"Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction" (McClellan, Dorn) lays out an interest overview of how technology led science throughout world history.
We naively think that science leads technology, but for much of history, it was technology that led science/understanding. The telescope led astronomy and the microscope led germ biology.
Anti-semitism and racist speech is free speech. Hate speech is free speech.
If we are going to censor "hate speech", then we would have to ban atheist speech for being hateful to the religious or pro-gay speech for being hateful to traditionalists. Is that the kind of world you want to live in? Considering how much power social media organizations have, do you really want such companies to control speech?
Rather than shutdown free speech, I'd rather the NYTimes be shut down.
> What I don't see is why this is worthy of an article on the NY Times. You left Twitter for various reasons, none of which are newsworthy.
Lets be honest here. It's newsworthy because a jew is affected. The writer is jewish and he mentions other jewish workers of the media industry. The jewish domination of media isn't a secret. They are used to controlling and forming propaganda/opinion/etc using the bully pulpit of established media organizations. But social media is less controllable and they are lashing out.
> Also, I don't understand how Bernie supporters are misogynists for criticizing Hillary.
Because the NYTimes and the media elite are pro-hilary. They have been spreading propaganda against sanders forever now. I stopped reading the NYTimes and listening to NPR months ago because of their constant and relentless propaganda.
It's a shame that these writers are slowly gaining traction on the internet with their appeal for more censorship and more control. It's funny how a writer for the NYTimes would stealthily advocate for more censorship and control.
Wait til TTIP and TPP becomes law. Times are good now, but once hilary gets elected and these "free" trade agreements gets signed, the monied masters will immediately raise interest rates and cause a recession which will give cover for businesses to lay off a large swathe of workers ( this time its going to be IT/developers/tech workers who are going to face the brunt of it ) and offshore a lot of these jobs.
H1B is a significant problem, but so is offshoring. From a business point of view, the cost savings are too immense to ignore. If you can pay a foreigner $5K to do something an american workers does for $50K and pocket the $45K annual difference, it's a no-brainer to corporate executives. The shareholders will benefits and the C-Suite will benefit, the workers will suffer.
There is a reason why the leftist and rightist establishment are working so hard to get hilary elected. The amount of pro-Hilary propaganda on NPR, NYTimes, LATimes, etc was nearly unbearable while she was fighting against Sanders. Now that Sanders is done, I might have to stop consuming these media for the next few months.
As much as we like to pretend, there isn't two parties. There is one party ( the elite ), that control both parties to gives an illusion of choice. Even the republican establishment are trying to undermine Trump to give Hilary the presidency.
Complete protectionism/isolation isn't a good thing. But extreme liberal trade policies aren't a good thing either. Thought maybe Trump will get the nod and push policies towards the center, but there is too much money at stake for the elite so they are going to force hilary, TTIP, TPP, etc on us no matter what.
We are going to replace one corrupt chicago politician with another.
Assuming the off-shore worker is 10% as effective as the on-shore worker, which, I'll be blunt, I'm not so sure about considering the anecdata I've amassed over the years working with some of these outsourcing body shops, like Tata, HCL, Cognizant, Infosys, etc.
I think that a reasonable person could disagree with what you're saying here, but I don't think that justifies the downvotes. Your comment is reasoned and mostly uninflammatory, albeit considered a little "out-there" by most people. In the back of my mind, I tend to agree with much of what you say here.
> Complete protectionism/isolation isn't a good thing. But extreme liberal trade policies aren't a good thing either.
I'm just trying to figure out how we got into this bizarro world where being supportive of a trade policies with your 12 closest allies, notably leaving out the two countries with the second and third largest economies (and growing rapidly), earns you the label of being "pro-trade".
How the hell did that become our idea of a non-isolationist trade policy? It's the antithesis of free trade, particularly when you look 10 or 20 years forward and realize this treaty is (effectively) disincentivizing trade with what will be the two largest economies.
Money. Hollywood is running out of ideas and they've rebooted/re-imagined/re-released/sequelized/etc everything.
So while we are debating whether to watch ghostbusters or independence day ( and whether our choices make us sexist or not), they'll be busy with this silly movie/non-story.
It's amazing how the media took a non-story and made it into a story and now they are going to make a movie out of a non-story they turned into a story.
This is akin to a firefighter arsonist setting fires all over town so that he can have more work or a greedy doctor intentionally giving his patients poison so that he'll be able to drum up more business.
It's circular and incestuous and wrong on so many levels. Like a snake swallowing its own tail.
When Hollywood trots out an endless procession of superhero sequels dumbed down for a global audience you can complain about greed and lament that they've run out of ideas.
When Hollywood mythologizes a real story that has captured the public imagination and is emblematic of our era, it's Hollywood at it's finest. It's Hollywood doing exactly what it ought to be doing but rarely does.
> When Hollywood mythologizes a real story that has captured the public imagination and is emblematic of our era, it's Hollywood at it's finest. It's Hollywood doing exactly what it ought to be doing but rarely does.
The problem is that Hollywood sometimes "mythologizes" a real story in the vernacular, non-academic sense of the quoted term: It adopts a false narrative, often in the form of a conspiracy theory, which then gets embedded in our collective cultural memory for a long time. (Examples: Amadeus; Zero Dark Thirty; Oliver Stone's JFK [0].)
Another version is when Hollywood creates a false narrative, or sub-narratives, in the name of "making a catchier story line" and with the excuse of "artistic license," which unjustly damage the reputations of real people. (Examples: Spotlight and All the President's Men. [1] [2].)
Hollywood didn't do that to Amadeus; Peter Shaffer did. It was a very successful play (and even further from a historical document) before it became a period movie.
JFK is another odd example; the movie was notorious as a departure from the historical record, and cemented Stone's reputation as a conspiracy enthusiast. Very shortly after the film was released, that reputation became part of the marketing for the movie!
I don't have a problem with that. A generation from now we'll have the Theranos movie, and no one will be too uptight about the specifics of what happened- that's a job for journalists and historians, they're a different breed of storyteller than what you conventionally find in Hollywood, with different goals. It's more important to get the tone right than the details.
I mean, the biggest movie made about the vietnam war was 'Apocalypse Now'. It was made up. None of that actually happened, but it set the tone for how the war is remembered for millions who were never actually there. As factual accounts get passed through the generations they become myths, and myths are what they are because they're worth remembering.
And with regards to Holmes reputation, well, from where she's at now, there's nowhere to go but up. As for all her investors: they deserve what they've got coming.
> with regards to Holmes reputation, well, from where she's at now, there's nowhere to go but up
It's not impossible to imagine a telling of this story that's actually sympathetic to Holmes: a very smart young woman has an idea, the idea leads to a ton of money and hype being dropped on her head, and by the time she realizes the idea won't work she's been strapped into a rocket that's going to launch regardless. A story of being trapped inside a prison of one's own creation.
(I'm not saying this angle necessarily fits the facts, but movies are stories first, and this would be one way to turn Theranos into an audience-engaging story.)
> A generation from now we'll have the Theranos movie, and no one will be too uptight about the specifics of what happened .... It's more important to get the tone right than the details.
That strikes me as a very Stalinist take on things. I would paraphrase it as the movie director's saying: It doesn't matter how many actual, real, flesh-and-blood people I hurt; what matters is that I advance what I imagine to be the greater long-term good. (Or, classically: The ends justify the means.)
Licensing is old news. The hip new thing in business is the social media model.
Businesses are now trying to give you things for free in exchange for rights to your data. That's the entire social media business model. It is so lucrative at the moment that even microsoft is now employing the social model for their consumer OS ( starting with windows 10 ). You get a "free" OS, but that OS is going to track what you do and sell your data.
Of course this model is much easier for software than hardware because of the low cost of distributing software and an easier way to achieve scale. If hardware decides to try this model, it will be interesting and funny to see what the implications would be. Tesla could offer to lease you a "free" car but they get to monitor you, collect your data and sell your data. Hell, what happens when housing developers try the "social media" model. You get to lease a "free" house but the developer gets to record/monitor everything you and sell your data.
That's amazing. It's both awe-inspiring and unnervingly depressing to be reminded that we are ultimately just biological machines.
Reminds me of that procedure where a surgeon can freeze you, drain your blood, take out all your organs and then put them back in, stitch you up, pump blood back in and then warm you up and awaken you. It was like unplugging your PC, taking it apart and then putting it together and turning it back on.
Yes it is easy to use. But too bad it also fails "transactions" silently so that you don't even know if your changes were "committed" or not. Don't worry, it only happens every once it a while so it's not a big deal...
Unless you are coinbase or an organization that deals with money/bitcoins/etc and you need ACID compliant transactions so that "debits/credits" don't just magically disappear.
When the bitcoin craze was going crazy, coinbase had all kinds of problems due to their mongodb backend.
> If you're EVER going to read the data back and do anything with it, it has a schema.
You are giving the NoSQL crowd too much credit. Some abominations have no recognizable schema at all. The data store will just contain arbitrary dump of data which different developers decided their "schema" should be. The number of "columns" will vary, the "columns" will have arbitrary formats, so on and so forth.
If one developer decided to separate name into "first: John", "last: Doe", you will have that. If another decided to have "name: John Doe". That's what will be there. If one developer decided social security should be "SSN: 123-45-6789" and another decided it should "SSN: 123456780", well you are going to have fun cleaning up the data at the business or even application layer.
But that's not even the big issue with MongoDB. It's their lack of ACID compliance!
We naively think that science leads technology, but for much of history, it was technology that led science/understanding. The telescope led astronomy and the microscope led germ biology.