Yeah, sure. I was aware. I was pointing out that he was not "burned alive", and like Hitler, was not excommunicated. The NYTimes article does imply that being burned at the stake was one possible outcome, but does not mention excommunication at all.
After all, they did ex-communicate Galileo for suggesting the earth revolved around the sun. Burned him alive in fact..
Galileo died in Arcetri, near Florence, Italy, on January 8, 1642, after suffering from a fever and heart palpitations. I don't believe he was excommunicated, though he was placed under house arrest.
If the test is an accurate assessment of future job performance, creating an easier test invalidates its predictive ability.
Two items to check: "IS the test an accurate assessment of future job performance?" and "IS the easier test less predictive?" They both seem like reasonable assumptions, but the world is full of cases where the common sense idea is inaccurate.
I'm going to point out because you might not know it, but the brain behind those ideas is the same one who pushed Trudeau's carbon tax. The same on that nearly every province in Canada told the government to "fuck and you" over.
By "nearly every province" did you mean Ontario and Saskatchewan? As I recall they are the only two to launch lawsuits. Two out of eight isn't really "nearly every". I suppose New Brunswick and Manitoba aren't in favour either, so that's four out of eight - not really "nearly every".
It does seem as thought the majority of Canadians individually support a price on C02 emissions, including a majority of people in Ontario, regardless of the provincial support. - https://ipolitics.ca/2018/11/0...
Well that is just great for everyone who started buying digital music after 2009. What about us old fogies?
At some point there was an option available to "upgrade" previously DRMed music to tracks without DRM, I think for an extra fee. One can also do some tricks with "iTunes match" to get higher bitrate, non-DRM versions of music from Apple. However, this only works for music that is in Apple's current catalogue - I think if your have DRM versions of music that Apple no longer sells, you can still re-download it, but it is still the old DRMed file.
You know that the it's pretty much the definition of what the SCOTUS does to make stuff up as they go? If Congress would pass better laws then SCOTUS would have less to do.
I was going to say something similar. In the constitutional system we have, SCOTUS's job is to interpret the constitution. If the words in the constitution say "this thing is black" and the SCOTUS says "that means that that thing is white", then by the rules we are playing under, that thing is white.
It is not possible to have a system governed by written rules without having some way to decide what those rules mean. I don't know that the US system is the best way to do so, but I don't know of any that is demonstratively better.
You'll have to show me which movies had the lead actor saying, "I want to hear from fewer (insert racial or gendered group of choice)".
Good point - it is hard to get exact parallels. I suppose anti-semetic rants aren't quite the same thing. I guess Mel Gibson did not actually say he didn't want to hear from Jews for example.
I still find it hard to image that more than 40,000 individuals were so incensed that they actually went out of their way to post a rating. It seems much more likely that a few hundred outraged "fans" took the time make multiple posts.
So I guess movies with controversial actors often get on order of forty four thousand ratings before their release?
Probably depends on what those actors say. Also, more people are being careful what they say so as not to enrage the PC mob.
Funny, that doesn't seem to be the case. Or is it just when white males get offended? Is that demographic particularly sensitive?
Try that sentence again but replace it with any other group. All this says to me is your opinion means nothing, based on bigoted logic.
I haven't dug into the rottentomato numbers, but you seem to be into it, so clearly you can show me a few other similar large response when "any other group" is offended similarly.
Gifting shares of stock to another just transfers the cap gains over to them, and reduces one's lifetime gift exemption.
Paying someone with stock is likely viewed as selling them the stock, and thus would trigger the cap gains being realized. Selling it for less than its market value would reduce those gains, but of course would reduce the amount of money you get for it even more.
Donating stocks does give you a charitable deduction, and avoid the cap gains on that stock, but you are still poorer than if you had sold the stock, paid the taxes, and kept all the rest for yourself.
The limit for charging at the moment is getting power into the car, not the batteries ability to store it. There's just a limit to the amount of voltage and amperage you can use with a plug that ordinary people have to connect and disconnect, and that is well within the 'C' rating of those large packs.
Really? I would have thought that the limiting factor was the battery's ability to take the power at the higher current flow. If that is not the case, shouldn't that mean that if we wanted a car with half the charging time, we just need to build one with two standard charging plugs, and use them both at the same time? That would seem to be within the abilities of "ordinary" people. Put one on each side of the vehicle and it would keep the design summitry.
Maybe. Fahrenheit is for humans and since this is published for normal people to understand then that makes sense.
Celsius is for machines. It's not granular enough for humans which means you have to go to fractional values (decimal) which makes it look even more obfuscated to humans.
Lol. So short-sighted! Fahrenheits mean nothing to 90% of the world's population. Are you saying that 90% of the people on the planet are machines?
By your reasoning, if I hold a large metal block and connect one part to mains electricity, I will be safe.
Radio waves traveling through the air work differently than electricity moving through a conductor, to the point where RF engineering is a specialized field within electrical engineering.
one relies on Maxwell's equations and the other...
One relies on Maxwell's equations with permiability and permitivity appropriate for a metalic concuctor, and the other relies on Maxwell's equations with permiability and permitivity appropriate for the gasses in the atmosphere. The different parameters give different behaviours.
There is nothing in the source that hints that Netflix are at all interested in using this, and there is nothing at all that links them with Netflix.
Further, while Netflix might someday stop this type of activity, they already monetize it by charging subscribers higher prices if they want to be able to view multiple streams simultaneously.
They don't mind people having multiple streams at once - that's even part of their plans (basic: 1, standard: 2, premium: 4) alongside other benefits. What they try to identify is people sharing their accounts beyond their household, which is against their TOS.
I don't really see any evidence that they "try to identify people sharing their accounts beyond their household" as I am personally aware of multiple instances where this occurs across huge geographical distances which are trivially easy to flag, and I know of nobody ever being cut off or even warned against the practice, despite what their TOS may say. At the least, they are not "trying" very hard.
There is nothing in the source that hints that Netflix are at all interested in using this, and there is nothing at all that links them with Netflix.
Further, while Netflix might someday stop this type of activity, they already monetize it by charging subscribers higher prices if they want to be able to view multiple streams simultaneously.
Except it did. I've looked into it in detail, read both sides of the argument, and everything I said is true.
So, they were guilty? And the eight investigations were all wrong? Your decisions on how to properly account for various data sets are more valid than than the researchers, peer reviewers, etc.? I guess if they are all in on it, of course.
Pointing to it as an example of the "dishonesty" of the vast majority of researchers is pretty disingenuous.
The researchers involved were heavy hitters and proponents of the "hockey stick", the widely promulgated graph of global warming.
The graph in question seems to have come up first in 1998 or so. Is saying someone was a proponent of it supposed to be some sort of slur? I guess it is sort of bad to support junk science.
"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
If we were in the position where our political system was working towards understanding the well established science and we were actually talking about the tradeoffs between various courses of action, I think most of the "alarmists" would be much happier. Yes, there are some important things to discuss and decide on. But when there are huge numbers of important people still trying to deny the fundamental issues, it is hard to discuss any sort of way to address the issues.
Climategate showed scientists were willing to chop off decades worth of proxy data because it didn't match the recent warming. That they were willing to deceitfully present the science to the wider public to hide such discrepancies. That they were willing to delete email and data to prevent transparency.
Except, it did not show that at all. Sure, taken out of context there were some statements that seem damming, but in full context, not so much. Pointing to it as an example of the "dishonesty" of the vast majority of researchers is pretty disingenuous.
"The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them."
"Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct." - The eight major investigations covered by secondary sources include: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel (UK); Pennsylvania State University first panel and second panel; United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US); National Science Foundation (US).
Buildings reflect wind. However turbines absorb the energy of the wind.
Who knows what will happen if we have enough turbines to power the world. It maybe that there is not enough energy in the atmosphere to turn all those turbines, or worse.
Also we probably need more turbines than there will be buildings.
Who knows? Anyone with a calculator. The amount of energy extracted form the winds by a turbine is so much smaller than the amount of energy in those winds that you should worry more about the contamination of the sea when your three year old can't hold it in until they are taken to the potty at the beach.
If by absorbing it we convert it to electrical energy instead of heat energy, then it should be a net positive effect? Granted, as far as scale is concerned it's probably a negligible difference, but, still a difference.
Welcome to physics. It all ends up as heat in the end. Your 100W desktop machine gives off 100W of heat.
Oh great, that means the ICC can begin war crime investigations of US citizens. The US has been very vocal about preventing that, as they claim it infringes on their sovereignty. How is this any different?
Many many many countries try to do this all the time, the US is no exception beyond our large power. "Your laws do not apply in our country, but our laws apply to yours." might be hypocritical, but it is not uncommon.
Another complication is that "savings" are tax free, whereas investment income does create a tax liability. Avoid paying $1000 in electrical costs and you have an extra $1000 in the bank, but if you invest and get $1000 of dividends or capital gains, you will be owing somewhere between $100 to $400 in income taxes depending on your marginal tax rates.
Government is the least efficient and least effective way to do just about anything you can imagine. Sometimes Government is the only possible solution, such as when providing national defense and law enforcement, or as you point out maintaining infrastructure like roads, bridges, water, sewer treatment and the like. But never be fooled, it's going to cost more than it should, take longer than it should and be less effective than it should when government is tasked to do something. "Public Transportation" is not an exception to this rule.
Knee-jerk reactions of "government-bad!" always strike me as lacking in nuance.
"Government is the least efficient and least effective way to do just about anything you can imagine." is not a rule. There are many examples to the contrary - US Medicare delivers better outcomes at lower overhead than US private insurance for one example, and virtually every publicly funder national health service is cheaper and more effective than the private provisions of healthcare in the US.
Yes, it is true that Governmental services can have different incentives than systems funded in other ways, and those may have undesired outcomes. However there are lots of people all over the place that have similar levels of justified distrust of more "market oriented" systems. The multinational corporations are not the saviors of us all.
Neither are they the root of all evil either. Well designed and run private and public systems are possible, and exist. So do poorly run ones unfortunately.
Slashdot Mirror
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/1...
Yeah, sure. I was aware. I was pointing out that he was not "burned alive", and like Hitler, was not excommunicated. The NYTimes article does imply that being burned at the stake was one possible outcome, but does not mention excommunication at all.
After all, they did ex-communicate Galileo for suggesting the earth revolved around the sun. Burned him alive in fact. .
Galileo died in Arcetri, near Florence, Italy, on January 8, 1642, after suffering from a fever and heart palpitations. I don't believe he was excommunicated, though he was placed under house arrest.
If the test is an accurate assessment of future job performance, creating an easier test invalidates its predictive ability.
Two items to check: "IS the test an accurate assessment of future job performance?" and "IS the easier test less predictive?" They both seem like reasonable assumptions, but the world is full of cases where the common sense idea is inaccurate.
I can't talk about others, but I wouldn't want to send my kids to school in darkness.
Your local school board could decide on times that make sense for your local conditions.
Yes, I realize that this also involves tradeoffs between parental working hours.
I'm going to point out because you might not know it, but the brain behind those ideas is the same one who pushed Trudeau's carbon tax. The same on that nearly every province in Canada told the government to "fuck and you" over.
By "nearly every province" did you mean Ontario and Saskatchewan? As I recall they are the only two to launch lawsuits. Two out of eight isn't really "nearly every". I suppose New Brunswick and Manitoba aren't in favour either, so that's four out of eight - not really "nearly every".
It does seem as thought the majority of Canadians individually support a price on C02 emissions, including a majority of people in Ontario, regardless of the provincial support. - https://ipolitics.ca/2018/11/0...
Well that is just great for everyone who started buying digital music after 2009. What about us old fogies?
At some point there was an option available to "upgrade" previously DRMed music to tracks without DRM, I think for an extra fee. One can also do some tricks with "iTunes match" to get higher bitrate, non-DRM versions of music from Apple. However, this only works for music that is in Apple's current catalogue - I think if your have DRM versions of music that Apple no longer sells, you can still re-download it, but it is still the old DRMed file.
Anyhow, here are some directions from Apple on how to upgrade tracks to "iTunes Plus" - https://support.apple.com/en-c...
You know that the it's pretty much the definition of what the SCOTUS does to make stuff up as they go? If Congress would pass better laws then SCOTUS would have less to do.
I was going to say something similar. In the constitutional system we have, SCOTUS's job is to interpret the constitution. If the words in the constitution say "this thing is black" and the SCOTUS says "that means that that thing is white", then by the rules we are playing under, that thing is white.
It is not possible to have a system governed by written rules without having some way to decide what those rules mean. I don't know that the US system is the best way to do so, but I don't know of any that is demonstratively better.
You'll have to show me which movies had the lead actor saying, "I want to hear from fewer (insert racial or gendered group of choice)".
Good point - it is hard to get exact parallels. I suppose anti-semetic rants aren't quite the same thing. I guess Mel Gibson did not actually say he didn't want to hear from Jews for example.
I still find it hard to image that more than 40,000 individuals were so incensed that they actually went out of their way to post a rating. It seems much more likely that a few hundred outraged "fans" took the time make multiple posts.
So I guess movies with controversial actors often get on order of forty four thousand ratings before their release?
Probably depends on what those actors say. Also, more people are being careful what they say so as not to enrage the PC mob.
Funny, that doesn't seem to be the case. Or is it just when white males get offended? Is that demographic particularly sensitive?
Try that sentence again but replace it with any other group. All this says to me is your opinion means nothing, based on bigoted logic.
I haven't dug into the rottentomato numbers, but you seem to be into it, so clearly you can show me a few other similar large response when "any other group" is offended similarly.
None of those movies had the lead come out and say that they wanted to hear from fewer white males. I think that's one of the key indicators.
So I guess movies with controversial actors often get on order of forty four thousand ratings before their release?
Funny, that doesn't seem to be the case. Or is it just when white males get offended? Is that demographic particularly sensitive?
Gifting shares of stock to another just transfers the cap gains over to them, and reduces one's lifetime gift exemption.
Paying someone with stock is likely viewed as selling them the stock, and thus would trigger the cap gains being realized. Selling it for less than its market value would reduce those gains, but of course would reduce the amount of money you get for it even more.
Donating stocks does give you a charitable deduction, and avoid the cap gains on that stock, but you are still poorer than if you had sold the stock, paid the taxes, and kept all the rest for yourself.
Here are some details: https://www.forbes.com/2010/07...
The limit for charging at the moment is getting power into the car, not the batteries ability to store it. There's just a limit to the amount of voltage and amperage you can use with a plug that ordinary people have to connect and disconnect, and that is well within the 'C' rating of those large packs.
Really? I would have thought that the limiting factor was the battery's ability to take the power at the higher current flow. If that is not the case, shouldn't that mean that if we wanted a car with half the charging time, we just need to build one with two standard charging plugs, and use them both at the same time? That would seem to be within the abilities of "ordinary" people. Put one on each side of the vehicle and it would keep the design summitry.
Maybe. Fahrenheit is for humans and since this is published for normal people to understand then that makes sense.
Celsius is for machines. It's not granular enough for humans which means you have to go to fractional values (decimal) which makes it look even more obfuscated to humans.
Lol. So short-sighted! Fahrenheits mean nothing to 90% of the world's population. Are you saying that 90% of the people on the planet are machines?
Not machines, just not humans, obviously.
By your reasoning, if I hold a large metal block and connect one part to mains electricity, I will be safe.
Radio waves traveling through the air work differently than electricity moving through a conductor, to the point where RF engineering is a specialized field within electrical engineering.
one relies on Maxwell's equations and the other...
One relies on Maxwell's equations with permiability and permitivity appropriate for a metalic concuctor, and the other relies on Maxwell's equations with permiability and permitivity appropriate for the gasses in the atmosphere. The different parameters give different behaviours.
There is nothing in the source that hints that Netflix are at all interested in using this, and there is nothing at all that links them with Netflix.
Further, while Netflix might someday stop this type of activity, they already monetize it by charging subscribers higher prices if they want to be able to view multiple streams simultaneously.
They don't mind people having multiple streams at once - that's even part of their plans (basic: 1, standard: 2, premium: 4) alongside other benefits. What they try to identify is people sharing their accounts beyond their household, which is against their TOS.
I don't really see any evidence that they "try to identify people sharing their accounts beyond their household" as I am personally aware of multiple instances where this occurs across huge geographical distances which are trivially easy to flag, and I know of nobody ever being cut off or even warned against the practice, despite what their TOS may say. At the least, they are not "trying" very hard.
they already do this.
That's what I said.
I think.
At least that is what I tried to say.
There is nothing in the source that hints that Netflix are at all interested in using this, and there is nothing at all that links them with Netflix.
Further, while Netflix might someday stop this type of activity, they already monetize it by charging subscribers higher prices if they want to be able to view multiple streams simultaneously.
Alexa and Cortana were arguing about which route their Waymo should take...
The Homie and Lexy podcast is pretty good:
https://homieandlexy.com/
Except, it did not show that at all.
Except it did. I've looked into it in detail, read both sides of the argument, and everything I said is true.
So, they were guilty? And the eight investigations were all wrong? Your decisions on how to properly account for various data sets are more valid than than the researchers, peer reviewers, etc.? I guess if they are all in on it, of course.
Pointing to it as an example of the "dishonesty" of the vast majority of researchers is pretty disingenuous.
The researchers involved were heavy hitters and proponents of the "hockey stick", the widely promulgated graph of global warming.
The graph in question seems to have come up first in 1998 or so. Is saying someone was a proponent of it supposed to be some sort of slur? I guess it is sort of bad to support junk science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I guess over the past twenty years, further data and research has corrected the garbage science.
Oh, that does not seem to be the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears."
If we were in the position where our political system was working towards understanding the well established science and we were actually talking about the tradeoffs between various courses of action, I think most of the "alarmists" would be much happier. Yes, there are some important things to discuss and decide on. But when there are huge numbers of important people still trying to deny the fundamental issues, it is hard to discuss any sort of way to address the issues.
Climategate showed scientists were willing to chop off decades worth of proxy data because it didn't match the recent warming. That they were willing to deceitfully present the science to the wider public to hide such discrepancies. That they were willing to delete email and data to prevent transparency.
Except, it did not show that at all. Sure, taken out of context there were some statements that seem damming, but in full context, not so much. Pointing to it as an example of the "dishonesty" of the vast majority of researchers is pretty disingenuous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them."
"Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct." - The eight major investigations covered by secondary sources include: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel (UK); Pennsylvania State University first panel and second panel; United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US); National Science Foundation (US).
Buildings reflect wind. However turbines absorb the energy of the wind.
Who knows what will happen if we have enough turbines to power the world. It maybe that there is not enough energy in the atmosphere to turn all those turbines, or worse.
Also we probably need more turbines than there will be buildings.
Who knows? Anyone with a calculator. The amount of energy extracted form the winds by a turbine is so much smaller than the amount of energy in those winds that you should worry more about the contamination of the sea when your three year old can't hold it in until they are taken to the potty at the beach.
If by absorbing it we convert it to electrical energy instead of heat energy, then it should be a net positive effect? Granted, as far as scale is concerned it's probably a negligible difference, but, still a difference.
Welcome to physics. It all ends up as heat in the end. Your 100W desktop machine gives off 100W of heat.
Oh great, that means the ICC can begin war crime investigations of US citizens. The US has been very vocal about preventing that, as they claim it infringes on their sovereignty. How is this any different?
Many many many countries try to do this all the time, the US is no exception beyond our large power. "Your laws do not apply in our country, but our laws apply to yours." might be hypocritical, but it is not uncommon.
Another complication is that "savings" are tax free, whereas investment income does create a tax liability. Avoid paying $1000 in electrical costs and you have an extra $1000 in the bank, but if you invest and get $1000 of dividends or capital gains, you will be owing somewhere between $100 to $400 in income taxes depending on your marginal tax rates.
Government is the least efficient and least effective way to do just about anything you can imagine. Sometimes Government is the only possible solution, such as when providing national defense and law enforcement, or as you point out maintaining infrastructure like roads, bridges, water, sewer treatment and the like. But never be fooled, it's going to cost more than it should, take longer than it should and be less effective than it should when government is tasked to do something. "Public Transportation" is not an exception to this rule.
Knee-jerk reactions of "government-bad!" always strike me as lacking in nuance.
"Government is the least efficient and least effective way to do just about anything you can imagine." is not a rule. There are many examples to the contrary - US Medicare delivers better outcomes at lower overhead than US private insurance for one example, and virtually every publicly funder national health service is cheaper and more effective than the private provisions of healthcare in the US.
Yes, it is true that Governmental services can have different incentives than systems funded in other ways, and those may have undesired outcomes. However there are lots of people all over the place that have similar levels of justified distrust of more "market oriented" systems. The multinational corporations are not the saviors of us all.
Neither are they the root of all evil either. Well designed and run private and public systems are possible, and exist. So do poorly run ones unfortunately.