Letters to the Editor
Tyler_Mason
Published Letters: 490 Editor's Choice: 41
-
@walter_map
[Read the article: Pop goes the solar bubble?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not being an apologist for anything. I'm not saying what is right or wrong. I am pointing out why Ball could well be correct. I'm sorry, but the free market is amoral. That is why we as individuals and citizens of nations have to occasionally do the moral thing instead of the profitable, expedient, or easy thing.
Your arguments boil down to saying that solar has a lower cost but a higher price because the market is amoral. I know you are not a petulant teenager stamping his foot at the unfairness of it all. You are a thinking intelligent adult.
What actions does a thinking intelligent adult recommend? How do those actions effect the balance between supply and demand?
Oh yeah - educating others or thinking green without actually being green is the refuge of environmental hypocrites.
By the way, I type this from a 56 degree home (wearing a stocking cap) and paying a premium for electricity from a wind farm.
-
a popping noise
[Read the article: Listening to Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wow, I could hear the "pop" as clintonites started pulling their heads out. Congrats Joan.
It's like someone muttered a safe word and the pundits loosed their knots, pulled off their blindfolds, and snuck a peek out of the hillary "love-in". They discovered that there are a lot of people outside looking in. People wondering if the hillary love-in is religion, kink, or just a repeatition of old familiar motions. There are even more people not bothering to look, but instead are continuing a very long march to win the white house.
Obama could well enjoy a honeymoon, but it is his second. It is, however, a first one with the punditry shedding their old gear and looking for new (but not strange). One thing is certain though. He's already had one honeymoon and it is long over.
I couldn't help but notice that in Iowa, Joan chose to room in clinton central. Sure, she wanted convenient access to hillary's victory speech and party. It sounds like Obama throws a far better party (hint).
p.s. Sensory deprivation gear is, well, um, sensorily depriving. Don't wear it to work.
-
yes, what she's done.
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's softer side]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]She should definitely show some of those people. All those one legged soldiers. Dead Iraqi civilians. More gitmo pics.
You are right, she can't brag about her record. Patriot act, Iraq war, etc.
-
koolaid by any other name
[Read the article: Remember electability?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Electability is a charade that the power brokers bandy about as a reason us "little people" should support their choice of establishment candidate.
Some time ago, a poster here put it best by pointing out that electability is a crap concept. A carrot is electable. If GW Bush can be elected, then any damn vegetable is electable.
-
Andrew, Andrew, Andrew ...
[Read the article: A natural experiment in Republican biodiversity]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You seem to think that scientific people believe in a certain set of issues while non-scientific people don't. I'm sorry, but that is far from true. What you have is sciency sounding religion and anti-religion.
Yes, science is based on data. The only thing most scientists really believe in is the scientific method. You know - that boring hypothesize, test, conclude cycle. The tests produce data either supporting, disproving, or inconclusive regarding the hypothesis. As for "believing in" facts, that is pretty situational.
Most of us normally "believe in" newtonian mechanics. Except in really big, small, or fast realms. For a scientist, believing in a thing means that that thing can predict an outcome. It doesn't mean that the thing is true because science is all about finding when and where the predictions don't match experiment.
-
umm, read Roe v Wade
[Read the article: Is abortion a civil rights issue?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The judicial opinions in Roe v. Wade are all about finding a balance between the rights of the mother, the fetus, and the government.
Where do you think that trimester stuff came from? In the first trimester, the mothers rights were deemed greatest. In the second, things became dicier and abortion is a more limited option because the fetus is gaining civil rights along with its ability to survive outside the womb. In the third trimester, the fetus is deemed to be pretty viable and the thereby have sufficient civil rights that the government can defend the fetus.
I'm always amazed at the number of people that scream their own opinions about Roe v. Wade without taking the time to read it or understand it.
-
standard fare
[Read the article: Moody's lament: Our job is too hard]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is an article every couple years about why and when Moore's law will break down. I read them with great interest in the early 90s. Eventually I figured out they were bullshit but often did highlight technological roadblocks. Sometimes the road blocks weren't real, sometimes there were nifty detours, sometimes technology just plain didn't move in the predicted direction.
I think that's what the Moody's article is. Bullshit that might highlight actual fundamental problems.
Back when neural networks were the rage, the multilayer perceptron was king. A few layers and the thing defied mathematical analysis because of a combination of non-linearity and feedback loops.
Wouldn't you know it. People learned to analyze them. Same will happen with the risk markets for many of the same reason.
The interesting thing to me is that Moody's has stated that there are things they can't analyze. That opens the door to a new rating. Perhaps "NA". or "CE" for caveat emptor. The guys proposing a brilliant new instrument may then be burdened with proposing an analysis method.
Final note: Regarding the short term interests destabilizing the system. In systems engineering, you learn to stabilize systems by low pass filtering. This translates into awarding deferred compensation instead of a bonus. Tie the amount to a future value. Slowly vesting options come to mind. Except that the non-vested options should remain on their vesting schedule when the awardee leaves the company. Otherwise, folks are motivated to stay or pump-n-dump but not to leave the ship in good order.