While I don't doubt that there will be some add on jobs due to a multiplier, the incentives that are being paid for these data centers are ridiculous. A Business Week article (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/7_30/b4043066.htm) estimates that the state and county are paying $1 million (over 30 years) for each job created by the Google deal. That is just terrible planning. Furthermore, these data centers are end user facilities. Aside from the electricity, which won't produce a lot of jobs, there will probably be no local suppliers that pop up nearby, nor is it likely that any technological innovation will be developed here. While some incentives can be worthwhile, North Carolina wasted money on these.
A quarry or a mine might easily be older than 100 years, depending on your location. I'm guessing by the photo that you are somewhere in eastern North America and there were many mines of metals in locations where you would never have guessed by current landuse that there would be mines. For example, North Carolina was the biggest gold mining state until 1849.
Most people are familiar with what is called the Biological Species Concept, which defines species as a reproductively isolated group of organisms that can all interbreed among themselves and produce fertile offspring. This works pretty well for most animals, but terribly for plants and many animals. Plants that are quite different can interbreed frequently, but do not because they are isolated by things such as flowering time, pollinator species etc... Then you get into weird intransitivity issues such as: population A can breed with population B, population B can breed with population C, but A and C can't breed.
These issues mean that a species is not a very well defined thing anymore. There have been many attempts to unify what we understand about the biology of reproductive isolation and genetic differentiation into one species concept, but we are left with many different "species concepts". I can't remember them all, but many are based genetic differentiation. It becomes crazy because under some gene-based concepts you could be defined as a species for one gene analysis and not another.
There is a new idea which may have showed up on slashdot that is called the genetic bar code and those scientists believe that there is one (or just a few) genes where a specific amount of differentiation in this area will define a species. They predict that they can create a machine that you can just put tissue samples in and have a determination of what species it is within minutes. It is a controversial line of research, needless to say.
TFA article says that before the correction 1934 was the warmest year and after the correction it still was the warmest year. Regardless, the temperatures fall within the error estimate so statistically they are indistinguishable.
Once again, the data reanalysis changes none of the conclusions about climate history. "Skeptics" are still going to use small errors, or new evidence to attempt to overthrow a solid body of evidence. "Chicken Littles" are going to say we're all going to die. Neither help us really move forward and try to do something sensible and rational.
Stupid argument.
It should also be pointed out that many companies use patents as a measure of their innovative productivity. If you get a bunch of patents for stuff, even if you never enforce them, you can tell your investors that you create a gazillion patents and they will be happy.
Also, when it comes to comparing open source productivity versus proprietary it will be used. "Proprietary companies make X patents per year while the entire open source community make X/1000."
I agree with points 1 and 2, but Im guessing that the motion detection hardware is solid state, not mechanical, so that the wear and tear is of a different sort. You wont have springs popping out of your my device
It seems odd--the securityfocus article about the original prosecution suggests he was convicted of revealing a hole in the security system, while the MSNBC article says he was convicted for what appears to be a denial of service (causing a crash). It appears as thought the technical and speech issues are not really being discussed in the press
Odd, you quote two things which don't appear in the article. Neither "all IBM employees" nor "all the people in the United States" are in the original. The point you make about ensuring that you compare populations with similar traits is key, but we really can't tell from the article how the statistical analyses were done.
Slashdot Mirror
While I don't doubt that there will be some add on jobs due to a multiplier, the incentives that are being paid for these data centers are ridiculous. A Business Week article (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/7_30/b4043066.htm) estimates that the state and county are paying $1 million (over 30 years) for each job created by the Google deal. That is just terrible planning. Furthermore, these data centers are end user facilities. Aside from the electricity, which won't produce a lot of jobs, there will probably be no local suppliers that pop up nearby, nor is it likely that any technological innovation will be developed here. While some incentives can be worthwhile, North Carolina wasted money on these.
So how do 50 jobs bring a boom in housing? These data centers are a boon to Duke Energy and a minor improvement for the locale.
A quarry or a mine might easily be older than 100 years, depending on your location. I'm guessing by the photo that you are somewhere in eastern North America and there were many mines of metals in locations where you would never have guessed by current landuse that there would be mines. For example, North Carolina was the biggest gold mining state until 1849.
I thought the hole looked somewhat square. Is it possible that it is an old quarry/mine?
Most people are familiar with what is called the Biological Species Concept, which defines species as a reproductively isolated group of organisms that can all interbreed among themselves and produce fertile offspring. This works pretty well for most animals, but terribly for plants and many animals. Plants that are quite different can interbreed frequently, but do not because they are isolated by things such as flowering time, pollinator species etc... Then you get into weird intransitivity issues such as: population A can breed with population B, population B can breed with population C, but A and C can't breed. These issues mean that a species is not a very well defined thing anymore. There have been many attempts to unify what we understand about the biology of reproductive isolation and genetic differentiation into one species concept, but we are left with many different "species concepts". I can't remember them all, but many are based genetic differentiation. It becomes crazy because under some gene-based concepts you could be defined as a species for one gene analysis and not another. There is a new idea which may have showed up on slashdot that is called the genetic bar code and those scientists believe that there is one (or just a few) genes where a specific amount of differentiation in this area will define a species. They predict that they can create a machine that you can just put tissue samples in and have a determination of what species it is within minutes. It is a controversial line of research, needless to say.
TFA article says that before the correction 1934 was the warmest year and after the correction it still was the warmest year. Regardless, the temperatures fall within the error estimate so statistically they are indistinguishable. Once again, the data reanalysis changes none of the conclusions about climate history. "Skeptics" are still going to use small errors, or new evidence to attempt to overthrow a solid body of evidence. "Chicken Littles" are going to say we're all going to die. Neither help us really move forward and try to do something sensible and rational. Stupid argument.
Can you imagine Tom Jones singing this song. "Forkbomb!, Forkbomb! there's a forkbomb You can give it to me when I need to come along"
It should also be pointed out that many companies use patents as a measure of their innovative productivity. If you get a bunch of patents for stuff, even if you never enforce them, you can tell your investors that you create a gazillion patents and they will be happy. Also, when it comes to comparing open source productivity versus proprietary it will be used. "Proprietary companies make X patents per year while the entire open source community make X/1000."
I agree with points 1 and 2, but Im guessing that the motion detection hardware is solid state, not mechanical, so that the wear and tear is of a different sort. You wont have springs popping out of your my device
This journal does not say it is peer-reviewed. Hmm, with that many data sets and obscure methods, can we trust it?
It seems odd--the securityfocus article about the original prosecution suggests he was convicted of revealing a hole in the security system, while the MSNBC article says he was convicted for what appears to be a denial of service (causing a crash). It appears as thought the technical and speech issues are not really being discussed in the press
Odd, you quote two things which don't appear in the article. Neither "all IBM employees" nor "all the people in the United States" are in the original. The point you make about ensuring that you compare populations with similar traits is key, but we really can't tell from the article how the statistical analyses were done.