That's the same graph, but without current CO2 levels shown. I.E. my graph combines the historical Vostok CO2 levels with current CO2 levels, because the Vostok data doesn't include any values for modern times (i.e. the last few hundred years). Your graph only shows the natural fluctuations, not the effects of human activity, so of course it's less dramatic!:)
Keeping an open mind and focusing on the data rather than other people's analyses of it?
Uh ok... in other words, who cares what the "experts" and "scientists" who "know" more about it than I do think - I'm going to make up my own mind based on my own understanding of the situation (which is about 1% of the knowledge of the people whose *job* it is to study it...)
Consensus does not affect the truth, but that's completely irrelevant. Consensus is the best way that we all, as a group, can best figure out what the truth is. What other mechanism do you propose?
In the real world, all of that is a perfect solution to 5% of the needed change. The other 95% is a bitch though. And, realistically, only nuclear is going to solve that.
I agree somewhat, but there's a problem... How do you decide who gets to debate and who doesn't? Anyone can run for president, so a debate that was open to anybody would be a farce. You apparently think that the Green and/or Libertarian candidates are important enough to be invited, but I'm sure there are dozens of smaller parties that would want in if they got in. (And if there aren't now, there would be soon if that happened...) I'm not sure what the right answer is here.
Then why don't people set up independent fire departments?
In general I agree with what you're saying. There are are lots of areas where I think libertarian ideas would be good, but there are also some areas where they wouldn't, and the fire department is one of them.
However, the biggest reason that independent fire departments don't exist is because everyone's already paying for the public fire department via taxes. Maybe an independent FD could do a better job, but they'd have to do a MUCH better job to get people to pay extra for it, because of the uneven playing field.
What I fear most is the bad player that will put all their money on a 20% draw, where any good player (or bot) would fold- because sometimes they hit, and that hurts.
This makes little sense. I love players that put in money when they don't have the odds to. You seem to think that's bad for you???
But I remember the dot com days (as do most people here, I'm sure). I think that we're going to see a massive transfer of wealth between unsophisticated small investors who are doing more speculating than investing, and the sharpies running this IPO.
The dot-coms were only vastly overpriced in retrospect. A lot of people thought they were buying fairly-priced stock, and not just "unsophisticated small investors". They were betting that the Internet would change business as we know it, and they'd get rich in the process. It turns out they were wrong, so they lost a lot of money. But they could very well have been right.
Besides - it's pretty silly to think that people haven't been fairly warned about the risk of tech stocks, considering what's happened the last 5 years. If people think Google is worth a particular price, let them buy it. The auction-style IPO, where the price is determined by the people buying it, is much fairer than the traditional method, where a few financial types determine it.
"This happens all the time, but not at this magnitude," said Michael Rennock, partner at Morrison Foerster, who specializes in securities law. "Most companies have equity compensation plans where they can issue shares or options, but it appears Google far exceeded those limits of issuing shares to employees without registering them."
I think it's news now because we're only finding out the magnitude now.
The auction hasn't happened yet and the IPO price hasn't been set. The $108-$135 range or whatever it was, is Google's random guess as to what the auction price will be, because the SEC says it has to give an estimate. But the auction will set the real price.
That's what the so-called "Wikipedia 1.0" is all about. There's a ton of content right now, most of it good, some of it excellent and some of it bad. The idea is to copy that information into a somewhat "less wiki" place, where it can be massaged into a very reliable (instead of somewhat reliable) source of information. A more rigorous process than an open-for-anyone wiki (though it may still be somewhat wiki-like). The info would still be free (GFDL). When you're done, hopefully you've got a source of information that's just as reliable as Britanica.
Sentient, yes. Intelligent, no. We're speaking in the context of radio waves and space travel. We're the only species that has come anywhere close to the kind of communication and reasoning to begin creating technology.
When you see signs with 100x odds for craps, those are fantastic deals.
Well, not really.
Your original wager might be $5 at an expected 98% return, but if you put another few hundred behind it at an expected 100% return, your total bet is going to be damn near 50/50.
Yeah, your expected value improves by a small amount, but your variance goes up my a HUGE amount, which is pretty much always a losing proposition. You're suggesting that I wager $500 at a time? Unless I came with $20,000 or more, there's a good chance I'm going to go broke. And, if I did come with $20,000, I'd rather spend it at the high-limit tables (at 5x odds), where I'll look like a stud, and the drink girls are prettier and come more often, etc.
"... the most abused and addictive and destructive drugs of all: fossil fuels.
When you got here, even when I got here, the industrialized world was already hopelessly hooked on fossil fuels, and very soon now there won't be any more of those. Cold turkey.
Can I tell you the truth? I mean this isn't like TV news, is it? Here's what I think the truth is: We are all addicts of fossil fuels in a state of denial, about to face cold turkey.
And like so many addicts about to face cold turkey, our leaders are now committing violent crimes to get what little is left of what we're hooked on."
-- Kurt Vonnegut
(also another Vonnegut quote I like: "Do you know why I think Bush is so pissed off at Arabs? They invented algebra.")
An ad introducing the Macintosh, in Newsweek in 1984. I love how it introduces you to the "mouse" and "cut and paste". And the glowing endorsements from Bill Gates, Mitch Kapor, and Fred Gibbons. (Who?)
Possibly. I suspect that it would be difficult to get a judge to force TiVo to go modify their code so that they can monitor a specified user - a lot more difficult than forcing them to turn over any saved records for a specified user, if TiVo saved those.
In any case, I'm having a difficult time coming up with a scenario when law enforcement would possibly care about what shows you watch. How would that be used against you in court?
Everything you say in this post is also true of your phone company and your ISP, and that info is WAY more likely to be sought by law enforcement. So, are you going to stop using the phone or the Internet?
I agree completely. I think our kids are going to be a lost generation, photographically, in a few decades.
MyPublisher makes hard-copy albums out of your digital prints. (Here's a review.) I don't know if these are on photographic paper, or what the shelf life is. If it's equivalent to plain old photographs, this would be a great way to ensure that your photos survive for generations.
Hmmm, I wonder if this new law where you can go to jail had anything to do with his decision to sell...
Re:10 revision control system comparison
on
Subversion 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Well kind of. The Win32 page on the Arch wiki says "Arch was never intented to run on a non POSIX system. Don't except to have a full blow arch on your Microsoft computer."
Sorry, I think you're missing the point. What you say it true of the American corporate base as a whole. But for each INDIVIDUAL company, it makes more sense for them to save a lot of money on salaries than it does to contribute to the tax base. Because for each individual contribution a company makes to the tax base, it's likely to only get a tiny fraction of that money back itself. Think about it - if I'm a software company and I pay an employee X, then a tiny portion of that might come back to me when that employee buys software, but much more of it will go toward food, housing, etc.
Each particular American company would love it if all the OTHER companies would keep jobs in America and paid them huge wages. But that company will get more profit if it moves ITS jobs offshore. (That's known as the Tragedy of the Commons.)
Slashdot Mirror
That's the same graph, but without current CO2 levels shown. I.E. my graph combines the historical Vostok CO2 levels with current CO2 levels, because the Vostok data doesn't include any values for modern times (i.e. the last few hundred years). Your graph only shows the natural fluctuations, not the effects of human activity, so of course it's less dramatic! :)
If you want to see a dramatic display of just how much we've changed our environment over the last 200 years, just look at this chart.
Keeping an open mind and focusing on the data rather than other people's analyses of it?
Uh ok... in other words, who cares what the "experts" and "scientists" who "know" more about it than I do think - I'm going to make up my own mind based on my own understanding of the situation (which is about 1% of the knowledge of the people whose *job* it is to study it...)
Yes, I made it up. OK, let's say 10%. Even 20% or 25%. Where will the other 75% of the necessary reduction come from?
Consensus has nothing to do with truth
Consensus does not affect the truth, but that's completely irrelevant. Consensus is the best way that we all, as a group, can best figure out what the truth is. What other mechanism do you propose?
In the real world, all of that is a perfect solution to 5% of the needed change. The other 95% is a bitch though. And, realistically, only nuclear is going to solve that.
I agree somewhat, but there's a problem... How do you decide who gets to debate and who doesn't? Anyone can run for president, so a debate that was open to anybody would be a farce. You apparently think that the Green and/or Libertarian candidates are important enough to be invited, but I'm sure there are dozens of smaller parties that would want in if they got in. (And if there aren't now, there would be soon if that happened...) I'm not sure what the right answer is here.
Then why don't people set up independent fire departments?
In general I agree with what you're saying. There are are lots of areas where I think libertarian ideas would be good, but there are also some areas where they wouldn't, and the fire department is one of them.
However, the biggest reason that independent fire departments don't exist is because everyone's already paying for the public fire department via taxes. Maybe an independent FD could do a better job, but they'd have to do a MUCH better job to get people to pay extra for it, because of the uneven playing field.
What I fear most is the bad player that will put all their money on a 20% draw, where any good player (or bot) would fold- because sometimes they hit, and that hurts.
This makes little sense. I love players that put in money when they don't have the odds to. You seem to think that's bad for you???
But I remember the dot com days (as do most people here, I'm sure). I think that we're going to see a massive transfer of wealth between unsophisticated small investors who are doing more speculating than investing, and the sharpies running this IPO.
The dot-coms were only vastly overpriced in retrospect. A lot of people thought they were buying fairly-priced stock, and not just "unsophisticated small investors". They were betting that the Internet would change business as we know it, and they'd get rich in the process. It turns out they were wrong, so they lost a lot of money. But they could very well have been right.
Besides - it's pretty silly to think that people haven't been fairly warned about the risk of tech stocks, considering what's happened the last 5 years. If people think Google is worth a particular price, let them buy it. The auction-style IPO, where the price is determined by the people buying it, is much fairer than the traditional method, where a few financial types determine it.
From the CNET article:
"This happens all the time, but not at this magnitude," said Michael Rennock, partner at Morrison Foerster, who specializes in securities law. "Most companies have equity compensation plans where they can issue shares or options, but it appears Google far exceeded those limits of issuing shares to employees without registering them."
I think it's news now because we're only finding out the magnitude now.
The auction hasn't happened yet and the IPO price hasn't been set. The $108-$135 range or whatever it was, is Google's random guess as to what the auction price will be, because the SEC says it has to give an estimate. But the auction will set the real price.
That's what the so-called "Wikipedia 1.0" is all about. There's a ton of content right now, most of it good, some of it excellent and some of it bad. The idea is to copy that information into a somewhat "less wiki" place, where it can be massaged into a very reliable (instead of somewhat reliable) source of information. A more rigorous process than an open-for-anyone wiki (though it may still be somewhat wiki-like). The info would still be free (GFDL). When you're done, hopefully you've got a source of information that's just as reliable as Britanica.
Sentient, yes. Intelligent, no. We're speaking in the context of radio waves and space travel. We're the only species that has come anywhere close to the kind of communication and reasoning to begin creating technology.
- Most people can't tell the difference between CD and AAC under most circumstances. I guess you never listen to the radio?
- If you only want one or two tracks from an album, downloading them is the only way to go.
The reason for supporting only nonproprietary works is to get tax exemption. If you're producing proprietary works then you're not entitled to that
What makes you say that? What about free but non-open-source works?
When you see signs with 100x odds for craps, those are fantastic deals.
Well, not really.
Your original wager might be $5 at an expected 98% return, but if you put another few hundred behind it at an expected 100% return, your total bet is going to be damn near 50/50.
Yeah, your expected value improves by a small amount, but your variance goes up my a HUGE amount, which is pretty much always a losing proposition. You're suggesting that I wager $500 at a time? Unless I came with $20,000 or more, there's a good chance I'm going to go broke. And, if I did come with $20,000, I'd rather spend it at the high-limit tables (at 5x odds), where I'll look like a stud, and the drink girls are prettier and come more often, etc.
(also another Vonnegut quote I like: "Do you know why I think Bush is so pissed off at Arabs? They invented algebra.")
An ad introducing the Macintosh, in Newsweek in 1984. I love how it introduces you to the "mouse" and "cut and paste". And the glowing endorsements from Bill Gates, Mitch Kapor, and Fred Gibbons. (Who?)
Possibly. I suspect that it would be difficult to get a judge to force TiVo to go modify their code so that they can monitor a specified user - a lot more difficult than forcing them to turn over any saved records for a specified user, if TiVo saved those.
In any case, I'm having a difficult time coming up with a scenario when law enforcement would possibly care about what shows you watch. How would that be used against you in court?
Everything you say in this post is also true of your phone company and your ISP, and that info is WAY more likely to be sought by law enforcement. So, are you going to stop using the phone or the Internet?
I agree completely. I think our kids are going to be a lost generation, photographically, in a few decades.
MyPublisher makes hard-copy albums out of your digital prints. (Here's a review.) I don't know if these are on photographic paper, or what the shelf life is. If it's equivalent to plain old photographs, this would be a great way to ensure that your photos survive for generations.
Actually according to Business Week Bill Gates is the world's biggest philanthropist.
Seems to be true:
h itehouse.com.ap/
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/02/10/w
Hmmm, I wonder if this new law where you can go to jail had anything to do with his decision to sell...
Well kind of. The Win32 page on the Arch wiki says "Arch was never intented to run on a non POSIX system. Don't except to have a full blow arch on your Microsoft computer."
Sorry, I think you're missing the point. What you say it true of the American corporate base as a whole. But for each INDIVIDUAL company, it makes more sense for them to save a lot of money on salaries than it does to contribute to the tax base. Because for each individual contribution a company makes to the tax base, it's likely to only get a tiny fraction of that money back itself. Think about it - if I'm a software company and I pay an employee X, then a tiny portion of that might come back to me when that employee buys software, but much more of it will go toward food, housing, etc.
Each particular American company would love it if all the OTHER companies would keep jobs in America and paid them huge wages. But that company will get more profit if it moves ITS jobs offshore. (That's known as the Tragedy of the Commons.)