Notably, a focus on profit must be eliminated from the equation.
Right. Now to just find a business where the focus on profit has been eliminated from the equation! Oh, wait, they probably already went out of business.
It also helps with recruitment. Said Carmel, 'there's no reason the larger game companies can't do that.
So, are there really that few people who want to program video games that there needs to be an extra special super duper wiz group to entice recruits? I was under the impression that the under 25 crowd, well, kept being under 25 and still keeps wanting in to the industry, since there always appear to be an unending stream of new replacements.
I fail to see how setting up an in-house incubator is more efficient than letting a slew of hungry people in basements try to come up with something great and then funding the best of that, instead. (except for the part where they get paid to do it up front...)
What I think is sad is that many people obviously believe in the necessity of scarcity.
That's no way to head towards the future, IMO.
We are currently caught up in the illusion that the only way forward is through scarcity. That if something becomes "magically" free of this burden we still MUST impose this viewpoint, artifically if necessary -- even if it kills people (see the pharma mass murders from patented drugs as an example). This is just the latest example of that outdated mindset.
The fact is that the mindset of scarcity itself creates scarcity, even where none is necessary. It is a perfect self-replicating state.
Of course, the main reason this mindset is propagated is to control the populace.
After all, if there were no scarcity what would these people do? How could they control others? What would be the incentive for other people to follow them if not fear, the carrot and stick? How would they be able to feel themselves 'better' than others if not by material resources?
It is time for the populace to wake up and realize that artificial barriers to bounty hurt the majority much more than the barriers help the majority. They need to realize that the benefits derived by the barriers accrue in large parts to people who believe in and want to continue this model. They need to realize that changing their paradigm to one of abundance obviates the need for such barriers and the controllers who propagate them.
Only by doing so will we be able to stop ourselves from creating such lurid scenes as mass deaths through lack of IP licensing in the future. Only by doing so will technology be allowed to progress to the point where there is abundance.
There is a jig-maker jig that allows you to make a variety of jigs. With it, you can create the tools (jigs) necessary to create other stuff. The company that sells it has sued to stop people from using it to make copies of the meta-jig.
Security does not come from obscurity, but insecurity often does.
Security comes in many forms, and obscurity is actually quite a good form, as long as there are other layers.
The "best" security comes from defense in depth and obscurity can certainly be part of that, and in fact probably should be. I will go through a few different layers where security by obscurity actually works quite well.
Consider a random binary on Usenet. Even if I 'encrypt' the payload with ROT-13 I have achieved a decent amount of security simply through obscuring the target in a sea of ones and zeros.
Now, consider the challenge-response system. It used to be that some systems would tell you whether your username, password (or both) was bad. It turns out that this lack of obscurity allows attackers quicker access to systems, since they can hit upon usernames by letting the system tell them which were valid. Simply obscuring the error response fixes this.
And this brings up a good point about obscurity as a security practice. If you use it - don't tell anyone! You would have thought this was a "duh", but the previous example is a great one in that regards. Usernames are simply obscured data, but if the login system can be used as an oracle... not so much.
Now, on a systems level, network security is often predicated on obscurity - that's why you don't find many companies publishing their internal network maps! If those maps were published, then attackers would have a much easier time to penetrate the organization. Security by obscurity.
Now, on a home level, if I am using port knocking (as one example) as one means of controlling access to ssh, then every attacker that does not know this will fail out of the box. Of course, it is better if I also have key exchange turned on, and even moreso if that and password enabled. But, even moreso if I simply run it on a non-standard port - which is security thorugh obscurity.
So, while I wouldn't rely strictly on security through obscurity (except in cases it makes sense), it is a valuable tool in a security toolbox, and generally can be a show stopper for an attacker if they aren't able to obtain the knowledge. But again, security comes from defense in depth, and one layer of that depth should be considered obscurity.
Just not with the same stoies that you con dishonest people.
Perhaps you should read up on the types of cons out there.
I imagine that most of the people Bernie Madoff conned, for example, were generally honest.
The people who question this saying just don't want to admit they are not honest men.
Get a grip, or you may end up being conned yourself.
Your philosophy certainly leads me to think that will happen, eventually, if only as Karma for all the honest people you believe are dishonest because they were conned.
By not voting, I can claim that I disagree with the System itself.
By voting, I cannot do that, since by definition, voting is accepting the system and the outcome.
If I give you a vote to either die by lethal injection or a firing squad, should you vote?
You are trying to shoehorn your own "consequences" onto something that is outside of the arena of those consequences. Does not work.
You are a citizen of an elected government, and no matter what you do it's just as much your responsibility as anyone else's.
And then, when I deny the Authority of the election and elected government due to the corruption of the system, the government is no longer the end all be all of my Citizenship.
That is, my Citizenship in this country has higher precedence in Authority than the current elected government.
because it teaches that plagiarism of ideas isn't plagiarism at all, and that stringing five words together in a way that's been used before is, and that rewriting something in your own words makes it no longer plagiarism.
While I agree with your general premise about childish rules... Just no.
Plagarism is taking someone elses words and claiming them as your own.
You seem to be infected by the IP bug.
Fortunately for the rest of us, one cannot plagarize ideas. Reformulating a concept in your own words does not count as plagarism, nor should it.
If one choses to vote, then yes, I agree that there should be a default "none of the above".
However, I feel uncomfortable helping to legitimize the system in place by presuming that non-voters just don't like the candidates.
Even if you vote "none of the above", just by voting you are agreeing to accept the results of that vote (if the outcome is legitimate and not fixed).
It is equally possible that they feel the system is too corrupt to fix, and that voting only adds energy into the corrupt system. Counting these people in the "none of the above" group only helps the system remain corrupted.
Perhaps if less than 50% of the elgible people votefor a particular office it should remain vacant for that election cycle.
Well, I've some of your replies on this and your arguments.
First, there is a non-trivial class of people who pay this "fee" and do not need the service. And Best Buy's corporate strategy is to make money off of these people. This is harm.
You then respond with some form of "Well that's the ethics of Capitalism".
I do not think that word means what you think it does./s
Ethical systems are hierarchical. Sorry to disappoint. There are classes that are commutable, having equal hierarchy such as the abortion topic. These seem to be of the same scale.
However, an ethical system such as "making money is the Highest Good" (as you portray Capitalism), is inferior to either of the above! No one has a right to harm me to make money. Period.
One of the basic items which comes up when you dig deep enough is that we are food; anxiety, pain and high emotion provide a type of energy which can be consumed and that the human race has been bred up into the billions, history has been sculpted for the end purpose of drawing off this energy in one vast harvest.
This is a variant of the gnostic blind god, or PKD's black iron prison.
Let me take this as an axiom, for a moment.
I don't think it is one vast harvest, as you say. It appears to be more like - different beings are "ripe" at different points in our timeline and get harvested at that point in time. It may be that they cycle through our timeline over and over, with us reliving every experience (as you said, leaving behind small traces of this) to cause this. Of course, from a viewpoint outside of time it may be an all at once view, but I think that "they" have their own serial type processing as well, on those planes.
Part of the problem with their approach is that although our consciousnesses are not normally predisposed to interact with those levels, we are no less immanent there than they (thou art god). I would posit that these beings also live in a higher level system, and I don't believe that Karma is so limited in scope. Sheer force to survive, combined with the base reality of change means that eventually this type of activity must stop or they will be destroyed.
To believe that they are perfect, or somehow able to fully control our consciousnesses is folly. Every system has vulnerabilities.
Think - poisoned food, establishing "Legal" Consciousness in that system, or even the ever popular "leapfrog" (now, your are OUR food) as possible strategies.
That said, this could all be a metaphor for what we are doing to ourselves (who would YOU want to shape yourself towards divinity?).
Rincon also needled competition betting on open standards and free of charge, such as Google. "When you do not can compete, you are declaring open. This masks incompetence."
The executive added: "When convenient, the companies say they are open. They use it for your own benefit."
He was really only talking about MS strategies.
It may be funny, but it's also right on the mark. MS has been trying (in the past few years) to do exactly this.
Just seems to be another case of ascribing your own faults to your perceived enemies.
Maybe he doesn't realize he's been describing MS failings, but we do!
As my English professor used to say, you've discovered your prejudices. Or in your case, maybe your automatic defensive reaction.
Perhaps. I really like how you push my supposed shortcoming right past my intellect back into my deep conscious. Very nice attack, so nicely worded and friendly savaging!
You sound very much like one of the crazies who gets upset if someone dares to use the pronoun "he" as a gender neutral pronoun.
And you sound like someone who passes judgment without good cause. Please quote where I went off on the deep end in your mind, would you? Perhaps I will learn something.
it sounds like they're using terminology that is fairly well established in the field. You're projecting your own cultural bias onto not only the rest of the world, but the scientific world (this is an international journal).
Well, that sounds like an unfortunate choice of words for the field then. The fact is that "heavy drinker" has negative connotations in many parts of the world, and in the general scientific community outside this *specific* research area.
Do you dispute this?
I guess you do, considering that I am "projecting my cultural bias".
All reportage of this will invariably state "heavy drinker" without specifying precisely what they mean, and that's where the issue is, really.
Yes, perhaps it's just my cultural bias, but maybe it's yours when you declare that the "rest of the world" is just fine with the term. Hmm. That ever occur to you?
Accepting emails you never intend to read means you have a lot of email you never intend to read in your inbox. There's no amount of technology that can undo basic logic.
So what? Your tautology has no implication.
The flaw in this system is that it cannot stop you from subscribing to yet another mailing list, etc
So what? It's not intended to make people do things the way YOU want them to. It is intended to to separate the emails you know you have to read/act on, from all the ones you don't.
If you don't change your ways, you'll certainly make the problem worse
You'll be back to this same position eventually, in need of a 'priority priority inbox'.
Well, that really depends on how good their system is, doesn't it? Why would you think there would be a need for a meta tier?
If you only occasionally look at that the lkml digest, it'll still be there if you want it, but it won't be brought to your attention. If you subscribe to a million lists, only the ones you regularly read will be highlighted. What is the problem again with having all those other emails?
because sloppiness is NOT a technology problem. It is a human problem
Well, first I have to disagree that this is sloppiness. Second this is not a human "problem". It is human behaviour, and that's why something like this will be a godsend to a bunch of people (because it *is* a problem in the technological sense - they cannot find what they need to when they need it).
The software deals with the second, technological issue. Your crusade to make this a human issue will never get off the ground.
The fact that you see their behaviour as "sloppiness" and a problem just seems to indicate you don't like how other people do things.
My advice is for your personal use of your own mailbox.
Sure, but if people don't use it that way?
You'll have to be kind and define who 'they' is in your statement.
Everyone who doesn't do it, or doesn't want to do it the way you do?
I'm not sure where the contention lies between us, but whatever I did to warrant such a tone from you, I apologize.
I'm not sure why you think my tone is out of line. Perhaps you could explain why you feel that way?
The contention probably comes from these baseless assertions:
It is also an absolute non-problem. The basic issue here is a human one, and is easily corrected.
There may be more, but the point is, this is a completely human situation that can be easily managed.
Not that I don't think your list has merit. However, proposing people change their ways to solve this type of problem just won't work (it's been tried and tried, and tried! - look at computer security if you want examples).
Therefore, while this may not be the feature set you are looking for, that doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
I see the connotation of being a "heavy drinker" as negative. Yes, not in the UK, fine.
I also see that America, especially, sees this as a negative connotation.
It is very common, even in scientific papers, to use a fairly fuzzy adjective like "heavy" to describe something in the paper, but define the use of that adjective on the first use.
Quite. And still wrong, when the adjective in association with the noun has negative connotations to large swaths of both the scientific community and the overall community.
Especially when what is reported is "heavy drinker" without the background (we *actually* mean 3 drinks a day).
Especially when a lot of people would say that 3 drinks a day is not a heavy drinker (because they have a different connotation than the paper as to what this actually entails).
I think a quick survey would prove this.
Ask if there is anything wrong with being a "heavy drinker" without specifying the limit and even in the UK you might be suprised at the results.
Slashdot Mirror
Notably, a focus on profit must be eliminated from the equation.
Right. Now to just find a business where the focus on profit has been eliminated from the equation! Oh, wait, they probably already went out of business.
It also helps with recruitment. Said Carmel, 'there's no reason the larger game companies can't do that.
So, are there really that few people who want to program video games that there needs to be an extra special super duper wiz group to entice recruits? I was under the impression that the under 25 crowd, well, kept being under 25 and still keeps wanting in to the industry, since there always appear to be an unending stream of new replacements.
I fail to see how setting up an in-house incubator is more efficient than letting a slew of hungry people in basements try to come up with something great and then funding the best of that, instead. (except for the part where they get paid to do it up front...)
Regards.
What I think is sad is that many people obviously believe in the necessity of scarcity.
That's no way to head towards the future, IMO.
We are currently caught up in the illusion that the only way forward is through scarcity. That if something becomes "magically" free of this burden we still MUST impose this viewpoint, artifically if necessary -- even if it kills people (see the pharma mass murders from patented drugs as an example). This is just the latest example of that outdated mindset.
The fact is that the mindset of scarcity itself creates scarcity, even where none is necessary. It is a perfect self-replicating state.
Of course, the main reason this mindset is propagated is to control the populace.
After all, if there were no scarcity what would these people do? How could they control others? What would be the incentive for other people to follow them if not fear, the carrot and stick? How would they be able to feel themselves 'better' than others if not by material resources?
It is time for the populace to wake up and realize that artificial barriers to bounty hurt the majority much more than the barriers help the majority. They need to realize that the benefits derived by the barriers accrue in large parts to people who believe in and want to continue this model. They need to realize that changing their paradigm to one of abundance obviates the need for such barriers and the controllers who propagate them.
Only by doing so will we be able to stop ourselves from creating such lurid scenes as mass deaths through lack of IP licensing in the future. Only by doing so will technology be allowed to progress to the point where there is abundance.
Regards.
Actually this has been done already.
There is a jig-maker jig that allows you to make a variety of jigs. With it, you can create the tools (jigs) necessary to create other stuff. The company that sells it has sued to stop people from using it to make copies of the meta-jig.
Regards.
Security does not come from obscurity, but insecurity often does.
Security comes in many forms, and obscurity is actually quite a good form, as long as there are other layers.
The "best" security comes from defense in depth and obscurity can certainly be part of that, and in fact probably should be. I will go through a few different layers where security by obscurity actually works quite well.
Consider a random binary on Usenet. Even if I 'encrypt' the payload with ROT-13 I have achieved a decent amount of security simply through obscuring the target in a sea of ones and zeros.
Now, consider the challenge-response system. It used to be that some systems would tell you whether your username, password (or both) was bad. It turns out that this lack of obscurity allows attackers quicker access to systems, since they can hit upon usernames by letting the system tell them which were valid. Simply obscuring the error response fixes this.
And this brings up a good point about obscurity as a security practice. If you use it - don't tell anyone! You would have thought this was a "duh", but the previous example is a great one in that regards. Usernames are simply obscured data, but if the login system can be used as an oracle ... not so much.
Now, on a systems level, network security is often predicated on obscurity - that's why you don't find many companies publishing their internal network maps! If those maps were published, then attackers would have a much easier time to penetrate the organization. Security by obscurity.
Now, on a home level, if I am using port knocking (as one example) as one means of controlling access to ssh, then every attacker that does not know this will fail out of the box. Of course, it is better if I also have key exchange turned on, and even moreso if that and password enabled. But, even moreso if I simply run it on a non-standard port - which is security thorugh obscurity.
So, while I wouldn't rely strictly on security through obscurity (except in cases it makes sense), it is a valuable tool in a security toolbox, and generally can be a show stopper for an attacker if they aren't able to obtain the knowledge. But again, security comes from defense in depth, and one layer of that depth should be considered obscurity.
Regards.
Of course you can con honest people.
Just not with the same stoies that you con dishonest people.
Perhaps you should read up on the types of cons out there.
I imagine that most of the people Bernie Madoff conned, for example, were generally honest.
The people who question this saying just don't want to admit they are not honest men.
Get a grip, or you may end up being conned yourself.
Your philosophy certainly leads me to think that will happen, eventually, if only as Karma for all the honest people you believe are dishonest because they were conned.
Regards.
And yet, it is also the strongest.
Curious, isn't it?
Regards.
I believe you are incorrect.
By not voting, I can claim that I disagree with the System itself.
By voting, I cannot do that, since by definition, voting is accepting the system and the outcome.
If I give you a vote to either die by lethal injection or a firing squad, should you vote?
You are trying to shoehorn your own "consequences" onto something that is outside of the arena of those consequences. Does not work.
You are a citizen of an elected government, and no matter what you do it's just as much your responsibility as anyone else's.
And then, when I deny the Authority of the election and elected government due to the corruption of the system, the government is no longer the end all be all of my Citizenship.
That is, my Citizenship in this country has higher precedence in Authority than the current elected government.
See how that works?
Regards.
While you may not get to sit out the result, you do get to claim that they do not represent you.
In fact, you get to claim that the System as a whole does not represent you.
Why should I give authority to a system that I believe has none?
By voting, you are doing exactly that, unless you still happen to believe.
No matter what party wins, by the act of voting itself you agree that you accept that System as a whole.
Perhaps there are people who don't and who are not voting for that reason.
Regards.
You appear to be quite incorrect.
As soon I receive a work under the GPL, I can do anything with it that is not prohibited by the license.
As I understand it, I can indeed sell any GPL'd work. There is nothing in the license to prevent this.
What I cannot do is sell the copyright to the code, or re-license the code under another license.
Short translation: Anyone want to buy an office suite?
Regards.
One with another "e" and one without? :)
Regards.
because it teaches that plagiarism of ideas isn't plagiarism at all, and that stringing five words together in a way that's been used before is, and that rewriting something in your own words makes it no longer plagiarism.
While I agree with your general premise about childish rules... Just no.
Plagarism is taking someone elses words and claiming them as your own.
You seem to be infected by the IP bug.
Fortunately for the rest of us, one cannot plagarize ideas. Reformulating a concept in your own words does not count as plagarism, nor should it.
Regards.
I only half agree.
If one choses to vote, then yes, I agree that there should be a default "none of the above".
However, I feel uncomfortable helping to legitimize the system in place by presuming that non-voters just don't like the candidates.
Even if you vote "none of the above", just by voting you are agreeing to accept the results of that vote (if the outcome is legitimate and not fixed).
It is equally possible that they feel the system is too corrupt to fix, and that voting only adds energy into the corrupt system. Counting these people in the "none of the above" group only helps the system remain corrupted.
Perhaps if less than 50% of the elgible people votefor a particular office it should remain vacant for that election cycle.
That might just shake things up a bit.
Regards.
So, you don't believe it's "any better" to know about the flaws in a system rather it is better to remain ignorant of them?
You have an odd definition of "better", I think.
Regards
Well, I've some of your replies on this and your arguments.
First, there is a non-trivial class of people who pay this "fee" and do not need the service. And Best Buy's corporate strategy is to make money off of these people. This is harm.
You then respond with some form of "Well that's the ethics of Capitalism".
I do not think that word means what you think it does. /s
Ethical systems are hierarchical. Sorry to disappoint. There are classes that are commutable, having equal hierarchy such as the abortion topic. These seem to be of the same scale.
However, an ethical system such as "making money is the Highest Good" (as you portray Capitalism), is inferior to either of the above! No one has a right to harm me to make money. Period.
Regards.
One of the basic items which comes up when you dig deep enough is that we are food; anxiety, pain and high emotion provide a type of energy which can be consumed and that the human race has been bred up into the billions, history has been sculpted for the end purpose of drawing off this energy in one vast harvest.
This is a variant of the gnostic blind god, or PKD's black iron prison.
Let me take this as an axiom, for a moment.
I don't think it is one vast harvest, as you say. It appears to be more like - different beings are "ripe" at different points in our timeline and get harvested at that point in time. It may be that they cycle through our timeline over and over, with us reliving every experience (as you said, leaving behind small traces of this) to cause this. Of course, from a viewpoint outside of time it may be an all at once view, but I think that "they" have their own serial type processing as well, on those planes.
Part of the problem with their approach is that although our consciousnesses are not normally predisposed to interact with those levels, we are no less immanent there than they (thou art god). I would posit that these beings also live in a higher level system, and I don't believe that Karma is so limited in scope. Sheer force to survive, combined with the base reality of change means that eventually this type of activity must stop or they will be destroyed.
To believe that they are perfect, or somehow able to fully control our consciousnesses is folly. Every system has vulnerabilities.
Think - poisoned food, establishing "Legal" Consciousness in that system, or even the ever popular "leapfrog" (now, your are OUR food) as possible strategies.
That said, this could all be a metaphor for what we are doing to ourselves (who would YOU want to shape yourself towards divinity?).
Namaste.
When he said:
Rincon also needled competition betting on open standards and free of charge, such as Google. "When you do not can compete, you are declaring open. This masks incompetence."
The executive added: "When convenient, the companies say they are open. They use it for your own benefit."
He was really only talking about MS strategies.
It may be funny, but it's also right on the mark. MS has been trying (in the past few years) to do exactly this.
Just seems to be another case of ascribing your own faults to your perceived enemies.
Maybe he doesn't realize he's been describing MS failings, but we do!
Regards.
Dutch auction, everyone pays the 2nd highest bid price. You could even limit one bidder from buying them all.
Regards.
The first time someone with a pass kills someone, you can bet it will cost the state much more than $25...
Regards.
As my English professor used to say, you've discovered your prejudices. Or in your case, maybe your automatic defensive reaction.
Perhaps. I really like how you push my supposed shortcoming right past my intellect back into my deep conscious. Very nice attack, so nicely worded and friendly savaging!
You sound very much like one of the crazies who gets upset if someone dares to use the pronoun "he" as a gender neutral pronoun.
And you sound like someone who passes judgment without good cause. Please quote where I went off on the deep end in your mind, would you? Perhaps I will learn something.
it sounds like they're using terminology that is fairly well established in the field. You're projecting your own cultural bias onto not only the rest of the world, but the scientific world (this is an international journal).
Well, that sounds like an unfortunate choice of words for the field then. The fact is that "heavy drinker" has negative connotations in many parts of the world, and in the general scientific community outside this *specific* research area.
Do you dispute this?
I guess you do, considering that I am "projecting my cultural bias".
All reportage of this will invariably state "heavy drinker" without specifying precisely what they mean, and that's where the issue is, really.
Yes, perhaps it's just my cultural bias, but maybe it's yours when you declare that the "rest of the world" is just fine with the term. Hmm. That ever occur to you?
Regards.
Yes, of course. It couldn't be a communication issue between both of us.
I'm glad you cleared that up.
I hope you have a good day too.
Regards.
Accepting emails you never intend to read means you have a lot of email you never intend to read in your inbox. There's no amount of technology that can undo basic logic.
So what? Your tautology has no implication.
The flaw in this system is that it cannot stop you from subscribing to yet another mailing list, etc
So what? It's not intended to make people do things the way YOU want them to. It is intended to to separate the emails you know you have to read/act on, from all the ones you don't.
If you don't change your ways, you'll certainly make the problem worse
You'll be back to this same position eventually, in need of a 'priority priority inbox'.
Well, that really depends on how good their system is, doesn't it? Why would you think there would be a need for a meta tier?
If you only occasionally look at that the lkml digest, it'll still be there if you want it, but it won't be brought to your attention. If you subscribe to a million lists, only the ones you regularly read will be highlighted. What is the problem again with having all those other emails?
because sloppiness is NOT a technology problem. It is a human problem
Well, first I have to disagree that this is sloppiness. Second this is not a human "problem". It is human behaviour, and that's why something like this will be a godsend to a bunch of people (because it *is* a problem in the technological sense - they cannot find what they need to when they need it).
The software deals with the second, technological issue. Your crusade to make this a human issue will never get off the ground.
The fact that you see their behaviour as "sloppiness" and a problem just seems to indicate you don't like how other people do things.
Regards.
My advice is for your personal use of your own mailbox.
Sure, but if people don't use it that way?
You'll have to be kind and define who 'they' is in your statement.
Everyone who doesn't do it, or doesn't want to do it the way you do?
I'm not sure where the contention lies between us, but whatever I did to warrant such a tone from you, I apologize.
I'm not sure why you think my tone is out of line. Perhaps you could explain why you feel that way?
The contention probably comes from these baseless assertions:
It is also an absolute non-problem. The basic issue here is a human one, and is easily corrected.
There may be more, but the point is, this is a completely human situation that can be easily managed.
Not that I don't think your list has merit. However, proposing people change their ways to solve this type of problem just won't work (it's been tried and tried, and tried! - look at computer security if you want examples).
Therefore, while this may not be the feature set you are looking for, that doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
Regards.
No, I do not see drinking as negative.
I see the connotation of being a "heavy drinker" as negative. Yes, not in the UK, fine.
I also see that America, especially, sees this as a negative connotation.
It is very common, even in scientific papers, to use a fairly fuzzy adjective like "heavy" to describe something in the paper, but define the use of that adjective on the first use.
Quite. And still wrong, when the adjective in association with the noun has negative connotations to large swaths of both the scientific community and the overall community.
Especially when what is reported is "heavy drinker" without the background (we *actually* mean 3 drinks a day).
Especially when a lot of people would say that 3 drinks a day is not a heavy drinker (because they have a different connotation than the paper as to what this actually entails).
I think a quick survey would prove this.
Ask if there is anything wrong with being a "heavy drinker" without specifying the limit and even in the UK you might be suprised at the results.
Regards.
How can someone not be themselves?
This kind of attitude lets people off the hook for their behaviours, which is in part the reason they "lose control".
Sorry, but people in all states and types of intoxication are being themselves.
His point about losing control is not really very valid.
People who like to lose control will do so anyways.
People who do not, won't.
Drugs, such as alcohol, can only bring to the surface what is already underneath.
Now, a lot of people don't like what is underneath their veneer, but that's a different story.
To fear losing control is to fear yourself.
Regards.
Well, perhaps then they should come up with appropriate scientific terminology?
As it stands, utilizing "heavy drinker" is moralizing, in addition to being tied to metrics.
His outrage is appropriate, given that such a label "heavy drinker" has connotations that go far, far beyond reporting a statistical measurement.
It is, in fact, an indicator of just how much morality has crowded into science, on this subject.
Regards.