I am not quite sure what you mean by "Punishment doesn't work." There may be nothing that will deter you from committing a crime, but I am quite confident if you are punished for it, you will have been punished for it. The purpose of punishment is punishment.
You and I appear to have different understandings of what the word data means. Data is not produced by a "process". It is produced by taking a measurement. Data is something like, how many cars go through this intersection each day? Or, how many cars go through this intersection between 8 AM and 9 AM? It really does not take a PE to correctly determine that number.
That has nothing to do with whether the data used is correct or not. The certification that PEs have passed only proves that they know the correct way to handle the data, not that the data they are handling is correct.
The problem is that the concept that our prison systems are based on was not thought up as a punishment system. It was thought up as a rehabilitation system. It is a failure as a rehabilitation system and not the most efficient means of punishment. The punishment for most crimes should be swift and over after a short period of time. I am going to give an example. I am not sure this particular punishment is a good idea. This is just an example of what a punishment should look like. Someone is convicted of aggravated assault. They receive a caning and are released. The only reason they are held in prison is from the time of arrest until conviction and then until the sentence can be carried out. If they wish, they may delay the punishment (and remain in prison) until their appeals are finished. However, they can also accept the punishment and continue their appeal to overturn the conviction.
Where in the story did it say(or even imply) that the individual who produced the work tried to pass it off as being by a professional engineer?
Upon what do you base the assumption that it is not as good as work produced by a licensed professional engineer?
There may be many licensed engineering firms, but there is still a limited number of them. In this case, the state engineer is upset because he recommended that this group pay someone to do this work, they chose not to...that supports my point as to what these laws are about.
Like all of your other points you fail to provide any support for your final one.
0 for 3, that's a strikeout.
You do a very good job of presenting the excuse that is used for licensing, but that is not the reason for licensing. Well, actually in this case it might be the reason licensing was first implemented, but as is typically the case, we can see in this story how it is morphing into a way of protecting the ability of those duly licensed to set their fees without fearing competition from those not likewise favored. The chief traffic engineer recommended that they hire a professional engineer, when they did not, he reported the man who formatted their report to the Board of Examiners.
Why would the data being used by a professional engineer be more likely to be correct than that used by anyone else? What should be important is what conclusions are drawn from the data. In particular, how the data is analyzed to reach conclusions.
The only legitimate reason to require a professional engineer is for the drawing up of plans to do something. If someone produces a document on their own initiative (that is they are not being paid to do it) and no one is going to be using that document to build something, it should be completely irrelevant if they are a professional engineer or not.
Let me see if I got this right. The state official is concerned because a non-licensed person produced a work product that is of the quality level of a professionally licensed engineer. I was under the impression that the point of such licensing was to ensure that inferior work product was not passed off as quality engineering, yet this government official is complaining because an unlicensed person was able to produce work that looks as good as that produced by a lcensed engineer.
What is revealed is that the point of licensing in this case is to prevent people from competing with those who have been duly selected by the state. Of course, that is really the point of most government regulations, to protect certain government favored groups or businesses from competition.
I think that sums it up. When I am making a trip to unfamiliar destinations, I look up how to get there on Google maps. I don't just get the directions, I familiarize myself with the roads along the way and with alternate routes to my destination. In particular, I attempt to ascertain the nature of the roads I will be traversing (are they narrow, are they major arteries, are they dirt roads/alleys, etc). Then I print out the Google maps directions (and the maps if it is an unusually difficult place to get to). Additionally, I seek information from anyone I know who is familiar with the area as to road construction or other potential hazards/obstructions. Then I program my GPS and follow its directions unless they are going to take me through one of the previously identified problem areas. If I am going to someplace that is environmentally hazardous (desert or other semi-wilderness area), I will, also, make sure that I have a relatively recent map of the area as well.
A couple of years ago, a major city near me started to do that. They had to stop because it was causing flooding. The sudden addition of snow from all around the city raised water levels in the river to the point that it was starting to overflow its banks. Additionally, because the snow was frozen, it caused the river the freeze up in such a way as to slow its flow, causing flooding of communities upriver from the city.
Re:You'd be hard put to find a dump rake still in
on
Do Tools Ever 'Die?'
·
· Score: 1
I know quite well who the Amish are. I have distant relatives who are Amish. I do know that I have seen Amish using a dump rake as recently as ten years ago.
Re:You'd be hard put to find a dump rake still in
on
Do Tools Ever 'Die?'
·
· Score: 1
I am quite confident that at least some of the Amish still use them.
Yes, because Peter Singer is such a great source for ethics. This is the man who thinks that bestiality is fine, that parents should be allowed to kill thier children up until some not clearly specified age (on at least one occasion he mentioned 5 years old). Peter Singer may have wonderful ethics, but he has no morals.
So maybe we should ask the question of exactly why it is lagging in the app department. Apple never ran out and hired a billion people to write apps - yet they have more.
The most likely explanation as to why there are more Iphone apps is because the Iphone has been around longer. This creates a vicious circle that Google is trying to break. There are more apps for the Iphone, so more people who want apps buy the Iphone, so more developers develop for the Iphone. Google is basically hiring developers to overcome the advantage in number of apps that the Iphone has as a result of it being on the market sooner.
There is a simple rule that has been used since science became science to deal with divergent hypotheses that explain observed facts. It is called Occam's razor. That is, until such a time as a means of testing comes along, the simplest theory that explains known facts is accepted as correct. Historically, this has saved quite a bit of time because when technology has reached the point of being able to test in almost every case it has turned out to be correct (it may be every case, but I do not know that for sure).
His sole beef is that it's impossible to prove or disprove.
Which means it is not and cannot be science. Unless someone comes up with a way to test the "multiverse" theory, it is nothing more than a mental exercise.
No, in this context Windows is open. The reason that Android will gradually overtake and surpass the Iphone is the same as the reason that Microsoft operating systems (DOS followed by Windows) dominated the PC market; any manufacturer can build a phone (and before that a computer) and install Android on it. Only Apple can make an Iphone. It is just a matter of time until if you want to be a big player in the phone app market you will have to have a version of your app for Android.
You could blanket the top of New York City with goods moving through the sky VIA wire a lot more cheaply than you could build more roads or rails.
Well, at least until one or two of those shipments of goods fell. Then I am pretty sure that your legal costs would easily eat up all of those cost savings.
Corporations love to be in a regulated business because it keeps competitors out. In his case, cellphone providers don't want to be regulated as bing in the same market as ISPs (even though they are starting to be).
See, if Bush had refused to allow federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, Democrats would praise him after 100 years. After all, that's how long it took them to start admiring Lincoln.
Under Clinton there was no federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Additionally, Bush was President, so no, he did not pass a law of any kind. President Bush issued an Executive Order that allowed Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research as long as the research was on pre-existing stem cell lines. Before that, there was no federal funding of any embryonic stem cell research.
I do not know where you got your "information", but it is completely wrong.
Let me see if I got this straight, some guy is complaining that since he couldn't use Federal money to do the research he wanted to do, someone beat him to it and now if he pursues it he won't be able to make as much money as he would like. Is that about the gist of this?
And some/.ers are using that as an excuse to bash Bush for funding some embryonic stem cell research. He should have followed Clinton's lead and not allowed any federal fundign for embryonic stem cell research.
So, apparently the majority of teachers do not stay in teaching long enough to get tenure. Or are you suggesting that teachers should get tenure immediately? Someone elsewhere in this discussion pointed out that the average teacher only teaches for 6 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Read the scientific studies. Learn the scientific definition of punishment. Are we not on slashdot here?
Punishment: suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution
That is the definition of punishment.
I am not quite sure what you mean by "Punishment doesn't work." There may be nothing that will deter you from committing a crime, but I am quite confident if you are punished for it, you will have been punished for it. The purpose of punishment is punishment.
You and I appear to have different understandings of what the word data means. Data is not produced by a "process". It is produced by taking a measurement. Data is something like, how many cars go through this intersection each day? Or, how many cars go through this intersection between 8 AM and 9 AM? It really does not take a PE to correctly determine that number.
That has nothing to do with whether the data used is correct or not. The certification that PEs have passed only proves that they know the correct way to handle the data, not that the data they are handling is correct.
The problem is that the concept that our prison systems are based on was not thought up as a punishment system. It was thought up as a rehabilitation system. It is a failure as a rehabilitation system and not the most efficient means of punishment. The punishment for most crimes should be swift and over after a short period of time. I am going to give an example. I am not sure this particular punishment is a good idea. This is just an example of what a punishment should look like. Someone is convicted of aggravated assault. They receive a caning and are released. The only reason they are held in prison is from the time of arrest until conviction and then until the sentence can be carried out. If they wish, they may delay the punishment (and remain in prison) until their appeals are finished. However, they can also accept the punishment and continue their appeal to overturn the conviction.
Where in the story did it say(or even imply) that the individual who produced the work tried to pass it off as being by a professional engineer?
Upon what do you base the assumption that it is not as good as work produced by a licensed professional engineer?
There may be many licensed engineering firms, but there is still a limited number of them. In this case, the state engineer is upset because he recommended that this group pay someone to do this work, they chose not to...that supports my point as to what these laws are about.
Like all of your other points you fail to provide any support for your final one.
0 for 3, that's a strikeout.
You do a very good job of presenting the excuse that is used for licensing, but that is not the reason for licensing. Well, actually in this case it might be the reason licensing was first implemented, but as is typically the case, we can see in this story how it is morphing into a way of protecting the ability of those duly licensed to set their fees without fearing competition from those not likewise favored. The chief traffic engineer recommended that they hire a professional engineer, when they did not, he reported the man who formatted their report to the Board of Examiners.
Why would the data being used by a professional engineer be more likely to be correct than that used by anyone else? What should be important is what conclusions are drawn from the data. In particular, how the data is analyzed to reach conclusions.
The only legitimate reason to require a professional engineer is for the drawing up of plans to do something. If someone produces a document on their own initiative (that is they are not being paid to do it) and no one is going to be using that document to build something, it should be completely irrelevant if they are a professional engineer or not.
Let me see if I got this right. The state official is concerned because a non-licensed person produced a work product that is of the quality level of a professionally licensed engineer. I was under the impression that the point of such licensing was to ensure that inferior work product was not passed off as quality engineering, yet this government official is complaining because an unlicensed person was able to produce work that looks as good as that produced by a lcensed engineer.
What is revealed is that the point of licensing in this case is to prevent people from competing with those who have been duly selected by the state. Of course, that is really the point of most government regulations, to protect certain government favored groups or businesses from competition.
I think that sums it up. When I am making a trip to unfamiliar destinations, I look up how to get there on Google maps. I don't just get the directions, I familiarize myself with the roads along the way and with alternate routes to my destination. In particular, I attempt to ascertain the nature of the roads I will be traversing (are they narrow, are they major arteries, are they dirt roads/alleys, etc). Then I print out the Google maps directions (and the maps if it is an unusually difficult place to get to). Additionally, I seek information from anyone I know who is familiar with the area as to road construction or other potential hazards/obstructions. Then I program my GPS and follow its directions unless they are going to take me through one of the previously identified problem areas. If I am going to someplace that is environmentally hazardous (desert or other semi-wilderness area), I will, also, make sure that I have a relatively recent map of the area as well.
A couple of years ago, a major city near me started to do that. They had to stop because it was causing flooding. The sudden addition of snow from all around the city raised water levels in the river to the point that it was starting to overflow its banks. Additionally, because the snow was frozen, it caused the river the freeze up in such a way as to slow its flow, causing flooding of communities upriver from the city.
I know quite well who the Amish are. I have distant relatives who are Amish. I do know that I have seen Amish using a dump rake as recently as ten years ago.
I am quite confident that at least some of the Amish still use them.
Yes, because Peter Singer is such a great source for ethics. This is the man who thinks that bestiality is fine, that parents should be allowed to kill thier children up until some not clearly specified age (on at least one occasion he mentioned 5 years old). Peter Singer may have wonderful ethics, but he has no morals.
So maybe we should ask the question of exactly why it is lagging in the app department. Apple never ran out and hired a billion people to write apps - yet they have more.
The most likely explanation as to why there are more Iphone apps is because the Iphone has been around longer. This creates a vicious circle that Google is trying to break. There are more apps for the Iphone, so more people who want apps buy the Iphone, so more developers develop for the Iphone. Google is basically hiring developers to overcome the advantage in number of apps that the Iphone has as a result of it being on the market sooner.
There is a simple rule that has been used since science became science to deal with divergent hypotheses that explain observed facts. It is called Occam's razor. That is, until such a time as a means of testing comes along, the simplest theory that explains known facts is accepted as correct. Historically, this has saved quite a bit of time because when technology has reached the point of being able to test in almost every case it has turned out to be correct (it may be every case, but I do not know that for sure).
His sole beef is that it's impossible to prove or disprove.
Which means it is not and cannot be science. Unless someone comes up with a way to test the "multiverse" theory, it is nothing more than a mental exercise.
No, in this context Windows is open. The reason that Android will gradually overtake and surpass the Iphone is the same as the reason that Microsoft operating systems (DOS followed by Windows) dominated the PC market; any manufacturer can build a phone (and before that a computer) and install Android on it. Only Apple can make an Iphone. It is just a matter of time until if you want to be a big player in the phone app market you will have to have a version of your app for Android.
Yeah, but when a train derails, it very rarely lands on someone.
You could blanket the top of New York City with goods moving through the sky VIA wire a lot more cheaply than you could build more roads or rails.
Well, at least until one or two of those shipments of goods fell. Then I am pretty sure that your legal costs would easily eat up all of those cost savings.
Corporations love to be in a regulated business because it keeps competitors out. In his case, cellphone providers don't want to be regulated as bing in the same market as ISPs (even though they are starting to be).
See, if Bush had refused to allow federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, Democrats would praise him after 100 years. After all, that's how long it took them to start admiring Lincoln.
Under Clinton there was no federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Additionally, Bush was President, so no, he did not pass a law of any kind. President Bush issued an Executive Order that allowed Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research as long as the research was on pre-existing stem cell lines. Before that, there was no federal funding of any embryonic stem cell research.
I do not know where you got your "information", but it is completely wrong.
Let me see if I got this straight, some guy is complaining that since he couldn't use Federal money to do the research he wanted to do, someone beat him to it and now if he pursues it he won't be able to make as much money as he would like. Is that about the gist of this? /.ers are using that as an excuse to bash Bush for funding some embryonic stem cell research. He should have followed Clinton's lead and not allowed any federal fundign for embryonic stem cell research.
And some
So, apparently the majority of teachers do not stay in teaching long enough to get tenure. Or are you suggesting that teachers should get tenure immediately? Someone elsewhere in this discussion pointed out that the average teacher only teaches for 6 years.