Okay, but suppose there is really good lie-detector tech at Area 51. They scan everybody every six months. If somebody slips, they find out how and where with it, and use the machine to wipe out the trail among the new revealees by adding them on the scan list.
And the climate change claims are perhaps not really a "conspiracy" but more of a mass bias, not unlike what got Germany and W's followers into war. That's (alleged) group-think, and I would NOT classify group-think as a conspiracy any more than an entire population thinking the world is flat a few centuries ago.
Correction: "I suppose they can extrapolate the reveal rate between Yugo's and Chevy's up to the (unseen) Cadillacs..."
And, by "non-linear" I mean it's possible, for example, that if your cover-up skills reach a certain threshold, then the conspiracy is likely to have a long life. You wouldn't discover this threshold in the known leaky conspiracies, which have poor cover-up teams/skills. You could only compare very bad to bad in the known set.
How can they extrapolate characteristics of non-discovered conspiracies from discovered conspiracies?
Couldn't there be characteristics of non-discovered ones that are not present in discovered ones, such as Cadillac cover-up teams? The Yugo's and Chevy's get caught.
I suppose they can extract the reveal rate between Yugo's and Chevy's up to the (unseen) Cadillacs, but maybe it's not linear, but would look linear at a small range and/or small sample.
Indeed! You never know what's around the corner. If it smells like a bubble, it usually is.
For example, if companies start going to The Cloud in droves, then many server admins and hardware workers could be pushed into the market in droves under different IT fields, making ALL IT careers slump.
(Personally, I think it will take a while for co's to adjust to the cloud, but a general slump or publicity/fads may push co's to rush to the cloud to shave costs.)
There's too little incentive for companies to fix or remove bad managers. As long as they kiss up well, then can give underlings hell.
And it's often a one or two traits that need focus. For example, if a manager is repeatedly known to waste resources on "pretty formatting" for internal materials, they should be explicitly graded on their adjusting of that specific trait.
If they keep doing it, dock them pay and eventually fire them. (Give them a really pretty pink-slip.)
If they have more than one or two bad traits, then they probably shouldn't be managers.
There are socialistic economies that did not have banking problems, and capitalistic economies that did. Gov't and markets are tools, and both can be misused and put an eye out of you don't use the tools right.
As far as the Great Depression, the worse portion of it happened BEFORE FDR (actually, just as he was getting in). Your history is off. And bubbles have been happening long before the Federal Reserve or even the USA ever existed.
a more proximate cause is Yellow Cab losing a $8 million accident liability suit by a passenger who is now paralyzed......So much for the medallion cab argument that they offer superior liability coverage.
To be fair, they did cover it.
Maybe they need bankruptcy insurance:-)
The lesson is that ANY cab-like co better be ready for an 8-mil zinger.
Indeed. A lot of regulation out there is NOT socialists per se trying to control things, but rather crony capitalism whereby fat cats (legally) bribe laws into place to keep small cats out of the market.
Socialists then get all the blame.
I'm happy someone is trying to stick it to a big telecom. Big telecoms have turned me grayer than Bernie Sanders over the years. They can die an ugly painful death along with Microsoft, Oracle, and SCO. I wish this new endeavor luck and success.
Instead of augmenting humans, big capital is getting greedy and opting for replacing them.
That's not a problem as long as those replaced have alternatives in the form of a different job and/or "welfare".
An alternative is "make work" programs or incentives. These seem to work fairly well in Japan, as certain corporate practices and habits avoid automation for various reasons. Japan has had stagnant growth, BUT a strong employment rate. Thus, they appear to be trading "stuff" for jobs: less stuff but more jobs.
The bottom line is that trickle-down is failing, and the alternatives are make-work programs or welfare, or a combo.
Indeed! Well put. But, "the right" doesn't see it this way. They see the bottleneck as lack of investment due to "regulations and fear of taxes", which is poppycock pumped into their heads by the wealthy class. Look at all the silly dot-com's (still) being invested in: too much money chasing too few investments. They also waste a lot of investment in real-estate.
There may have been times in history where lack of investment funds was a bottleneck, such as the early 1960's, but that was then. The current bottleneck is lack of consumers, NOT investment money.
The solution(s) appear to be either be printing money and giving it to regular folks ("helicopter theory"), and/or some form of socialism to redistribute the wealth. Inflation is relatively low at the moment such that some printing shouldn't risk run-away inflation. The best economies run about a 2.3% annual inflation rate. We've been around 1.8% for a while. More inflation also dissuades the wealthy from sitting on cash, pushing them to invest it.
We're already seeing the system buckle and fail. Greece crashed...
Greece crashed mostly due to foolish banking practices by country officials and not directly from social programs.
The Great Depression of the 1930's wasn't friendly on "private" workers either. Bubbles whack both capitalists and socialists. Managing a country's finances requires discipline by both the government (including representatives) and voters.
I've heard it's a status symbol in parts of India to talk fast. There's less pressure on clarity. I found out because I suggested to an H1B co-worker that he try to talk slower. He said he didn't want to because a slower habit would make it harder to find a wife when he got back home to India.
In a software engineering forum, I argued that software engineering was mostly about human perception and not "external" rules of logic and math (beyond fitting objective tool requirements). I'll call it "perceptionists" versus "symbolists" here.
As an example, we debated whether it could be proven "go-to's are objectively worse than blocks" as far as software creation resources, quality, and maintenance.
The perceptionist side won the debate (although it can come down to definition interpretation). Blocks are easier to visualize due to indentation than go-to's, and thus aide in the visual identification of flow. There is no known visual equivalent for go-to's at this time, at least not practical ones.
That's important because the symbolists waste time and resources looking for or promoting some special math to guide software design when it's really mostly about the human mind. Just because something is easy to measure or process mathematically does NOT mean it's easy for the human mind to digest.
They accused me of promoting mediocrity and I accused them of trying to inflate the value of their profession, graduate-level university teaching, by inflating the value of minor ideas. Interesting debates, regardless.
I thought it's always been self-parodying. That was one of its fun points. You never knew what's real, what's imagined, and what's a gag.
It had a fun way of mixing world-changing forces with mundane office politics and every-day situations: big, small, serious, and humorous all at the same time. It was a Rorschach show: you saw whatever you wanted to see.
It was more fun to watch if you stopped trying to figure it out. The reaction of people to odd events is the key, in my opinion, and not the odd events themselves.
I used to play pranks on my siblings as a kid, and their reaction was the real pay-day. (Yes, they still hate me:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Online Apple BASIC emulator, with code samples:
http://www.calormen.com/jsbasi...
Chill, I'm mostly describing hypothetical situations. And nobody's proven lie detectors are absolutely never possible.
Okay, but suppose there is really good lie-detector tech at Area 51. They scan everybody every six months. If somebody slips, they find out how and where with it, and use the machine to wipe out the trail among the new revealees by adding them on the scan list.
And the climate change claims are perhaps not really a "conspiracy" but more of a mass bias, not unlike what got Germany and W's followers into war. That's (alleged) group-think, and I would NOT classify group-think as a conspiracy any more than an entire population thinking the world is flat a few centuries ago.
Correction: "I suppose they can extrapolate the reveal rate between Yugo's and Chevy's up to the (unseen) Cadillacs..."
And, by "non-linear" I mean it's possible, for example, that if your cover-up skills reach a certain threshold, then the conspiracy is likely to have a long life. You wouldn't discover this threshold in the known leaky conspiracies, which have poor cover-up teams/skills. You could only compare very bad to bad in the known set.
How can they extrapolate characteristics of non-discovered conspiracies from discovered conspiracies?
Couldn't there be characteristics of non-discovered ones that are not present in discovered ones, such as Cadillac cover-up teams? The Yugo's and Chevy's get caught.
I suppose they can extract the reveal rate between Yugo's and Chevy's up to the (unseen) Cadillacs, but maybe it's not linear, but would look linear at a small range and/or small sample.
Then how are they gonna know what 72 v's are like?
10 WHAT
20 DO
30 YOU
40 MEAN
50 BY
60 THAT,
70 HARVEY!
You gotta PEEK or POKE something to really have action. In BASIC too.
1. Go to palemoon.org
2. Click the Download Browser button.
3. Click "Confirm" at install prompt.
4. Profit!
Indeed! You never know what's around the corner. If it smells like a bubble, it usually is.
For example, if companies start going to The Cloud in droves, then many server admins and hardware workers could be pushed into the market in droves under different IT fields, making ALL IT careers slump.
(Personally, I think it will take a while for co's to adjust to the cloud, but a general slump or publicity/fads may push co's to rush to the cloud to shave costs.)
There's too little incentive for companies to fix or remove bad managers. As long as they kiss up well, then can give underlings hell.
And it's often a one or two traits that need focus. For example, if a manager is repeatedly known to waste resources on "pretty formatting" for internal materials, they should be explicitly graded on their adjusting of that specific trait.
If they keep doing it, dock them pay and eventually fire them. (Give them a really pretty pink-slip.)
If they have more than one or two bad traits, then they probably shouldn't be managers.
There are socialistic economies that did not have banking problems, and capitalistic economies that did. Gov't and markets are tools, and both can be misused and put an eye out of you don't use the tools right.
As far as the Great Depression, the worse portion of it happened BEFORE FDR (actually, just as he was getting in). Your history is off. And bubbles have been happening long before the Federal Reserve or even the USA ever existed.
Dox em? Lawsuits are so 80's.
To be fair, they did cover it.
Maybe they need bankruptcy insurance :-)
The lesson is that ANY cab-like co better be ready for an 8-mil zinger.
Indeed. A lot of regulation out there is NOT socialists per se trying to control things, but rather crony capitalism whereby fat cats (legally) bribe laws into place to keep small cats out of the market.
Socialists then get all the blame.
I'm happy someone is trying to stick it to a big telecom. Big telecoms have turned me grayer than Bernie Sanders over the years. They can die an ugly painful death along with Microsoft, Oracle, and SCO. I wish this new endeavor luck and success.
That's not a problem as long as those replaced have alternatives in the form of a different job and/or "welfare".
An alternative is "make work" programs or incentives. These seem to work fairly well in Japan, as certain corporate practices and habits avoid automation for various reasons. Japan has had stagnant growth, BUT a strong employment rate. Thus, they appear to be trading "stuff" for jobs: less stuff but more jobs.
The bottom line is that trickle-down is failing, and the alternatives are make-work programs or welfare, or a combo.
Indeed! Well put. But, "the right" doesn't see it this way. They see the bottleneck as lack of investment due to "regulations and fear of taxes", which is poppycock pumped into their heads by the wealthy class. Look at all the silly dot-com's (still) being invested in: too much money chasing too few investments. They also waste a lot of investment in real-estate.
There may have been times in history where lack of investment funds was a bottleneck, such as the early 1960's, but that was then. The current bottleneck is lack of consumers, NOT investment money.
The solution(s) appear to be either be printing money and giving it to regular folks ("helicopter theory"), and/or some form of socialism to redistribute the wealth. Inflation is relatively low at the moment such that some printing shouldn't risk run-away inflation. The best economies run about a 2.3% annual inflation rate. We've been around 1.8% for a while. More inflation also dissuades the wealthy from sitting on cash, pushing them to invest it.
Greece crashed mostly due to foolish banking practices by country officials and not directly from social programs.
The Great Depression of the 1930's wasn't friendly on "private" workers either. Bubbles whack both capitalists and socialists. Managing a country's finances requires discipline by both the government (including representatives) and voters.
I've heard it's a status symbol in parts of India to talk fast. There's less pressure on clarity. I found out because I suggested to an H1B co-worker that he try to talk slower. He said he didn't want to because a slower habit would make it harder to find a wife when he got back home to India.
"Touch my banana and you get wi-fi"
Us nerds prefer the basement anyhow.
In a software engineering forum, I argued that software engineering was mostly about human perception and not "external" rules of logic and math (beyond fitting objective tool requirements). I'll call it "perceptionists" versus "symbolists" here.
As an example, we debated whether it could be proven "go-to's are objectively worse than blocks" as far as software creation resources, quality, and maintenance.
The perceptionist side won the debate (although it can come down to definition interpretation). Blocks are easier to visualize due to indentation than go-to's, and thus aide in the visual identification of flow. There is no known visual equivalent for go-to's at this time, at least not practical ones.
That's important because the symbolists waste time and resources looking for or promoting some special math to guide software design when it's really mostly about the human mind. Just because something is easy to measure or process mathematically does NOT mean it's easy for the human mind to digest.
They accused me of promoting mediocrity and I accused them of trying to inflate the value of their profession, graduate-level university teaching, by inflating the value of minor ideas. Interesting debates, regardless.
They have a shallow course on deep learning and a deep course on shallow learning, but no deep course on deep learning.
No, The Donald's from the saucers. They forgot to trade him for J. Bieber. (Take 'em both, please)
I thought it's always been self-parodying. That was one of its fun points. You never knew what's real, what's imagined, and what's a gag.
It had a fun way of mixing world-changing forces with mundane office politics and every-day situations: big, small, serious, and humorous all at the same time. It was a Rorschach show: you saw whatever you wanted to see.
It was more fun to watch if you stopped trying to figure it out. The reaction of people to odd events is the key, in my opinion, and not the odd events themselves.
I used to play pranks on my siblings as a kid, and their reaction was the real pay-day. (Yes, they still hate me :-)