jamesconradstjohnforeman

Comment Threads

• Charlie Stross commented on What is the next bubble?
  General moderation note: I am not enthusiastic about letting people use this blog as a soapbox for idiotic/crack-brained theories. I number among the ideas that are self-evidently bogus: young-earth Creationism, denial of evolution (with a loophole for informed discussion of controversies within the field e.g. the pros and cons of group selection, selfish genes, and so on), market fundamentalism uber alles, "global warming is a conspiracy", "Barack Obama is a Secret Muslim Infiltrator from Mars", and stuff along similar lines. I'm in a foul mood right now (I embarked this morning on a 28 hour three-sector flight, and am already...
• Sean Eric Fagan commented on What is the next bubble?
  Or not. There are other moderators, who may take Charlie's absence as a sign to indulge their wildest moderating power fantasies. Mwahahaha and the like....
• Charlie Stross commented on What is the next bubble?
  Roy, precisely that scenario happened to a friend of mine applying for a UK civil service job a number of years ago. (Had PhD and other sheepskins; no problem. But they rejected him as "underqualified" because he couldn't find his original 'O' level certificate ...)...
• scentofviolets commented on What is the next bubble?
  @221: Yes HR is often insane, but I am sceptical that very many HR departments, even in government, are *that* insane, or won't get told not to be so ****ing insane if such policies start to affect the bottom line. Well, no, this a very common practice as a general rule. I know HR requirements that specify the appropriate weight and rag content of the paper used to submit resumes and woe betide the individual who does not hew to those guidelines is another instance of this general rule. And that is: anything to cut the reviews down to manageable...
• bellinghman commented on What is the next bubble?
  @238 - If you're going to use analogy, then I think it's better to consider the status quo ante. In the starship, the status quo ante is of the life support working, and nobody having hit it yet. In the case of the atmosphere, it's one before the addition of the CO2 emitted by various human activities. In both cases, we know it was working. We can be fairly sure the starship is unlikely to perform better with the Stilson hammering. If it does actually require it, then the occupants are probably stuffed. In terms of emissions reductions, we're unlikely...