What a misleading summary. What Muller claims to have shown is:
1. Warming is happening; criticisms of statistical methods can either be worked around or are shown to not be valid.
2. Solar activity and/or other proposed non-CO2 warming drivers are not responsible for the observed increase.
3. Atmospheric CO2 is by far the best correlate with global surface temperatures.
However, he then adds, "These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism," and goes on to reject a number of "alarmist" (his word) consequences of warming (more frequent hurricanes, the U.S. drought, polar bears dying, etc.)
I wouldn't fret about your personal data. If your company's IT department wanted to steal your data they would have done it by now, assuming they have root access to your machine. For that matter, if you leave the machine at work at night any of your coworkers could have stolen it. That said, here's what I'd do:
1. Download and install CCleaner.
2. Configure it to delete all files associated with web browsers, flash, Java, PDF readers, etc. in addition to its defaults.
3. Configure it to write zero bytes over the files it deletes.
4. Run it and let it do its magic.
5. Uninstall any personal apps you've installed, including non-IE browsers, Java, PDF readers, etc. Instruct uninstallers to delete user profiles and personal data.
6. Run CCleaner again. This time run its registry cleanup tool as well.
7a. If you have access to the Administrator account, log out of your user account then log in as Administrator and delete your user account along w/ all its data,
7b If you don't have access to the Administrator account but your user account has Admin access, create a new account with Admin access, then log out of your user account, log into the new account, and delete your original account along w/ all its data.
This seems a little patronizing. If I were an Amazon employee I might rather they take the money they're planning to spend subsidizing employee training and just pay it out in the form of additional salary. Then I could spend it on whatever I pleased.
UN's "medium" estimate is that population will reach about 10 billion and then plateau. Of course, projecting population 90 years in the future is an inexact science at best. On thought on resource consumption: an individual human being's resource consumption is, to a large degree, a factor of his or her standard of living. Consider the per capita resource consumption of developed, western countries vs. sub-Saharan Africa. One could reasonably argue that it will prove impossible to maintain the current global mean standard of living as population increases, ergo environmental stress may not end up increasing linearly with population.
Re: "finding a drive". It may be hard to buy one, but there will almost surely be someone you can pay to get the data off it. Consider that there are services out there now that will move home video footage off VHS and/or off reel-to-reel if you happen to have some really old stuff. It seems unlikely that 25 years from now there will be nobody out there offering to transfer your old CDs to {insert future technology}.
Facebook wins because that's where all my friends and acquaintances are. That Google+ is technically superior doesn't mean much so long as it lacks a critical mass of users. It's also foreign. People have been on Facebook long enough that they're comfortable with it. In order for people to defect Google+ has to be not just "better" but "way better".
Exactly. This inability to scale up communication is why armies (and any other human organization) are hierarchical. But that's not what the article was talking about. It envisions leaderless, democratic mobs that take action according to real-time voting.
So, Google has now implemented ASLR in Android. According to Wikipedia, it's been in iOS since 4.3, which came out March 2011, so that's what, a 16 month head start for Apple?
On the other hand, the first iPhone came out in the U.S. on June 29, 2007 and the first Android phone on October 22, 2008, so Google introduced the tech into its line of phones at about the same delta-relative-to-initial-release as Apple. As you note, Apple had a head start.
The advantage to CAES energy storage seems to be in allowing the energy producer to maintain a lower peak capacity. During times of low demand he produces a surplus of energy, some portion of is stored as compressed air. During times of high demand this stored energy is released and used to augment what his production apparatus can natively provide.
That's all well and good. What confuses me is that this thing in Texas is going to be powered by natural gas. I had thought one of the main advantage of natural gas for electricity product was its ability to power gas turbines, which can be "spun up" (or down) fairly quickly in order to satisfy periods of high demand. How does natural gas powered CAES storage compare to simply having a larger installation of gas turbines, some portion of which will only be selectively spun up during peak demand?
Good systems can look bad with bad actors and bad systems can look good with good actors, but that doesn't mean there aren't still differences between systems.
I've worked for big companies (IBM) that had twice-a-year reviews that involved goal setting, evaluation of whether goals were achieved, and rating yourself on a bunch of silly categories. Bonuses were tied to your score. I've worked for small companies that tried to do the same, and I've worked for even smaller companies where there was no review system (or performance bonuses) whatsoever. I vastly prefer the latter. If I'm doing a crappy job and am in danger of losing my job then tell me. If I'm doing an awesome job and you're especially pleased with my performance then tell me. If I'm meeting expectations but not doing anything awesome then don't waste my time (and create awkwardness between manager and employee that needn't exist) by making me go through performance reviews.
You subsidized it with higher levels of unemployment in the many technical fields needed to design, construct, and use the SSC.
Who's to say the folks who would have filled SSC-related positions didn't end up working in other industries? To what extent were U.S. employers made more globally competitive by virtue of the lower cost of labor due to the lack of competition from the SSC? How many goods and services were purchased by individuals using the $40 per capita saved by not funding the SSC and how many were employed designing, producing, distributing and marketing those goods and services?
You subsidized it with lower salaries in those fields, for those able to find work in them.
I don't see that as a bad thing. Inflating the salaries of SSC-related fields is like levying an additional tax on everyone who employs individuals in those fields above and beyond the direct subsidy to build the SSC.
You subsidized it with the loss of the many small companies that otherwise would have been started by entrepreneurs in response to the challenges faced by the SSC project.
Instead companies formed and tackled problems whose solutions are actually profitable in lieu of subsidies.
You subsidized it with a US industrial base that was less competitive than its foreign competition, which honed its capabilities solving the difficult technical problems presented by the LHC, while the US base did not.
Because clearly the U.S. industrial base can only work on difficult problems if they're being heavily subsidized to do so.
Having the top-tier experimental apparatus outside the US is not the way to attract "the best and the brightest" to the US and is, in fact, the way to force the best young researchers in the US to go overseas.
In the field of particle physics. I can live with that. Even if the money were guaranteed to be spent I'm not convinced the SSC is the best value proposition. For instance, we might have funded a ton of research in other areas.
You subsidized it with a loss in stature of hard science in the minds of US school children. Like the space program before it, the SSC could have been the motivation for a generation of school children to study science and technology.
I grew up about an hour from the proposed site and was in school during the period in which it was being built. It wasn't exactly on the tip of every school kid's tongue.
My experience has been that if a developer can't figure it out in 10 years he's probably not going to figure it out in 20. There's some incremental improvement, but not enough to merit a significant jump in pay purely by virtue of the additional 10 years experience. The larger point was that you're only worth as much as someone's willing to pay you. Part of being "employable" is having a realistic expectation of the level of compensation you "deserve".
Facebook's iPhone app is so crappy I started just using the mobile version of their website in Safari. It's more responsive, less prone to hanging during I/O, and lets me do everything the app did.
60% is the all-time high for EUR/USD. Chart here. The euro is currently worth about as much relative to the dollar as it was in 2004, which is more than at any time prior to 2004.
Yes and no. Certainly a price hike would make competing products more attractive, but not everyone will abandon MS products. It would raise the overall cost of software in Europe in the areas in which Microsoft plays. If I'm a MS competitor who isn't giving away his stuff for free, and MS raises prices by 25%, my optimal price point is probably not "exactly what I'm charging right now". It's somewhere between "what I'm charging right now" and "25% more than what I'm charging right now".
It would foster competition in the same way U.S. tariffs on foreign sugar cane foster "competition" between U.S. corn-growers and foreign sugar exporters. It places a de facto tax on the consumer in order to create artificial competition where it would not normally occur.
Slashdot Mirror
What a misleading summary. What Muller claims to have shown is:
1. Warming is happening; criticisms of statistical methods can either be worked around or are shown to not be valid.
2. Solar activity and/or other proposed non-CO2 warming drivers are not responsible for the observed increase.
3. Atmospheric CO2 is by far the best correlate with global surface temperatures.
However, he then adds, "These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism," and goes on to reject a number of "alarmist" (his word) consequences of warming (more frequent hurricanes, the U.S. drought, polar bears dying, etc.)
I wouldn't fret about your personal data. If your company's IT department wanted to steal your data they would have done it by now, assuming they have root access to your machine. For that matter, if you leave the machine at work at night any of your coworkers could have stolen it. That said, here's what I'd do:
1. Download and install CCleaner.
2. Configure it to delete all files associated with web browsers, flash, Java, PDF readers, etc. in addition to its defaults.
3. Configure it to write zero bytes over the files it deletes.
4. Run it and let it do its magic.
5. Uninstall any personal apps you've installed, including non-IE browsers, Java, PDF readers, etc. Instruct uninstallers to delete user profiles and personal data.
6. Run CCleaner again. This time run its registry cleanup tool as well.
7a. If you have access to the Administrator account, log out of your user account then log in as Administrator and delete your user account along w/ all its data,
7b If you don't have access to the Administrator account but your user account has Admin access, create a new account with Admin access, then log out of your user account, log into the new account, and delete your original account along w/ all its data.
That's pretty much it.
Tell your current male employees not to be douchebags or they'll be fired. Voila: 10-second sensitivity training.
This seems a little patronizing. If I were an Amazon employee I might rather they take the money they're planning to spend subsidizing employee training and just pay it out in the form of additional salary. Then I could spend it on whatever I pleased.
My life is boring. They're welcome to peer into it.
UN's "medium" estimate is that population will reach about 10 billion and then plateau. Of course, projecting population 90 years in the future is an inexact science at best. On thought on resource consumption: an individual human being's resource consumption is, to a large degree, a factor of his or her standard of living. Consider the per capita resource consumption of developed, western countries vs. sub-Saharan Africa. One could reasonably argue that it will prove impossible to maintain the current global mean standard of living as population increases, ergo environmental stress may not end up increasing linearly with population.
Re: "finding a drive". It may be hard to buy one, but there will almost surely be someone you can pay to get the data off it. Consider that there are services out there now that will move home video footage off VHS and/or off reel-to-reel if you happen to have some really old stuff. It seems unlikely that 25 years from now there will be nobody out there offering to transfer your old CDs to {insert future technology}.
Facebook wins because that's where all my friends and acquaintances are. That Google+ is technically superior doesn't mean much so long as it lacks a critical mass of users. It's also foreign. People have been on Facebook long enough that they're comfortable with it. In order for people to defect Google+ has to be not just "better" but "way better".
Exactly. This inability to scale up communication is why armies (and any other human organization) are hierarchical. But that's not what the article was talking about. It envisions leaderless, democratic mobs that take action according to real-time voting.
Small gangs? Sure. Armies? No. You can't communicate effectively with thousands of people simultaneously in the same "real-time" space.
Is his right eye damaged somehow? If not, then how is the doctor's note supposed to explain his use of the device?
On the other hand, the first iPhone came out in the U.S. on June 29, 2007 and the first Android phone on October 22, 2008, so Google introduced the tech into its line of phones at about the same delta-relative-to-initial-release as Apple. As you note, Apple had a head start.
The advantage to CAES energy storage seems to be in allowing the energy producer to maintain a lower peak capacity. During times of low demand he produces a surplus of energy, some portion of is stored as compressed air. During times of high demand this stored energy is released and used to augment what his production apparatus can natively provide.
That's all well and good. What confuses me is that this thing in Texas is going to be powered by natural gas. I had thought one of the main advantage of natural gas for electricity product was its ability to power gas turbines, which can be "spun up" (or down) fairly quickly in order to satisfy periods of high demand. How does natural gas powered CAES storage compare to simply having a larger installation of gas turbines, some portion of which will only be selectively spun up during peak demand?
Good systems can look bad with bad actors and bad systems can look good with good actors, but that doesn't mean there aren't still differences between systems.
Maybe they were inspired by Google, which declared Chrome 20 would only support only OS X 10.6+, i.e. 80-85% of Mac users.
I've worked for big companies (IBM) that had twice-a-year reviews that involved goal setting, evaluation of whether goals were achieved, and rating yourself on a bunch of silly categories. Bonuses were tied to your score. I've worked for small companies that tried to do the same, and I've worked for even smaller companies where there was no review system (or performance bonuses) whatsoever. I vastly prefer the latter. If I'm doing a crappy job and am in danger of losing my job then tell me. If I'm doing an awesome job and you're especially pleased with my performance then tell me. If I'm meeting expectations but not doing anything awesome then don't waste my time (and create awkwardness between manager and employee that needn't exist) by making me go through performance reviews.
Who's to say the folks who would have filled SSC-related positions didn't end up working in other industries? To what extent were U.S. employers made more globally competitive by virtue of the lower cost of labor due to the lack of competition from the SSC? How many goods and services were purchased by individuals using the $40 per capita saved by not funding the SSC and how many were employed designing, producing, distributing and marketing those goods and services?
I don't see that as a bad thing. Inflating the salaries of SSC-related fields is like levying an additional tax on everyone who employs individuals in those fields above and beyond the direct subsidy to build the SSC.
Instead companies formed and tackled problems whose solutions are actually profitable in lieu of subsidies.
Because clearly the U.S. industrial base can only work on difficult problems if they're being heavily subsidized to do so.
In the field of particle physics. I can live with that. Even if the money were guaranteed to be spent I'm not convinced the SSC is the best value proposition. For instance, we might have funded a ton of research in other areas.
I grew up about an hour from the proposed site and was in school during the period in which it was being built. It wasn't exactly on the tip of every school kid's tongue.
Presumably this contribution is less than the U.S. would have spent to build its own. I'll consider that a bargain.
It was still discovered, and this way I didn't have to subsidize it. WIN.
My experience has been that if a developer can't figure it out in 10 years he's probably not going to figure it out in 20. There's some incremental improvement, but not enough to merit a significant jump in pay purely by virtue of the additional 10 years experience. The larger point was that you're only worth as much as someone's willing to pay you. Part of being "employable" is having a realistic expectation of the level of compensation you "deserve".
Err. That should read "where labor is scarce" or "where jobs are plentiful". You get the gist.
1. Be good at what you do.
2. Specialize in something that's in demand. Re-specialize as needed.
3. Don't be the guy with "personality issues".
4. Cultivate a network of former co-workers who know your worth.
5. Don't price yourself out of a job; a senior dev with twenty years experience is worth about as much as one with ten.
6. Choose to live somewhere jobs are scarce and cost-of-living is relatively low.
7. Try to always be working on something that will make you more employable. If your current job doesn't qualify then try to find one that does.
Facebook's iPhone app is so crappy I started just using the mobile version of their website in Safari. It's more responsive, less prone to hanging during I/O, and lets me do everything the app did.
60% is the all-time high for EUR/USD. Chart here. The euro is currently worth about as much relative to the dollar as it was in 2004, which is more than at any time prior to 2004.
Yes and no. Certainly a price hike would make competing products more attractive, but not everyone will abandon MS products. It would raise the overall cost of software in Europe in the areas in which Microsoft plays. If I'm a MS competitor who isn't giving away his stuff for free, and MS raises prices by 25%, my optimal price point is probably not "exactly what I'm charging right now". It's somewhere between "what I'm charging right now" and "25% more than what I'm charging right now".
It would foster competition in the same way U.S. tariffs on foreign sugar cane foster "competition" between U.S. corn-growers and foreign sugar exporters. It places a de facto tax on the consumer in order to create artificial competition where it would not normally occur.