Insurance companies, in advance, negotiate discounts.
The comparable action for an individual (which is of course impractical) is to negotiate, in advance, discounts, while not in critical condition.
So if you were to go without insurance, then you would instead be calling all these hospital to arrange advance discounts -- not in critical condition.
There's a reason why that wouldn't work -- it's impractical and hospitals couldn't justify the expense of negotiations for just one person. The reason it wouldn't work has NOTHING to do with difficulties in negotiating while in critical condition.
The reason I belabor this point is because on another health insurance thread, a moron kept switching between talking about paying the hospital, and talking about shopping for insurance, when you'd be in critical condition in one but not the other, which made it impossible to rationally discuss the issue with him. So, I have to be careful that people don't continue that error.
He was talking about the advance negations that insurance companies make with providers that cover payments for a broad range of procedures. Insurance companies (like the hypothetical individual he was talking about) don't negotaite those while in critical condition. Of course, what is more likely is that the individual (again, who is NOT currently in critical condition) would negotiate with an insurance company that already has negotiated discounts.
The little barb about difficulty of negotiating while in critical condition was irrelevant.
Basically, you won't see a drop in driving in America until cities are built in such a way that it's feasible to live without a car. In fact, the more places that are like this, the better, in that they increase options for Americans who for whatever reason (environmental, disability) don't like driving. The journal entry presents a way that would reduce congestion and lay the groundwork for cities needing a car less.
What I've noticed is that there are a lot of developers willing to build very densely so that say, 90% of your needs can be met in the six tall buildings within walking distance of you, but every large city in America is governed by power-tripping bureaucrats who want to micromanage any innovative new development that comes to town.
Yeah, I wish they would do more stuff involving precision detection of sword motions (and other stuff involving 3D detection of absolute position). After all, it's quite clearly possible: once the Wiimote is pointed at the screen, it can use the sensor lights' apparent location, the tilt, and the time history of the 6 accelerations to figure out its absolute position when not pointed at the screen, at least until acceleration reading errors accumulate to the point where it has to be recalibrated by pointing it at the sensor bar again.
Yet no game so far does this, even where it would immensely improve the interface. All they do is use the pointer, or the acceleration readings, but not both in conjuction. I heard that Zelda will keep a constant velocity for the pointer location if the view is blocked, but that's far from what the Wii is capable of.
But I totally agree: if they would do that and let me dual wield swords (or chainsaws against zombies!) I would swoon.
yeah, good point. If they say "late eighties and early nineties", I'll know they're talking about the 1980's and 1990's. But if they say "late 80s and early 90s", I'll have no way to discern that.
Games from the "late eighties and early nineties"? What is with that? I've noticed a trend toward people spelling out years and decades. I saw one article that nearly drove me insane with "through the nineteen-fifties and nineteen-sixties". GEEZ! Just say "late 80s and early 90s". Much easier on the eyes, shorter, and quicker.
Not that I see this coming to commercial flights any time soon (if ever), but: having the pilot not actually on the plane would make airplane hijacking a hell of a lot harder. If the pilot can't be personally threatened, and isn't directly faced with passengers being threatened*, it would be easier for "don't go along" training to be effective.
I don't think so.
While the *people on board* are powerless to give in to a hijackers, all the hijackers would have to do instead is radio some ATC station and tell *them* they'll start killing passengers unless the real pilot redirects the plane. Now, you could of course, go for broke by acting like you're not receiving their transmissions so as to fool him into thinking you can't comply, but I doubt anyone would actually try that trick.
(Semi-related comment: I don't like the test. It seems a fair one would have to have the pilot *not be on the plane* so that he can't take physical cues. Certainly, have a backup pilot just in case, but to really know if it's effective, the pilot has to be off.)
Yeah, I know. I was just being nitpicky. But remember, he didn't say:
"The man drives BMWs and Caddies, rides a Harley, sips fine cognac and drinks good scotch, plays with cameras, and relaxes in air conditioning, and his country suffers mass starvation"
He said:
"The man drives BMWs and Caddies, rides a Harley, sips fine cognac and drinks good scotch, plays with cameras, and relaxes in air conditioning, and his country looks like this" (emphasis added)
That describes a lot of Americans too, I'm sure, the difference being that they a) aren't in a position of power, and b) you'd have to use a picture of the bad parts of Detroit or Flint instead. And a) isn't as big a difference as you might think, since most ordinary North Koreans really buy into the communism thing just the same.
Very true. Expanding on what the sibling poster said, website designers who use more minimalist designs compatible with screen readers (like Craigslist, Google, and most websties as of 1997) scare fewer non-disabled viewers away and can better interface with search engines. They also have fewer tech support/maintenance problems, less bandwidth required, and are least likely to be incompatible with a given browser.
Again, these simulations are based on the same physics used to predict wind-resistance in cars, aerodynamics of new airplanes, stresses that bridges can withstand, and behaviour of new microchips.
No, it's not, for any reasonable meaning of "same physics".
Spend some time looking at how any of these simulations (climate, hydrodynamic, quantum mechanical, etc), and you'll see the effort that goes into validation, precision, and reproducibility.
I'll do you one better: I actually work in aerospace. And I can tell you that pretty much every formula I've used is semi-empirical. It's basically some textbook theory, with fudge factors thrown in (usually drawn from a table) that are only there because of a long history of testing. The factors vary based on the context in which you're using the formula, for reasons no one completely understands.
(Ex: buckling load in the textbook is n^2*pi^2*EI/L^2. Formula we actually use: n^2*pi^2*ki*ke*EI/L^2. Get the ki and ke off of a table for this material and setup.)
In other words, the theory is guidance, but has to be modified by the observation in order to consistently predict the future. With far less empirical data (and far less control over what conditions we get to observe), there being only one earth, it only makes sense that (as per Bayes) one should consider the results far less certain, regardless of who wants what to be true. No "intellectual dishonesty" required, though I agree that CBA provides *separate* reasons to prefer other solutions.
(If I were an insecure jerk, I'd accuse you of looking for an excuse to get more control over others through inflated catastrophic scenarios. But I'm above that.)
I was using "curve-fitting" in the more general sense. Let me explain: While the scientific laws (expressed in formulas) used in these models may be deterministic and with solid basis, the variables you account for can be switched around. In such a large and chaotic system, you have the unavoidable problem of choosing which factors you're going to neglect (how coarse shall we model the reflectivity in this region? Do the emissions from this region matter much? Can we assume that this heat input spreads quickly enough to [...]? Will we use the upper or lower bound on reported emissions from this region? Etc.). You can therefore have "curve fitting" in the sense of "add and remove factors until you match history". That is what I meant they were doing. (Note: to reiterate, this kind of curve-fitting is unavoidable -- you *must* exercise discretion in which factors are included.)
Well, I guess when all else fails, there's the strawman.
None of the models can tell you with a high degree of certainty what the temperature in a given city will be on a given day, or the average on a given week,
I didn't set this standard, an in fact, was careful not to. If you follow the advice in my sig, you'll see that what I actually said was "you could parade an endless list: our model predicted this climate change in this region, and this increase this this kind of weather activity." Note the level of generality I was expecting out of the model.
Most useful scientific models do NOT match reality 100%.
Another standard I didn't set.
Elsewhere you're stating my position while thinking you're disagreeing with it.
(well, you do have to wait a while to find out if the predicted global average temperature for 2006 matches reality, you know what I mean?)
Yeah, I do know what you mean. Exactly what you mean. You can't claim a model is valid until it's had some... validation. Like, put your neck on the line, and THEN see if you're right.
My point was that there is a lot of data you have to gather to claim validation -- data that doesn't exist yet.
And even though you're dismissing models that accurately predict past events.. they are very good tests for the simulations.
No, they're not. They're proof that you curve-fitted to the past 80 years. Whether that curve is *right*... well, that takes future data.
Data you don't have.
If you can just get over the emotional reaction of defending your life's work, you'll see that I'm just pointing out the necessary things you have to do to validate the model. Until the model can consistently predict, there's no reason to endorse it, for the same reason you want to wait to actually see planetary motions before endorsing Kepler's theory. It's great if you have a theory for the past data, but true science requires being able to predict the future.
It's amazing -- I'm just stating basic scientific principles and you're probably going to accuse me of spreading doubt.
Come up with a reasoned set of arguments that explain why a couple thousand physicists or biologists are all wrong,
To be "wrong" means their model doesn't match the real world. And that's my point: it doesn't matter how complex and cool and difficult to understand your model is; all that matter is, does it make valid predictions? Your focus is on whether someone can reproduce the model's result rather than whether the model matches reality:
Other people are free to use the same equations, write their own simulation, and if they aren't deliberately feeding the models misinformation, will converge to a result within some confidence interval similar to yours, presuming you did your job correctly as well.
If the model were making valid predictions (the same model, that is), you could parade an endless list: our model predicted this climate change in this region, and this increase this this kind of weather activity. No, not the past. I mean, predict it *now* and see if it bears out in the future. But obviously, you aren't getting that, or it would be used ad infinitum to shut up global warming skeptics.
Again, my point is not that the models themselves are without basis, just that it is difficult if not impossible to do the empirical tests that will determine if they are valid.
That's my point -- you don't need their approval. You make predictions routinely. They are correct routinely. You apply these predictions to perform something useful routinely, that maybe this zealot actually uses routinely! What does it matter if he does or doesn't endorse it? The fact that you are performing a useful service (predicting the fall of objects, building structures, etc.) suffices as evidence that the science is valid enough for those services to be performed (by tautology).
When you have no service to perform that relies on this science, then you have no real-world check.
-Hypothetical: Let's say you run a business, and people start making what you believe to be baseless accusations about the environmental impact of your business. What do you do? NO, WAIT: You can't fund anyone who tries to scientifically demonstrate the invalidity of the accusations, because that taints the research, right?
-I remember seeing in science class a movie produced by Exxon about the Valdez oil spill. While it was propaganda, I also remember the teacher pointing out all the flaws and telling everyone that it was Exxon's propaganda. "Oh, look at this part, where they act like everything's all peachy now."
-Oh, so *now* you care about teachers' associations getting political. Just not when they oppose any whiff of school choice.
-Should no research into oil be funded by oil companies? Even basic research into hydrocarbon chemistry? That seems to be the implication.
-To answer the question: yes, science can remain apolitical, as long as it rigidly adheres to the scientfic principles of reproducibility and transparency. That's what makes science science: Even if someone refuses to believe you, it doesn't matter. Other people can perform their own corroborating experiments. Even if someone believes it to be all voodoo, you can then go out and continue to make valid predictions that result in useful services. And then anyone is free to propose alternate theories that match the data better.
When the above isn't possible, science can become political. When you can't make a thousand copies of the earth, causally separate them, randomly vary emissions, wait a hundred years, and run a regression, people have all the room the in world to reject your theories since it can't have the repeated empirical validation science relies on. When you can't engineer an entire planet's existence, start a weather system, wait a billion years, and see complex organisms evolve, you again don't have the repeated empirical validation science relies on. BEFORE YOU FLAME ME OR MOD ME DOWN, I'm not trying to dispute global warming or evolution, but rather, just pointing that you can't come up with the plain-as-day prediction and validation you can in other areas.
I strongly agree. It's *possible* for a software innovation to be *truly* novel and warrant a patent, but this is extremely rare. The problem is that the patent office gives them away far too easily, and lets them be far too broad. Like you say, a patent should be for some world-chagning invention, meaning a way to keep the PTO in line would be to enforce hard limits on the number of patents granted per period so they must be judicious in deciding what deserves a patent. Also, they could test a patent by taking the problem it intends to solve, and asking someone in the field, "what are some ways to solve x?". If he lists the idea to be patented, it's probably obviousl.
True, and that's a reason why voters should demand that IF any carbon tax is passed, it is strictly tied to a reduction in other taxes. It makes no sense to punish people for working, for investing, for starting businesses, for reinvesting the proceeds of their previous investments, etc. but somehow leave a "bad" like carbon off the hook. Also, it seems that carbon tax, if sanely executed (a big if) would hit you by far the least.
On a semi-related matter, I don't support the idea of "tax gas/carbon to reduce road congestion". You should tax pollution for polluting and congestion for congesting. It makes no sense to charge a farmer using a truck 100% outside of dense traffic for congesting, nor for charging a minimal gas consumption car traveling downtown as if it polluted heavily. Tax the farmer for polluting and not congesting, tax the inner city fuel efficient car for congesting but not polluting.
Speaking of interest, and speaking of SL businesses, I remember that back in '03, for the few months I was active, I started a bank. Just to get the word out, I provided for free the "service" of holding someone's money over the day during which you get your "allowance" so that they would appear poor and get more Linden Dollars from Linden. Does anyone know if they still have that welfare system?
Also, since at the time I was one of the few people who understood how to do tattoos (and with GIMP no less!), I would sell the service of making custom tattoos, but I didn't realize the welfare system was in place, so I ended up with the same money as if I had done nothing.
I was also at one point considering selling the service of "fake money for fake love", but... didn't want to dip that far.
I agree 100%. Lost in all of these productivity stats is any attempt at differentiation between "value productivity" and "physical productivty". The former is how valuable my output is per unit time, while the latter is how many physically-measurable units I putput per unit time. An example I like to give is: "Between 1978 and 1998, I went from being able to make three pairs of bell-bottom pants in an hour to twelve pairs an hour. What happened to my productivity?" Well, I can produce more units per hour, but each unit is worth A LOT FREAKIN LESS.
Value productivity is especially tricky because as physical productivity increases, that decreases the marginal value of the inputs needed to produce a unit, meaning that your value productivity -- the one that shows up as a dollar value on statistics -- stays constant even if your physical productivity goes up.
Further complicating this is everyone's favorites: hedonic adjustments and intellectual labor. Example: Let's say that a person in the role of an "analyst" has the job of producing cost-benefit analyses of various options. Let's further say he goes from calculating each option with a calculator, to running everything through a spreadsheet. While he may have the same "CBA's per hour", he can do much more thorough CBA's, as the difficulty of recalculating plummets. Now, in which economic survey does this improvement show up?
So, in my opinion, unless you can find out exactly how a productivity measure was obtained, don't put a lot of stock in it.
A lot of people just use these HD-based MP3 players as jumbo thumb drives.
A blessing, and a curse. It's because of this that any employer whose facility does defense contracts won't let you bring one to work. Ditto for national security-related stuff, or anyone who just plain wants to keep the project secret.
Slashdot Mirror
You're still missing the point.
Insurance companies, in advance, negotiate discounts.
The comparable action for an individual (which is of course impractical) is to negotiate, in advance, discounts, while not in critical condition.
So if you were to go without insurance, then you would instead be calling all these hospital to arrange advance discounts -- not in critical condition.
There's a reason why that wouldn't work -- it's impractical and hospitals couldn't justify the expense of negotiations for just one person. The reason it wouldn't work has NOTHING to do with difficulties in negotiating while in critical condition.
The reason I belabor this point is because on another health insurance thread, a moron kept switching between talking about paying the hospital, and talking about shopping for insurance, when you'd be in critical condition in one but not the other, which made it impossible to rationally discuss the issue with him. So, I have to be careful that people don't continue that error.
He was talking about the advance negations that insurance companies make with providers that cover payments for a broad range of procedures. Insurance companies (like the hypothetical individual he was talking about) don't negotaite those while in critical condition. Of course, what is more likely is that the individual (again, who is NOT currently in critical condition) would negotiate with an insurance company that already has negotiated discounts.
The little barb about difficulty of negotiating while in critical condition was irrelevant.
Moron.
Congratulations, you're the first embarrassingly naive person to respond to this thread. Google health insurance horror stories.
I didn't find any horror stories of people bleeding to death while shopping for a good health insurance policy.
You shop for health insurance before you're in an accident.
Why is this so hard to understand?
A journal entry everyone needs to read. (Should I submit that?)
Basically, you won't see a drop in driving in America until cities are built in such a way that it's feasible to live without a car. In fact, the more places that are like this, the better, in that they increase options for Americans who for whatever reason (environmental, disability) don't like driving. The journal entry presents a way that would reduce congestion and lay the groundwork for cities needing a car less.
What I've noticed is that there are a lot of developers willing to build very densely so that say, 90% of your needs can be met in the six tall buildings within walking distance of you, but every large city in America is governed by power-tripping bureaucrats who want to micromanage any innovative new development that comes to town.
You negotiate insurance discounts while on a stretcher?
I thought most people negotiated insurance policies while not in critical condition.
You *would* say that, since you believe in allocating goods based on need.
And your need for that good is pretty high after this latest dry spell, eh?
Yeah, I wish they would do more stuff involving precision detection of sword motions (and other stuff involving 3D detection of absolute position). After all, it's quite clearly possible: once the Wiimote is pointed at the screen, it can use the sensor lights' apparent location, the tilt, and the time history of the 6 accelerations to figure out its absolute position when not pointed at the screen, at least until acceleration reading errors accumulate to the point where it has to be recalibrated by pointing it at the sensor bar again.
Yet no game so far does this, even where it would immensely improve the interface. All they do is use the pointer, or the acceleration readings, but not both in conjuction. I heard that Zelda will keep a constant velocity for the pointer location if the view is blocked, but that's far from what the Wii is capable of.
But I totally agree: if they would do that and let me dual wield swords (or chainsaws against zombies!) I would swoon.
yeah, good point. If they say "late eighties and early nineties", I'll know they're talking about the 1980's and 1990's. But if they say "late 80s and early 90s", I'll have no way to discern that.
Thanks for the heads-up.
Games from the "late eighties and early nineties"? What is with that? I've noticed a trend toward people spelling out years and decades. I saw one article that nearly drove me insane with "through the nineteen-fifties and nineteen-sixties". GEEZ! Just say "late 80s and early 90s". Much easier on the eyes, shorter, and quicker.
Not that I see this coming to commercial flights any time soon (if ever), but: having the pilot not actually on the plane would make airplane hijacking a hell of a lot harder. If the pilot can't be personally threatened, and isn't directly faced with passengers being threatened*, it would be easier for "don't go along" training to be effective.
I don't think so.
While the *people on board* are powerless to give in to a hijackers, all the hijackers would have to do instead is radio some ATC station and tell *them* they'll start killing passengers unless the real pilot redirects the plane. Now, you could of course, go for broke by acting like you're not receiving their transmissions so as to fool him into thinking you can't comply, but I doubt anyone would actually try that trick.
(Semi-related comment: I don't like the test. It seems a fair one would have to have the pilot *not be on the plane* so that he can't take physical cues. Certainly, have a backup pilot just in case, but to really know if it's effective, the pilot has to be off.)
Yeah, I know. I was just being nitpicky. But remember, he didn't say:
"The man drives BMWs and Caddies, rides a Harley, sips fine cognac and drinks good scotch, plays with cameras, and relaxes in air conditioning, and his country suffers mass starvation"
He said:
"The man drives BMWs and Caddies, rides a Harley, sips fine cognac and drinks good scotch, plays with cameras, and relaxes in air conditioning, and his country looks like this" (emphasis added)
That describes a lot of Americans too, I'm sure, the difference being that they a) aren't in a position of power, and b) you'd have to use a picture of the bad parts of Detroit or Flint instead. And a) isn't as big a difference as you might think, since most ordinary North Koreans really buy into the communism thing just the same.
Very true. Expanding on what the sibling poster said, website designers who use more minimalist designs compatible with screen readers (like Craigslist, Google, and most websties as of 1997) scare fewer non-disabled viewers away and can better interface with search engines. They also have fewer tech support/maintenance problems, less bandwidth required, and are least likely to be incompatible with a given browser.
Again, these simulations are based on the same physics used to predict wind-resistance in cars, aerodynamics of new airplanes, stresses that bridges can withstand, and behaviour of new microchips.
No, it's not, for any reasonable meaning of "same physics".
Spend some time looking at how any of these simulations (climate, hydrodynamic, quantum mechanical, etc), and you'll see the effort that goes into validation, precision, and reproducibility.
I'll do you one better: I actually work in aerospace. And I can tell you that pretty much every formula I've used is semi-empirical. It's basically some textbook theory, with fudge factors thrown in (usually drawn from a table) that are only there because of a long history of testing. The factors vary based on the context in which you're using the formula, for reasons no one completely understands.
(Ex: buckling load in the textbook is n^2*pi^2*EI/L^2. Formula we actually use: n^2*pi^2*ki*ke*EI/L^2. Get the ki and ke off of a table for this material and setup.)
In other words, the theory is guidance, but has to be modified by the observation in order to consistently predict the future. With far less empirical data (and far less control over what conditions we get to observe), there being only one earth, it only makes sense that (as per Bayes) one should consider the results far less certain, regardless of who wants what to be true. No "intellectual dishonesty" required, though I agree that CBA provides *separate* reasons to prefer other solutions.
(If I were an insecure jerk, I'd accuse you of looking for an excuse to get more control over others through inflated catastrophic scenarios. But I'm above that.)
I was using "curve-fitting" in the more general sense. Let me explain: While the scientific laws (expressed in formulas) used in these models may be deterministic and with solid basis, the variables you account for can be switched around. In such a large and chaotic system, you have the unavoidable problem of choosing which factors you're going to neglect (how coarse shall we model the reflectivity in this region? Do the emissions from this region matter much? Can we assume that this heat input spreads quickly enough to [...]? Will we use the upper or lower bound on reported emissions from this region? Etc.). You can therefore have "curve fitting" in the sense of "add and remove factors until you match history". That is what I meant they were doing. (Note: to reiterate, this kind of curve-fitting is unavoidable -- you *must* exercise discretion in which factors are included.)
Well, I guess when all else fails, there's the strawman.
... validation. Like, put your neck on the line, and THEN see if you're right.
... well, that takes future data.
None of the models can tell you with a high degree of certainty what the temperature in a given city will be on a given day, or the average on a given week,
I didn't set this standard, an in fact, was careful not to. If you follow the advice in my sig, you'll see that what I actually said was "you could parade an endless list: our model predicted this climate change in this region, and this increase this this kind of weather activity." Note the level of generality I was expecting out of the model.
Most useful scientific models do NOT match reality 100%.
Another standard I didn't set.
Elsewhere you're stating my position while thinking you're disagreeing with it.
(well, you do have to wait a while to find out if the predicted global average temperature for 2006 matches reality, you know what I mean?)
Yeah, I do know what you mean. Exactly what you mean. You can't claim a model is valid until it's had some
My point was that there is a lot of data you have to gather to claim validation -- data that doesn't exist yet.
And even though you're dismissing models that accurately predict past events.. they are very good tests for the simulations.
No, they're not. They're proof that you curve-fitted to the past 80 years. Whether that curve is *right*
Data you don't have.
If you can just get over the emotional reaction of defending your life's work, you'll see that I'm just pointing out the necessary things you have to do to validate the model. Until the model can consistently predict, there's no reason to endorse it, for the same reason you want to wait to actually see planetary motions before endorsing Kepler's theory. It's great if you have a theory for the past data, but true science requires being able to predict the future.
It's amazing -- I'm just stating basic scientific principles and you're probably going to accuse me of spreading doubt.
Come up with a reasoned set of arguments that explain why a couple thousand physicists or biologists are all wrong,
To be "wrong" means their model doesn't match the real world. And that's my point: it doesn't matter how complex and cool and difficult to understand your model is; all that matter is, does it make valid predictions? Your focus is on whether someone can reproduce the model's result rather than whether the model matches reality:
Other people are free to use the same equations, write their own simulation, and if they aren't deliberately feeding the models misinformation, will converge to a result within some confidence interval similar to yours, presuming you did your job correctly as well.
If the model were making valid predictions (the same model, that is), you could parade an endless list: our model predicted this climate change in this region, and this increase this this kind of weather activity. No, not the past. I mean, predict it *now* and see if it bears out in the future. But obviously, you aren't getting that, or it would be used ad infinitum to shut up global warming skeptics.
Again, my point is not that the models themselves are without basis, just that it is difficult if not impossible to do the empirical tests that will determine if they are valid.
That's my point -- you don't need their approval. You make predictions routinely. They are correct routinely. You apply these predictions to perform something useful routinely, that maybe this zealot actually uses routinely! What does it matter if he does or doesn't endorse it? The fact that you are performing a useful service (predicting the fall of objects, building structures, etc.) suffices as evidence that the science is valid enough for those services to be performed (by tautology).
When you have no service to perform that relies on this science, then you have no real-world check.
-Hypothetical: Let's say you run a business, and people start making what you believe to be baseless accusations about the environmental impact of your business. What do you do? NO, WAIT: You can't fund anyone who tries to scientifically demonstrate the invalidity of the accusations, because that taints the research, right?
-I remember seeing in science class a movie produced by Exxon about the Valdez oil spill. While it was propaganda, I also remember the teacher pointing out all the flaws and telling everyone that it was Exxon's propaganda. "Oh, look at this part, where they act like everything's all peachy now."
-Oh, so *now* you care about teachers' associations getting political. Just not when they oppose any whiff of school choice.
-Should no research into oil be funded by oil companies? Even basic research into hydrocarbon chemistry? That seems to be the implication.
-To answer the question: yes, science can remain apolitical, as long as it rigidly adheres to the scientfic principles of reproducibility and transparency. That's what makes science science: Even if someone refuses to believe you, it doesn't matter. Other people can perform their own corroborating experiments. Even if someone believes it to be all voodoo, you can then go out and continue to make valid predictions that result in useful services. And then anyone is free to propose alternate theories that match the data better.
When the above isn't possible, science can become political. When you can't make a thousand copies of the earth, causally separate them, randomly vary emissions, wait a hundred years, and run a regression, people have all the room the in world to reject your theories since it can't have the repeated empirical validation science relies on. When you can't engineer an entire planet's existence, start a weather system, wait a billion years, and see complex organisms evolve, you again don't have the repeated empirical validation science relies on. BEFORE YOU FLAME ME OR MOD ME DOWN, I'm not trying to dispute global warming or evolution, but rather, just pointing that you can't come up with the plain-as-day prediction and validation you can in other areas.
I strongly agree. It's *possible* for a software innovation to be *truly* novel and warrant a patent, but this is extremely rare. The problem is that the patent office gives them away far too easily, and lets them be far too broad. Like you say, a patent should be for some world-chagning invention, meaning a way to keep the PTO in line would be to enforce hard limits on the number of patents granted per period so they must be judicious in deciding what deserves a patent. Also, they could test a patent by taking the problem it intends to solve, and asking someone in the field, "what are some ways to solve x?". If he lists the idea to be patented, it's probably obviousl.
True, and that's a reason why voters should demand that IF any carbon tax is passed, it is strictly tied to a reduction in other taxes. It makes no sense to punish people for working, for investing, for starting businesses, for reinvesting the proceeds of their previous investments, etc. but somehow leave a "bad" like carbon off the hook. Also, it seems that carbon tax, if sanely executed (a big if) would hit you by far the least.
On a semi-related matter, I don't support the idea of "tax gas/carbon to reduce road congestion". You should tax pollution for polluting and congestion for congesting. It makes no sense to charge a farmer using a truck 100% outside of dense traffic for congesting, nor for charging a minimal gas consumption car traveling downtown as if it polluted heavily. Tax the farmer for polluting and not congesting, tax the inner city fuel efficient car for congesting but not polluting.
Speaking of interest, and speaking of SL businesses, I remember that back in '03, for the few months I was active, I started a bank. Just to get the word out, I provided for free the "service" of holding someone's money over the day during which you get your "allowance" so that they would appear poor and get more Linden Dollars from Linden. Does anyone know if they still have that welfare system?
... didn't want to dip that far.
Also, since at the time I was one of the few people who understood how to do tattoos (and with GIMP no less!), I would sell the service of making custom tattoos, but I didn't realize the welfare system was in place, so I ended up with the same money as if I had done nothing.
I was also at one point considering selling the service of "fake money for fake love", but
I agree 100%. Lost in all of these productivity stats is any attempt at differentiation between "value productivity" and "physical productivty". The former is how valuable my output is per unit time, while the latter is how many physically-measurable units I putput per unit time. An example I like to give is: "Between 1978 and 1998, I went from being able to make three pairs of bell-bottom pants in an hour to twelve pairs an hour. What happened to my productivity?" Well, I can produce more units per hour, but each unit is worth A LOT FREAKIN LESS.
Value productivity is especially tricky because as physical productivity increases, that decreases the marginal value of the inputs needed to produce a unit, meaning that your value productivity -- the one that shows up as a dollar value on statistics -- stays constant even if your physical productivity goes up.
Further complicating this is everyone's favorites: hedonic adjustments and intellectual labor. Example: Let's say that a person in the role of an "analyst" has the job of producing cost-benefit analyses of various options. Let's further say he goes from calculating each option with a calculator, to running everything through a spreadsheet. While he may have the same "CBA's per hour", he can do much more thorough CBA's, as the difficulty of recalculating plummets. Now, in which economic survey does this improvement show up?
So, in my opinion, unless you can find out exactly how a productivity measure was obtained, don't put a lot of stock in it.
A lot of people just use these HD-based MP3 players as jumbo thumb drives.
A blessing, and a curse. It's because of this that any employer whose facility does defense contracts won't let you bring one to work. Ditto for national security-related stuff, or anyone who just plain wants to keep the project secret.
But India typically refuses to recognize intellectual property just the same.