Naw... a study is simply the gathering of data and the elimination of confounding variables and the isolation of statistically significant variables. Theorizing comes next with trying to explain WHY these observations work as observed, to be followed again with experiments to attempt to verify or disprove the theory. You're jumping ahead of all the meticulous work.
but... http://www.press.uchicago.edu/....... The modus operandi at play on the right, as distilled into absurdity by the trump campaign, generally follows the same path toward the cliff that the NAZIs did, in terms of divorcing people from their roles in governance and political involvement, turning groups against each other, fear/war/corruption-mongery and incessantly incremental but 'regretted' acts of curtailing both freedoms and their counterbalancing civic responsibilities. The parallels are freakish, and the man in front today far less rational or informed than the example he's being compared to.
We have to consider the possibility that he'll be WORSE... not merely 'like.' NAZI germany had to build itself up from ashes (part of their motivation, frankly), and never did have nukes to play with... meanwhile we're outspending most of the rest of the developed world combined while self-militarizing our citizenry and have enough heavy weaponry to essentially end humanity.
We can't even allow the possibility.
"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.
"How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice—‘Resist the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have. And everyone counts on that might.
"Your ‘little men,’ your Nazi friends, were not against National Socialism in principle. Men like me, who were, are the greater offenders, not because we knew better (that would be too much to say) but because we sensed better. Pastor Niemöller spoke for the thousands and thousands of men like me when he spoke (too modestly of himself) and said that, when the Nazis attacked the Communists, he was a little uneasy, but, after all, he was not a Communist, and so he did nothing; and then they attacked the Socialists, and he was a little uneasier, but, still, he was not a Socialist, and he did nothing; and then the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on, and he was always uneasier, but still he did nothing. And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman, and he did something—but then it was too late."
I'm no fan of HRC, but in this particular comparison there is no valid argument trying to equate the two. One is likely too corporate for our long term health, but the other cheers on the possibility of violence, and lies in his speeches every 5 minutes on measured average (and likely to shorten as we get into actual debates next week) and has yet to demonstrate an EQ greater than that of a toddler, lashing out vindictively at the slightest (and oft illegitimately defined) offense... and here we are have an actual argument that could mean that the world's most top-heavy and over-inflated military might would be in those hands?
To simply say that he might be 'the president we deserve' even as a self-insult, is inhumanely insular... because the damage won't be just to us.
While lobbying has a well-earned bad name thanks to corporate special interests, it's not actually necessarily a bad thing. If you call up your representative and tell them how bad the pollution has got in the stream running behind your house downhill from the factory, etc... you're lobbying. And for good. It's, frankly, part of your responsibilities as a citizen, to keep your reps and senators on their toes this way.
Meanwhile, the topic of this article is worse, but can still be called lobbying in a way... albeit, of the people rather than of congress.
The lawsuits represent what may be a new approach in the attack on the use of H-1B workers to replace U.S. workers. They allege violations of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), claiming that the nature of the employment of the H-1B workers was misrepresented, and that Disney and the contractors knew the ultimate intent was to replace U.S. workers with lower paid [[ and ultimately disposable ]] H-1B workers.
...and one I find much more solvable than, I dunno, scraping off titan's atmosphere for sufficient amounts of hydrocarbons to sate current usage rates for even the short term, much less as permanently as things like solar power will remain available.
I sorta agree.
Mars is dead. Humanity (for the most part) vastly underappreciates how vital internal heat is to life on Earth... and the lack of the same on Mars will make it a perpetual sinkhole for any energy we invest into it. Nuking the poles won't change that... just give a very brief warm/wet spell. Any colonies on that planet will have to be enclosed and perhaps even sub'martian' for the most part... until we've grown powerful enough as a specie to move it into a lunar orbit around something massing enough to knead its core back into action, akin to galilean moons, perhaps.
That said, this is not reason not to go. The path to other stars will need a few steps along the way, and for that Mars is a worthwhile part of the path.
'omg, it's hard' is a terrible excuse.
No... the new world had the capacity to sustain life.
That said, 'omg it's hard' is not valid reason not to exercise our ingenuity and expand our capacities. Mars is a stepping stone, not a destination.
https://youtu.be/PAHBZImmXsI... there may be a lot of folk out there who think they can code after having had such a late start in life, but practical experience among the best of universities have found that the tide of talent showing up at their doorsteps has been pretty deeply out, due to lack of having the right opportunities at the right time.
but SOMEONE must be studying climate intensely, be it NASA or NOAA, it's all the same to me. But trying to gut the program smells distinctly of defensive profiteers with their hands far too deep into the people's government
Thus demonstrating and extremely narrow definition of geo-engineering (which somehow excludes dominating the landscape if climate changing practices like... oh, I dunno, forced agriculture, urban sprawl (as opposed to urban hives), fracking from one horizon to the other, mass deforestation, etc etc etc ad nauseam.) Developing healthy practices that both sustain people while reversing the damage (and yes, we've a myriad of examples to choose from, and many many more in the pipeline) AT SCALE... is geo-engineering, too.
Yep, yep, sorry... Apple (as an organization) has consistently delivered hardware that we could count on, met or surpassed our needs (and alternative vendors), etc... then again, we haven't had any trouble with them when delivering apps for googleplay and ios side by side (re, the article), but they're not centric to our organization's offerings just yet, either.
Haven't had the same experience; as a developer, we found apple to be particularly powerful, robust, and reliable versus the PCs we had prior. Then again, I'm pretty upset with Yosemite, and it's been years, so maybe the environment on the other side of that coin has changed in the interim.
Exactly; when what you get back is so much more valuable, it is worth it. Still, as an American, it is easy to get cynical about taxes when they've been redirected to burden the poor and working classes the most, let the rich off scott free, buy very little medical care, roads that are usually in disrepair, bridges that are falling into rivers in rush hour traffic, law enforcement that's losing its war with its own conscience, a bloated and demonstrably less-than-effective military, etc etc etc. We've grown accustomed to getting much less than we pay for.
I sorta agree, but should remind you... we've been this bad before (leading up to great depression) and stood up and turned it around. Yes American is failing but, no, it doesn't have to.
I see they list the top three projects per language... but I have this gut feeling they mi-cross-attributed ruby and perl... rails sounds distinctly ruby, while pretty sure homebrew is perlesque
Anyone calling in from comcast here would get a scorched ear for their time (and complete and utter lack of transparency, support, value, ethics, et cetera.)
Science is a methodology bent on correcting itself; Anything you like can go in the front of the process.. a hunch, an observation, a bit of math, some statistics suggesting a previously unknown pattern, etc. The process, done correctly anyways, will whittle away at it until the truth remains. As NDT suggested, science is not a noun, but a verb.
Do you really have so little concept as to the scale of human damage? A single average-sized car puts out 4.75 metric TONS of carbon every year (and about 2-3 years worth during its construction and a little bit more during its destruction.) At last check there were more cars in the use being operated than there are drivers... and that's just one country... whilst this amount is being dwarfed by carbon emissions tied up in industrial agriculture (local/natural agriculture trends toward carbon neutral to negative, but can only sustain modest populations the likes of which we haven't seen on earth for over a century.) The fact that YOUR individual contribution to the damage done is a drop in the bucket does nothing to deny the fact that you are not the only person on earth... it's a tiny place in the grand scheme of things and we've overrun the place and are spending carbon, water, and oxygen like there's no tomorrow... which is no longer a mathematically implausible scenario as a result.
The world's WORST extinction level event was also a climate change one, and we've reach the same levels at 40000x the speed... if life couldn't cope at that snail's pace (~1000000 years of constant hawaii-style volcanic carbon farting, killing off some 95% of all life) why do you think it (or we) will fare any better doing the equivalent of flying this jet into a brick wall?
I know someone who works there, and they complain quite a bit not just about some of the other workers but also a lot of the folk semi-external to the office on whom they have to rely. Not exactly useful information, I know, but it makes me wonder.
then again, a joke update written about something as obscure as jumping spiders by a coworker some years ago was found and removed within HOURS of its posting. Wikipedia still, due to the competitive nature of its maintenance, beats out well established entities such as encyclopædia brittanica, et cetera.
At some point, I don't see the world being able to avoid a paradigm shift in how we measure careers, labor, etc... we have invested in and achieved so much in terms of automation, ai, etc, and yet we refuse to distribute the high efficiency benefits of these things to the very masses who brought them about and are being displaced by them. If it takes less labor, per person, to make the world work, then it truly should take less labor, period... not the same (or, as things have been going lately) more labor by the few still employed while those at the top of the economic food chain rake in the entire difference just for themselves. In the end, our current path is resource wasteful in a time when we can't afford it, and all for the actual benefit of very few people. It's an untenable and unsustainable practice that's going to have to change, and I don't see us regressing to old technologies just to reestablish old careers when we already have (and simply aren't properly dispersing) much better.
Slashdot Mirror
Naw... a study is simply the gathering of data and the elimination of confounding variables and the isolation of statistically significant variables. Theorizing comes next with trying to explain WHY these observations work as observed, to be followed again with experiments to attempt to verify or disprove the theory. You're jumping ahead of all the meticulous work.
but... http://www.press.uchicago.edu/... .... The modus operandi at play on the right, as distilled into absurdity by the trump campaign, generally follows the same path toward the cliff that the NAZIs did, in terms of divorcing people from their roles in governance and political involvement, turning groups against each other, fear/war/corruption-mongery and incessantly incremental but 'regretted' acts of curtailing both freedoms and their counterbalancing civic responsibilities. The parallels are freakish, and the man in front today far less rational or informed than the example he's being compared to.
We have to consider the possibility that he'll be WORSE... not merely 'like.' NAZI germany had to build itself up from ashes (part of their motivation, frankly), and never did have nukes to play with... meanwhile we're outspending most of the rest of the developed world combined while self-militarizing our citizenry and have enough heavy weaponry to essentially end humanity.
We can't even allow the possibility.
I'm no fan of HRC, but in this particular comparison there is no valid argument trying to equate the two. One is likely too corporate for our long term health, but the other cheers on the possibility of violence, and lies in his speeches every 5 minutes on measured average (and likely to shorten as we get into actual debates next week) and has yet to demonstrate an EQ greater than that of a toddler, lashing out vindictively at the slightest (and oft illegitimately defined) offense... and here we are have an actual argument that could mean that the world's most top-heavy and over-inflated military might would be in those hands? To simply say that he might be 'the president we deserve' even as a self-insult, is inhumanely insular... because the damage won't be just to us.
While lobbying has a well-earned bad name thanks to corporate special interests, it's not actually necessarily a bad thing. If you call up your representative and tell them how bad the pollution has got in the stream running behind your house downhill from the factory, etc... you're lobbying. And for good. It's, frankly, part of your responsibilities as a citizen, to keep your reps and senators on their toes this way. Meanwhile, the topic of this article is worse, but can still be called lobbying in a way... albeit, of the people rather than of congress.
The lawsuits represent what may be a new approach in the attack on the use of H-1B workers to replace U.S. workers. They allege violations of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), claiming that the nature of the employment of the H-1B workers was misrepresented, and that Disney and the contractors knew the ultimate intent was to replace U.S. workers with lower paid [[ and ultimately disposable ]] H-1B workers.
...and one I find much more solvable than, I dunno, scraping off titan's atmosphere for sufficient amounts of hydrocarbons to sate current usage rates for even the short term, much less as permanently as things like solar power will remain available.
I sorta agree. Mars is dead. Humanity (for the most part) vastly underappreciates how vital internal heat is to life on Earth... and the lack of the same on Mars will make it a perpetual sinkhole for any energy we invest into it. Nuking the poles won't change that... just give a very brief warm/wet spell. Any colonies on that planet will have to be enclosed and perhaps even sub'martian' for the most part... until we've grown powerful enough as a specie to move it into a lunar orbit around something massing enough to knead its core back into action, akin to galilean moons, perhaps. That said, this is not reason not to go. The path to other stars will need a few steps along the way, and for that Mars is a worthwhile part of the path. 'omg, it's hard' is a terrible excuse.
No... the new world had the capacity to sustain life. That said, 'omg it's hard' is not valid reason not to exercise our ingenuity and expand our capacities. Mars is a stepping stone, not a destination.
https://youtu.be/PAHBZImmXsI ... there may be a lot of folk out there who think they can code after having had such a late start in life, but practical experience among the best of universities have found that the tide of talent showing up at their doorsteps has been pretty deeply out, due to lack of having the right opportunities at the right time.
but SOMEONE must be studying climate intensely, be it NASA or NOAA, it's all the same to me. But trying to gut the program smells distinctly of defensive profiteers with their hands far too deep into the people's government
Thus demonstrating and extremely narrow definition of geo-engineering (which somehow excludes dominating the landscape if climate changing practices like... oh, I dunno, forced agriculture, urban sprawl (as opposed to urban hives), fracking from one horizon to the other, mass deforestation, etc etc etc ad nauseam.) Developing healthy practices that both sustain people while reversing the damage (and yes, we've a myriad of examples to choose from, and many many more in the pipeline) AT SCALE... is geo-engineering, too.
Yep, yep, sorry... Apple (as an organization) has consistently delivered hardware that we could count on, met or surpassed our needs (and alternative vendors), etc... then again, we haven't had any trouble with them when delivering apps for googleplay and ios side by side (re, the article), but they're not centric to our organization's offerings just yet, either.
Haven't had the same experience; as a developer, we found apple to be particularly powerful, robust, and reliable versus the PCs we had prior. Then again, I'm pretty upset with Yosemite, and it's been years, so maybe the environment on the other side of that coin has changed in the interim.
excellent
Exactly; when what you get back is so much more valuable, it is worth it. Still, as an American, it is easy to get cynical about taxes when they've been redirected to burden the poor and working classes the most, let the rich off scott free, buy very little medical care, roads that are usually in disrepair, bridges that are falling into rivers in rush hour traffic, law enforcement that's losing its war with its own conscience, a bloated and demonstrably less-than-effective military, etc etc etc. We've grown accustomed to getting much less than we pay for.
I sorta agree, but should remind you... we've been this bad before (leading up to great depression) and stood up and turned it around. Yes American is failing but, no, it doesn't have to.
I see they list the top three projects per language... but I have this gut feeling they mi-cross-attributed ruby and perl... rails sounds distinctly ruby, while pretty sure homebrew is perlesque
Anyone calling in from comcast here would get a scorched ear for their time (and complete and utter lack of transparency, support, value, ethics, et cetera.)
Science is a methodology bent on correcting itself; Anything you like can go in the front of the process.. a hunch, an observation, a bit of math, some statistics suggesting a previously unknown pattern, etc. The process, done correctly anyways, will whittle away at it until the truth remains. As NDT suggested, science is not a noun, but a verb.
typos notwithstanding
Do you really have so little concept as to the scale of human damage? A single average-sized car puts out 4.75 metric TONS of carbon every year (and about 2-3 years worth during its construction and a little bit more during its destruction.) At last check there were more cars in the use being operated than there are drivers... and that's just one country... whilst this amount is being dwarfed by carbon emissions tied up in industrial agriculture (local/natural agriculture trends toward carbon neutral to negative, but can only sustain modest populations the likes of which we haven't seen on earth for over a century.) The fact that YOUR individual contribution to the damage done is a drop in the bucket does nothing to deny the fact that you are not the only person on earth... it's a tiny place in the grand scheme of things and we've overrun the place and are spending carbon, water, and oxygen like there's no tomorrow... which is no longer a mathematically implausible scenario as a result. The world's WORST extinction level event was also a climate change one, and we've reach the same levels at 40000x the speed... if life couldn't cope at that snail's pace (~1000000 years of constant hawaii-style volcanic carbon farting, killing off some 95% of all life) why do you think it (or we) will fare any better doing the equivalent of flying this jet into a brick wall?
Well said
Now just combine this, in some way, with that new 4.4 trillion FPS camera some other scientists recently invented.
I know someone who works there, and they complain quite a bit not just about some of the other workers but also a lot of the folk semi-external to the office on whom they have to rely. Not exactly useful information, I know, but it makes me wonder.
then again, a joke update written about something as obscure as jumping spiders by a coworker some years ago was found and removed within HOURS of its posting. Wikipedia still, due to the competitive nature of its maintenance, beats out well established entities such as encyclopædia brittanica, et cetera.
At some point, I don't see the world being able to avoid a paradigm shift in how we measure careers, labor, etc... we have invested in and achieved so much in terms of automation, ai, etc, and yet we refuse to distribute the high efficiency benefits of these things to the very masses who brought them about and are being displaced by them. If it takes less labor, per person, to make the world work, then it truly should take less labor, period... not the same (or, as things have been going lately) more labor by the few still employed while those at the top of the economic food chain rake in the entire difference just for themselves. In the end, our current path is resource wasteful in a time when we can't afford it, and all for the actual benefit of very few people. It's an untenable and unsustainable practice that's going to have to change, and I don't see us regressing to old technologies just to reestablish old careers when we already have (and simply aren't properly dispersing) much better.