Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:And the attempt to duplicate their efforts resu (Score 1) 447

by squiggleslash (#46796069) Attached to: Commenters To Dropbox CEO: Houston, We Have a Problem

Not really, no. The "We're called racists if we say anything against Obama"/"Obama's a Kenyan Muslin usurper!" nonsense has been going on now for a long time. The AC's criticism is absolutely on the money. And ironically, you're attacking the AC for bringing up what you consider to be a strawman when you the "We're called racists just because we disagree with Obama" thing is a ridiculous characterization of what Democrats and liberals have actually criticized.

If you really want to do something about it, you need to counter-attack your allies when they try to pull either BS. Tell those who insist that Democrats are not highlighting actual racism when they complain about it to knock it off. And tell those who continue to push the Kenyan Muslim Usurper bullshit to leave, and stop self-identifying with Republicans. If you continue to call yourself a Republican, but also continue to allow such views to be associated with Republicans, you don't have a leg to stand on when you claim it's a "fringe".

Comment: As a skeptic, this alarms me. (Score 2) 330

by gillbates (#46792967) Attached to: VA Supreme Court: Michael Mann Needn't Turn Over All His Email

The biggest problem I have with this is not that Mann's science might be wrong, but that the methods being used to discredit the science are anything but scientific. We have entered a scary, new era in Western thought where conformity of thought is valued above all else, and anyone who dares advocate a position which could be considered controversial or offensive is railroaded into silence by whatever means necessary.

The "Speak No Evil" crowd is destroying a great Western tradition of open and honest debate. These folks are committing offenses against truth itself, destroying civilization in the process.

I was under the impression that the ClimateGate affair was old news and Mann had been discredited already; why would they bother pursuing this more than half a decade later? It seems their objective is not merely to win the debate, or merely suppress an unpopular opinion, but to prevent any debate, research, or independent inquiry from taking place from this point on.

It's called making an example of someone. It's objective is to so thoroughly exasperate the target that their response becomes so extreme as to become unbelievable by the public at large. If they can't keep you from speaking, they can make others believe that either:

  1. You are so extreme in your position that your judgement cannot be trusted, or
  2. If anyone else dares to speak up that their life will be ruined by the onslaught of specious and frivolous inquiries, innuendos, lies, etc...

Michael Mann's ordeal serves the interest of the fossil fuel companies regardless of the outcome of the case.

It does not, however, serve the greater public interest. Even though I believe Mann to be mistaken, I'm quite certain that we the public cannot be adequately informed in an environment such as this.

Comment: Re:do they have a progressive view? (Score 1) 326

by LWATCDR (#46792577) Attached to: Detroit: America's Next Tech Boomtown

Funny thing is that people think that I am saying that outcome would be a good thing.
The simple truth is that the Supreme court ruled that marriage is in the hands of the state voters already when it overturned the defense of marriage act. The judges are exceedingly unlikely to change that ruling because if they do then it will also open up the door that polygamy is protected as well.
If same sex marriage was protected under the constitution then it would have over turned the Protection of marriage act on constitutional grounds.
Think of it more as a prediction of the weather than a desire of the result. It will have to come down to a constitutional amendment.

Comment: Re:Personal Drones (Score 1) 153

Most of the world knows that the more guns there are in the hands of citizens, the more shootings and gun crimes there are.

Most of the world _might_ think this, but know it? I've seen evidence for that assertion and it's inverse. I don't know which is sound, nor do I care. Clearly mere legal ownership rates is not the most important factor in gun violence considering you can find evidence to support any position you wish to take on that one.

And I'm pretty sure those people were "properly trained" in the use of the automobile.

By whom? In every state I've lived in drivers license requirements are so lax they might as well just stop pretending and rubber stamp every application. I'm "pretty sure" hardly anyone has been "properly trained" in the use of an automobile in the USA.

Comment: Re:Nothing new - Always had tech jobs (Score 1) 326

by LWATCDR (#46789639) Attached to: Detroit: America's Next Tech Boomtown

Actually probably not. Harris and the other aerospace companies employ a lot of programmers. But a degree in CS is not usually considered an Engineering degree. Also I would say that someone with no degree at all or one that is not in CS would not count as engineers. They are programmers.
And we are talking about per capita. Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft are all in areas that have a large population while Huntsville and Melbourne/Palm City are not large cities.

Comment: Re:FLYOVER (Score 1) 326

by LWATCDR (#46789311) Attached to: Detroit: America's Next Tech Boomtown

And Detroit still makes cars. You will not see it coming until it is too late.
It will take a while or it may never happen but I would not dismiss it. Frankly Silicon Valley is probably no better for the tech industry than Detroit was for the car industry. It is a little bubble and is too confident and or arrogant to see that it has some real problems. The cost of living is really high so eventually start ups will get choked off by the cost of relocating to SV and all you will have in the way of startups will be spin offs of existing companies.
Look at the "inbreeding" of developers and management in SV today.
From a national point of view the over concentration of venture capital is also a problem. Eventually after a few dozen more the VCs will dry up and inovation will move not to other loctions in the US but other nations!
A more diverse and dispersed tech industry is needed. Thank goodness for Texas and the Austin tech hub as well as Dallas and Houston.
Oh and if you do not believe that this can happen? Did you know that the hub of computer innovation in the 1960s and early 1970s was not in SV but in Mass? Companies like DEC and Data General where where the innovation was.

Comment: Re:Nothing new - Always had tech jobs (Score 1) 326

by LWATCDR (#46788695) Attached to: Detroit: America's Next Tech Boomtown

Wow and this is supposed to be news for nerds?
NASA Huntsville is home of the Marshall Space Flight Center.
Melbourne Florida /Palm Bay? The largest town near Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral Air Force Base, Patricks Air Force Base, the Eastern Test Range, Harris corp, Raytheon, Boeing, and many other companies involved in space flight.
Big Nasa programs in relatively small cities means an extremely high percentage of highly educated tech people.

Comment: Re:do they have a progressive view? (Score 0) 326

by LWATCDR (#46788459) Attached to: Detroit: America's Next Tech Boomtown

Culture fallows people and remember that the VOTERS in CA passed the law making same sex marriage illegal. A judge decided it was "unconstitutional" and the supreme court just didn't take the case. I am betting the odds are about 80% that Utah and Oklahoma will win their cases and then the ruling in California will be overturned as well.

Comment: Re:at&t wasn't welcome anyway (Score 1) 91

If you honestly believe this, it makes me suspect everything else you said.

Well, tough, because it's true. Railroads were suffering from ever increasing property taxes, and the only way they could deal with them was by getting rid of as much property as possible, undermining their network effects. And like I said, it's in part one of the reasons, not the whole reason.

Interestingly most of the reasons you give are not real reasons - the Interstate system being a partial exception (though if that had been it I think the railroads would have survived), but the major ones are:

- Aforementioned tax burdens where taxes were in proportion to area and people served, not income.
- Stifling Federal bureaucracy, making it impossible to reorganize services as population shifts occurred and making cutting routes actually preferable to reorganizations.
- Aforementioned Federal bureaucracy preventing railroads from setting competitive prices. They were forced to sell many services at a loss, even when there was no reason to believe customers weren't perfectly prepared to pay proper commercial rates.
- Zoning reforms that made car ownership mandatory for anyone living in any area developed since the 1940s, plus the (deliberate, in my view) mal-administration of urban centers.

Add union intransigence to the mix, and the occasional mismanagement (Penn Central - if only they'd have let Al Perlman do his job), New Haven, etc) and it was a recipe for disaster.

Ma Bell is a mean mother!