Sigh; and the permian was similar (in fact, was the source of much of the fossil fuels we use now.) And yet, a far milder jolt on their climate wiped up 95% of all life the likes of which the world took ages to recover from. The nature of any given climate is of academic interest; the problem is in how fast it changes... and it's happening a lot faster now (we've done in just 200 years what took a million then) than during the world's worst known extinction level event.
Actually, yeah... I'm not sure if there's a STRONG link to being on the spectrum (not my area of experience, though I might even find myself on some mild end of it myself), BUT, these kind of things do require a very unusual amount of dedication to learning a thing... most good developers I know have been hacking away since they were between 5 and 10 years old, dedicating their entire lives to it. That is not normal, as defined by numerical analysis of the larger population. The part I have difficulty with, in this statement, is that it is the result of culture, rather than an emergent pattern centered around the depth of education it takes to be a genuinely good developer.
Still, I would support a movement to introduce algorithmic (problem solving) thinking classes (as expressed through programming or perhaps interactive models (lego mindstorm or equivalent stuff)) much earlier in schooling...
... and will sell what people are buying. I shop there, and never even glance at these aisles. I just get fresh unprocessed food that's hard to get anywhere else these days, cook it myself, lose 120lbs and normalize my bloodwork in doing it.
Just as with new processed food products, or mining techniques, etc, this sort of thing has potentially huge and life-threatening consequences. Google (and similar) should have to do the legwork to PROVE the safety of a product rather than maimed or widow(er)ed individuals having to do the legwork to PROVE a product is NOT safe.
Pay should reflect the good a person has done... a tech CEO could potentially have invented something that has changed the face of the world for the better, and I am happy for them to have benefitted from that (this applies less or potentially not at all to later CEOs who simply take the position as given them by money-only boards of directors and/or shareholders.) Bankers, though... it's a real stretch of the imagination to see them has having done anything other than a modest good at their broadest, and thus should incur only modest pay to match that.
see: http://youtu.be/ceFyF9px20Y?t=...... in this case we're talking the food industry, and in an example a few minutes prior to where this is tagged to begin, Lustig describes how it was the food industry got away with not admitting to people what they were putting in our food (i.e., because it was proprietary information that their competitors could duplicate.)
But the point is, some science MUST rely on causal inference. You can't go around infecting thousands of people with HIV to run a study. You can't make someone smoke for 70 straight years to see what happens. You can't spike their food with high fructose corn syrup and trans fat, en masse, and be doing ethical science... and so you must instead examine the statistics that came FROM the fact that industries have already subjected us to these things and make a strong inference. And yet, because of the methods we're limited to, the food industry keeps getting to set the goal line back. 'We need better data,' 'more research to be sure...' and as long as they're 'never sure' we can never say, with any authority, 'okay, this explicative deleted is bad stuff.'
I actually kinda LIKE the idea of complete transparency... but if they're going to force it on the EPA, FDA, CDC, etc, they must ACCEPT it upon themselves as well. No product can be sold to the public before it is ABSOLUTELY PROVEN TO BE SAFE. Let's see how they like that one?
While I understand I am replying to a point of sarcasm, nethertheless we really should invest some time in using words correctly. Terrorists user terror to achieve a goal. Period. Activists use activism to achieve a goal. Vigilanteism may or may not use terror, but it is using directed force (of one form or another) to achieve a goal (in this case, hacking deleterious services in the name of 'justice' as understood by those engaging in it.) Whether justified or not or misdirected or not, it's not terrorism unless the force being applied is terror, and that does not accurately describe anonymous. Tangentially, I wish we'd do the same with words like LIBERAL (to behave permissively) vs. AUTHORITARIAN (to behave restrictively) or CONSERVATIVE (to resist change) vs. PROGRESSIVE (to seek change.) In all cases, the context is what's most important. Are you permissive toward personal in-home nondangerous lifestyles? Well, then you're socially liberal and probably democratic (party) leaning. Are you permissive towards gigantocorporations buying legislation and dumping toxins into water supplies on the cheap? Then you're corporately (neo) liberal. Hell, you have to be both liberal (towards individuals) and authoritarian (toward those arguing to take personal liberties away) to achieve and end... so I guess using D(D)oS against D(D)oSers almost makes sense.
MEH! I just wish people would be simple and clear about the labels we through around and understand them in contexts.
Oh, the orbit matters... but the orbit is EXTREMELY predictable even its wobble and orientation. It might, perhaps tip the scale during the (likely ongoing) pleistocene (Where 90% of our time is spent in ice age with 10% warm snaps that should have already ended by now, contrary to spiking upwards instead) but ebbs on a timeline that should have had the pleistocene happening essentially since beginning of observable time (which it has not.) So, it's a factor, but not a decisive one. Continental arrangements and landmasses propensity for temperature extremity vs. oceanic propensity for temperature moderation and long-distance transport matter far more (even than tilt, given measuring the southern hemisphere vs. northern.) And yet, in spite of the fact that the continents and oceanic currents are still in the same messy tangle they have been for the entirety of the multi-million year pleistocene, these beasts didn't go extinct during an of the previous warm-snaps... just the one we arrived in... and now that we should be quickly descending into ice age, instead we're headed the other way.
This article is of interest, but it is not argument against anthropogenic extinctions or climate change.
If, as a nation, you decide that some other nation is an enemy, how better to influence their youth and upcoming generations to become your friend than offering them a good education? All this does is worsen the divide and entrench the relatively few 'bad guys' said other nation may even have running the show into their positions against us. *headdesk*
https://medium.com/about-work/9b14f05a9832... even IF its partially assumed on her/their part, the fact remains that as long as women feel this way in the tech world, they will remains scarce.
the remainder of the series after Ender's Game deals with coming to an understanding with and realizing that the 'bad guys' weren't actually bad... which kinda IS a message of tolerance. Sounds like he's a conflicted and confused person, to me... just as the rest of us are on one topic or another.
I kinda like bi-weekly, myself... I budget myself around the idea of 24 (2x12) paychecks... but GET 26... which means two paychecks are entirely outside of the budget and are free-for-alls, basically.
In other words; Wall Street is a great place to make a big impact with new (if carefully designed) systems, contemporary terminology, and excellent engineering. Sounds like a lot of job opportunities right there. Then again... I'm not sure I want to support Wall Street. Seem like the bad guys to me right now
Success has an element of surprise to it, but its not entirely out of your control either. My caveat is the argument that what you learn when particularly young is what you'll be a natural at the rest of your life. Learn a 2nd language before 14 years old and your entire life, new languages will come easily and without notable accent... but learn 2nd after 14 and it'll be hard, most will give up, and even those who succeed maintain a lifelong accent. It's a brain chemistry and stage thing.
Programming is an analytical and problem solving sort of thing... if anything you've done during your developmental years is similar, then it shouldn't be hard for you to adapt now, really... and as with french and spanish and italian, the differences between, say, perl, python, javascript and php are not significant enough to deter you... the LOGIC behind them will be familiar... the differences are more in context, strengths, and dialect.
We ourselves on an exponentiating curve when it comes to technology, and will have to augment ourselves just to keep up with ~VERY~ short order (in the grand scheme of human history thus far.) Still, the presumption that being smarter (or even less human) will make us less curious is... well... curious.
Hence my having stressed lexicality... scope. If you are in the neighborhood of london, england, you can just say 'london' and people can presume with almost complete accuracy that you mean the one nearby. There are, however, probably like 20 londons in the USA... Now... a star light ours (Sol) is not remarkable at all. It's a dim, boring little star amidst a sea of hundreds of billions of stars amidst a sea of tens of trillions of seas of suns. It's only slightly less podunk than its neighbors, but dwarfed in long distance visibility by sirius and even more so by vega and arcturus in our immediate vicinity. That said, as a TERM, sol(ar) would be super useful in describing suns that would appeal to us in any given neighborhood... and to call a world 'terran' would be descriptive as well... so the names, as we do already on earth, are likely to be used over and over and over and over should we ever span galactic. If you're in this neck of the woods, then you could probably just say 'terra' and, as with the City of London, most anyone would know to which of the tens of thousands of planets in the vicinity you are referring to... but if you're traveling here from thousands of light years away, then you'll have flown passed dozens of planets the pilgrims on which would like to be able to name in homage to or for descriptive similarity the world of their origins. So it just makes sense, if you can get around out there, that you'd do exactly what we do here on earth... reusing names and referencing their 'depth of name' based on the scope of your current conversation. Orionia (arm) Arcturum (region) Sol (star) Terra (planet) Luna (moon) v. ??? (arm) Bellatrixum (area) Aria (star) Ares (planet) Terra (moon). There are lots of names yet to be used for planets.... but there are far too many out there not to be repeated thousands of times over.
Yeah, and while a computer won't have any difficulty making a distinction between Swift J 164449.3+573451 and HDE 226868, a human will... then again, you could argue that we're only going to be getting out among the stars as a human-computer hybrid anyways... so maybe it'll be moot at that time. Until then, 3D lexical scope human recognizable naming mechanisms are going to have to replace the current methodolgies should we ever get the opportunity to move among them prior to such hybridizations.
Good luck stopping me; but besides that, as the number of them ramp up, we're going to have to change our naming methodologies anyways... probably to some compound lexical stuff, not unlike street addresses so that the same names can be used and reused and reused and not confuse anyone when spoken in proper context. Oh, a mission to Sol Terra Luna? Which one? Oh! The one over by way of Arcturus Region? You betcha!
We'll have to define semiamorphous regions determined by medium shifts (voids, nebulae, rifts, arms, etc) and named after their most prominent, un, stellarmarks (think landmarks.) The brightest object in our vicinity is Arcturus, the the local region is likely to carry its name or some derivation of it... but our current naming metholodies (alpha lyre, etc) fail to account for the fact that alpha and beta have no relationship at all with one another, and can be further from each other than one is from us, except from lining up from our one unique perspective in space... once you travel elsewhere, that perspective is lost...
Slashdot Mirror
Sigh; and the permian was similar (in fact, was the source of much of the fossil fuels we use now.) And yet, a far milder jolt on their climate wiped up 95% of all life the likes of which the world took ages to recover from. The nature of any given climate is of academic interest; the problem is in how fast it changes... and it's happening a lot faster now (we've done in just 200 years what took a million then) than during the world's worst known extinction level event.
Actually, yeah... I'm not sure if there's a STRONG link to being on the spectrum (not my area of experience, though I might even find myself on some mild end of it myself), BUT, these kind of things do require a very unusual amount of dedication to learning a thing... most good developers I know have been hacking away since they were between 5 and 10 years old, dedicating their entire lives to it. That is not normal, as defined by numerical analysis of the larger population. The part I have difficulty with, in this statement, is that it is the result of culture, rather than an emergent pattern centered around the depth of education it takes to be a genuinely good developer. Still, I would support a movement to introduce algorithmic (problem solving) thinking classes (as expressed through programming or perhaps interactive models (lego mindstorm or equivalent stuff)) much earlier in schooling...
... and will sell what people are buying. I shop there, and never even glance at these aisles. I just get fresh unprocessed food that's hard to get anywhere else these days, cook it myself, lose 120lbs and normalize my bloodwork in doing it.
Just as with new processed food products, or mining techniques, etc, this sort of thing has potentially huge and life-threatening consequences. Google (and similar) should have to do the legwork to PROVE the safety of a product rather than maimed or widow(er)ed individuals having to do the legwork to PROVE a product is NOT safe.
Pay should reflect the good a person has done... a tech CEO could potentially have invented something that has changed the face of the world for the better, and I am happy for them to have benefitted from that (this applies less or potentially not at all to later CEOs who simply take the position as given them by money-only boards of directors and/or shareholders.) Bankers, though... it's a real stretch of the imagination to see them has having done anything other than a modest good at their broadest, and thus should incur only modest pay to match that.
see: http://youtu.be/ceFyF9px20Y?t=... ... in this case we're talking the food industry, and in an example a few minutes prior to where this is tagged to begin, Lustig describes how it was the food industry got away with not admitting to people what they were putting in our food (i.e., because it was proprietary information that their competitors could duplicate.)
But the point is, some science MUST rely on causal inference. You can't go around infecting thousands of people with HIV to run a study. You can't make someone smoke for 70 straight years to see what happens. You can't spike their food with high fructose corn syrup and trans fat, en masse, and be doing ethical science... and so you must instead examine the statistics that came FROM the fact that industries have already subjected us to these things and make a strong inference. And yet, because of the methods we're limited to, the food industry keeps getting to set the goal line back. 'We need better data,' 'more research to be sure...' and as long as they're 'never sure' we can never say, with any authority, 'okay, this explicative deleted is bad stuff.'
I actually kinda LIKE the idea of complete transparency... but if they're going to force it on the EPA, FDA, CDC, etc, they must ACCEPT it upon themselves as well. No product can be sold to the public before it is ABSOLUTELY PROVEN TO BE SAFE. Let's see how they like that one?
Typos notwithstanding
While I understand I am replying to a point of sarcasm, nethertheless we really should invest some time in using words correctly. Terrorists user terror to achieve a goal. Period. Activists use activism to achieve a goal. Vigilanteism may or may not use terror, but it is using directed force (of one form or another) to achieve a goal (in this case, hacking deleterious services in the name of 'justice' as understood by those engaging in it.) Whether justified or not or misdirected or not, it's not terrorism unless the force being applied is terror, and that does not accurately describe anonymous. Tangentially, I wish we'd do the same with words like LIBERAL (to behave permissively) vs. AUTHORITARIAN (to behave restrictively) or CONSERVATIVE (to resist change) vs. PROGRESSIVE (to seek change.) In all cases, the context is what's most important. Are you permissive toward personal in-home nondangerous lifestyles? Well, then you're socially liberal and probably democratic (party) leaning. Are you permissive towards gigantocorporations buying legislation and dumping toxins into water supplies on the cheap? Then you're corporately (neo) liberal. Hell, you have to be both liberal (towards individuals) and authoritarian (toward those arguing to take personal liberties away) to achieve and end... so I guess using D(D)oS against D(D)oSers almost makes sense. MEH! I just wish people would be simple and clear about the labels we through around and understand them in contexts.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu... ...
Oh, the orbit matters... but the orbit is EXTREMELY predictable even its wobble and orientation. It might, perhaps tip the scale during the (likely ongoing) pleistocene (Where 90% of our time is spent in ice age with 10% warm snaps that should have already ended by now, contrary to spiking upwards instead) but ebbs on a timeline that should have had the pleistocene happening essentially since beginning of observable time (which it has not.) So, it's a factor, but not a decisive one. Continental arrangements and landmasses propensity for temperature extremity vs. oceanic propensity for temperature moderation and long-distance transport matter far more (even than tilt, given measuring the southern hemisphere vs. northern.) And yet, in spite of the fact that the continents and oceanic currents are still in the same messy tangle they have been for the entirety of the multi-million year pleistocene, these beasts didn't go extinct during an of the previous warm-snaps... just the one we arrived in... and now that we should be quickly descending into ice age, instead we're headed the other way. This article is of interest, but it is not argument against anthropogenic extinctions or climate change.
If, as a nation, you decide that some other nation is an enemy, how better to influence their youth and upcoming generations to become your friend than offering them a good education? All this does is worsen the divide and entrench the relatively few 'bad guys' said other nation may even have running the show into their positions against us. *headdesk*
Sigh... if only 'lefties' hadn't been blocked from appointing justices for so long... *facepalm*
https://medium.com/about-work/9b14f05a9832 ... even IF its partially assumed on her/their part, the fact remains that as long as women feel this way in the tech world, they will remains scarce.
Well said
the remainder of the series after Ender's Game deals with coming to an understanding with and realizing that the 'bad guys' weren't actually bad... which kinda IS a message of tolerance. Sounds like he's a conflicted and confused person, to me... just as the rest of us are on one topic or another.
I kinda like bi-weekly, myself... I budget myself around the idea of 24 (2x12) paychecks... but GET 26... which means two paychecks are entirely outside of the budget and are free-for-alls, basically.
Well said; I need to do much the same... it kinda comes and goes with me, and I am dissatisfied.
In other words; Wall Street is a great place to make a big impact with new (if carefully designed) systems, contemporary terminology, and excellent engineering. Sounds like a lot of job opportunities right there. Then again... I'm not sure I want to support Wall Street. Seem like the bad guys to me right now
Success has an element of surprise to it, but its not entirely out of your control either. My caveat is the argument that what you learn when particularly young is what you'll be a natural at the rest of your life. Learn a 2nd language before 14 years old and your entire life, new languages will come easily and without notable accent... but learn 2nd after 14 and it'll be hard, most will give up, and even those who succeed maintain a lifelong accent. It's a brain chemistry and stage thing. Programming is an analytical and problem solving sort of thing... if anything you've done during your developmental years is similar, then it shouldn't be hard for you to adapt now, really... and as with french and spanish and italian, the differences between, say, perl, python, javascript and php are not significant enough to deter you... the LOGIC behind them will be familiar... the differences are more in context, strengths, and dialect.
We ourselves on an exponentiating curve when it comes to technology, and will have to augment ourselves just to keep up with ~VERY~ short order (in the grand scheme of human history thus far.) Still, the presumption that being smarter (or even less human) will make us less curious is ... well ... curious.
Authority is given, though some think it can be taken. Those need a bit of a reminder of the contrary from time to time, eh?
=) Glad someone understands the nature of the problem
Hence my having stressed lexicality... scope. If you are in the neighborhood of london, england, you can just say 'london' and people can presume with almost complete accuracy that you mean the one nearby. There are, however, probably like 20 londons in the USA... Now... a star light ours (Sol) is not remarkable at all. It's a dim, boring little star amidst a sea of hundreds of billions of stars amidst a sea of tens of trillions of seas of suns. It's only slightly less podunk than its neighbors, but dwarfed in long distance visibility by sirius and even more so by vega and arcturus in our immediate vicinity. That said, as a TERM, sol(ar) would be super useful in describing suns that would appeal to us in any given neighborhood... and to call a world 'terran' would be descriptive as well... so the names, as we do already on earth, are likely to be used over and over and over and over should we ever span galactic. If you're in this neck of the woods, then you could probably just say 'terra' and, as with the City of London, most anyone would know to which of the tens of thousands of planets in the vicinity you are referring to... but if you're traveling here from thousands of light years away, then you'll have flown passed dozens of planets the pilgrims on which would like to be able to name in homage to or for descriptive similarity the world of their origins. So it just makes sense, if you can get around out there, that you'd do exactly what we do here on earth... reusing names and referencing their 'depth of name' based on the scope of your current conversation. Orionia (arm) Arcturum (region) Sol (star) Terra (planet) Luna (moon) v. ??? (arm) Bellatrixum (area) Aria (star) Ares (planet) Terra (moon). There are lots of names yet to be used for planets.... but there are far too many out there not to be repeated thousands of times over.
Yeah, and while a computer won't have any difficulty making a distinction between Swift J 164449.3+573451 and HDE 226868, a human will... then again, you could argue that we're only going to be getting out among the stars as a human-computer hybrid anyways... so maybe it'll be moot at that time. Until then, 3D lexical scope human recognizable naming mechanisms are going to have to replace the current methodolgies should we ever get the opportunity to move among them prior to such hybridizations.
Good luck stopping me; but besides that, as the number of them ramp up, we're going to have to change our naming methodologies anyways... probably to some compound lexical stuff, not unlike street addresses so that the same names can be used and reused and reused and not confuse anyone when spoken in proper context. Oh, a mission to Sol Terra Luna? Which one? Oh! The one over by way of Arcturus Region? You betcha! We'll have to define semiamorphous regions determined by medium shifts (voids, nebulae, rifts, arms, etc) and named after their most prominent, un, stellarmarks (think landmarks.) The brightest object in our vicinity is Arcturus, the the local region is likely to carry its name or some derivation of it... but our current naming metholodies (alpha lyre, etc) fail to account for the fact that alpha and beta have no relationship at all with one another, and can be further from each other than one is from us, except from lining up from our one unique perspective in space... once you travel elsewhere, that perspective is lost...