Well, for every Fox News story stating global warming is wrong because of cold weather, there's a couple of NBC/ABC/newspaper/etc stories which discuss heat waves and the like and say that they are evidence of global warming, and two or three politicians using it to justify some measure. It may not be what The Scientists with half a brain are saying, but it's out there.
The "dishonest and wholly inaccurate portrayal" angle cuts both ways.
Also, the numbers involved seem hilariously small to me. Ooh, wow, 50 people went to work for J Random Outsourcing firm. I care because.... why exactly? I'm sure you could fill a small office building with these people. Scary.
And even then, the real difference is probably going to be that most of them will be paying US income tax instead of Indian / Chinese income tax.
They might lose out on significant potential revenues if all the mobile Developers Developers Developers start coding for Android by default, instead of jumping through App Store hoops... either through apps, or by the phone becoming marginally less popular.
Not doom and gloom, sure, but less than ideal for Apple.
Well, the article-writing investigatory department and the advertising department and the IT department are all separate entities. I doubt that Emily Steel, Nick Wingfield and Julia Angwin (looking at some bylines here) have any real power to "police" the rest of the WSJ organization.
FWIW they did include their own site in the study's infographic, at least.
Also, isn't most end-user-level file-sharing a civil offense, not a criminal one? You can be sued by a bunch of jerks, but generally I don't think that criminal penalties are on the table unless... well, unless you're actually bringing professional-grade cameras into theatres and pressing DVDs and selling them for big bucks, or something at that level.
Of all the $6 billion investments in science the government could be making with our tax dollars, what makes you think that this one is particularly effective at making the economy a better place?
And, in general, if you look at all the $6 billion investments in ANYTHING that at large society would be making if the government hadn't allocated these funds to this project, is the telescope really going to generate a better rate of return? The stock market (where people invest money in the most fungible way possible) is expected to take a $6 billion investment and return $240 million a year + inflation. Can this telescope return that, plus its depreciation costs, plus whatever it takes to keep it going, by providing Science?
(I'd be interested in whether people think it can.)
For the price that you pay to build a whole city on the ocean, you could probably build the city on land, build the power generation stuff in the ocean, build a bunch of redundant transmission lines between the two, and still have tons of money left over to improve your lifestyle (and if you really want "green" stuff you could use to build extra windmills or switch to organic foods or whatever else). This really makes little sense.
The Wall Street Journal is generally fairly Republican-happy; it's a lot less free-to-view, though. The Drudge report is Republican-happy most of the time, but they're about this close --> <-- to being a tabloid. (Ever-so-convenient, though.) The media at large is not infrequently accused of being "liberal" Democrat-huggers, but some parts are more so than others (e.g. the New York Times.)
If you want a balanced view of the politics in America, you're not going to get it from just one news source, one way or another.
Re:metaprogramming FTW!
on
Land of Lisp
·
· Score: 0
Perhaps, but it could just speak to the fact that so many real world programmers suck, and probably can't even do a proper FizzBizz without straining themselves.
As with any other programming tool, there are times when it's useful, and times when it's not. A few lines of metaprogramming can save you thousands of acres of massively redundant code (and as I'm sure many of us know all too well, redundant code means redundant bugs. and redundant effort adding new features, for that matter.) Or you can twist it all into a hellish mess that would make Cthulu green with envy. It's up to the skill and discipline of the programmers.
Around these parts, though, we generally prefer having the code do the busy-work, not the (expensive) programmers.
it's simply impossible to argue with someone who claims that "taxation is theft."
Well, how about this then? Taxation is good for society if the tax money (plus any incidental losses) is spent more effectively than it would have been spent by the private sector. The private sector expects to earn about 4% real return in a year on their investments, on average (at least the upper echelon, who's paying most of the taxes anyway).
So the price tag is about $100 billion. Will the contributions the space station makes to Science and society at large be sufficient to provide a $4 billion/year real rate of return in perpetuity, give or take? Does it even come close? If not, it's a net loss to the economy and inhibits economic growth, and there's a bunch of people who'd like to talk to their politicians about that come Tuesday.
Did you look at the video? How can you possibly be under the impression that the ordering is alphabetical? Come on, gman003. You can do better than this.
What's the problem? Can't Facebook get attract good developers the regular way anymore? Hmm. Maybe all the smart ones know Zuckerberg is a jerk and the company culture is rendered uninhabitable by the swarms of junior-grade developers writing junior-grade PHP, and demand more money than they could negotiate this way.
You can't invest money in good teachers, though. The union contract demands that everyone get paid the same (based on seniority). And you can't fire any of the lousy teachers. Even if you have teachers who read the newspaper all day long while the kids shoot craps, and get it all on video tape..... they'll sue and you'll have to re-hire them with back pay. Ah, public schools.:)
(And I was hating on the teachers' unions before Waiting for Superman, so:b in advance)
That requires half-decent teachers, among other things, instead of teachers who just sit around reading the newspaper while they've assigned busy-work. And the latter is what a lot of kids have in this country (especially low-income inner-city kids). And they're tenured, so you can't get rid of them.
If suing Google after they collected the passwords you transmitted unencrypted over wireless networks is *really* your idea of "privacy" . . . you're going to be in a big surprise when someone less friendly than Google does the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
The TSA kills Americans.
The "dishonest and wholly inaccurate portrayal" angle cuts both ways.
.
.
.
(that was a joke, son. easy with the modpoints.)
And even then, the real difference is probably going to be that most of them will be paying US income tax instead of Indian / Chinese income tax.
Not doom and gloom, sure, but less than ideal for Apple.
FWIW they did include their own site in the study's infographic, at least.
Also, isn't most end-user-level file-sharing a civil offense, not a criminal one? You can be sued by a bunch of jerks, but generally I don't think that criminal penalties are on the table unless... well, unless you're actually bringing professional-grade cameras into theatres and pressing DVDs and selling them for big bucks, or something at that level.
Hey, flamebait? I work with Perl. I *like* Perl. But there are many ways to do things which suck. :b
Yeah. With Perl, remember: There's More Than One Way To Do It. And 80% of them suck. :b
And, in general, if you look at all the $6 billion investments in ANYTHING that at large society would be making if the government hadn't allocated these funds to this project, is the telescope really going to generate a better rate of return? The stock market (where people invest money in the most fungible way possible) is expected to take a $6 billion investment and return $240 million a year + inflation. Can this telescope return that, plus its depreciation costs, plus whatever it takes to keep it going, by providing Science?
(I'd be interested in whether people think it can.)
I read the headline and thought it was something else about Prop 19. :b
For the price that you pay to build a whole city on the ocean, you could probably build the city on land, build the power generation stuff in the ocean, build a bunch of redundant transmission lines between the two, and still have tons of money left over to improve your lifestyle (and if you really want "green" stuff you could use to build extra windmills or switch to organic foods or whatever else). This really makes little sense.
(mmm, this thread will make a mess :S)
The Wall Street Journal is generally fairly Republican-happy; it's a lot less free-to-view, though. The Drudge report is Republican-happy most of the time, but they're about this close --> <-- to being a tabloid. (Ever-so-convenient, though.) The media at large is not infrequently accused of being "liberal" Democrat-huggers, but some parts are more so than others (e.g. the New York Times.)
If you want a balanced view of the politics in America, you're not going to get it from just one news source, one way or another.
Perhaps, but it could just speak to the fact that so many real world programmers suck, and probably can't even do a proper FizzBizz without straining themselves.
As with any other programming tool, there are times when it's useful, and times when it's not. A few lines of metaprogramming can save you thousands of acres of massively redundant code (and as I'm sure many of us know all too well, redundant code means redundant bugs. and redundant effort adding new features, for that matter.) Or you can twist it all into a hellish mess that would make Cthulu green with envy. It's up to the skill and discipline of the programmers.
Around these parts, though, we generally prefer having the code do the busy-work, not the (expensive) programmers.
Just sayin'. Don't know about you, but we're doing it right over here.
Well, how about this then? Taxation is good for society if the tax money (plus any incidental losses) is spent more effectively than it would have been spent by the private sector. The private sector expects to earn about 4% real return in a year on their investments, on average (at least the upper echelon, who's paying most of the taxes anyway).
So the price tag is about $100 billion. Will the contributions the space station makes to Science and society at large be sufficient to provide a $4 billion/year real rate of return in perpetuity, give or take? Does it even come close? If not, it's a net loss to the economy and inhibits economic growth, and there's a bunch of people who'd like to talk to their politicians about that come Tuesday.
Maybe it is worth it. Heck if I know.
Did you look at the video? How can you possibly be under the impression that the ordering is alphabetical? Come on, gman003. You can do better than this.
The difference is that Google didn't show Android the bit bucket as soon as the company was acquired.
What's the problem? Can't Facebook get attract good developers the regular way anymore? Hmm. Maybe all the smart ones know Zuckerberg is a jerk and the company culture is rendered uninhabitable by the swarms of junior-grade developers writing junior-grade PHP, and demand more money than they could negotiate this way.
It was called APL. It never really caught on all that well.
Well, you can try counting atoms. But apparently that turns out to be a royal pain.
(And I was hating on the teachers' unions before Waiting for Superman, so :b in advance)
That requires half-decent teachers, among other things, instead of teachers who just sit around reading the newspaper while they've assigned busy-work. And the latter is what a lot of kids have in this country (especially low-income inner-city kids). And they're tenured, so you can't get rid of them.
If suing Google after they collected the passwords you transmitted unencrypted over wireless networks is *really* your idea of "privacy" . . . you're going to be in a big surprise when someone less friendly than Google does the same thing.