I want to first say that there is enough lack of information in this article that it is impossible to reach any conclusion without a heaping load of reasonable doubt.
That disclaimer having been made, this sounds like a situation where the sys admin became a malcontent because he was left out of the loop on a lot of things,,,something which often happens when someone works remotely. He claims they refused to promote him to management, likely because he was working remotely and they did not think it was practical for him to manage people he never saw (they may have been wrong, but I understand why they felt that way). As for the secret meetings he alleges, I doubt they were secret. There were probably a bunch of meetings they did not mention to him because they were not directly related to his job and not worth setting up a way for him to attend remotely. Then they probably forgot to include him in some meetings they should have because A) he worked remotely and B) they had not invited him to the other meetings (the latter which there was no reason to include him in).
Having read the whole story, it reads like there was a change in administration and the new administration did not like that Williams worked remotely and was trying to find a way to get rid of him if he would not move to where he could actually come into the office (something he could not do). I think he read the writing on the wall (Sidenote: by the time the writing is on the wall, being able to read it does you no good) and wrote his letter in an attempt to intimidate them into leaving things the way they were.
My skepticism for his account of things is not because I do not think it could have happened that way. My skepticism is because the story is almost entirely from his side of things and everything still has explanations that do not require malice on the part of the Institution or its staff.
The judge did not find in favor of the casino because they tricked the casino. The judge found in favor of the casino because NJ state law states that any game played with marked cards is null and void AND that these cards met the legal definition of marked cards.
well, in this particular case, what is different is that there is a state law against playing with decks like the one used by the player in the article.
If I understand what I have read correctly, Ivey and Sun were not punished for what they did. They were merely required to return the money, which went back to the players they won it from. So, there is no reason for the casino to be punished either. However, what I do not know is if the casino returned THEIR cut from the games in question.
Child pron is NOT illegal because it supposedly leads to rape. Child porn is illegal (in the U.S.) because children have to be sexually abused in order to create it. At least, that is the justification which the Courts have given for allowing this suspension of the First Amendment. I actually support that logic.The problem is that things which do NOT involve the sexual abuse of children are labeled as child porn and are thus illegal. While I consider all child porn to be disgusting, any publication which did not require sexual abuse of minors to create should not fall under the legal categorization as child porn.
Can you list an alcohol manufacturer who has patented a method of preventing people from drinking while driving? Or a car manufacturer who has patented a method of preventing drivers from changing the radio station? Apple went that extra step and patented a method of preventing the drive from using Facetime while driving. If they had not done so, I would argue that this is a completely frivolous lawsuit and should be tossed out on the merits. However, they clearly think there is a need for such a method to the point that they spent the money to develop and patent one (OK, I do not really believe that, I think they just patented it so they could skim some money off of anyone else who actually developed such a method). Then they did not implement this method which they had developed.
It happens that I would ordinarily oppose lawsuits such as this one. However, in this case, I think Apple patented something which they did not believe actually worked, so that if someone else figured out how to make it work they could get a piece of any profits.
Your numbers look likely to me and I know that your explanation about the hidden costs of employees is more or less accurate. However, that does not in any way mean that the gist of what the poster you responded to said. I am going to bring up a couple of other problems with outsourcing (and it doesn't matter if you are outsourcing to domestic workers or foreign workers for most of these) that upper management rarely factors in. First, employee turnover is expensive in lost productivity. When your workers are outsourced, you have no way to manage turnover. For that matter, you probably are not even aware of the fact that it is high (and with outsourced workers it usually is). Second, you are paying some other company to extract data about your company leaving them free to profit from it...and you unable to do so. Outsourcing is sort of like Xerox PARC, except it would be as if Xerox set it up intending that they would not profit from it and someone else would.
Which means that buying Amazon stock is short sighted. Sooner or later, people are going to realize that owning Amazon stock returns no value to the owner of said stock and stop buying it. Right now, Amazon stock holders are taking part in a complex ponzi scheme. The only way you get your money back, let alone make a profit, is to find some other sucker to pay you as much for your stock as you paid for it.
There are times when investing in a company which does not pay dividends is a good move, but when it becomes clear that part of the company's business strategy is to NEVER pay dividends that is not one of them.
Dr. David Viner from the Climate Research Unit at the University of east Anglia predicted in 2000 that English children would not know what snow was because it would not snow there any more. In 2004, he predicted the end of skiing in Scotland due to lack of snow and temperatures too warn to make artificial snow. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski predicted that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013 and in 2007 said that that prediction was too optimistic, that the Arctic would be ice free sooner than that.
English children still see snow on a regular basis, Scotland skiing is still a thing. The Arctic has yet to be ice free. So, the scientists are NOT being overconservative.
I deny the science because it is bad science. The scientists who propose this theory have repeatedly made predictions which fail to come true. This is the definition of a disproven theory. If they would like to rework the theory and put forward some predictions we can test...and then are willing to wait for us to see if THESE predictions are finally true, I will reconsider my feelings about AGW.
At this point, it is irrelevant if I agree or disagree with AGW since no one has suggested an action which will make any significant difference. They want me, and the rest of the world, to sacrifice significant economic well-being in order to alter their proclaimed coming disaster from 20 years in the future to 22 years in the future (of course, the interesting thing is that the coming disaster has been 20 years in the future for over 30 years now).
So, it was not a scientist who is an AGW proponent who said in 2000 that kids in England would grow up without knowing what snow was?
And it was not another scientist promoting AGW who said that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013?
Perhaps they have improved the models, but the last time I checked the models failed to predict the behavior of the climate which had already happened.
My final point is this: None of these scientists live as if they believe the theory to be correct.
I do not CARE if AGW is true. I only care if the impact of AGW is serious enough to justify the economic policies which its supporters want to implement. Those pushing those economic policies have failed to demonstrate this is correct. In fact, they have made prediction after prediction about negative consequences that have failed to come true. Until they admit that previous predictions were based on bad science and start making predictions which actually come true, I am going to ignore them.
So, in another words, the theory of AGW does not provide a basis for making useful predictions about the future, but we should implement economically crippling regulations in order to prevent unknown bad things from happening any way, even though we have no idea if those bad things will really happen.
Right, they all find that, among those who believe that AGW is true, the majority agree that AGW is true. Of course, that is irrelevant to the science of AGW. The key element of science is making predictions and seeing if those predictions come true. The advocates of the theory of AGW have made many predictions which have not come true and few which have come true.
I am arguing SPECIFICALLY with OPs claim that "90% of climatologists" believe in AGW. That is based on a flawed study which found that 97% of peer reviewed scientific papers supported AGW (the flaw was that if the paper did not specifically say that AGW was false it was counted as supporting AGW...even when AGW was irrelevant to the topic of the paper).
Having reviewed your linked articles, the studies they refer to ALL suffer from selection bias. They rely on surveys of climate scientists who are studying climate change and who published a large number of articles. Yet we know that there have been numerous, at least partially successful, efforts to prevent those who disagreed with AGW from getting published. I am sorry, there is no reliable evidence that 90% of climatologists agree with AGW and it is unlikely to be possible to get such evidence.
More importantly, such efforts are a waste of time because science is not done by consensus. Science is done by developing a theory and making predictions. If those predictions come true, the theory has value and may be considered true until such a time as studies show it to make predictions that are not true. The proponents of AGW have REPEATEDLY made predictions which have failed to come true.
I do not know what the percentage is, and neither do you, because no one has done a study that would give the answer (which is what it would take). I do know that the study which is used for the basis for saying that 97% of climatologists support AGW was utter garbage. Furthermore, how many scientists believe a theory is not the test of whether it is a good theory. The test is how accurately it predicts the results of experiments. So far, most of the predictions made based on AGW have proven wrong.
The Arctic ice cap has NOT completely melted.
Children in England still know what snow is.
The 50 million "climate refugees" from various, specific areas have failed to appear (as a matter of fact several of those areas have seen significant population growth)
Before you tell me the science is settled, make a prediction which can be measured by someone other than those with a vested interest in the prediction being true.
Slashdot Mirror
I tend to agree with you, but to be fair to them, he had been working remotely for years. There probably wasn't anybody left who knew what he did.
I want to first say that there is enough lack of information in this article that it is impossible to reach any conclusion without a heaping load of reasonable doubt.
That disclaimer having been made, this sounds like a situation where the sys admin became a malcontent because he was left out of the loop on a lot of things,,,something which often happens when someone works remotely. He claims they refused to promote him to management, likely because he was working remotely and they did not think it was practical for him to manage people he never saw (they may have been wrong, but I understand why they felt that way). As for the secret meetings he alleges, I doubt they were secret. There were probably a bunch of meetings they did not mention to him because they were not directly related to his job and not worth setting up a way for him to attend remotely. Then they probably forgot to include him in some meetings they should have because A) he worked remotely and B) they had not invited him to the other meetings (the latter which there was no reason to include him in).
Having read the whole story, it reads like there was a change in administration and the new administration did not like that Williams worked remotely and was trying to find a way to get rid of him if he would not move to where he could actually come into the office (something he could not do). I think he read the writing on the wall (Sidenote: by the time the writing is on the wall, being able to read it does you no good) and wrote his letter in an attempt to intimidate them into leaving things the way they were.
My skepticism for his account of things is not because I do not think it could have happened that way. My skepticism is because the story is almost entirely from his side of things and everything still has explanations that do not require malice on the part of the Institution or its staff.
The judge did not find in favor of the casino because they tricked the casino. The judge found in favor of the casino because NJ state law states that any game played with marked cards is null and void AND that these cards met the legal definition of marked cards.
Except that the judge ruled that they DID meet the legal definition of marked cards.
well, in this particular case, what is different is that there is a state law against playing with decks like the one used by the player in the article.
If I understand what I have read correctly, Ivey and Sun were not punished for what they did. They were merely required to return the money, which went back to the players they won it from. So, there is no reason for the casino to be punished either. However, what I do not know is if the casino returned THEIR cut from the games in question.
Child pron is NOT illegal because it supposedly leads to rape. Child porn is illegal (in the U.S.) because children have to be sexually abused in order to create it. At least, that is the justification which the Courts have given for allowing this suspension of the First Amendment. I actually support that logic.The problem is that things which do NOT involve the sexual abuse of children are labeled as child porn and are thus illegal. While I consider all child porn to be disgusting, any publication which did not require sexual abuse of minors to create should not fall under the legal categorization as child porn.
Which is the end of radio...which is the end of the music business as we know it. I am sure that I am not alone in that I will not pay for radio.
Can you list an alcohol manufacturer who has patented a method of preventing people from drinking while driving? Or a car manufacturer who has patented a method of preventing drivers from changing the radio station? Apple went that extra step and patented a method of preventing the drive from using Facetime while driving. If they had not done so, I would argue that this is a completely frivolous lawsuit and should be tossed out on the merits. However, they clearly think there is a need for such a method to the point that they spent the money to develop and patent one (OK, I do not really believe that, I think they just patented it so they could skim some money off of anyone else who actually developed such a method). Then they did not implement this method which they had developed.
It happens that I would ordinarily oppose lawsuits such as this one. However, in this case, I think Apple patented something which they did not believe actually worked, so that if someone else figured out how to make it work they could get a piece of any profits.
The reason there are few if any urban farms is because city governments have regulated them out of existence.
Your numbers look likely to me and I know that your explanation about the hidden costs of employees is more or less accurate. However, that does not in any way mean that the gist of what the poster you responded to said. I am going to bring up a couple of other problems with outsourcing (and it doesn't matter if you are outsourcing to domestic workers or foreign workers for most of these) that upper management rarely factors in. First, employee turnover is expensive in lost productivity. When your workers are outsourced, you have no way to manage turnover. For that matter, you probably are not even aware of the fact that it is high (and with outsourced workers it usually is). Second, you are paying some other company to extract data about your company leaving them free to profit from it...and you unable to do so. Outsourcing is sort of like Xerox PARC, except it would be as if Xerox set it up intending that they would not profit from it and someone else would.
Pick any 5 year period since 2007 and you'll find that an investment in Amazon at the start of that period pays well at the end of it.
There was a similar period of time when that could be said of Enron.
Which means that buying Amazon stock is short sighted. Sooner or later, people are going to realize that owning Amazon stock returns no value to the owner of said stock and stop buying it. Right now, Amazon stock holders are taking part in a complex ponzi scheme. The only way you get your money back, let alone make a profit, is to find some other sucker to pay you as much for your stock as you paid for it.
There are times when investing in a company which does not pay dividends is a good move, but when it becomes clear that part of the company's business strategy is to NEVER pay dividends that is not one of them.
Not all science is bogus, just the science behind those bad predictions.
Dr. David Viner from the Climate Research Unit at the University of east Anglia predicted in 2000 that English children would not know what snow was because it would not snow there any more. In 2004, he predicted the end of skiing in Scotland due to lack of snow and temperatures too warn to make artificial snow. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski predicted that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013 and in 2007 said that that prediction was too optimistic, that the Arctic would be ice free sooner than that.
English children still see snow on a regular basis, Scotland skiing is still a thing. The Arctic has yet to be ice free. So, the scientists are NOT being overconservative.
I deny the science because it is bad science. The scientists who propose this theory have repeatedly made predictions which fail to come true. This is the definition of a disproven theory. If they would like to rework the theory and put forward some predictions we can test...and then are willing to wait for us to see if THESE predictions are finally true, I will reconsider my feelings about AGW.
At this point, it is irrelevant if I agree or disagree with AGW since no one has suggested an action which will make any significant difference. They want me, and the rest of the world, to sacrifice significant economic well-being in order to alter their proclaimed coming disaster from 20 years in the future to 22 years in the future (of course, the interesting thing is that the coming disaster has been 20 years in the future for over 30 years now).
Then why do they keep making predictions that fail to come true?
So, the BBC is an opponent of AGW? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/713...
So, it was not a scientist who is an AGW proponent who said in 2000 that kids in England would grow up without knowing what snow was?
And it was not another scientist promoting AGW who said that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013?
Perhaps they have improved the models, but the last time I checked the models failed to predict the behavior of the climate which had already happened.
My final point is this: None of these scientists live as if they believe the theory to be correct.
It really comes down to this: the proponents of AGW have repeatedly made predictions which did not come true.Therefore, their theory is false.
I do not CARE if AGW is true. I only care if the impact of AGW is serious enough to justify the economic policies which its supporters want to implement. Those pushing those economic policies have failed to demonstrate this is correct. In fact, they have made prediction after prediction about negative consequences that have failed to come true. Until they admit that previous predictions were based on bad science and start making predictions which actually come true, I am going to ignore them.
So, in another words, the theory of AGW does not provide a basis for making useful predictions about the future, but we should implement economically crippling regulations in order to prevent unknown bad things from happening any way, even though we have no idea if those bad things will really happen.
Right, they all find that, among those who believe that AGW is true, the majority agree that AGW is true. Of course, that is irrelevant to the science of AGW. The key element of science is making predictions and seeing if those predictions come true. The advocates of the theory of AGW have made many predictions which have not come true and few which have come true.
I am arguing SPECIFICALLY with OPs claim that "90% of climatologists" believe in AGW. That is based on a flawed study which found that 97% of peer reviewed scientific papers supported AGW (the flaw was that if the paper did not specifically say that AGW was false it was counted as supporting AGW...even when AGW was irrelevant to the topic of the paper).
Having reviewed your linked articles, the studies they refer to ALL suffer from selection bias. They rely on surveys of climate scientists who are studying climate change and who published a large number of articles. Yet we know that there have been numerous, at least partially successful, efforts to prevent those who disagreed with AGW from getting published. I am sorry, there is no reliable evidence that 90% of climatologists agree with AGW and it is unlikely to be possible to get such evidence.
More importantly, such efforts are a waste of time because science is not done by consensus. Science is done by developing a theory and making predictions. If those predictions come true, the theory has value and may be considered true until such a time as studies show it to make predictions that are not true. The proponents of AGW have REPEATEDLY made predictions which have failed to come true.
Before you tell me the science is settled, make a prediction which can be measured by someone other than those with a vested interest in the prediction being true.