68 karma · joined October 30, 2013
Right now (as you may know) Apple depreciated Quick Look and it no longer works with far too many video formats even if one has the old version of QuickTime installed with Perian.
I see your point, but I'm not sure Chomsky was espousing anything magical (as in pseudo-science) by saying the Fibonacci sequence is found in nature and isn't well understood why. Present company excepted, perhaps.
I also try to keep in mind that the term "magical" is often rather amorphously applied.
Some call pseudo-science "magical" due to ignorance.
Some call some science "magical" due to ignorance.
However, some call certain science "magical" not due to ignorance, but as a respectful nod towards the vast complexities involved that we still don't know (and perhaps never will) that surround the complex "nature"[0] of science.
If you haven't already read it, I think this is a pretty interesting take on it (in a sense):
http://www.amazon.com/New-Kind-Science-Stephen-Wolfram/dp/15...
Series of followups 10 years later:
http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2012/05/its-been-10-years-wha...
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo3R3LBjDek (Love And Rockets - "No New Tale To Tell")
Do note your usage of the term "likely". You don't know exactly why, just like no one else really does.
You're making a likely supposition, not a statement of fact. We have theories as to why and how the Fibonacci sequences are found in nature as you've posited, but that doesn't mean it's well-understood nor some sort of old and tired closed case.
>pseudo-mystical notions
I don't see Chomsky espousing pseudo-mystical notions. He simply said it's found all over nature and it's not well understood why. By your insulting tone, I would surmise you have a grudge with Chomsky that goes well beyond anything to do with Fibonacci numbers.
Are you a neo-libertarian, perhaps?
>We understand why the Golden Ratio shows up all over the place, especially in biology: it doesn't.
I don't think Chomsky meant for you to take "all over the place" so --literally--. It's a commonly understood expression that's not meant to be taken so literally unless one perhaps has a pedantic axe to grind.
The respected mathematician Arthur T. Benjamin would disagree with you that it's not an interesting fact when it shows up in nature:
http://www.ted.com/talks/arthur_benjamin_the_magic_of_fibona...
Chomsky didn't say anything terribly problematic about Fibonacci numbers. You're frankly going to have to find a better example to discount his conclusions on other topics which you have no understanding (as you said).
> it's the logarithmic spiral that's common, and it's a due to logarithmic spirals being a necessary characteristic of certain structures that exhibit self-similarity.
Yes, but why? Do you have the answer to that?
You've basically posited the same thing that Chomsky said when he said:
"There is something about the physical world that forces certain kinds of structures to emerge under particular conditions."
>What you'll actually find is not a series of systems all approximating the same Golden Spiral
Correct, but one will also find otherwise. Also, often it's an approximation that's often not meant to be taken --literally--. It's just noting similarities in patterns that anyone (including laypersons) can observe and there's nothing wrong with doing that.
If Chomsky was writing a piece on Fibonacci numbers, I might agree with you that he didn't go into enough depth on the topic. But, it appears you missed his greater point while focusing on trite details and being too literal.
Right, but what they have done is shut down development on certain platforms. For example, they'll continue to develop Sunrise for Windows Phone, Windows OS but not for Android and/or make it unusable on Android, Mac, iOS, etc. by degrading the code.
They have a solid history of doing this. There's also a solid history of people telling me not to worry about it and being proven wrong over time. Again, color me skeptical.
I remember when lots of people told me how great it was going to be when MS bought Virtual PC for Mac (from Connectix) back in the day...
After MS touched the code, it was the first (and only) app to ever give my Mac a kernel panic. Then, it got even "greater" when MS discontinued Virtual PC for Mac entirely. MS bought it and killed a great app for Mac.
Will Sunrise avoid getting borged and ruined by MS? I hope not, but I'm not counting on it, either.
Of course, Beef Magazine will refute those numbers with industry-sponsored "studies", but I tend to take them with a grain of salt (just like my steak).
http://www.naturalhealth365.com/ketogenic_diet/cancer_part_1...
Some examples:
Tidal tech here and now:
http://energy.gov/articles/maine-project-launches-first-grid...
http://www.theday.com/article/20130331/NWS01/303319909/-1/NW...
Near future:
More:
The U.S. Navy has committed to get half of its energy from renewable sources by the year 2020. One element of that strategy will be looking to extract energy from tides, currents and waves:
http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/10/24/u-s-navy-awards-8-...
I also think you failed to mention that nuclear is too expensive. That's why places like France (who have had success with nuclear in the past) are transitioning towards alternative energy (like offshore wind) instead of building new nuclear plants.
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/03/26/nuclear-power-too-expens...
More sources of evidence that show why nuclear is too expensive:
http://v1.apebble.com/static/clean/CSI_Nuclear_Power_Fact_Sh...
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/society-and-culture/n...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/03/29/exelons-n...
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global...
http://www.psr.org/resources/nuclear-power-factsheet.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
We really don't need to build new nuclear plants to transition and we should work to responsibly phase them out over time. Here's results from a Stanford researcher whose study shows the world can be powered by alternative energy in 20-40 years:
http://scienceblog.com/65427/the-world-can-be-powered-by-alt...
More:
Mark Z. Jacobson - Energy Policy
http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnP...
Here's for New York (with more numbers):
http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NewYo...
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/march/new-york-energy-031...
Jacobson doesn't just throw numbers around, he makes some very salient points along with strategies as well.
We should also factor in advances in decentralized battery storage that are bound to offset current baseload issues. For example, breakthroughs in graphene production, etc.:
http://delta.tudelft.nl/article/making-graphene-affordable/2...
Yeah, as I've been saying...
Some may call all of this growing Apple consumer angst and issues "back luck", but I bet Steve Jobs would call it "bad karma".
Consumers with early 2011 MacBook Pros that died after 2-3 years didn't feel like they got a very good ROI on a 3-4,000 dollar laptop, go figure. Especially those that paid hundreds more for extended Applecare and had the defective GPU fail quickly after it expired.
Maybe it's time for Mac users to get much more vocal and critical with Apple and quit apologizing for their mistakes to others?
I remember back in the day when there were Mac user uproars over the tiniest Mac OS flaws and I took pride that I was a part of a group of consumers that asked.. no, --demanded-- high quality products from Apple. Steve Jobs really seemed to take pride in that as well, in my opinion.
I hope threads like these are a sign that Apple consumers are ready to get back to our old-school roots of being demanding users that expect the best hardware and software for our money.
Consumer complacency breeds corporate complacency. I'm not critical of Mac products because I hate them. I'm critical of Mac products because I utilize them and need them for business. Otherwise, I frankly wouldn't give a shit.
Is that Apple's tagline for the product now?
Via Google Voice/Hangouts the answering/calling of a phone through a Mac or other PC has been around before Apple's introduction of it. Also, things like SMS MightyText for Android were also things I've enjoyed on my Android/Mac combo well before Apple made it available within the OS:
http://blog.mightytext.net/welcome-to-the-party-apple/
Granted, I did use an iChat/AIM combo setup to text phones (and receive texts) via my Mac in the past, but it was a cumbersome utilization and didn't work with all carriers.
>Maybe Apple is moving too fast, that is a matter of opinion, but they are certainly moving forward fast.
Bugs that hinder workflow moves me backwards. And, these Mac OS and iOS bugs aren't just a matter of opinion. I don't think it's time to slam all that is Apple, but the company is overdue for some customer backlash and constructive criticism, in my opinion.
Then again, maybe this is all just bad karma from Apple completely ignoring the faulty early 2011 MacBook Pro GPU/logic board failures and not issuing a recall and replacement program as they should.
I haven't found that to be the case at the Apple subreddit on Reddit.
IMO, it depends on the topic and where the discussion is located.
I think it depends upon the specific lawsuits and their validity.
" ... I’d like to be able to say that the Reach79 will solve your cellular reception problems, or even to flatly declare that it won’t. But I can’t say either. After nearly a week of testing it, using two methods in a variety of locations, all I can report is very mixed results. Roughly half the time it seemed to help, sometimes by a little and sometimes by a lot. And roughly half the time it made no difference at all. On a few occasions, it actually degraded the performance of my iPhone 6. ... "
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hmmm....
I think I'll wait until someone actually tests this thing. Based on his review, it seems to me that Walt meaninglessly fiddled with it and doesn't really have any idea if it works or not overall.
" ... He hesitates to chalk up the wasting event to climate change. But he does worry all the same. ..."
Closed tab with still open mind.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130501193204.ht...
" ... Prior to starting their training, the participants went through what was essentially a control group session -- blood samples were taken before and immediately after they listened to a 20-minute health education CD and again 15 minutes later. After completing the training course, a similar set of blood tests was taken before and after participants listened to a 20-minute CD used to elicit the relaxation response as part of daily practice. ... "
Not sure if that really counts by your standards, but thought you'd be interested in the info nonetheless.
He should probably listen to Neil Gaiman's story on how piracy can, indeed, make artists money:
I guess a knee-jerk, lizard brain fear response? Haha... Oh boy, I bet they'd really downvote me if I mentioned canvas fingerprinting. :P
Yep, this is yet another vector to assist in de-anonymization of people - especially those using machines that often stay at a certain, specific x-y axis tilt on some desktops, etc.
So far, it's helped to bring a few more people onboard to help.
That said, I agree with your points that links to sources of evidence may be too challenging or time consuming for some and that's basically why the project was initiated.
>I quick-skimmed a few of your links
I think if you explore some more you'll come to see my points.
Not really, I'm much more focused on the externalities of Gates' anti-competitive, monopolistic business practices. His billionaire status is just a small part of the problem in comparison. Speaking of which, I am also looking at the specific assets that makes up his total net worth.
For example, as of now, Bill Gates has a net worth of nearly $82 billion, of which just $14 billion is in Microsoft stock. The bulk of the remainder is $64 billion which is invested in a variety of assets through Cascade Investment LLC, his private investment firm.
Cash, some small technology investments and assets such as his 66,000 square-foot mansion in Medina make up the last $4 billion chunk which is very small in comparison.
I've been researching how his assets both positively and negatively affect society but it pales in comparison to the bigger picture I mentioned in regards to the overall effects of his shady, past business practices that affected society globally (literally).
>You can make that argument, but using "his plunder" as a shorthand for it is at the very least imprecise.
I see your point. He certainly didn’t steal all of it and I should use a better choice of word to describe his booty. ;)
However, I was considering that he's taken far more from society than he's provided for society, so that's why I've called it "plunder", so to speak.
The final report won't have any of that kind of terminology, but as you said, it's probably better if I refrain from using it even it's simply in forum posts, etc.
Thank you for your constructive criticism.
edit: spelling/grammar
That's a very good point and I'm happy you brought it up. Although, I wish you'd been a bit more polite didn't assume bad faith with me in the process.
I've been in the process of providing a more "human-readable" (so to speak) breakdown of both the positives of his business practices, charity, etc. versus the negatives. I don't know if you've ever researched something of this scale before or not, but it takes quite a bit of time to vet sources properly and break it all down into a fair manner with methodologies that others can easily understand, relate to and, indeed, find to be a fair comparison/assessment (overall).
Despite working on this with six other people (granted, all off-and-on in our spare time since, unlike Public Relations, we aren't paid to do this), it's taken well over a year so far. Ughh..
In the meantime, I've provided sources of evidence to the public that should at the very least provoke more people to question the narrative that Gates is simply a net gain for society via his philanthropy and gains for society he created via his role at Microsoft, etc. If Gates is a Robin Hood that stole from the rich to provide for the poor, I've yet to see much data that resembles that scenario.
So far, I have measured more counter-evidence that positively reflects Bill Gates' actions than the negative evidence I've gathered (for one, it's very easy to find positives on Gates & MS). Incredibly easy... However, I've found it lacking once one considers all the costs that his monopolistic, anti-competitive behavior at this huge of a scale extolled upon society en masse along with Gates' personal hoarding of assets/money to climb towards his billionaire status to boot.
Of course, it's also complicated by the fact that Gates' assets have provided both good and bad for society as well, so it's quite complex.
But, again, if you've got some evidence that shows that Gates is an overall net gain for society after I've provided all this evidence to the contrary and I'm wrong on this, I'd like you to provide it. I'd like to review it and add it to the pile if it's not there already. Who know, perhaps you have a much better perspective I or the six others haven't yet considered.
For example, I'd like to see a better comparative analysis than what we have so far of all the jobs Microsoft destroyed versus ones they enabled internally and externally. Love to compare methodologies on that as well with more people.
Anyway, otherwise, I suppose you can just assume bad faith on my part instead of forming an argument based upon your own sources of evidence, etc.
>That you are asking someone else to waste as much time as you
That's hostile. How about you put some of that energy to good use and challenge my sources of evidence instead?
>sufficient proof that you are looking to silence, not evaluate.
I'm not looking to silence anyone at all. I very much welcome more data whether it adds to the positive gain or negative drain.
But, anyway, if that's all the "proof" you need to pre-judge my intentions, then I'm afraid we don't require the same levels of evidence to support our own suppositions in the first place, perhaps.
tl;dr - I'm still working on this with others. I'd like to see a better comparative analysis than what we have so far, so if anyone can think of some data that seriously challenges the negatives, I'd enjoy gathering it. I should also note I hope to have a final, comprehensive report completed, edited and ready for heavy rotation by Spring or earlier if we have the time and/or can get more people involved in the process. But, so far, I haven't seen anywhere near a net gain for society by Bill Gate's actions and I hope in the end we can all learn that at the very least, there's a better way to garner a successful business than hurting so many others in the process.