The senior VP had serious technical chops, but he wasn't about to demonstrate them in front of his peers. He feared, justifiably, that if he did so he'd get classified as a techie and taken out of consideration as a possible future CEO.
For any
When G+ started out, it was clean, fast-loading, reliable, and did exactly what it was supposed to do and no more. You know
Every change since then has made it uglier, slower, and buggier; with the latest interface changes they've not only caught up to but actually surpassed Facebook in the amount of irritating crap they shove at the user. Google may be able to coast on people's affection for them as a search engine (especially when the competition is Bing) but they're going to find it increasingly difficult to break into new markets if all they do is ape the worst behavior of the existing market leader--which in this case emphatically includes "adding a bunch of new 'features' when the ones we already have are kind of crap."
I still use Google as my primary search engine, Gmail as my e-mail provider, and Google Maps when I want to figure out how to go somewhere I haven't been before. Nothing they've done since then has provided any reason to switch from whatever solution I'm currently using. And I really don't think I'm alone in this.
:)
I'm pretty sure GPP is making fun of Ken Ham's thought-stopping advice to his followers, which is supposed to immediately make "evolutionists" stop dead in their tracks, fall down on their knees, pray for forgiveness, and embrace the obvious Truth. Or something like that.
You left off the rest: "with his most mundane statements breathlessly repeated as though they were great wisdom." It's not Tyson's being an effective science popularizer that bugs me--I'm all for that--but the cult-of-personality aspect which seems to follow. Again, this is very much as it was with Sagan.
I'm right there with you, but don't hold your breath. It's appropriate that he's going to be doing this show. He's precisely this generation's equivalent of Sagan: a scientist who did good work in his field early on but who has since coasted on a public image as the Voice Of Science, with his most mundane statements breathlessly repeated as though they were great wisdom. [shrug] I guess it's better for people to choose a scientist to worship than an actor, musician, athlete, politician, or preacher, but it's still kind of irritating to watch.
As much as I hate the idea of expropriating land from private owners, if you want to really preserve these sorts of things you've got to remove them from private ownership and recompense the land owner either with money or a swap of some new land of equal value.
Or just accept that land ownership comes with certain restrictions. For example, if I want an addition to my house, I can't just build whatever I want; I need to get permits and ensure that the construction complies with building codes. Saying "no, you cannot knock down this ancient structure which was built millennia ago on what now happens to be your land" strikes me as a reasonable counterpart to that.
Also snips in gene control regions can effect phenotype. But for the junk DNA, the tens of millions of random junk snips you and I have different, they just don't seem to have any effect whatsoever. If the code sequences in the junk matter, the effect on the individual seems to be very slight.
Except for, you know, all the SNPs in noncoding regions which come up as significant in practically every GWAS ever.
Back in 1975 we were supposed to be freezing by now. Anyone remember that?
No, and neither do you, because it never happened.
People who don't care one way or the other are not 'denialists'
Indeed; people who don't care one way or another are people who don't care one way or another, and people who don't care one way or another don't generally bother posting. People who post endless screeching copypasta rants denying overwhelming scientific evidence, on the other hand, are best described as denialists.
and not consider GW the MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER, as opposed to, keeping their job, keeping their house, not getting cancer, etc.
All of these are important things. So is global warming. See, it's actually possible for many things to be important at the same time. Welcome to reality--take a look around, and be warned that some of it may be a little confusing, but it's in your interest to try to figure it out.
RTFA, and try to understand that what appears to be your assumption, that scientific articles are commodities like movies or groceries, is not supported by history.
Volunteer? People give blood because they want to help someone who they usually envision as having a horrible illeness
You don't think heart disease is a horrible illness?
not because they want some rich, old guy to live longer than the norm.
Don't think "some rich, old guy." Think "your grandpa."
RDW wins the Comment Of The Month award.
Age-related cognitive decline is a reality.
It is not the fact of age-related cognitive decline which leads to ageism in the corporate world. Not even close.
A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
So how, exactly, do you think Iraq and Afghanistan don't fit into this? The entire period of our involvement in those two countries has certainly involved "open, armed and prolonged conflict," and note the word "parties" at the end of that definition--it doesn't have to be nation-states. Any time you have two or more large bodies of armed people trying to kill each other, you have a war. You can call it "peacekeeping" or anything else you like, but that doesn't change what it is.
It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.
