That's the the original story, not that the story is necessarily anything more than a nice fable dressed up with a real historical figure. The hubris version is much more modern.
If only there was some way to ensure that the guns contained a large, metal object that would show up on an x-ray. You could make such an object out of a dense metal like lead to ensure that it showed up.
The obvious answer is that Primesense knew that they were worth more money as a free agent than MS could offer them to work exclusively (they've been licencing the same reference design out to other companies since Kinect came out). I guess Apple wrote a bigger check.
For what it's worth, I've read that Kinect 2 is enough of an in-house MS Research project that Primesense were not involved.
I don't think you can really call the long steady states of the Renaissance or the Enlightenment "bare survival", or claim that hotspots of social change like the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa are "thriving". Progress is restrained in resource-constrained societies, which is what you get during periods of major social upheaval.
If we're going to have social upheaval, I think it should be on our terms, for our reasons, and not the atmosphere's.
Unfortunately some parties are still too interested in debating whether warming is happening at all, to let that conversation happen in the public sphere. Policy and science is really interested in it. You can't got into an energy conference without running into a discussion of Brazil's biogas infrastructure or whether the environmental impact of solar H2 is actually any better than just using syngas.
You'd be amazed at how many politicians (and I'm thinking of politicians specifically here) take the lack of certainty in the outcome of an event as a justification for doing whatever sounds really good to them at that particular moment in time.
I was referring to climate science and the atmosphere. Naturally there are other couplings (e.g. the sun's spectrum is advantageous to the growth of plant life) but they're very low-order and very stable versus solar energy output.
I don't think you can blame the environmental movement for rampant and anti-environmental profiteering by agribusinesses realising that biofuel crops can be a huge money-spinner. I mean literally that very article has environmentalist groups arguing against it.
In science, as opposed to the press, a method's limitations are basically the first thing you hear after the method is described. When that qualification is absent, it's the first thing the audience asks about. In this context look at how much of the IPCC reports or the BEST study are concerned with testing method sensitivity.
The point is that the fine structure of the sun's activity isn't a "hugely interrelated complex system" as far as the Earth is concerned: it's a point source of heat and light. The sun and the Earth are internally complex systems, but they're simply coupled.
I don't think it's the position, but the trend, that he's complaining about when he says "where we are right now". This is a fine state to be in, but it's evidently not a steady state.
Yes, research that disproves what the other guy said has never made anyone's career or been a competitive avenue for funding. Cranking out exactly the same study as everyone else is a surefire way to academic stardom and a thriving grant portfolio.
I don't think that the aesthetics of the environmentalism movement should be the main driver of people's decisions with regard to the environment, any more than the aesthetics of libertarianism should decide what people do about their civil liberties.
The point is that when the reality is unknown, you make your decisions on the best available evidence - the consensus. You don't grab on to whatever contrafactual theory you prefer and hope that history vindicates you by dumb luck. The man who bets his savings on a million-to-one shot is a moron whether the horse wins or not.
It was actually a toss-up at the time (in science, not public opinion) as to whether warming or cooling would dominate climate in the next few decades. Not, as a survey of the popular press would have you believe, a slam-dunk for cooling.
Wouldn't postmodernist scientists operate under the assumption that their model was an incomplete description, largely driven by their cultural and social norms as opposed to an underlying reality?
At this distance the fine detail of the sun's internal operation can be approximated out, in the same way that you don't need to understand nuclear structure to have a good grasp on how human respiration works.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the the original story, not that the story is necessarily anything more than a nice fable dressed up with a real historical figure. The hubris version is much more modern.
You mean, as soon as the gun is detected, it no longer falls under the "undetectable gun" rule? That is indeed a conundrum.
If only there was some way to ensure that the guns contained a large, metal object that would show up on an x-ray. You could make such an object out of a dense metal like lead to ensure that it showed up.
They're a hardware company.
The obvious answer is that Primesense knew that they were worth more money as a free agent than MS could offer them to work exclusively (they've been licencing the same reference design out to other companies since Kinect came out). I guess Apple wrote a bigger check.
For what it's worth, I've read that Kinect 2 is enough of an in-house MS Research project that Primesense were not involved.
Yes, it's not like this specific company will have signed extensive patent licencing agreements with Microsoft or anything.
Concensus is not determined by the popular vote.
I don't think you can really call the long steady states of the Renaissance or the Enlightenment "bare survival", or claim that hotspots of social change like the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa are "thriving". Progress is restrained in resource-constrained societies, which is what you get during periods of major social upheaval.
If we're going to have social upheaval, I think it should be on our terms, for our reasons, and not the atmosphere's.
Unfortunately some parties are still too interested in debating whether warming is happening at all, to let that conversation happen in the public sphere. Policy and science is really interested in it. You can't got into an energy conference without running into a discussion of Brazil's biogas infrastructure or whether the environmental impact of solar H2 is actually any better than just using syngas.
You'd be amazed at how many politicians (and I'm thinking of politicians specifically here) take the lack of certainty in the outcome of an event as a justification for doing whatever sounds really good to them at that particular moment in time.
I was referring to climate science and the atmosphere. Naturally there are other couplings (e.g. the sun's spectrum is advantageous to the growth of plant life) but they're very low-order and very stable versus solar energy output.
I didn't realise that the bare survival of the human race was what passed for an acceptable vision of the future these days.
I don't think you can blame the environmental movement for rampant and anti-environmental profiteering by agribusinesses realising that biofuel crops can be a huge money-spinner. I mean literally that very article has environmentalist groups arguing against it.
In science, as opposed to the press, a method's limitations are basically the first thing you hear after the method is described. When that qualification is absent, it's the first thing the audience asks about. In this context look at how much of the IPCC reports or the BEST study are concerned with testing method sensitivity.
The incompleteness of its own knowledge must be one of the subjects a wise consensus addresses, yes.
The point is that the fine structure of the sun's activity isn't a "hugely interrelated complex system" as far as the Earth is concerned: it's a point source of heat and light. The sun and the Earth are internally complex systems, but they're simply coupled.
I don't think it's the position, but the trend, that he's complaining about when he says "where we are right now". This is a fine state to be in, but it's evidently not a steady state.
Yes, research that disproves what the other guy said has never made anyone's career or been a competitive avenue for funding. Cranking out exactly the same study as everyone else is a surefire way to academic stardom and a thriving grant portfolio.
I don't think that the aesthetics of the environmentalism movement should be the main driver of people's decisions with regard to the environment, any more than the aesthetics of libertarianism should decide what people do about their civil liberties.
The point is that when the reality is unknown, you make your decisions on the best available evidence - the consensus. You don't grab on to whatever contrafactual theory you prefer and hope that history vindicates you by dumb luck. The man who bets his savings on a million-to-one shot is a moron whether the horse wins or not.
It was actually a toss-up at the time (in science, not public opinion) as to whether warming or cooling would dominate climate in the next few decades. Not, as a survey of the popular press would have you believe, a slam-dunk for cooling.
Danny Boyle already made that movie.
Wouldn't postmodernist scientists operate under the assumption that their model was an incomplete description, largely driven by their cultural and social norms as opposed to an underlying reality?
We're in an interglacial, which I would've thought was my obvious meaning from the context.
At this distance the fine detail of the sun's internal operation can be approximated out, in the same way that you don't need to understand nuclear structure to have a good grasp on how human respiration works.