I'm not understanding the AC's problem. I didn't come here expecting a professional review. What I got was a very well-written piece that worked to incite my interest in an author I'd not heard of. Further, being free of spoilers, I found I finished reading without the 'meh,' feeling that results from watching Hollywood-style movie advertisements.
I'd be very happy to write this well. Sorry to blow sunshine up your arse, just telling it how I see it.
Hyperbole is not a very good debate tool. And calling an entire field of research 'bullshit' tends to make whatever valid logic or reason in your arguments get totally ignored.
Thanks for that, I wouldn't have imagined it possible with such a large company. I'm in NZ and here 13k employees is a gigantic quantity, our largest employer (as I understand it) has 18k on payroll. We still have our share of employment relations issues of course. I'm also surprised because telcos usually have a bad rep for employee (and customer) relations. Have you just happened across a great boss or is this attitude prevalent where you work?
Huh? how does that follow? You're talking like hosting game servers? "Great for games" doesn't mean hosted MMPG's or whatever, I don't even see how that's implied. Still, I'm on the consumer's side on this. I don't particularly feel love for Verizon when they advertise "unlimited" yet cut you off regardless. I've about had my fill of false advertisers and other liars.
I may well be wrong, but what I took from that was an illustration of the 'splitting hairs' component of an argument over what constitutes a server and what does not.
In the 1960's, they would have thought we would be living on Pluto by now and would have expected us to be on Mars by 1980.
They might well have been right about Mars too, if not for the anti-progress think-of-the-children movement that has effectively stalled nuclear development throughout the west.
Even sustainable base-load fusion might have been a reality today if we'd just had the will to keep the project funded. Yet it will never be properly funded because we'd obviously prefer to fight over fossil fuels (for all our lip-service to environmentalism). And for what reason? Because nuclear.
I don't know about you but I don't tend to conflate religious nonsense with the actual scientific method, which is what we're discussing. I also think that dismissing scientific opinion as 'groupthink' is less than wise given what science has managed to achieve in its time. Science demonstrably works. On the other hand, some of us are still waiting for Jesus, right?
I suggest you don't rely on scientific opinion if you are skeptical - go look at the results and judge for yourself. I think you'll find their collective confidence stems from the enormous breadth of peer-reviewed study across multiple disciplines that all point to the same conclusion.
I find it interesting that we only have direct measurements for about 60 years, but these folks are supremely confident that they know the CO2 level over the past 800,000+ years...
Mmm, yeah, can't think why. The evidence, perhaps?
Scientists are seldom 'supremely confident' but when they are, that alone should tell you something.
Is it really very likely that this fact escaped the scientists who chose the site?
Obtaining clear readings free from local influence would seem to be a rather important part of their work. Why wouldn't they have considered all possible factors when they come up with their shortlist of suitable locations?
Obviously Sakurafish86 is one of Jonathan Coulton's many sockpuppets.
It's like talking to an autistic six year-old except without that level of sophistication.
Here's a sure-fire way to avoid getting trolled, APK: stop behaving like an arsehole. Try it on for size. Even if it doesn't do what says on the tin, the rest of us will get some peace for a while.
Fuck off APK, take your off-topic stalking somewhere else. Nobody cares what you think JC did and you've been told plenty of times that we are sick of your sniveling.
Now, ~50 years later, a missile flies at Mach 5.1 for 6 minutes. That is a 50% increase in speed in ~50 years. This is hardly the tremendous breakthrough that is claimed.
What kind of comparison is that?
The technology behind the Blackbird topped out at about the speed you mention. The technology that has made this scramjet possible is just getting started at mach 5.1.
If that doesn't convince you, bear in mind that at this level even the difference between mach 5.0 and 5.1 is rather considerable, much like the difference in required engine power between 300kph and 350kph.
Before solving the "traveling salesman problem", these delivery services would first need to solve the "chicken and egg problem": Namely, it only works out (both economically and ecologically) if they have enough customers that they can serve more then one per trip... (and while they haven't enough yet, they'd be too expensive to get more...)
Investors solve the Chicken and Egg problem.
Specifically, investors who have a vision for the future and feel that you and your company are on a path leading to that future (or could be, with some guidance); they solve the Chicken and Egg problem.
It doesn't always take money to make money. But sometimes it does.
It's difficult enough to get through school without reading a novel like Dune that attempts to make you believe that it isn't worth trying.
Seriously, that's all you managed to take from Dune?
Besides, Herbert is merely depicting human machinations and scheming such as that which he saw in his time, such as that which we see in our times and such as that which we may expect to see 10,191 years after we've lost count.
And as someone who currently works only 3 days a week because it is so hard to find real, good full time jobs right now, working only 3 days a week gets boring as hell. I would rather work 5 days than 3. By the 3rd day off I am bored out of my mind.
I'm fascinated by this. I'm a pretty glass-is-half-empty kind of person (sorry about that) but I couldn't imagine being able to do a hundredth of the things I'd want to do if I am to spend the rest of my life working. I'm only talking tinkering with stuff on a normal living wage, nothing that requires a million bucks.
I could spend the first four days of every week just lurking Wikipedia, even though it's been in my bookmarks since not long after it started.
The world is utterly enthralling and deeply fascinating.
Try to fly that by all the breeders out there who think its their right to have multiple children and see how far you get. As long as we keep breeding like we do, we have no choice but to find new territory.
Yeah, our population level is just nuts right now and as you say, everyone is endowed with the god-given right to sprog another human being or three into the world. It's no wonder we're over seven billion with such a self-defeating mindset.
Yet the problem is not insurmountable. Well-known effects such as the natural slowing of population growth that comes with decreased infant mortality can be used to good effect. If we want a stable population throughout the world we need to take the same approach to clean water and modern health services that we employed to deal with the disease epidemics. In 2013 it seems a reasonable ideal to believe (for example) that everyone everywhere deserves inexpensive access to fresh drinking water. That would be a significant investment in Humanity that I believe would eventually deliver incalculable returns.
Why are you still typing when you could be jumping off a cliff and improving the world just a bit?
Because that's not his argument and you know it. He's not advocating killing anyone to improve the world.
I agree with Mike Frett, we're not doing enough to matter. The solution is to re-double our efforts, modify our strategies, learn from our mistakes - not to encourage people to commit suicide if they fail to toe the party line.
Then explain the existence of farms. You have it backwards - we're one of very few species that doesn't do that.
It might seem that way at a local level but actually our farming efforts don't help your point much in the bigger picture.
During our hunter-gatherer period and before human population levels swelled, the land was a very diverse mixture of forest, scrub, plains, marsh, etc. As our agricultural activities increased we gradually began to change the landscape to suit our needs, squandering a great deal of valuable topsoil with our techniques and leading to much greater population growth in the short term.
In doing so we've essentially homogenised large areas of our planet and created a bunch of problems for ourselves and our fellow species. Worse, we're dependent upon fossil fuels to maintain our crop yields. I feel that collectively our farming and other activities are very much the viral behaviour the GP describes.
I know where all you are comming from, but that's what life does, all of it. The idea that it's something restricted to virus and people is a romantic illuded idea.
I think the problem is that Humanity is a bit proud, patting itself on its back for all its intelligence and clever gadgetry, but still appears to be lacking the basic intelligence needed to preserve itself from (an almost certain) population correction and maybe even extinction.
We might not expect much from a virus, but we're supposed to be somewhat further evolved. The way we've handled the AGW issue demonstrates our collective lack of intelligence; we can't seem to put aside individual and tribal self-interest even when we're all threatened.
You're an asshole, (rant, rant) Fuck you, and fuck your shit, asshole (rant, rant)
I've never understood why those who just don't get it - the ones to whom life is one big "whooosh" - are always the loudest and angriest. What is it about stupid that encourages such boldness?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not understanding the AC's problem. I didn't come here expecting a professional review. What I got was a very well-written piece that worked to incite my interest in an author I'd not heard of. Further, being free of spoilers, I found I finished reading without the 'meh,' feeling that results from watching Hollywood-style movie advertisements.
I'd be very happy to write this well. Sorry to blow sunshine up your arse, just telling it how I see it.
I think rather than a cracknerd we've found the latest incarnation of the kristopeit bot. Hooray.
Hyperbole is not a very good debate tool. And calling an entire field of research 'bullshit' tends to make whatever valid logic or reason in your arguments get totally ignored.
Oh hell, I thought those were the *rules* here!
Thanks for that, I wouldn't have imagined it possible with such a large company. I'm in NZ and here 13k employees is a gigantic quantity, our largest employer (as I understand it) has 18k on payroll. We still have our share of employment relations issues of course. I'm also surprised because telcos usually have a bad rep for employee (and customer) relations. Have you just happened across a great boss or is this attitude prevalent where you work?
Huh? how does that follow? You're talking like hosting game servers? "Great for games" doesn't mean hosted MMPG's or whatever, I don't even see how that's implied. Still, I'm on the consumer's side on this. I don't particularly feel love for Verizon when they advertise "unlimited" yet cut you off regardless. I've about had my fill of false advertisers and other liars.
I may well be wrong, but what I took from that was an illustration of the 'splitting hairs' component of an argument over what constitutes a server and what does not.
In the 1960's, they would have thought we would be living on Pluto by now and would have expected us to be on Mars by 1980.
They might well have been right about Mars too, if not for the anti-progress think-of-the-children movement that has effectively stalled nuclear development throughout the west.
Even sustainable base-load fusion might have been a reality today if we'd just had the will to keep the project funded. Yet it will never be properly funded because we'd obviously prefer to fight over fossil fuels (for all our lip-service to environmentalism). And for what reason? Because nuclear.
I don't know about you but I don't tend to conflate religious nonsense with the actual scientific method, which is what we're discussing. I also think that dismissing scientific opinion as 'groupthink' is less than wise given what science has managed to achieve in its time. Science demonstrably works. On the other hand, some of us are still waiting for Jesus, right?
I suggest you don't rely on scientific opinion if you are skeptical - go look at the results and judge for yourself. I think you'll find their collective confidence stems from the enormous breadth of peer-reviewed study across multiple disciplines that all point to the same conclusion.
I find it interesting that we only have direct measurements for about 60 years, but these folks are supremely confident that they know the CO2 level over the past 800,000+ years...
Mmm, yeah, can't think why. The evidence, perhaps?
Scientists are seldom 'supremely confident' but when they are, that alone should tell you something.
Is it really very likely that this fact escaped the scientists who chose the site?
Obtaining clear readings free from local influence would seem to be a rather important part of their work. Why wouldn't they have considered all possible factors when they come up with their shortlist of suitable locations?
Obviously Sakurafish86 is one of Jonathan Coulton's many sockpuppets.
It's like talking to an autistic six year-old except without that level of sophistication.
Here's a sure-fire way to avoid getting trolled, APK: stop behaving like an arsehole. Try it on for size. Even if it doesn't do what says on the tin, the rest of us will get some peace for a while.
Fuck off APK, take your off-topic stalking somewhere else. Nobody cares what you think JC did and you've been told plenty of times that we are sick of your sniveling.
Post something on-topic or go away.
Now, ~50 years later, a missile flies at Mach 5.1 for 6 minutes. That is a 50% increase in speed in ~50 years. This is hardly the tremendous breakthrough that is claimed.
What kind of comparison is that?
The technology behind the Blackbird topped out at about the speed you mention. The technology that has made this scramjet possible is just getting started at mach 5.1.
If that doesn't convince you, bear in mind that at this level even the difference between mach 5.0 and 5.1 is rather considerable, much like the difference in required engine power between 300kph and 350kph.
BWAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAA
Any sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from awesomity.
The issues with the US education system do not appear to be the result of insufficient funding.
Not because the technology is not there, but simply because we are greedy selfish assholes.
An honest opinion I agree wholeheartedly with and kudos for having the guts to say it here.
Too much politics and when there is too much politics the end result is always that nothing gets done.
Nothing gets done, but massive amounts of money changes hands in a watered-down form of corruption. As you say, greedy selfish assholes.
Maybe a little meta-analysis is in order; this behaviour stands in the way of anything we want to achieve as a species and costs us precious time.
So, have fun, but don't leave any offsprings to clean your shit.
"Take some personal responsibility" I agree, I may not be able to correct our busted system but I'm not about to contribute to the problem.
Before solving the "traveling salesman problem", these delivery services would first need to solve the "chicken and egg problem": Namely, it only works out (both economically and ecologically) if they have enough customers that they can serve more then one per trip... (and while they haven't enough yet, they'd be too expensive to get more...)
Investors solve the Chicken and Egg problem.
Specifically, investors who have a vision for the future and feel that you and your company are on a path leading to that future (or could be, with some guidance); they solve the Chicken and Egg problem.
It doesn't always take money to make money. But sometimes it does.
It's difficult enough to get through school without reading a novel like Dune that attempts to make you believe that it isn't worth trying.
Seriously, that's all you managed to take from Dune?
Besides, Herbert is merely depicting human machinations and scheming such as that which he saw in his time, such as that which we see in our times and such as that which we may expect to see 10,191 years after we've lost count.
And as someone who currently works only 3 days a week because it is so hard to find real, good full time jobs right now, working only 3 days a week gets boring as hell. I would rather work 5 days than 3. By the 3rd day off I am bored out of my mind.
I'm fascinated by this. I'm a pretty glass-is-half-empty kind of person (sorry about that) but I couldn't imagine being able to do a hundredth of the things I'd want to do if I am to spend the rest of my life working. I'm only talking tinkering with stuff on a normal living wage, nothing that requires a million bucks.
I could spend the first four days of every week just lurking Wikipedia, even though it's been in my bookmarks since not long after it started.
The world is utterly enthralling and deeply fascinating.
Try to fly that by all the breeders out there who think its their right to have multiple children and see how far you get. As long as we keep breeding like we do, we have no choice but to find new territory.
Yeah, our population level is just nuts right now and as you say, everyone is endowed with the god-given right to sprog another human being or three into the world. It's no wonder we're over seven billion with such a self-defeating mindset.
Yet the problem is not insurmountable. Well-known effects such as the natural slowing of population growth that comes with decreased infant mortality can be used to good effect. If we want a stable population throughout the world we need to take the same approach to clean water and modern health services that we employed to deal with the disease epidemics. In 2013 it seems a reasonable ideal to believe (for example) that everyone everywhere deserves inexpensive access to fresh drinking water. That would be a significant investment in Humanity that I believe would eventually deliver incalculable returns.
Why are you still typing when you could be jumping off a cliff and improving the world just a bit?
Because that's not his argument and you know it. He's not advocating killing anyone to improve the world.
I agree with Mike Frett, we're not doing enough to matter. The solution is to re-double our efforts, modify our strategies, learn from our mistakes - not to encourage people to commit suicide if they fail to toe the party line.
Then explain the existence of farms. You have it backwards - we're one of very few species that doesn't do that.
It might seem that way at a local level but actually our farming efforts don't help your point much in the bigger picture.
During our hunter-gatherer period and before human population levels swelled, the land was a very diverse mixture of forest, scrub, plains, marsh, etc. As our agricultural activities increased we gradually began to change the landscape to suit our needs, squandering a great deal of valuable topsoil with our techniques and leading to much greater population growth in the short term.
In doing so we've essentially homogenised large areas of our planet and created a bunch of problems for ourselves and our fellow species. Worse, we're dependent upon fossil fuels to maintain our crop yields. I feel that collectively our farming and other activities are very much the viral behaviour the GP describes.
I know where all you are comming from, but that's what life does, all of it. The idea that it's something restricted to virus and people is a romantic illuded idea.
I think the problem is that Humanity is a bit proud, patting itself on its back for all its intelligence and clever gadgetry, but still appears to be lacking the basic intelligence needed to preserve itself from (an almost certain) population correction and maybe even extinction.
We might not expect much from a virus, but we're supposed to be somewhat further evolved. The way we've handled the AGW issue demonstrates our collective lack of intelligence; we can't seem to put aside individual and tribal self-interest even when we're all threatened.
You're an asshole, (rant, rant) Fuck you, and fuck your shit, asshole (rant, rant)
I've never understood why those who just don't get it - the ones to whom life is one big "whooosh" - are always the loudest and angriest. What is it about stupid that encourages such boldness?
Not defending the previous poster, but "This" is totally overused. Overused enough that it makes the person using it illiterate.
Not illiterate, lazy. When followed by actual content I've found some of the best posts I've read on Slashdot.
Used alone it's just lame.