The quote is already biased regardless of the facts and theories presented. Simply by using the word "denial" implies truth. Were this a genuinely objective statement, an unbiased author would use a phrase such as "opposing viewpoint". Also using the word "anti" implies negativity and therefore why would anyone want to be associated with something negative. That's why the terms "pro choice" and "pro life" exist.
This speaks to doing away with winner-take-all rules that many states have. I can pretty much guarantee that people living in central California have little in common with people living in downtown San Francisco, ideologically speaking. So why should the latter get to speak for the former? Yet in California, all electoral votes have been magically switched leading people to think the whole of California is liberal. I've been saying this for the past 20 years that the political divide in this country is not about Republican vs. Democrat. It's much more about ruralite vs. urbanite. When you look at election results broken down by county instead of by state, you see a much different picture. Urban districts generally vote liberal Democrat while rural districts vote conservative Republican. Party ideology aside, people in rural areas have vastly different priorities than those who live in cities. People who live in cities often are so full of themselves that they think only they know what's good for city dwellers as well as those who live in the country and they tend to impose legislation without having the slightest bit of experience living in the country.
What makes anyone think Microsoft could do this successfully? They clearly botched Windows 8 when they tried to slap a touchscreen interface on the face of a traditional computing environment. The fact that there are now businesses willing to downgrade you to Windows 7 (or even XP) is proof that Microsoft doesn't get the fact that tablets and laptop/desktops are two entirely different computing experiences and should be treated as such. Simply cramming bloated apps like Excel and Word into a tablet isn't going to cut it.
It's entirely possible that the costs of government regulation are at work here. Assuming that we're talking about physical product and not just an electronic download, there are all manner of import/export regulations that have to be complied with and fees that have to be paid. Granted, Photoshop isn't a controlled product (as far as we know), but take ITAR for example. Yeah, it's supposed to apply to "arms" but in reality every screw and bolt that goes into a controlled item is considered a controlled item even if you can go buy it at Home Depot. Just registering with ITAR costs $2500 a year. The paperwork to export is extensive. Companies have employees dedicated to compliance. They all have to get paid, get benefits, a 401(k), perhaps a pension. All of that costs rather a lot of money. And for what? Denied persons/countries will still find a way to get the stuff they want. So really, all this does is add bureaucrats AKA Ship B people.
Tell George to wait! - George Carlin As someone who grew up with an unusual name, I can tell you that stereotyping a person by name is not limited to race. In my experience, guys with names like Joe, Chris, and Jeff always seemed to have girlfriends and never had any trouble getting (or stealing) a new one when the current one turned to boom boom. On the other hand, guys with weird names rarely had girlfriends.
Hardly. Back in the 80s and early 90s, nobody ever heard of global warming. In fact, during the 70s, there was a lot of ginned up hand-wringing about another ice age.
That assumes that the paper is reporting everything. Not only is it physically impossible for papers to do so but editorial policy will emphasize one type of story and demphasize or completely ignore another. In addition, does this prediction system take into account the location and size of story? What shows up on page one above the fold in one paper (with one editorial viewpoint) may only appear several pages down in another and the number of words can also be vastly different. A paper could easily churn out a dozen followup stories to the original minor event in order to keep it fresh in their readers' minds. And then there's the tone of the writing. Does the algorithm attempt to evaluate tone for speculative or inflammatory language? People who pass themselves off as objective journalists notoriously pepper their writing with speculation knowing full well that their readers are likely to morph that into truth.
All of this said, perhaps there's indirect truth to the algorithm. Repeat a lie long enough and it becomes the truth. The media has long had the ability to create its own reality or at least they attempt to do so. Taking statements and events out of context or even blatant editing of audio transcripts can change a person's fate. The longer such actions go unchallenged, the more likely what really happened is dismissed.
Okay, granted it's not (necessarily) the ATF or the FBI but if you want to comply with the ITAR and need to work with the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (the State Department), they do all of their electronic paperwork in...wait for it...Lotus. Apparently while the rest of the world uses Acrobat for electronic forms, IBM won the contract for that particular IT system. In addition, were the DDTC to decide to create a new form for something, several other branches of the government have to be involved and thus the process can take several years. By that time, administrations, their policies and priorities may change and all that effort could be thrown out. Government bureaucracies are as a rule inefficient.
Star Trek made a lot of social statements over the years but there is one underlying fact that stands in our way of making such a world reality: the lack of the über power supply. Hell, even Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged had to create a free energy generator in order to make her version of utopia possible. Yet, today, our governments are packed with uninformed and misinformed Peter Principle people who think that simply by passing a law forcing people to use one form of energy over another, the science will simply step aside and allow it to happen. Of course, if we put on our conspiracy theory hats, consider how the world and society would change if free energy or at least a huge reduction in the cost of energy suddenly came to fruition. What are all the people who used to work in the fossil fuel or renewable energy industries going to do? And how would free energy affect nations whose entire wealth is dependent on the sale of energy? And would governments be able to control the citizenry when they don't have to pay for or ask permission to use energy?
I think such a system should be a required filter before any journalist can publish an article. This filtering system should also red flag words that imply speculation on the part of the author such as "might," "if," or "maybe." And to take that a step further, television news should also have a system that identifies when file footage has been inserted into a report for dramatic effect.
The so-called "global warming deniers" are to be scorned, ridiculed, and otherwise have their professional reputations destroyed by any means necessary but it's just fine and dandy to be skeptical of this study.
Maybe in the UK but definitely not here in the U.S. Maybe in a few cities in a few shopping centers but even then, could a camera clearly identify a pickpocket?
So let's review. Some Washington bureaucrat decided that it was okay for retailers to pass on the cost of taking credit cards on the grounds that the fee was "baked into the price". Even if that were true which you can't prove, what makes anyone think that merchants are going to lower the price now? They'll just cheerfully pocket the extra. Now consider this: what's going to happen when the consumer realizes they're getting shafted (again) for fees? Does anyone think that the consumer is going to walk around with cash all the time? Aside from the increased risk of getting mugged, people already don't want to do that when they get dinged at the ATM. And those fees will surely go up and become universal to offset the increased cost to handle physical money. I'd venture to say that the net effect will be that people will think twice about spending discretionary funds in general. What about purchase of durable goods e.g. a new frig that might cost several thousand dollars? Are people really going to be willing pay perhaps an extra $100 when they already have to spread the payments out over several months? And what about online bill pay for monthly bills? Is any consumer going to be willing to cough up yet another fee or will they be willing and able to remember to write a check and stick it in the mail every month? And then what if you can't find what you need to buy locally so you could pay with cash?What if you're a business that buys a lot of inventory via online distributors? Are they going to eat the extra 3%? Hell no, they're going to find a way to pass it on to their customers. Seems to me that this is going to slow down an already anemic economy when consumers, who can't pass on fees to anyone else, are already living paycheck to paycheck.
Here's my first question: Since when are assembly-line jobs considered middle class? IMHO, these are lower class jobs. If you take offense to that, A) tough noogies and B) what then ARE lower class jobs?
Second question: What makes anyone think that dismissing technological advances and replacement of menial tasks with machines in favor of simply preserving the paycheck of a human is a good idea? Machines don't demand benefits, a pension, and a pay raise every year. Do you really think the employers are going to simply take the extra costs up the a$$? Hell no. They will either pass the costs on to the customer thus resulting in inflation or they will go out of business.
I'm particularly interested in what will happen to the EFSA if their claims turn out to be bogus just after Monsanto is sued into oblivion. My guess is: nothing. That seems to be the modus operandi of any group that seeks to destroy something they disagree with. It has a "Rules for Radicals" ring to it. Destroy your opponent in the court of public opinion with the vulture media as willing accomplices. This is a very scary trend.
IMHO, this is a fish/bicycle argument. Maybe if you're in the business of music i.e. in a band, you need to know how to sing in order to reduce the chance of being replaced as the guitar player. However, in my long experience, middle managers who THINK they have programming knowledge simply make life exceedingly difficult for those of us who actually do the programming. The manager types simply want to feel like they have more control. They'll say "Oh, just change the font in this report so the marketing flakes will be happy" not realizing the hoops you have to jump through when placing form over function. That said, it follows that mangers of programming teams should be cultivated from the programming team and not from some newly minted MBA class.
It doesn't matter. The union presence in the private sector has been fading for decades. However, the union presence in the public sector has been growing and it seems that they have found an ideal place because taxpayers are not customers and therefore have no freedom to choose a non-union product.
Bruce66423 is clearly "unrepentant" in his reporting by using the word "unrepentant" as though Schmidt has committed a crime. Just as with most socialists, he is wrong in thinking there is some moral law that supersedes actual law and that only socialists get to define what it is. Schmidt A) followed the law and B) met his obligation to the stockholders who foot the bill for Google to exist and expect to make something from taking the risk in investing and that most likely includes the socialists' precious pension funds.
Slashdot Mirror
The quote is already biased regardless of the facts and theories presented. Simply by using the word "denial" implies truth. Were this a genuinely objective statement, an unbiased author would use a phrase such as "opposing viewpoint". Also using the word "anti" implies negativity and therefore why would anyone want to be associated with something negative. That's why the terms "pro choice" and "pro life" exist.
This speaks to doing away with winner-take-all rules that many states have. I can pretty much guarantee that people living in central California have little in common with people living in downtown San Francisco, ideologically speaking. So why should the latter get to speak for the former? Yet in California, all electoral votes have been magically switched leading people to think the whole of California is liberal. I've been saying this for the past 20 years that the political divide in this country is not about Republican vs. Democrat. It's much more about ruralite vs. urbanite. When you look at election results broken down by county instead of by state, you see a much different picture. Urban districts generally vote liberal Democrat while rural districts vote conservative Republican. Party ideology aside, people in rural areas have vastly different priorities than those who live in cities. People who live in cities often are so full of themselves that they think only they know what's good for city dwellers as well as those who live in the country and they tend to impose legislation without having the slightest bit of experience living in the country.
What makes anyone think Microsoft could do this successfully? They clearly botched Windows 8 when they tried to slap a touchscreen interface on the face of a traditional computing environment. The fact that there are now businesses willing to downgrade you to Windows 7 (or even XP) is proof that Microsoft doesn't get the fact that tablets and laptop/desktops are two entirely different computing experiences and should be treated as such. Simply cramming bloated apps like Excel and Word into a tablet isn't going to cut it.
Sorry, but trying to justify amnesty for millions by pointing at 50,000 scientists and engineers is a ruse.
It's entirely possible that the costs of government regulation are at work here. Assuming that we're talking about physical product and not just an electronic download, there are all manner of import/export regulations that have to be complied with and fees that have to be paid. Granted, Photoshop isn't a controlled product (as far as we know), but take ITAR for example. Yeah, it's supposed to apply to "arms" but in reality every screw and bolt that goes into a controlled item is considered a controlled item even if you can go buy it at Home Depot. Just registering with ITAR costs $2500 a year. The paperwork to export is extensive. Companies have employees dedicated to compliance. They all have to get paid, get benefits, a 401(k), perhaps a pension. All of that costs rather a lot of money. And for what? Denied persons/countries will still find a way to get the stuff they want. So really, all this does is add bureaucrats AKA Ship B people.
It's a "Big Bang Theory" reference. "What does 'hit a reef' mean?" "Went splitsville." "Pardon?" "Turned to boom boom"
Tell George to wait! - George Carlin
As someone who grew up with an unusual name, I can tell you that stereotyping a person by name is not limited to race. In my experience, guys with names like Joe, Chris, and Jeff always seemed to have girlfriends and never had any trouble getting (or stealing) a new one when the current one turned to boom boom. On the other hand, guys with weird names rarely had girlfriends.
Hardly. Back in the 80s and early 90s, nobody ever heard of global warming. In fact, during the 70s, there was a lot of ginned up hand-wringing about another ice age.
That assumes that the paper is reporting everything. Not only is it physically impossible for papers to do so but editorial policy will emphasize one type of story and demphasize or completely ignore another. In addition, does this prediction system take into account the location and size of story? What shows up on page one above the fold in one paper (with one editorial viewpoint) may only appear several pages down in another and the number of words can also be vastly different. A paper could easily churn out a dozen followup stories to the original minor event in order to keep it fresh in their readers' minds. And then there's the tone of the writing. Does the algorithm attempt to evaluate tone for speculative or inflammatory language? People who pass themselves off as objective journalists notoriously pepper their writing with speculation knowing full well that their readers are likely to morph that into truth.
All of this said, perhaps there's indirect truth to the algorithm. Repeat a lie long enough and it becomes the truth. The media has long had the ability to create its own reality or at least they attempt to do so. Taking statements and events out of context or even blatant editing of audio transcripts can change a person's fate. The longer such actions go unchallenged, the more likely what really happened is dismissed.
The NYT? For only the last 20 years? That's worse that basing global warming predictions on just the last 20 years.
Okay, granted it's not (necessarily) the ATF or the FBI but if you want to comply with the ITAR and need to work with the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (the State Department), they do all of their electronic paperwork in...wait for it...Lotus. Apparently while the rest of the world uses Acrobat for electronic forms, IBM won the contract for that particular IT system. In addition, were the DDTC to decide to create a new form for something, several other branches of the government have to be involved and thus the process can take several years. By that time, administrations, their policies and priorities may change and all that effort could be thrown out. Government bureaucracies are as a rule inefficient.
I would pay money to have this camera rig on every KCAL 9 high speed chase video feed.
Star Trek made a lot of social statements over the years but there is one underlying fact that stands in our way of making such a world reality: the lack of the über power supply. Hell, even Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged had to create a free energy generator in order to make her version of utopia possible. Yet, today, our governments are packed with uninformed and misinformed Peter Principle people who think that simply by passing a law forcing people to use one form of energy over another, the science will simply step aside and allow it to happen. Of course, if we put on our conspiracy theory hats, consider how the world and society would change if free energy or at least a huge reduction in the cost of energy suddenly came to fruition. What are all the people who used to work in the fossil fuel or renewable energy industries going to do? And how would free energy affect nations whose entire wealth is dependent on the sale of energy? And would governments be able to control the citizenry when they don't have to pay for or ask permission to use energy?
I think such a system should be a required filter before any journalist can publish an article. This filtering system should also red flag words that imply speculation on the part of the author such as "might," "if," or "maybe." And to take that a step further, television news should also have a system that identifies when file footage has been inserted into a report for dramatic effect.
The so-called "global warming deniers" are to be scorned, ridiculed, and otherwise have their professional reputations destroyed by any means necessary but it's just fine and dandy to be skeptical of this study.
Maybe in the UK but definitely not here in the U.S. Maybe in a few cities in a few shopping centers but even then, could a camera clearly identify a pickpocket?
So let's review. Some Washington bureaucrat decided that it was okay for retailers to pass on the cost of taking credit cards on the grounds that the fee was "baked into the price". Even if that were true which you can't prove, what makes anyone think that merchants are going to lower the price now? They'll just cheerfully pocket the extra. Now consider this: what's going to happen when the consumer realizes they're getting shafted (again) for fees? Does anyone think that the consumer is going to walk around with cash all the time? Aside from the increased risk of getting mugged, people already don't want to do that when they get dinged at the ATM. And those fees will surely go up and become universal to offset the increased cost to handle physical money. I'd venture to say that the net effect will be that people will think twice about spending discretionary funds in general. What about purchase of durable goods e.g. a new frig that might cost several thousand dollars? Are people really going to be willing pay perhaps an extra $100 when they already have to spread the payments out over several months? And what about online bill pay for monthly bills? Is any consumer going to be willing to cough up yet another fee or will they be willing and able to remember to write a check and stick it in the mail every month? And then what if you can't find what you need to buy locally so you could pay with cash?What if you're a business that buys a lot of inventory via online distributors? Are they going to eat the extra 3%? Hell no, they're going to find a way to pass it on to their customers. Seems to me that this is going to slow down an already anemic economy when consumers, who can't pass on fees to anyone else, are already living paycheck to paycheck.
Ultimately, I find no provable good in this.
Here's my first question: Since when are assembly-line jobs considered middle class? IMHO, these are lower class jobs. If you take offense to that, A) tough noogies and B) what then ARE lower class jobs?
Second question: What makes anyone think that dismissing technological advances and replacement of menial tasks with machines in favor of simply preserving the paycheck of a human is a good idea? Machines don't demand benefits, a pension, and a pay raise every year. Do you really think the employers are going to simply take the extra costs up the a$$? Hell no. They will either pass the costs on to the customer thus resulting in inflation or they will go out of business.
I'm particularly interested in what will happen to the EFSA if their claims turn out to be bogus just after Monsanto is sued into oblivion. My guess is: nothing. That seems to be the modus operandi of any group that seeks to destroy something they disagree with. It has a "Rules for Radicals" ring to it. Destroy your opponent in the court of public opinion with the vulture media as willing accomplices. This is a very scary trend.
IMHO, this is a fish/bicycle argument. Maybe if you're in the business of music i.e. in a band, you need to know how to sing in order to reduce the chance of being replaced as the guitar player. However, in my long experience, middle managers who THINK they have programming knowledge simply make life exceedingly difficult for those of us who actually do the programming. The manager types simply want to feel like they have more control. They'll say "Oh, just change the font in this report so the marketing flakes will be happy" not realizing the hoops you have to jump through when placing form over function. That said, it follows that mangers of programming teams should be cultivated from the programming team and not from some newly minted MBA class.
I was just thinking that. How do we know they haven't modified the ARM design to include stuff like backdoor decryption or tracking capabilities?
Krugman: "I point to {insert example of successful capitalism I don't like} and I point to my Nobel Prize. That is all."
Rational people: *facepalm*
It doesn't matter. The union presence in the private sector has been fading for decades. However, the union presence in the public sector has been growing and it seems that they have found an ideal place because taxpayers are not customers and therefore have no freedom to choose a non-union product.
Bruce66423 is clearly "unrepentant" in his reporting by using the word "unrepentant" as though Schmidt has committed a crime. Just as with most socialists, he is wrong in thinking there is some moral law that supersedes actual law and that only socialists get to define what it is. Schmidt A) followed the law and B) met his obligation to the stockholders who foot the bill for Google to exist and expect to make something from taking the risk in investing and that most likely includes the socialists' precious pension funds.
All we need to do is invent a new fiat currency, convince the third world that it has value, and pay them in that. Problem solved.