This is pretty cosa nostra as tactics go. Of course, if the agreement is limited to just cold calling, then it's a non-issue. But if it goes as far as do-not-hire, then that's quite an injury.
how is instagram worth $1 billion instead of $100 million? Because Facebook has that much to burn? Or because they wouldn't take $100 million if offered?
Not necessarily. He talks about trees, but it's the principle that matters: using plants to fix carbon. If it's done to corn (for example), it would act to enrich the top soil and not be any more disruptive than the actual planting of corn. But even if it's done with trees, it wouldn't be any more disruptive than all the harvesting we do.
"Classified" material that never should have been classified, but instead was trying to cover-up military blunders.
Oh, so you want any military personal to be able to make a decision on what civilian leaders can deem classified and what they cannot deem classified? Civilian leadership is in charge of the army, you know. Are you advocating for that to be changed? He was a uniformed soldier when he did it.
Here's an analogy that is better than yours: a mathematician finds a flaw in the math of an experimental physicist; being a mathematician he doesn't have much to publish in a journal dedicated exclusively to experimental physics; after pointing out the flaw publicly, the mathematician is at first told, "you are not even a physicist -- you are just using the fact that you are a mathematician to try to weigh in on physics", and after that argument is dismissed, he is told "well, then publish your own data." At which point the mathematician looks bewildered at the experimental physicists and decides that they will only allow a priesthood of their own to discuss their own work... even if it means protecting conclusions arrived at with bad math.
I think you missed the entire analogy which made the argument that lacking a proper label ("climate scientist", "climate agency", etc.) is not a good enough reason to dismiss the arguments made by competent people discussing how their expertise in their field shows that the arguments for AGW hypothesis have holes. If such lack of a label were enough, then dismissing the arguments made by NASA would be as legitimate as dismissing the arguments made by physicists.
It is patently ridiculous to demand data from those whose argument is that you overstate the conclusions made from your data. Their argument is essentially "it doesn't follow from the observed data". Arguing, "so show me your data" is arguing through a non sequitur.
There is no opinions in the article. They only state the fact that a petition was signed and that NASA responded to it. Facts don't have bias -- only opinions (which are interpretations of facts) do.
The counter-argument presented in the post states that the signatories of the letter are not "climate scientists." Well, this argument holds about as much water as the argument that NASA is not a climate agency. Climate research encompasses efforts which require expertise in a number of sciences. When anyone with an expertise in one of the necessary science branches decides to weigh in on arguments, it makes no sense to outright dismiss him as a non-climate-scientist. In fact, it seems like the only ones defending this AGW position are those blessed by the priesthood of the climate scientists or members of the media. Well, if you dismiss an astro-physicist weighing in on results of temperature distribution studies (as seen from space) because he is not a "climate scientist", why listen to NASA which is not a "climate agency"?
"It is far better to be feared than loved" -- Niccolo Machiavelli.
That is NOT to say that one should strive to be feared. Only that one's conduct should inspire awe.
And for all this emphasis on protocols, they forget the key ingredient to success in the business in which they now find themselves: tools win over developers. Developers will not flock to the best hypothetical outcome. They will flock to the best outcome in their circumstance. And the circumstances of developers are improved tremendously with improvement in tools.
Android has 50% of the phone market and less than 20% of the app market. Why? Because there is still no cloud server presence from Google (only cloud storage). And there is still no developer studio. As a result there is still no way to develop for Android as your first choice.
Google apps? Yeah, that's nice. That's effectively a bunch of libraries with some clever hacks. That's not gonna make me wanna develop for Android. They've hired thousands of highly competitive developers and they still haven't created an environment which enables developers outside the company in the way that MS did and in the way in which Apple did.
When you have clever workers and you don't produce a clever product, the problem is the management. Until I see the kinds of tools coming out of Google that would elicit spontaneous rants about "sexy", I don't give a hoot about a founder's fetish to press new shiny buttons.
There is though such a thing as being overly critical. No one has made the argument that "should of" is formally correct. But languages do often develop through misuse. And the etymology of the word "of" is an interesting study in itself. The fact that you rejected an intellectual curiosity in the name of formalism puts your self-proclaimed love of conceptualization into question.
Not eating seafood during a time when refrigeration was but a mythical dream was a pretty GOOD idea for a people who dwell in a very hot climate and by and large too far from the coast to consider the stuff "fresh".
It may seem off topic, but Israel has the most remarkable sunsets. Really the most majestic view I've seen. Much more magnificent than anywhere else in the world. You know why? Because the entire country has an almost perfect west coast. The coast goes as a perfectly vertical straight line from north to the south. What does that have to do with anything? Well, you are never too far from the coast in Israel.
Nonsense. Profitability is relative to what other options are available at any one time.
This is exactly the same argument you could be making for ethanol fuel. But if more resources go into producing the fuel than can be produced with it, then it's a net loss of resources. It doesn't matter what gets subsidized. Subsidy is still money. And money is still just a token for enumerating exchange. If more resources have to directed to produce something than comes out of it (doesn't matter which direction it is directed from... just directed), then it's a net loss. This boondoggle is a well-meaning long-term environmental catastrophe.
We have a healthy run of innovation ahead of us for solar.
Not with the current harvesting mechanism. If other harvesting mechanisms become available, then yes. But currently it's already harvesting 20+% of the solar energy which hits the panel. The theoretical maximum with silicon is 28%. 15 years we were getting only 10%. So we already doubled and can only gain another (theoretical!) 40% over what we get now. Without a new harvesting mechanism, we are pretty close to the theoretical limit.
It's already reaching the limits of theoretical efficiency given the current harvesting mechanism. And yet it's not profitable. Money isn't just some abstraction. It represents resources which go into production and distribution of the thing. If it's not profitable, then it's an environmental as well as financial net loss. More resources go in than come out. If something cannot be made profitable even at peak efficiency, it represents a net waste of natural resources.
Mathematics is not only based on cognition, but it also does not exist outside of it. And it encompasses rather than characterizes all that is studied under that name. Because it encompasses all of mathematics, it is singular. It is often extended through new studies, but such extensions are extensions to the singular field of study -- they are not separate fields of study. The fact that a field of study has branches, does not make separate fields. There is no more multiple mathematics than there is multiple biologies. Yes, there is botany, zoology, etc. But they all fall under biology. Just all branches of mathematics fall under one singular term mathematics.
Unless, of course, the etymology of "of" has it originating from "have". After all, the possessive apostrophe-s originates from "has". Are you certain that the other possessive form does not as well? Just listen to this yoda-esque: characters have people (which translates from yoda-esque to English as "people have characters"). Well, in the former form, if "have" is shortened into "of" to indicate possessive, you get the other plain English "characters of people". The progression would be something like "characters have people" --> "characters 've people" --> "characters of people." This would make the use of "of" instead of "have" an anachronism rather than incorrect grammar. But since the anachronism is long forgotten, everyone is taught that it is a mistake. It is, no question, a mistake in formal English. And while I agree that to those who have mastered the proper English the "should of" sounds very dissonant, the other AC may have a point. It may be still be an artifact.
Slashdot Mirror
This is pretty cosa nostra as tactics go. Of course, if the agreement is limited to just cold calling, then it's a non-issue. But if it goes as far as do-not-hire, then that's quite an injury.
how is instagram worth $1 billion instead of $100 million? Because Facebook has that much to burn? Or because they wouldn't take $100 million if offered?
Not necessarily. He talks about trees, but it's the principle that matters: using plants to fix carbon. If it's done to corn (for example), it would act to enrich the top soil and not be any more disruptive than the actual planting of corn. But even if it's done with trees, it wouldn't be any more disruptive than all the harvesting we do.
Freeman Dyson's solution is not often discussed. And his solution doesn't require any social engineering or any redistribution of wealth.
"Classified" material that never should have been classified, but instead was trying to cover-up military blunders.
Oh, so you want any military personal to be able to make a decision on what civilian leaders can deem classified and what they cannot deem classified? Civilian leadership is in charge of the army, you know. Are you advocating for that to be changed? He was a uniformed soldier when he did it.
Here's an analogy that is better than yours: a mathematician finds a flaw in the math of an experimental physicist; being a mathematician he doesn't have much to publish in a journal dedicated exclusively to experimental physics; after pointing out the flaw publicly, the mathematician is at first told, "you are not even a physicist -- you are just using the fact that you are a mathematician to try to weigh in on physics", and after that argument is dismissed, he is told "well, then publish your own data." At which point the mathematician looks bewildered at the experimental physicists and decides that they will only allow a priesthood of their own to discuss their own work... even if it means protecting conclusions arrived at with bad math.
Your analogy, while well-formed and eloquently stated, does not hold.
I think you missed the entire analogy which made the argument that lacking a proper label ("climate scientist", "climate agency", etc.) is not a good enough reason to dismiss the arguments made by competent people discussing how their expertise in their field shows that the arguments for AGW hypothesis have holes. If such lack of a label were enough, then dismissing the arguments made by NASA would be as legitimate as dismissing the arguments made by physicists.
It is patently ridiculous to demand data from those whose argument is that you overstate the conclusions made from your data. Their argument is essentially "it doesn't follow from the observed data". Arguing, "so show me your data" is arguing through a non sequitur.
But in this case they all had financial ties to NASA.
No, but then again, we are also not going to debate which orange makes for a best apple.
There is no opinions in the article. They only state the fact that a petition was signed and that NASA responded to it. Facts don't have bias -- only opinions (which are interpretations of facts) do.
The counter-argument presented in the post states that the signatories of the letter are not "climate scientists." Well, this argument holds about as much water as the argument that NASA is not a climate agency. Climate research encompasses efforts which require expertise in a number of sciences. When anyone with an expertise in one of the necessary science branches decides to weigh in on arguments, it makes no sense to outright dismiss him as a non-climate-scientist. In fact, it seems like the only ones defending this AGW position are those blessed by the priesthood of the climate scientists or members of the media. Well, if you dismiss an astro-physicist weighing in on results of temperature distribution studies (as seen from space) because he is not a "climate scientist", why listen to NASA which is not a "climate agency"?
"It is far better to be feared than loved" -- Niccolo Machiavelli.
That is NOT to say that one should strive to be feared. Only that one's conduct should inspire awe.
And for all this emphasis on protocols, they forget the key ingredient to success in the business in which they now find themselves: tools win over developers. Developers will not flock to the best hypothetical outcome. They will flock to the best outcome in their circumstance. And the circumstances of developers are improved tremendously with improvement in tools.
Android has 50% of the phone market and less than 20% of the app market. Why? Because there is still no cloud server presence from Google (only cloud storage). And there is still no developer studio. As a result there is still no way to develop for Android as your first choice.
Google apps? Yeah, that's nice. That's effectively a bunch of libraries with some clever hacks. That's not gonna make me wanna develop for Android. They've hired thousands of highly competitive developers and they still haven't created an environment which enables developers outside the company in the way that MS did and in the way in which Apple did.
When you have clever workers and you don't produce a clever product, the problem is the management. Until I see the kinds of tools coming out of Google that would elicit spontaneous rants about "sexy", I don't give a hoot about a founder's fetish to press new shiny buttons.
Why mistake? Yesterday she was an unknown artist. Today she got her name on Slashdot.
There is though such a thing as being overly critical. No one has made the argument that "should of" is formally correct. But languages do often develop through misuse. And the etymology of the word "of" is an interesting study in itself. The fact that you rejected an intellectual curiosity in the name of formalism puts your self-proclaimed love of conceptualization into question.
Not eating seafood during a time when refrigeration was but a mythical dream was a pretty GOOD idea for a people who dwell in a very hot climate and by and large too far from the coast to consider the stuff "fresh".
It may seem off topic, but Israel has the most remarkable sunsets. Really the most majestic view I've seen. Much more magnificent than anywhere else in the world. You know why? Because the entire country has an almost perfect west coast. The coast goes as a perfectly vertical straight line from north to the south. What does that have to do with anything? Well, you are never too far from the coast in Israel.
That's a high enough bar to still call it a "study"? That may not be the case.
Nonsense. Profitability is relative to what other options are available at any one time.
This is exactly the same argument you could be making for ethanol fuel. But if more resources go into producing the fuel than can be produced with it, then it's a net loss of resources. It doesn't matter what gets subsidized. Subsidy is still money. And money is still just a token for enumerating exchange. If more resources have to directed to produce something than comes out of it (doesn't matter which direction it is directed from... just directed), then it's a net loss. This boondoggle is a well-meaning long-term environmental catastrophe.
We have a healthy run of innovation ahead of us for solar.
Not with the current harvesting mechanism. If other harvesting mechanisms become available, then yes. But currently it's already harvesting 20+% of the solar energy which hits the panel. The theoretical maximum with silicon is 28%. 15 years we were getting only 10%. So we already doubled and can only gain another (theoretical!) 40% over what we get now. Without a new harvesting mechanism, we are pretty close to the theoretical limit.
It's already reaching the limits of theoretical efficiency given the current harvesting mechanism. And yet it's not profitable. Money isn't just some abstraction. It represents resources which go into production and distribution of the thing. If it's not profitable, then it's an environmental as well as financial net loss. More resources go in than come out. If something cannot be made profitable even at peak efficiency, it represents a net waste of natural resources.
Mathematics is not only based on cognition, but it also does not exist outside of it. And it encompasses rather than characterizes all that is studied under that name. Because it encompasses all of mathematics, it is singular. It is often extended through new studies, but such extensions are extensions to the singular field of study -- they are not separate fields of study. The fact that a field of study has branches, does not make separate fields. There is no more multiple mathematics than there is multiple biologies. Yes, there is botany, zoology, etc. But they all fall under biology. Just all branches of mathematics fall under one singular term mathematics.
Your name is a lie.
Unless, of course, the etymology of "of" has it originating from "have". After all, the possessive apostrophe-s originates from "has". Are you certain that the other possessive form does not as well? Just listen to this yoda-esque: characters have people (which translates from yoda-esque to English as "people have characters"). Well, in the former form, if "have" is shortened into "of" to indicate possessive, you get the other plain English "characters of people". The progression would be something like "characters have people" --> "characters 've people" --> "characters of people." This would make the use of "of" instead of "have" an anachronism rather than incorrect grammar. But since the anachronism is long forgotten, everyone is taught that it is a mistake. It is, no question, a mistake in formal English. And while I agree that to those who have mastered the proper English the "should of" sounds very dissonant, the other AC may have a point. It may be still be an artifact.
what's to prevent them from getting shut down?