Speaking as someone who has only voted for Libertarian presidential candidates, you're crazy if you think both sides are balanced in their craziness.

I realize there's plenty of derp on both sides -- as evidenced by your example, but it's generally not divided equally. I'd say the division was much more equal a decade ago, but it simply isn't that way any more.

I don't think listing examples is an effective way to argue about the absolute magnitude of derp. Listing examples of delta derp might be more efficient.

I think this is best summed up by the following short post at Marginal Revolution (an excellent economics blog):

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/04/is-there-a-shortage-of-stem-workers-in-the-united-states.html

It comes down to the definition of shortage. The standard economics definition of a shortage is when supply does not meet demand. The paper shows that the supply of STEM workers does seem to meet demand for them.

However, it could well be that we'd be better off if there were more STEM workers -- driven by higher demand for them. That is not addressed by this paper, and this definition (that more resources allocated to STEM would be better) is a fine definition for a shortage.

That's the underlying issue.

Four years? Ha! That's a good one!

Wireless remotes were available in the 1950s.

Color television was available in the 1950s.

The USDA restriced avacado imports until the mid 90s. There's no reason they couldn't have been imported sooner. Bananas were already being imported from central america to america sumpermarkets.

The first successful weather satellite launched in 1960.

NASA launched its first communication satellite in 1960.

The USSR launched its first Mars probes in 1960.

The list goes on. Thanks for proving my point; with the exception of internet related things, these were not unknowns in 1960, even if they weren't fully commercialized (or gradually refined to the point they're at today). A person from 1910 would be more out of place in 1960, than a person from 1960 would be in 2010. Period. End of story. You're simply wrong.

There are a lot of post about how past "inventions" were really just minor iterations too, so the author's claim doesn't stand up. However, I think the author does have a point; try the recognition test.

If an average american from 1910 were suddenly transported to 1960, things would be unrecognizable -- there were so many truly groundbreaking changes. Home electric power, radio, television, refrigerators (and the supermarkets and foods they allowed), automobiles, antibiotics, etc. had all gone from being unknowns to being commonplace in the intervening period. (They may have existed in 1910, but they weren't developed to the point of commercialization.)

In comparison, someone suddenly transported from 1960 to 2010 would recognize almost all parts of daily life. Wake up, flip on the lights, make some breakfast using ingredients from the fridge, drive to work, listen to the radio on the drive, return home, and watch TV. Few things would be truly new. Even most of the new things wouldn't be unrecognizable. Cell phones are just two-way radios; those existed in 1960. People in 1960 knew computers were going to be a big deal, etc. Heck, if I were transported from 1960 to 2010, I'd be disappointed. Where are the flying cars and other Jetson innovations? (Yes, The Jetsons aired in 1962; just add two years to everything if you must.) The internet and the computers we access it through are the only really big change to daily life that I can think of. That's significant, but not as significant as the 1910->1960 changes.

Yeah, this is asking for a lot, and it probably won't meet its goals, but it's not as crazy as it sounds. Take the example of thermoelectrics -- solid state devices that can turn a heat difference in to electricity or vice versa. Efficient thermoelectric devices could be super useful, either for efficient, light weight refrigerators that never break (since they have no moving parts) or for a way to turn any source of heat -- including waste heat from your car -- in to electricity. The reason you don't see them everywhere is because they're currently not efficient enough to be worth it.

I realize the following is gated, but access it if you can and see the first plot. (Coincidentally, the author was Chu's deputy and is an excellent researcher.)

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/303/5659/777.full

Otherwise, see figure 3 here:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.0888.pdf

The effectiveness of a material for thermoelectric devices is captured in one parameter called ZT -- the figure of merit. For about three decades, bismuth telluride was the best know material, with a ZT of a bit under 1 -- corresponding to about 10% of the Carnot efficiency (the theoretical maximum efficiency). To be competitive with conventional refrigerators, ZT has to be about 3 or larger.

In the early 90s, the DOD decided they wanted better thermoelectrics, so they started throwing money at the problem. You can see the result in the linked figure. Within a decade, ZT for the best materials shot up to about 2.5 at room temperature and 3.5 at higher temperatures -- to the point where they're starting to be useful.

More work is still needed before you'll see these commercially, but this is an example where government spending is and will be paying dividends; these are devices that will be generally useful, but languished for decades before the government gave research a kick. Battery funding could produce similar results.

The suggestion is to run KDE on Linux -- not OS X, so that link is irrelevant to this discussion.

What's the contradiction? KDE has more than one interface, and the author likes the mobile interface enough that he can stand it on the desktop. However, the mobile interface wasn't intended for use on the desktop; it isn't normally used on the desktop; and you don't have to agree with the author.

From TFA:

It's not quite as simple as technology meaning fewer jobs. There are a lot of jobs out there which could be automated but aren't. Why? Because labor is cheap.

This even holds in the US, although you can see technology chipping away. For example, a robot to scan and bag groceries wouldn't be too complicated -- most of the setup is already automated with a conveyor belt, barcode scanner, automatic change dispenser, etc. However, it hasn't been completely automated because paying someone minimum wage to put your groceries in a bag is still cheaper than a robot.

Changes could come as technology gets cheaper, but they could also come if labor becomes more expensive -- something a lot of people are pushing for, directly and indirectly.

It's not clear how this all might work out, but some of the possibilities aren't pretty. Part of the problem is that there would probably be an ~18 year delay between changes in the demand for labor, and changes in the supply of labor...

FTFY

I discovered the same thing, but then I switched to a two color pen approach that worked well.

I used one pen (blue) to record/summarize what the lecturer said, and I used the other pen (red) to write my own notes/comments on the former. The latter forced me to (at least partially) digest what was being said -- that way I'd remember them better, and recording it made the blue notes much more compressible.

I switched to Google Talk. I use the browser plugin in chrome, which is fine for me since I use gmail for my mail client anyway (ever since kmail broke down...) There isn't official voice/video support for other linux clients, but some claim to support it (e.g. Empathy says lists "Voice and video call using SIP, XMPP and Google Talk." as a feature).

Massie says. “You know it’s pretty bad when the people who have to deal with the FDA say, ‘Why can’t you be more like the Patent Office?’”

We know fusion exists, and that the reaction can produce more energy than it takes to maintain. If that weren't true, we wouldn't be here. That's not to say there aren't issues with fusion power, but comparing it to warp drives -- a fictional technology -- is silly.