I've been meaning to read the book "Three Felonies A Day". You can guess what it's about. I already know the gist. I'd read it for the specific examples.
Sadam was much easier to contain than a bunch of anonymous rebels.
Oopsie. Can we go back about a decade and have a do-over? One where the US doesn't topple Saddam Hussein and get stuck in the dehydrated quagmire that is Iraq?
Your post makes an enormous amount of sense. I'm surprised you haven't been attacked.
What about protostars, or protostars in the making? I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that a coalescing glob of gas may clearly be on a path that leads to fusion but isn't yet doing fusion yet.
Could one be visibly (or rather, detectably) radiating light or IR or whatever, from infalling mass alone?
To return to the topic: would any of these be considered stars, by your definition, or something(s) else?
Well, the only source for new iron is what comes hurtling through the atmosphere from above. Despite this, I'm not worried about running out of iron ore.
The notion of "peak oil", to the extent it's meaningful, is useless. We'll never run out of petroleum. When it gets too hard to pump out of the ground or to separate from shale or whatever, people will use something else to turn into fuel or lubricant or chemical feedstock or pavement. The remaining petroleum will stay in the ground, just like the petroleum that's currently not worth pumping up at about $50/bbl.
Might want to check out this social science known as "economics". Turns out if you ignore the hooey being shoveled (often in an attempt to influence government policy), you'll find some useful concepts with broad applicability.
Doomsday scenarios have appeal, but tend to be false alarms, with no consequences to those who hawk them.
We've had the unpleasant experience of having an estimate being turned into a commitment. The company learned better.
Mostly. Our team recently made our own commitments from our own estimates. We probably should have put some serious fudge factor in our estimates, due to unknown impact from additional non-optional activities, before making those commitments.
Once upon a time, a soda machine in a fraternity house which shall remain nameless had some of the slots filled with alternating beer bottles and empty bottles.
Pay for a soda, get a soda, if that's what you wanted. Pay for a soda, get an empty bottle, pay for a soda, get a beer bottle, if that's what you wanted. So a beer was twice the price of a soda, without modifying the (ancient) vending machine.
As I recall, the officer in charge of the vending machine was a mechanical engineer. But if so, he was an efficient one. He devised this solution instead of designing a change, modifying the machine, making sure it worked (and kept working), and all that.
Doing all that would have cut into his drinking time.
Or lots and lots of not-rich people. They (well, we) are more numerous than rich people, and might be inspired to work on it sooner, rather than eventually.
Kickstarter, anyone? Or the more traditional way, a not-for-profit foundation, like March of Dimes and such?
A 1958 science fiction short story addressed -- in an idealized way, over an absurdly short timeframe -- the "problem" of 3D printing -- in a much more advanced form -- pretty nicely. The lesson of the story, after normalizing for the differences between that situation and ours, and that we live in reality rather than in an amusing and thought-provoking fiction, could be applied.
Some changes are going to come as 3D printing becomes cheaper and more capable. The legal and political and economic institutions that are slowly adjusting to the reality of easily copied paper documents and audio and video will also provide some lessons, too.
My point, which apparently I did not make very clearly, is that nations created as administrative units by empires (e.g. Rwanda) and which later gain independence, and those created in peace treaties (e.g. Yugoslavia) tend to have bloody histories after the colonial powers withdraw.
Countries created by federation (e.g. the 13 colonies of the United States of America, Switzerland) or annexation/consolidation (e.g. the USA, the UK excluding Ireland) tend to be less troubled by ethnic and/or religious conflicts.
I'm not entirely sure Iraq should be called a country. That's only slightly facetious.
Like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, it was created by treaties between other countries. Czechoslovakia worked out OK (now Slovakia and the Czech Republic) but Yugoslavia fared badly when the colonial power withdrew.
The same could be said for many of the nations of Africa with bloody post-colonial histories.
"The right thing". Does that mean anything, really?
If they broke the law, it's time to prosecute.
If they didn't break the law yet their behavior offends someone to the point they think they government should go after them anyway, either they're too easily offended, or the law is seriously flawed.
Instead of responding to the article title with "Not with Visual Studio, I assume" I decided to post something helpful.
In one of the volumes of Patterson's biography of Robert Heinlein, there was a reference to a blind machinist. He demonstrated by his example to disabled WW2 veterans that they could make it in the world.
Grumpiness Warning. Pedantry Warning. If you're not in the mood for either, you may want to skip this.
Did a real-world, grownup newspaper actually use this headline: "New Study Says Governments Should Ditch Reliance On Biofuels"?
It was the New York Times, so YMMV. I'd say most people think it is. It's not the "Weekly World News", a parody produced by National Lampoon, or a middle school student newspaper, at any rate.
Let's break it down, shall we?
It assumes more than one government has a reliance on biofuels.
I wasn't aware of this. I thought governments almost always used conventional fossil fuels or nuclear fuels for their tanks, jet fighters, aircraft carriers, cop cars, cop tanks, letter-carrier vehicles, etc. While it's possible I'm wrong about this, typically when my understanding and the New York Times are in conflict, the NYT is off the mark.
Let's assume that instead of what it actually says, the headline writer meant it to be about government actions to dick with the incentives markets provide people, using subsidies, punitive taxes, fines, prohibitions, mandates, and the like. (Yes, I peeked a little.)
Governments have (occasionally vigorously) pushed people towards using ethanol, wood, and such (and petroleum and coal feedstock materials a few million years prematurely), and away from using fully-processed fossil fuel feedstock. There's no "reliance" here.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been meaning to read the book "Three Felonies A Day". You can guess what it's about. I already know the gist. I'd read it for the specific examples.
Some would say String Theory fits that description. Lack of falsifiability, and stuff like that. But the math shore is purty.
Time to punt both those parties, then?
Sadam was much easier to contain than a bunch of anonymous rebels.
Oopsie. Can we go back about a decade and have a do-over? One where the US doesn't topple Saddam Hussein and get stuck in the dehydrated quagmire that is Iraq?
Your post makes an enormous amount of sense. I'm surprised you haven't been attacked.
What about protostars, or protostars in the making? I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that a coalescing glob of gas may clearly be on a path that leads to fusion but isn't yet doing fusion yet.
Could one be visibly (or rather, detectably) radiating light or IR or whatever, from infalling mass alone?
To return to the topic: would any of these be considered stars, by your definition, or something(s) else?
And if FTP is too ordinary for you, or you only have 7 bits available in your cable, there's always Kermit.
Or 9 rounds of 17mm. Since we're being silly, and all.
Well, the only source for new iron is what comes hurtling through the atmosphere from above. Despite this, I'm not worried about running out of iron ore.
The notion of "peak oil", to the extent it's meaningful, is useless. We'll never run out of petroleum. When it gets too hard to pump out of the ground or to separate from shale or whatever, people will use something else to turn into fuel or lubricant or chemical feedstock or pavement. The remaining petroleum will stay in the ground, just like the petroleum that's currently not worth pumping up at about $50/bbl.
Might want to check out this social science known as "economics". Turns out if you ignore the hooey being shoveled (often in an attempt to influence government policy), you'll find some useful concepts with broad applicability.
Doomsday scenarios have appeal, but tend to be false alarms, with no consequences to those who hawk them.
It'd be nice if we could estimate their likelihood of success.
You know, by seeing the actual regulations.
"You will find out what's in it when you violate it", maybe?
We've had the unpleasant experience of having an estimate being turned into a commitment. The company learned better.
Mostly. Our team recently made our own commitments from our own estimates. We probably should have put some serious fudge factor in our estimates, due to unknown impact from additional non-optional activities, before making those commitments.
On to cheerier things.
A couple of interesting articles on the topic.
http://www.mountaingoatsoftware.com/blog/separate-estimating-from-committing (especially relevant)
http://www.svpg.com/managing-commitments-in-an-agile-team/ (coming at it from a different direction)
I've seen (or heard tell of, it's been a while) vending machines that dispense live bait. Earthworms, as I recall.
Once upon a time, a soda machine in a fraternity house which shall remain nameless had some of the slots filled with alternating beer bottles and empty bottles.
Pay for a soda, get a soda, if that's what you wanted. Pay for a soda, get an empty bottle, pay for a soda, get a beer bottle, if that's what you wanted. So a beer was twice the price of a soda, without modifying the (ancient) vending machine.
As I recall, the officer in charge of the vending machine was a mechanical engineer. But if so, he was an efficient one. He devised this solution instead of designing a change, modifying the machine, making sure it worked (and kept working), and all that.
Doing all that would have cut into his drinking time.
I was near the Rio Grande River when the ATM machine refused my PIN number.
This happened once before, within sight of Mount Fujiyama.
Or lots and lots of not-rich people. They (well, we) are more numerous than rich people, and might be inspired to work on it sooner, rather than eventually.
Kickstarter, anyone? Or the more traditional way, a not-for-profit foundation, like March of Dimes and such?
A 1958 science fiction short story addressed -- in an idealized way, over an absurdly short timeframe -- the "problem" of 3D printing -- in a much more advanced form -- pretty nicely. The lesson of the story, after normalizing for the differences between that situation and ours, and that we live in reality rather than in an amusing and thought-provoking fiction, could be applied.
Some changes are going to come as 3D printing becomes cheaper and more capable. The legal and political and economic institutions that are slowly adjusting to the reality of easily copied paper documents and audio and video will also provide some lessons, too.
Some interesting/useful/amusing links:
"So what happens when we design an economy that doesn't need money?" Wow. "we". "design". And most of all "when".
When that happens, I plan to ride my unicorn to the Big Rock Candy Mountain.
My point, which apparently I did not make very clearly, is that nations created as administrative units by empires (e.g. Rwanda) and which later gain independence, and those created in peace treaties (e.g. Yugoslavia) tend to have bloody histories after the colonial powers withdraw.
Countries created by federation (e.g. the 13 colonies of the United States of America, Switzerland) or annexation/consolidation (e.g. the USA, the UK excluding Ireland) tend to be less troubled by ethnic and/or religious conflicts.
I'm not entirely sure Iraq should be called a country. That's only slightly facetious.
Like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, it was created by treaties between other countries. Czechoslovakia worked out OK (now Slovakia and the Czech Republic) but Yugoslavia fared badly when the colonial power withdrew.
The same could be said for many of the nations of Africa with bloody post-colonial histories.
Double-secret probation!
"The right thing". Does that mean anything, really?
If they broke the law, it's time to prosecute.
If they didn't break the law yet their behavior offends someone to the point they think they government should go after them anyway, either they're too easily offended, or the law is seriously flawed.
Or both.
"Boomsday" by Christopher Buckley, who also wrote "Thank You For Smoking".
Instead of responding to the article title with "Not with Visual Studio, I assume" I decided to post something helpful.
In one of the volumes of Patterson's biography of Robert Heinlein, there was a reference to a blind machinist. He demonstrated by his example to disabled WW2 veterans that they could make it in the world.
And Larry Niven wrote an essay which covered this ground.
Grumpiness Warning. Pedantry Warning. If you're not in the mood for either, you may want to skip this.
Did a real-world, grownup newspaper actually use this headline: "New Study Says Governments Should Ditch Reliance On Biofuels"?
It was the New York Times, so YMMV. I'd say most people think it is. It's not the "Weekly World News", a parody produced by National Lampoon, or a middle school student newspaper, at any rate.
Let's break it down, shall we?
It assumes more than one government has a reliance on biofuels.
I wasn't aware of this. I thought governments almost always used conventional fossil fuels or nuclear fuels for their tanks, jet fighters, aircraft carriers, cop cars, cop tanks, letter-carrier vehicles, etc. While it's possible I'm wrong about this, typically when my understanding and the New York Times are in conflict, the NYT is off the mark.
Let's assume that instead of what it actually says, the headline writer meant it to be about government actions to dick with the incentives markets provide people, using subsidies, punitive taxes, fines, prohibitions, mandates, and the like. (Yes, I peeked a little.)
Governments have (occasionally vigorously) pushed people towards using ethanol, wood, and such (and petroleum and coal feedstock materials a few million years prematurely), and away from using fully-processed fossil fuel feedstock. There's no "reliance" here.
Grump, grump, grump.
Like it or not, the DEA is doing the job they're supposed to do. If you want them to do what you said, then get the laws changed.
Oh. I didn't know.
I'll get on that right away.
Honestly, I had no idea it was that easy.