Krugman changed after bush got elected, and he's now suffering from bush derangement syndrome. He's no longer nearly as reasonable as he once was.
From the wikipedia article you apparently read:
"A November 13, 2003 article in The Economist [2] reads: "A glance through his past columns reveals a growing tendency to attribute all the world's ills to George Bush...Even his economics is sometimes stretched...Overall, the effect is to give lay readers the illusion that Mr Krugman's perfectly respectable personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory."
"Blogger Ken Waight uses a data analysis methodology at his Lying in Ponds website that ranks Krugman among the most partisan columnists."
I've got a bachelor's in physics, and although that doesn't make me a climate scientist, i think it at least qualifies me to evaluate scientific arguments on the basis of merit. . I've never read any of these papers, because I don't have the time to make myself an expert on another field. I consider myself a climate change agnostic - I have no idea whether or not it's happening.
When I hear "oh noes we are all going to die unless we stop global climate change," however, I am very skeptical. My mind puts such arguments in the same bin as the overpopulation fears of the 70's. I'll take Julian Simon over Paul Ehrlich any day. The fact that scientists who disagree are called "deniers" and "shills of industry" pushes me further away from seriously considering global warming as a possible threat, because ad hominem attacks are not science. I've read enough stories like this one, written by a candian newspaper, to at least consider myself extremely skeptical of claims that the earth is getting warmer, humans are to blame, and that drastic changes are necessasry.
That said, I know all too well that people can make terrible arguments in support of true statements. Therefore, Until I read a series of papers about global climate change, papers that publish all of their source data, algorithms used in simulations, justifications for the use of those algorithms, and statistical analysis by qualified statisticians, I will refrain from forming a solid opinion one way or the other. Of course, the chances of that happening are exactly zero, because I don't have time to spend doing something like that. So I'll remain skeptical.
Saying "we will not debate this" accomplishes nothing. All science is up for debate. If the science is solid, it will withstand all criticisms, no matter how ludicrous.
In my experience, AI is just people doing theory work in a sloppy manner. They take problems which are known to be NP complete and provide what are little more than brute force "solutions." I'm sorry, but that's not intelligence and it's really self-inflation to call your research "AI."
People who voted for democrats thinking liberty would be restored should take notice. Only Libertarians truly stand for constitutionally protected freedoms!
If you take a look at DRM from the point of cryptography, you begin to see how silly it really is. Normally in cryptography, alice wishes to send a message to bob, and neither alice nor bob wishes eve to be able to read the contents of the message. This is NOT easy to do, but it's possible if you design your system well enough.
The 'DRM' problem is as follows: Alice wishes to send a Message To Bob, without Eve seeing the Message. Bob however, would like to show Eve the message. In this case, Alice is a Media Producer, Bob is a Media Consumer, and Eve is a would-be pirate. You can't even begin to argue how any system could be provably secure. All current DRM systems are based upon security by obscurity, which cryptographers have known for years doesn't work.
The legal system must accurately reflect the portions of reality which it is intended to govern. The concept of a functional DRM system is becoming more and more an imaginary thing.
I agree that the real bad guy is the chinese government. I find your equation of action and inaction to be interesting; I hadn't really considered that.
Hmm.
Schmidt and Brin both fly around in a personal Jet which uses an absurd amount of fuel. They've justified this by saying that they encourage their employees to buy hybrid cars, and so on the whole they're making a net decrease in fuel consumption. They make the same kind of argument with respect to their dealings China hear - "On the whole, we're doing more to benefit the chinese people than by just leaving them with the crappy system that was in place."
The problem with google's line of ethical reasoning has to do with their predictive capabilities. How in hell do you evaluate which is better? The only widely recognized framework whereby decisions as to what is best for a large number of people can be made is a democratic election/governmental process. By entering the chinese market and agreeing to help the chinese government hide its hideous record, google is saying that they know what's best for the chinese people. Anyone who gets pissed off about right-wingers forcing their religion down other people's throats ought to be equally mad about this, becuase it's the same situation - one group of people deciding they know what's best for others.
The raitings are always subject to change with respect to online content, so the game's rating really is irrelevant; otherwise every game that you could play online would have to include 'fowl language and sex' on the list of things its content included, since if you spend any reasonable amount of time playing video games on line, those things will certainly occur.
My connection is that anyone who believes in 'Intelligent Design' or 'Creationism' is considered an idiot and mocked for stupidity (Flying spaghetti monster) whereas people who said things like "In 1980 there will be massive riots due to starvation" and who continue to make such claims are still given the time of day.
People have been predicting the end of the world due to environment destruction for years. What gets me is that most 'intellectuals' will scoff at christians but listen seriously to these people.
If the energy they're taking is but a tiny, tiny fraction of the thermal energy availible in the ocean (which i think is most likely the case) then it won't be an issue.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how preventing companies from charging money for providing better service is 'allowing competition to exist.'
If that's so, ask the question 'is this science valid,' not 'is this a stereotype?'
Can't we do science without worrying about whether we're hurting someone's feelings? This is just getting ridiculous.
Krugman changed after bush got elected, and he's now suffering from bush derangement syndrome. He's no longer nearly as reasonable as he once was.
From the wikipedia article you apparently read:
"A November 13, 2003 article in The Economist [2] reads: "A glance through his past columns reveals a growing tendency to attribute all the world's ills to George Bush...Even his economics is sometimes stretched...Overall, the effect is to give lay readers the illusion that Mr Krugman's perfectly respectable personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory."
"Blogger Ken Waight uses a data analysis methodology at his Lying in Ponds website that ranks Krugman among the most partisan columnists."
I've got a bachelor's in physics, and although that doesn't make me a climate scientist, i think it at least qualifies me to evaluate scientific arguments on the basis of merit. . I've never read any of these papers, because I don't have the time to make myself an expert on another field. I consider myself a climate change agnostic - I have no idea whether or not it's happening.
When I hear "oh noes we are all going to die unless we stop global climate change," however, I am very skeptical. My mind puts such arguments in the same bin as the overpopulation fears of the 70's. I'll take Julian Simon over Paul Ehrlich any day. The fact that scientists who disagree are called "deniers" and "shills of industry" pushes me further away from seriously considering global warming as a possible threat, because ad hominem attacks are not science. I've read enough stories like this one, written by a candian newspaper, to at least consider myself extremely skeptical of claims that the earth is getting warmer, humans are to blame, and that drastic changes are necessasry.
That said, I know all too well that people can make terrible arguments in support of true statements. Therefore, Until I read a series of papers about global climate change, papers that publish all of their source data, algorithms used in simulations, justifications for the use of those algorithms, and statistical analysis by qualified statisticians, I will refrain from forming a solid opinion one way or the other. Of course, the chances of that happening are exactly zero, because I don't have time to spend doing something like that. So I'll remain skeptical.
Is she single? because that is hot.
Saying "we will not debate this" accomplishes nothing. All science is up for debate. If the science is solid, it will withstand all criticisms, no matter how ludicrous.
In my experience, AI is just people doing theory work in a sloppy manner. They take problems which are known to be NP complete and provide what are little more than brute force "solutions." I'm sorry, but that's not intelligence and it's really self-inflation to call your research "AI."
I respect you, sir. I really, like the attidue you've got, and I hope to obtain your wisdom eventually.
If they tried it and didn't like it, why push it on them? People don't like being told what to do.
People who voted for democrats thinking liberty would be restored should take notice. Only Libertarians truly stand for constitutionally protected freedoms!
If you take a look at DRM from the point of cryptography, you begin to see how silly it really is. Normally in cryptography, alice wishes to send a message to bob, and neither alice nor bob wishes eve to be able to read the contents of the message. This is NOT easy to do, but it's possible if you design your system well enough.
The 'DRM' problem is as follows: Alice wishes to send a Message To Bob, without Eve seeing the Message. Bob however, would like to show Eve the message. In this case, Alice is a Media Producer, Bob is a Media Consumer, and Eve is a would-be pirate. You can't even begin to argue how any system could be provably secure. All current DRM systems are based upon security by obscurity, which cryptographers have known for years doesn't work.
The legal system must accurately reflect the portions of reality which it is intended to govern. The concept of a functional DRM system is becoming more and more an imaginary thing.
Half-Life 2 decays twice as fast as half-life 1!
'leveraging'
*tears out own hair and screams*
PLEASE stop using that word. It's not right.
Non-Compete clauses are typical in plenty of industries. This is just a bunch of posturing by those jackasses over at EA. Screw them.
I agree that the real bad guy is the chinese government. I find your equation of action and inaction to be interesting; I hadn't really considered that. Hmm.
Schmidt and Brin both fly around in a personal Jet which uses an absurd amount of fuel. They've justified this by saying that they encourage their employees to buy hybrid cars, and so on the whole they're making a net decrease in fuel consumption. They make the same kind of argument with respect to their dealings China hear - "On the whole, we're doing more to benefit the chinese people than by just leaving them with the crappy system that was in place."
The problem with google's line of ethical reasoning has to do with their predictive capabilities. How in hell do you evaluate which is better? The only widely recognized framework whereby decisions as to what is best for a large number of people can be made is a democratic election/governmental process. By entering the chinese market and agreeing to help the chinese government hide its hideous record, google is saying that they know what's best for the chinese people. Anyone who gets pissed off about right-wingers forcing their religion down other people's throats ought to be equally mad about this, becuase it's the same situation - one group of people deciding they know what's best for others.
The raitings are always subject to change with respect to online content, so the game's rating really is irrelevant; otherwise every game that you could play online would have to include 'fowl language and sex' on the list of things its content included, since if you spend any reasonable amount of time playing video games on line, those things will certainly occur.
I've heard this tune before.
My connection is that anyone who believes in 'Intelligent Design' or 'Creationism' is considered an idiot and mocked for stupidity (Flying spaghetti monster) whereas people who said things like "In 1980 there will be massive riots due to starvation" and who continue to make such claims are still given the time of day.
People have been predicting the end of the world due to environment destruction for years. What gets me is that most 'intellectuals' will scoff at christians but listen seriously to these people.
All they've got to do is use a transformer to step the power up!
Even I knew that.
If the energy they're taking is but a tiny, tiny fraction of the thermal energy availible in the ocean (which i think is most likely the case) then it won't be an issue.
Nuclear power doesn't derive its energy from the sun.