The Methane Clathrate gun is a pretty well known and understood situation. Methane Clathrates exist, the temperature at which they're released is understood, and the impact of all that methane on the atmosphere is also well understood. The only question that's still open is when exactly ocean temperatures will reach the range in which the gun will be triggered. Just hope you aren't around for it.
You can scream and shout all you want, but corporations are merely collections of people organized for a purpose, no different than a union or political party.
I think you might want to revisit what a corporation is. It's a legal construct designed to shield individuals from losing everything if their business goes belly-up.
As for your idea that a corporation is exactly the same thing as a political party... well, it certainly explains the cluster fuck in this country. Congratulations, you ARE the root problem.
I'm wondering: is your car a 1960 VW Beetle or 2CV? Because those are the only cars I can think of where the seats can sag enough to make this a worthwhile proposition.
Or, much more likely, you actually don't do any of this.
A little hint: "GottMitUns" is German and translates to "GodWithUs". Which just so happens to be the motto of the German military army (and a few other groups) until the end of WW2. Generally, it's fairly safe to assume that someone still sporting that motto has some serious hang-ups with German military and groups from 1900s to 1945.
Congratulations, CaptainLard gets it. Sycodon doesn't. I'll make another sweeping generalization: "conservatives can't read". This is fun! I can do this all day.
Do I also get to make sweeping generalizations about conservatives because you don't like government interference except to: - control what I do in my bedroom - control my social life - control what I talk about - control who I do business with - control where I go - control what I believe - control what business I'm allowed to engage in
Just asking whether the "idiots are everywhere" and "generalizations are fun" rules can be abused in the other direction as well.
you need active champions, community managers, and a strategy to nurture the community continuously.
Spot on. Every single failure I've seen of an internal communications tool that wasn't Email or IM failed because of a lack of one of the three things you mentioned. They are tools, but they need to much more help to grow than something that everyone has to use, like a case system or a CRM.
I worked in the past at a company that did something similar to a "Facebook at work". The number one rule to get people to use it: never, EVER call it "Facebook for work". Call it "Shining Communications Turd", "Chainsaw through productivity", "Free Crack", just don't call it "Facebook for work".
I think Facebook might have a bigger uphill battle here than it thinks.
We've had people walked out, fired, for using Evernote in meetings.
Erm, what? I know how PageRank works because I read about it as a technical paper in a Computing Journal in 1998, before Google was started as a company. That said, I don't know what came first - the paper or the patent. Pretty sure though that the paper came first, or was at least simultaneous to the patent filing. Finally, most of the stuff in the Google ranking mechanism is as much an algorithm as a kernel is an algorithm. It's a host of ranking modules, tweaks, weights, heuristics, clean-up jobs, maintenance jobs, spider jobs, and a whole crap-load of IT work to make it hum like it does.
it could easily apply the same to personal data to be flagged
Please do enlighten us how it could easily apply algorithms to categorize data to distinguish between personal, protected data, and data of public records that belong to someone else. Just for shits and grins, please create an algorithm that would distinguish between the Washington Post article and the original bankruptcy article.
It's perfectly possible to have both- no one is expecting perfection, but ultimately just because Google may never get it perfectly right doesn't mean they should be freed from the law altogether.
Wow. So that means that now laws that cannot be followed every time are a good idea? In the case of Google, it means a perpetual fine that cannot be escaped, is completely arbitrary, and applies only to Google.
Everything you posted so far is a damning indictment of exactly why this law is terrible: it's not possible to fully comply, it's arbitrary, it's open to abuse from all sides, and its target is also completely arbitrary.
Technically, you are accurate in your description of why Google needs to follow the law as it is written. However, the discussion we're having is about whether the law should exist in the first law. On that, you're digging your own hole.
Considering the over-reaction we're getting from a lot of people around Ebola - and that includes people who laugh about bureaucrats' overreaction to blinking lights in Chicago and WiFi network names - I'm going to guess that most people are just scared shitless of stuff they don't understand and willing to sacrifice everything to feel safe again.
That doesn't make it any better, but it gives us a better shot at fixing the issue (educate people) than the conspiracy theory approach.
His duty is to the president, not the public. I have a lot of respect for him that he gave the president his opinion, the president disagreed with him, and he kept his mouth shut in public. I also have a lot of respect for him that he isn't just bashing Obama, but merely strongly disagreeing with him on some decisions the president made. On others, he is actually openly agreeing with him (see his position on "Enhanced Interrogation") - or at least, showing far more agreement than a standard republican would.
Yeah, Panetta was a republican, through and through. He was a security hawk, and never made any bones about it. At the same time, he fully supported the president while he was in office. Just for that, he deserves respect.
Big infrastructure projects lead themselves to being natural monopolies, with or without government interference. So removing government regulation unfortunately does not solve the problem.
Meanwhile the assertion that models fit past events is near irrelevant since that is data which is already known and it is expected that the models would have been adjusted in the first place to fit that data). For example, I can construct an interpolation of any temperature (or other numerical) data to perfect precision using an even degree polynomial of sufficiently high degree, yet it'll be completely irrelevant once I attempt any sort of extrapolation into the future (odds are good, about 50% I'd say, that it'll predict temperatures far below absolute zero by 2100).
Shockingly, scientists are aware of that issue, and have developed methods to test models against existing data. They do that by training on one chunk of the available data, and testing against another.
You're making two more mistakes in your analysis. One, you complain that models that fit old data perfectly are wrong because all they do is fit data. Then you complain that the models don't fit the data perfectly - precisely because they don't just fit data. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Two, you think that we have direct measurements for everything. We don't. We'd like to, but we don't. And even the direct measurements we have need to be transformed into data that can be compared across measurements. All of that is subject to being wrong.
This profound inability to admit error is why I don't trust current climate models or the doomsday predictions they spawn in the least. That's why I'm going to wait a few decades and see what happens. If it genuinely is as bad as claimed, then we'll see something by then.
Unfortunately, that inability to admit error is only in your head. The models have been changed countless times over the last decades, and have gotten better in response. Lastly, if you wait a few decades, it'll be too late to head off any meaningful changes. As the joke goes: what if we'd make changes for a better planet when it's not necessary?
If you're applying for a programming job, that will never come into contact with customers, why the hell should you need to demonstrate an ability to sell stuff?
You're always selling something even if you're programming. During the interview, you're selling yourself. While working, you're selling your ideas and proposals (even if it is just prioritizing features and putting time and numbers to them).
Sales is part of life in general. And this is coming from someone who has tried to stay away from sales as much as possible.
I think #1 was probably the key driving factor here. People became emotionally invested in their business, and started to identify with it. When the business went south, they had invested so much into it (personally - the financial investment was probably secondary) that they had nothing to fall back onto. At the risk of assuming something of people I never met, I'm going to guess that they justified everything with "if this is gonna make it big, it was worth all the sacrifices I made". And when the business went bust instead of boom, they realized they made sacrifices that were never going to be recouped.
It's worth repeating: you are not your business; you're not your income. If you are, get ready for a short life full of regrets.
Because when you're looking for highly accurate, trustworthy information, you think of Facebook!
That's really the only comment that's necessary here. Fine, use Facebook for advocacy. The ALS challenge clearly demonstrated Facebook is actually good at that. But getting medical advice from Facebook? All I know is that the medical advice I see dispensed on Facebook would make a snake-oil seller from the Wild West blush. As an absolute edge case, I can see support pages for people with specific conditions, but I'll be a two-faced goat from Nepal if people stick to just being supportive, and don't start peddling homeopathic crap.
Science is absolutely not about proofs. It's about gathering facts and comparing them to a prediction, along with the use of math to transform data sets into comparable sets.
To paraphrase: science is about the search for facts. If you want truth, philosophy is down the hall.
For the used car market to be close to pure capitalism, the buyers would have to have near perfect information about the cars in question. Which they most definitely do not. Either because they don't know cars, or because the car dealers actively lie.
Correction: it says much about the general public about what they know about the technology that powers their life. For most people, it might as well be Magic.
Wow. Every regulatory agency is just there to expand its own powers? They do nothing else?
The reason people point you at Somalia is because your hyperbole leads you directly there. Want to have a civilized discussion about the optImal size of government? Great, start by dropping the ridiculous hyperbole.
Funny. Every time I read them, they say the exact opposite of what people like you pretend they say. Democracy vs Republic is still my favorite and most blatant example.
Slashdot Mirror
The Methane Clathrate gun is a pretty well known and understood situation. Methane Clathrates exist, the temperature at which they're released is understood, and the impact of all that methane on the atmosphere is also well understood. The only question that's still open is when exactly ocean temperatures will reach the range in which the gun will be triggered. Just hope you aren't around for it.
You can scream and shout all you want, but corporations are merely collections of people organized for a purpose, no different than a union or political party.
I think you might want to revisit what a corporation is. It's a legal construct designed to shield individuals from losing everything if their business goes belly-up.
As for your idea that a corporation is exactly the same thing as a political party... well, it certainly explains the cluster fuck in this country. Congratulations, you ARE the root problem.
I'm wondering: is your car a 1960 VW Beetle or 2CV? Because those are the only cars I can think of where the seats can sag enough to make this a worthwhile proposition.
Or, much more likely, you actually don't do any of this.
A little hint: "GottMitUns" is German and translates to "GodWithUs". Which just so happens to be the motto of the German military army (and a few other groups) until the end of WW2. Generally, it's fairly safe to assume that someone still sporting that motto has some serious hang-ups with German military and groups from 1900s to 1945.
Congratulations, CaptainLard gets it. Sycodon doesn't. I'll make another sweeping generalization: "conservatives can't read". This is fun! I can do this all day.
Do I also get to make sweeping generalizations about conservatives because you don't like government interference except to:
- control what I do in my bedroom
- control my social life
- control what I talk about
- control who I do business with
- control where I go
- control what I believe
- control what business I'm allowed to engage in
Just asking whether the "idiots are everywhere" and "generalizations are fun" rules can be abused in the other direction as well.
you need active champions, community managers, and a strategy to nurture the community continuously.
Spot on. Every single failure I've seen of an internal communications tool that wasn't Email or IM failed because of a lack of one of the three things you mentioned. They are tools, but they need to much more help to grow than something that everyone has to use, like a case system or a CRM.
I worked in the past at a company that did something similar to a "Facebook at work". The number one rule to get people to use it: never, EVER call it "Facebook for work". Call it "Shining Communications Turd", "Chainsaw through productivity", "Free Crack", just don't call it "Facebook for work".
I think Facebook might have a bigger uphill battle here than it thinks.
We've had people walked out, fired, for using Evernote in meetings.
Where did you work, the NSA?
Erm, what? I know how PageRank works because I read about it as a technical paper in a Computing Journal in 1998, before Google was started as a company. That said, I don't know what came first - the paper or the patent. Pretty sure though that the paper came first, or was at least simultaneous to the patent filing. Finally, most of the stuff in the Google ranking mechanism is as much an algorithm as a kernel is an algorithm. It's a host of ranking modules, tweaks, weights, heuristics, clean-up jobs, maintenance jobs, spider jobs, and a whole crap-load of IT work to make it hum like it does.
it could easily apply the same to personal data to be flagged
Please do enlighten us how it could easily apply algorithms to categorize data to distinguish between personal, protected data, and data of public records that belong to someone else. Just for shits and grins, please create an algorithm that would distinguish between the Washington Post article and the original bankruptcy article.
It's perfectly possible to have both- no one is expecting perfection, but ultimately just because Google may never get it perfectly right doesn't mean they should be freed from the law altogether.
Wow. So that means that now laws that cannot be followed every time are a good idea? In the case of Google, it means a perpetual fine that cannot be escaped, is completely arbitrary, and applies only to Google.
Everything you posted so far is a damning indictment of exactly why this law is terrible: it's not possible to fully comply, it's arbitrary, it's open to abuse from all sides, and its target is also completely arbitrary.
Technically, you are accurate in your description of why Google needs to follow the law as it is written. However, the discussion we're having is about whether the law should exist in the first law. On that, you're digging your own hole.
Considering the over-reaction we're getting from a lot of people around Ebola - and that includes people who laugh about bureaucrats' overreaction to blinking lights in Chicago and WiFi network names - I'm going to guess that most people are just scared shitless of stuff they don't understand and willing to sacrifice everything to feel safe again.
That doesn't make it any better, but it gives us a better shot at fixing the issue (educate people) than the conspiracy theory approach.
His duty is to the president, not the public. I have a lot of respect for him that he gave the president his opinion, the president disagreed with him, and he kept his mouth shut in public. I also have a lot of respect for him that he isn't just bashing Obama, but merely strongly disagreeing with him on some decisions the president made. On others, he is actually openly agreeing with him (see his position on "Enhanced Interrogation") - or at least, showing far more agreement than a standard republican would.
Yeah, Panetta was a republican, through and through. He was a security hawk, and never made any bones about it. At the same time, he fully supported the president while he was in office. Just for that, he deserves respect.
Big infrastructure projects lead themselves to being natural monopolies, with or without government interference. So removing government regulation unfortunately does not solve the problem.
Meanwhile the assertion that models fit past events is near irrelevant since that is data which is already known and it is expected that the models would have been adjusted in the first place to fit that data). For example, I can construct an interpolation of any temperature (or other numerical) data to perfect precision using an even degree polynomial of sufficiently high degree, yet it'll be completely irrelevant once I attempt any sort of extrapolation into the future (odds are good, about 50% I'd say, that it'll predict temperatures far below absolute zero by 2100).
Shockingly, scientists are aware of that issue, and have developed methods to test models against existing data. They do that by training on one chunk of the available data, and testing against another.
You're making two more mistakes in your analysis.
One, you complain that models that fit old data perfectly are wrong because all they do is fit data. Then you complain that the models don't fit the data perfectly - precisely because they don't just fit data. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
Two, you think that we have direct measurements for everything. We don't. We'd like to, but we don't. And even the direct measurements we have need to be transformed into data that can be compared across measurements. All of that is subject to being wrong.
This profound inability to admit error is why I don't trust current climate models or the doomsday predictions they spawn in the least. That's why I'm going to wait a few decades and see what happens. If it genuinely is as bad as claimed, then we'll see something by then.
Unfortunately, that inability to admit error is only in your head. The models have been changed countless times over the last decades, and have gotten better in response. Lastly, if you wait a few decades, it'll be too late to head off any meaningful changes. As the joke goes: what if we'd make changes for a better planet when it's not necessary?
If you're applying for a programming job, that will never come into contact with customers, why the hell should you need to demonstrate an ability to sell stuff?
You're always selling something even if you're programming. During the interview, you're selling yourself. While working, you're selling your ideas and proposals (even if it is just prioritizing features and putting time and numbers to them).
Sales is part of life in general. And this is coming from someone who has tried to stay away from sales as much as possible.
I think #1 was probably the key driving factor here. People became emotionally invested in their business, and started to identify with it. When the business went south, they had invested so much into it (personally - the financial investment was probably secondary) that they had nothing to fall back onto. At the risk of assuming something of people I never met, I'm going to guess that they justified everything with "if this is gonna make it big, it was worth all the sacrifices I made". And when the business went bust instead of boom, they realized they made sacrifices that were never going to be recouped.
It's worth repeating: you are not your business; you're not your income. If you are, get ready for a short life full of regrets.
Because when you're looking for highly accurate, trustworthy information, you think of Facebook!
That's really the only comment that's necessary here. Fine, use Facebook for advocacy. The ALS challenge clearly demonstrated Facebook is actually good at that. But getting medical advice from Facebook? All I know is that the medical advice I see dispensed on Facebook would make a snake-oil seller from the Wild West blush. As an absolute edge case, I can see support pages for people with specific conditions, but I'll be a two-faced goat from Nepal if people stick to just being supportive, and don't start peddling homeopathic crap.
Science is absolutely not about proofs. It's about gathering facts and comparing them to a prediction, along with the use of math to transform data sets into comparable sets.
To paraphrase: science is about the search for facts. If you want truth, philosophy is down the hall.
For the used car market to be close to pure capitalism, the buyers would have to have near perfect information about the cars in question. Which they most definitely do not. Either because they don't know cars, or because the car dealers actively lie.
On average, less physical strength and higher desirability as a rape target than a single male.
Shall I also explain to you why fire can be bad, and why eating is generally important?
Correction: it says much about the general public about what they know about the technology that powers their life. For most people, it might as well be Magic.
Wow. Every regulatory agency is just there to expand its own powers? They do nothing else?
The reason people point you at Somalia is because your hyperbole leads you directly there. Want to have a civilized discussion about the optImal size of government? Great, start by dropping the ridiculous hyperbole.
A broken clock is also right twice a day. What's your point?
Technically, WW2 and WW1 were the same war, just with a 20 year pause. At least from a European and lessons learned perspective.
I suggest the Federalist Papers as a start.
Funny. Every time I read them, they say the exact opposite of what people like you pretend they say. Democracy vs Republic is still my favorite and most blatant example.