the long run, but people will insist on this and so those costs will just get added to the bills. The costs won't be a sudden hit, just slow and incremental. By the time people realize the cost, a loud vocal minority with a vested interest in selling power from their solar cells to the grid will be able to beat off attacks. That may already be the case.
As are women who work hard, do a disproportionate share of the housework, and still manage to look a lot nicer than the guy. This article sounds like a male teenager pontificating.
Kneeling has good advantages, especially if you wear shorts. It straightens out the core and you can switch back and forth between sitting and kneeling. With any luck the desktop will be just fine for your height when kneeling, otherwise you might need a low kneeler.
The only way to get rid of software patents is to make the system too expensive for companies to support the current system. One way to do this is to create a large growing patent pool that is not available to commercial companies. The organization holding the pool would have to vigorously defend the patents. Some issues would exist, none insurmountable. One is the money needed to pay for the new patents and to litigate against those violating the patents. (Not wanting to write a manifesto, I will touch on this.) Say the EFF chose to do it. The issue branches into minimizing the cost and optimizing the money invested in patents. The application cost is fixed, the cost of preparing the application can be reduced a little, especially if EFF were handling writing the patent applications and writing all of them with a common goal. Consider a company that wanted to help the cause. Paying for some patents used in this way is a solid long-term investment if it helps break the patent system. It may even be possible to include commercial companies. Allow them to join possibly by transferring all patents to the organization. If a company has no patents, maybe they could join by paying for a patent or two. The solution is not a big deal. It is only a case of setting up an organization that constantly gets more patents and completely blocks any company that won't join. Such a system, once going, accelerates quickly. Oh yes. It should be set up that when a company joins, it joins irrevocably. This prevents large companies with patents forcing it to withdraw. Patent trolls are not an issue. Forcing the large companies into patent gridlock is all that is necessary. They will get the law changed.
Slashdot Mirror
"It may be, for example, that female patients are less good at volunteering the important information . ."
Possibly men and women just communicate differently. Women, in general, might have developed better communication skill and normally carry the 'nuance' load in conversations. If that were the case, then matters such as heart attacks might distract them enough to drop the load for the moment. Most of the male doctors, having never learned the skill, fall down when they need to pick it up.
This was being done in the '70s. The term was 'automated inventory control'. General Automation did the project, I worked for them at the time. John
Not complaining for no reason. Wikipedia really does bother me. An article written in Britannica is normally written by a single person and the article has a 'voice'. The articles in Wikipedia all come across as an attempt to present information. But human beings want their information presented in context, the human context. It is great to read an article written by an enthusiastic person. That enthusiasm, that the writer really considers the material great stuff, makes it more of 'great stuff' to me, the reader. The Wikipedia articles do not come across this way. They present the information. Period. It is not that hard to find information on a subject. Sometimes you have to include "-amazon" and a few others in the search field. There are also whole categories, such as medicine, that people can find the best information elsewhere. I guess I came across as ranting and apologize for that. John
In many ways Wikipedia is a depressing creation. The Internet is a sea of information. The search engines are quite good. If you search on a word or an event, you get good information. In areas, particularly commercial, you have to wade through crazed advertising. In areas political you have to wade through swamps filled with monsters. So what? Wikipedia doesn't do any better in these areas. Instead Wikipedia presents dumbed down versions of things and because it is a little easier than using a search engine, people use it. How is it different from people using Amazon though it destroys their local jobs? Or using Uber no matter how it behaves? People will flock to things perceived as easier or cheaper. People will continue to use Wikipedia. Saying that its loss would lessen the value of the Internet shows a lack of understanding about the Internet, yet does show an understanding about people. John
Yes, and I will enjoy robot cars. Yet when I drive I am aware that it is only my competence that prevents me from dying or killing someone else. And, yes, every driver with enough miles under his belt has had occasional blind luck that saved him from doing either one of those. What bothers me is the general loss of physical competence in the population. People just don't know at a gut level how the physical world works. Drivers get some training in it and robot cars will take that away. Most people could not bring down a tree safely. Most people don't even know how protect themselves when they fall. I said I like the idea of robot cars, but the only way people learn about physical reality is through risk, injury, and possible death. An argument can always be made that an activity that encompasses these three things should be modified or banned. Is this good? John
The original parent said "for the past century" and this is correct, California did have the climate. You can state that conditions have changed. They have, indeed, but not in such a way as to imply the falseness of the quoted sentence.
It is just a matter of playing fair in an argument.
"the very purpose of those leaves" comes too close to "birds have wings in order to fly". Evolution does not work like that. What you say is clear enough, though, no problem with that. I just suffer from the failing of trying to reform the world regarding how evolution actually works. John
If Google can withdraw from China, a huge market, then other companies do not have an excuse. They are in those countries because they can make money and don't really care what else happens. If Indiana fought back hard against them, they would just run to the federal government and, through the use of political donations and lobbyists, get their way. With a few exceptions, how can anyone defend big companies in this day and age?
I enjoyed your description of the shells going through and just leaving holes. That indicates one builds ships larger than necessary with lots more empty space. This makes it harder to hit something important. Possibly one might even build empty hulls with propulsion systems, just to give the enemy more targets. All depends on the value of the empty hulls versus the value of completing the mission.
The dust causes a problem only when it becomes so dense as to completely obscure the paint. The dust will heat up from sunlight and also heat up from the radiation from the paint. As the dust heats it will radiate infra-red back towards the paint. As long as the paint supports some level of heat conduction 'horizontally' through the paint, those tiny areas of paint that are not obscured by dust will start to radiate more and more until heat equilibrium is again established.
A light covering of dust that covered 50% of the paint would have an insignificant effect.
To improve the paint, they should add a layer of water-repellant material. The material would have to allow the transmission of the paint's radiation, but that should not be a problem. That water-repellant layer would greatly enhance the breakup of deposition of dust, dirt, and 'stuff' on the paint into small and tiny clusters. As long as the human eye can see the correct color of the paint through the grime, the paint can likely function effectively.
Your response took thought. No easy solution exists. The Internet is still quite new, as far as human generations go. It has always been 90% hype and will likely remain so for at least another 10 years. More and more, though, the sub-cultures grow. Reddit is a very good thing. There are thousands of other small communities. Likely, over the course of time, information will disseminate differently than in the past. It will percolate through these groups, each of which has its own standards as to trustworthy speakers. At least we can hope. The US has historically careened towards its future, bouncing off every wall it could find before getting there. It does make for a wild ride. John
Global warming is happening. I agree. Many scientists and organizations have spoken irresponsibly, with great hyperbole of doom and gloom. Those that did got more attention. Those that got more attention are the ones more people heard about. Now that many of the things said have not come to pass does reflect on them. How can you say otherwise? People have enough distractions with jobs that don't pay enough. If they hear reports about something awful about to happen and it doesn't happen, what do you expect them to do? Even though global warming is happening, that sentence by Al Gore comes from a twisty lawyer knowing most people won't parse it properly. Don't let him off for saying that. He wanted attention and he got it. He, and others, deserved to be hammered.
When you hear a prediction, you ascribe a degree of confidence to it. If some of your friends say they will be on time to leave for the game, you can start walking to your car knowing they will pull in before you get to it. Others - for others you have back-up plans for going alone. The above statements were made by people representing themselves to be trustworthy in their statements. You can't know everybody in the world and have established personal opinions of their trustworthiness. You hope to be able to trust people with educations and in positions of responsibilities. These people and organizations made their statements. You may say they only made predictions. Very well, they were only predictions and they were not at fault when the predictions failed. That being the case, we must reduce our level of trust in them. That is what people are really doing when they call them liars. They are saying they can't be trusted. Considering the vehemence surrounding many of those predictions, how are people wrong to no longer trust them?
For some reason Slashdot would not load yesterday for me. Two points. I would feel much different if there were not subsidies. These people get a government handout that people like me have to make up. Peak capacity is a problem. The utilities have to maintain enough on-line facilities to handle some selected peak capacity. Solar homes having a connection to the grid and not using it is like having a big house with an electrical system suitable for a small house. As long as no one turns on all the lights at the same time, everything is fine. When they do, demand exceeds supply and brownouts and blackouts occur. My bills will always reflect that cost. A solar home that has an even energy balance, does not, but the owners sure want that capacity available if something goes wrong. I like solar power, but most people go into solar power now because of financial calculation. I have little sympathy for them.
If homes with the solar panels had electrical storage systems and disconnected from the utility, the utility would not have a case. It's hard for me to understand why people attack the utility when the money types get a free ride paid for by those who can't cash in. The crowd that can afford the solar panels can afford to chip in to help support the utility. I live in an apartment. Why should my bills have to help cover the extra capacity needed when the solar panel people have a bad day and want the power.
He deserves the Congressional Medal of Honor. What he did took courage far beyond that shown by normal mortals. Few life insurance companies, even now, would give him the normal terms for his age.
You put small clips on the bottom of the cable trays. In a corner of the room you have a pot with a plant such as a philodendron. It grows up to the cable trays and along.
I've seen this done just using bent paper clips hanging from the frames holding ceiling tiles. It made for a great office with all that green overhead. Light-weight office plants won't bother the cables if they curl a bit into the trays. If someone is working in the tray, she can just cut off anything in the way.
The office I saw used philodendron, but there may be better plants; it depends on the green thumbs available.
I am in on this completely if car always remains under my authority. Driving is a waste of my life for the most part. I would not get upset at other drivers, I would not be aware of them. The parent is very right. However, being in a vehicle that can be taken over by government control makes me squirm. If the car only goes where I tell it and does not pull over for the police without my authorization, then the world will be great.
This treats human beings as if they were replaceable robots. In many ways I look forward to a future where actual robots do much of the work. I would trust them much more than most doctors I have met.
There are times, however, when human compassion makes all the difference. These nurses that were fired, will their replacements be as good? If they are not, do you consider the fact that the replacements have the flu vaccine a fair trade?
Gosh. The power to do good comes intertwined with the ability to do evil. So what if Occupy was using techniques frequently used by criminals? Most of life is grey and the powers that be will cheerfully point at the dark in some grey in order to ban the white, all done to benefit a particular group, most often a group in power looking out for itself. The Guardian posted a vile tale, all too believable.
It costs money to make power and large expensive facilities. You can supplement with wind and solar. Those certainly are worth it for the individual, but not for the group. Power generation must always consider the worst case. If the Fimbulwinter strikes for a month, covering everything with snow and wind turbines with ice, society will require power supplied by industrial grade facilities.
People should install solar panels, yet someone must pay to maintain the huge infrastructure and facilities for when all else fails. A possible solution is that when a person with solar panels requires power from the grid, the rates shoot way up to help pay for having that power available instantaneously when they have a problem with their own. This would discourage some people from installing solar panels, it would encourage others to become completely self-sufficient. In the long run this will prove the best solution; in the short run the power infra-structure must be maintained and paid for whether or not people use solar panels.
Solar panels should not be allowed to put power to the grid. It will cost everybody more in the long run, but people will insist on this and so those costs will just get added to the bills. The costs won't be a sudden hit, just slow and incremental. By the time people realize the cost, a loud vocal minority with a vested interest in selling power from their solar cells to the grid will be able to beat off attacks. That may already be the case.
As are women who work hard, do a disproportionate share of the housework, and still manage to look a lot nicer than the guy. This article sounds like a male teenager pontificating.
You are welcome. Thanks are better than karma. John
Kneeling has good advantages, especially if you wear shorts. It straightens out the core and you can switch back and forth between sitting and kneeling. With any luck the desktop will be just fine for your height when kneeling, otherwise you might need a low kneeler.
The only way to get rid of software patents is to make the system too expensive for companies to support the current system. One way to do this is to create a large growing patent pool that is not available to commercial companies. The organization holding the pool would have to vigorously defend the patents. Some issues would exist, none insurmountable. One is the money needed to pay for the new patents and to litigate against those violating the patents. (Not wanting to write a manifesto, I will touch on this.) Say the EFF chose to do it. The issue branches into minimizing the cost and optimizing the money invested in patents. The application cost is fixed, the cost of preparing the application can be reduced a little, especially if EFF were handling writing the patent applications and writing all of them with a common goal. Consider a company that wanted to help the cause. Paying for some patents used in this way is a solid long-term investment if it helps break the patent system. It may even be possible to include commercial companies. Allow them to join possibly by transferring all patents to the organization. If a company has no patents, maybe they could join by paying for a patent or two. The solution is not a big deal. It is only a case of setting up an organization that constantly gets more patents and completely blocks any company that won't join. Such a system, once going, accelerates quickly. Oh yes. It should be set up that when a company joins, it joins irrevocably. This prevents large companies with patents forcing it to withdraw. Patent trolls are not an issue. Forcing the large companies into patent gridlock is all that is necessary. They will get the law changed.