Do you understand what the word "fraud" means? Because selling content-free stories under fake bylines is about as clear-cut a case as I can think of.
There's nothing wrong with getting rich honestly. The problem is that so few people do, and the much larger number of people getting rich dishonestly has a lot to do with that.
There will be no future archaeologists. How can they assume a huge cultural discontinuity that would require archaeology? The only reason we have any archaeology is because people didn't write anything down.
I can find out precisely when a building was built, sold, and how many times it was repaired, just by visiting the online city hall archives. Not only that, I can get a map of my city for every century, and then some. Everything that ever happened here since God knows when. Like 1850 or so? I can get a list of all the people that lived in any given place since the 16th century, when the Church started keeping track of baptismal records. Online.
The broad outlines may be written down, but a remarkable amount can be lost in a short time. Here is an example of an 18th-c. cemetery in NYC that nobody knew was there. Here is an article discussing 19th-c. finds in San Francisco. The Steamboat Arabia in the Kansas City area wasn't forgotten, but it was lost for well over a century; when it was finally excavated the artifacts within gave a great deal of previously unkown information about pioneer life. This isn't exactly ancient Rome we're talking about! Even events within living memory often require archaeological techniques to fill in the historical gaps.
unless you can specify your justification for your moral axioms in terms of them being objectively valid and have the means to demonstrate that validity
You seem to be rather unclear on the meaning of the word "axiom."
Every single thing you list in your post as "common sense" was once an amazing discovery that overturned the prevailing wisdom. Every. Single. Thing.
If "hurrr durr durrrp" sums up your attitude toward science and the people who do it, just turn your computer off, throw away all your modern conveniences, go outside, and dig in the dirt for grubs. Try living without the benefits of thousands of years of very smart people working very hard to understand how the world works. We'll be here when you come crawling back.
Yes but you can always quote "some" scientists old theory of 1 wave from decades ago and claim your research is new to get more media attention and funding.
No you can't. Every scientific paper and grant application, in every subject, includes a literature review section in which you cover the state of current relevant research, and to get the publication or the grant you have to demonstrate how your findings are different from what's currently known.
What you can do, if you're a layman sniping at science from a distance, is mention some garbled memory of something you read once that's kinda sorta related to the subject at hand, and dismiss current research as "old news." Bonus points if you throw in something about how scientists are only in it for the money, fame, and groupies.
And at a guess, the DF is rarely the person who actually made the decision, but instead the one who implemented it. Solicitation is a crime in itself, as a guy whose name I happen to find interesting found out recently, but that legal principle seems to go out the window when corporate money is involved.
... like most corporate fines, the number seems absurdly low. $22.5 million is about 0.06% (not 6%, 0.06%, six hundredths of a percent) of Google's 2011 revenue. This would be equivalent to fining the average person about twenty bucks, which isn't much of a deterrent when there's serious money to be made by breaking the rules. Until fines for these kinds of violations at least come close to matching the potential profit, the behavior isn't going to change.
In the mean time some of these chronic dependents and their lists of ailments will enjoy less state funded coddling â" we can't afford to indulge every fool that can't function without having his hand held by an army of social workers.
This whole story is just the CDC and the state funded medical industry resisting the necessary cuts. They've managed to trump up a 'health crisis' story using a single lunger and some FUD about the closing of one of a plethora of state funded facilities.
You know, I spent ten years of my life, first as a military medic and then as a civilian EMT, taking care of people like you. Well, no, not actually people like you; most of them were decent human beings. But I took care of the ones who weren't, too. Hell, I took care of the ones who had just been trying to kill me. And I never once let my personal feelings get in the way of the care I delivered. No one ever died on my watch without me doing my damndest to prevent it from happening, even if the person doing the dying was the worst asshole to ever walk the Earth.
And I have to say, in your case I'd be tempted to make an exception. Oh, I probably wouldn't, you understand, because just like most of my patients, I'm a decent human being. But I'd seriously consider it.
Dropping the requests on the floor and teaching these folks a valuable lesson would have been handling it right.
Suppose a cop sees someone walking down the street checking doors to see who's left their houses unlocked. Should he let an obvious burglar continue in his work to "teach folks a lesson" about locking their doors?
Private universities like this are pretty much Mickey-Mouse-outfits.
Indeed, but there are a lot of them, and they're churning out graduates who are indistinguishable, in HR's eye, from people who have real degrees from real universities. I disagree that we don't have the problem on the same scale -- AFAICT the for-profit diploma mill business is booming all over.
Real science is done on the public funded universities.
True enough, and as an academic scientist I'm very glad to be out of the corporate rat race. But I remember it all too well, particularly the infestation of MBAs. They've wrecked business and are now knocking on the doors of academia; hopefully we can fight them off, but it won't be easy. (They've also made serious inroads in medicine and the military, two other worlds I know something about and where the b-school mentality is equally destructive.) It's easy to sneer at them, but you shouldn't underestimate them. They're numerous, well-funded, and cunning.
He wanted to bitch about America and it probably does not matter what the story is he was going to get in some America bashing.
What I'm bashing is the business class -- the new nobility -- and their hangers-on who cluster around them in hopes that someday they might get to sit at the high table, like the illiterate thugs back in Ye Badde Olde Dayes who called themselves "knights" and slavishly followed other illiterate thugs who happened to hold titles in hopes that someday they might earn the privilege of being one of those titled thugs themselves. The forms have changed; the mindset remains exactly the same. If I use America as an example, it's because I'm American and so the American variety is the one I'm most familiar with; the point of my post is that I'm saddened but not surprised that Germany has the same problem. It is, sadly, a mindset which knows no borders.
... what do you expect? America is infested with "business" and "management" degree-holders who don't contribute anything, don't produce anything, don't create anything, and yet have managed to worm their way into control of a substantial portion of the economy; and with schools that cater to those hoping to join their ranks. I'm not at all surprised that Germany has the same problem, or that such people turn on each other at the least opportunity. No honor among thieves.
I hate statistical studies. They're only done correctly about 23.8 percent of the time. And only 12.4 percent of the time provide proper methodology. And then about 18.83 percent of them are completely fabricated.
And approximately 0.00274% (+- 0.00013% with 95% confidence) of Slashdot users ever bother to actually read the studies before they go on a tear about how bad they are.
They did in fact control for a number of risk factors: "BMI, physical activity, smoking status, childhood reaction to sun, severe sunburns, moles, hair color, family history of melanoma, sun exposures at different age intervals, UV index, and history of nonskin cancer." If you have access through a university library or other source, here's the link to the actual article.
Why is your family growing if you are looking at possible layoff?
Because maybe they decided to have another kid before he knew his job was in danger?
Don't be a dick. If all you can come up with to say to someone who's in a bad situation is, "Well, if you'd done this, that, and the other thing differently, you wouldn't be in this situation right now" then you should probably just keep your mouth shut. Really, it says a lot more about you than it does about the person you're talking to -- and none of what it says is good.
Yes, and they also understand how science works. People who think that the accuracy of weather forecasts says anything about the accuracy of climate forecasts, like OP, clearly do not.
It's really sad that these climate theorists consider computer models the equivalent of science.
What's sad is that you think that "climate theorists consider computer models the equivalent of science" is in any way an accurate description of how climatology works. But your post illustrates perfectly why it's impossible to have a rational debate on climate change: one side is talking about science, while the other side is talking about their idea of what the first side is talking about, and that idea has no connection with reality.
If the weather cannot be accurately predicted 100% of the time for three days in advance, why would anyone believe they can predict it based on some trending for the next 50 years?
Slashdot Mirror
Secondly did no one here pay attention in their high school English class. I did I just fell asleep for the grammar portions.
You were apparently pretty drowsy during the lecture on punctuation, too.
Yay, more rich envy on slash dot.
Do you understand what the word "fraud" means? Because selling content-free stories under fake bylines is about as clear-cut a case as I can think of.
There's nothing wrong with getting rich honestly. The problem is that so few people do, and the much larger number of people getting rich dishonestly has a lot to do with that.
There will be no future archaeologists. How can they assume a huge cultural discontinuity that would require archaeology?
The only reason we have any archaeology is because people didn't write anything down.
I can find out precisely when a building was built, sold, and how many times it was repaired, just by visiting the online city hall archives.
Not only that, I can get a map of my city for every century, and then some. Everything that ever happened here since God knows when. Like 1850 or so? I can get a list of all the people that lived in any given place since the 16th century, when the Church started keeping track of baptismal records. Online.
The broad outlines may be written down, but a remarkable amount can be lost in a short time. Here is an example of an 18th-c. cemetery in NYC that nobody knew was there. Here is an article discussing 19th-c. finds in San Francisco. The Steamboat Arabia in the Kansas City area wasn't forgotten, but it was lost for well over a century; when it was finally excavated the artifacts within gave a great deal of previously unkown information about pioneer life. This isn't exactly ancient Rome we're talking about! Even events within living memory often require archaeological techniques to fill in the historical gaps.
unless you can specify your justification for your moral axioms in terms of them being objectively valid and have the means to demonstrate that validity
You seem to be rather unclear on the meaning of the word "axiom."
Every single thing you list in your post as "common sense" was once an amazing discovery that overturned the prevailing wisdom. Every. Single. Thing.
If "hurrr durr durrrp" sums up your attitude toward science and the people who do it, just turn your computer off, throw away all your modern conveniences, go outside, and dig in the dirt for grubs. Try living without the benefits of thousands of years of very smart people working very hard to understand how the world works. We'll be here when you come crawling back.
Yes but you can always quote "some" scientists old theory of 1 wave from decades ago and claim your research is new to get more media attention and funding.
No you can't. Every scientific paper and grant application, in every subject, includes a literature review section in which you cover the state of current relevant research, and to get the publication or the grant you have to demonstrate how your findings are different from what's currently known.
What you can do, if you're a layman sniping at science from a distance, is mention some garbled memory of something you read once that's kinda sorta related to the subject at hand, and dismiss current research as "old news." Bonus points if you throw in something about how scientists are only in it for the money, fame, and groupies.
Good point. Maybe I should put that link in my .sig line.
And at a guess, the DF is rarely the person who actually made the decision, but instead the one who implemented it. Solicitation is a crime in itself, as a guy whose name I happen to find interesting found out recently, but that legal principle seems to go out the window when corporate money is involved.
How do you imprison a corporation?
"Corporations are people, my friend." Except when they're not. Convenient how that works.
... like most corporate fines, the number seems absurdly low. $22.5 million is about 0.06% (not 6%, 0.06%, six hundredths of a percent) of Google's 2011 revenue. This would be equivalent to fining the average person about twenty bucks, which isn't much of a deterrent when there's serious money to be made by breaking the rules. Until fines for these kinds of violations at least come close to matching the potential profit, the behavior isn't going to change.
In the mean time some of these chronic dependents and their lists of ailments will enjoy less state funded coddling â" we can't afford to indulge every fool that can't function without having his hand held by an army of social workers.
This whole story is just the CDC and the state funded medical industry resisting the necessary cuts. They've managed to trump up a 'health crisis' story using a single lunger and some FUD about the closing of one of a plethora of state funded facilities.
You know, I spent ten years of my life, first as a military medic and then as a civilian EMT, taking care of people like you. Well, no, not actually people like you; most of them were decent human beings. But I took care of the ones who weren't, too. Hell, I took care of the ones who had just been trying to kill me. And I never once let my personal feelings get in the way of the care I delivered. No one ever died on my watch without me doing my damndest to prevent it from happening, even if the person doing the dying was the worst asshole to ever walk the Earth.
And I have to say, in your case I'd be tempted to make an exception. Oh, I probably wouldn't, you understand, because just like most of my patients, I'm a decent human being. But I'd seriously consider it.
Dropping the requests on the floor and teaching these folks a valuable lesson would have been handling it right.
Suppose a cop sees someone walking down the street checking doors to see who's left their houses unlocked. Should he let an obvious burglar continue in his work to "teach folks a lesson" about locking their doors?
I doubt there's an atrocity that old which Christians would take as seriously as your Muslims allegedly do.
Ask any Serb when The Battle of Blackbird's Field was. Then meditate on the fact that the Serbian word for "blackbird's" is kosovo. Conclusions are left as an exercise for the reader.
I found it strangely amusing that Crowley found it "worse" that he might be branded as a pharma profiteer, rather than a child rapist.
Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking
Private universities like this are pretty much Mickey-Mouse-outfits.
Indeed, but there are a lot of them, and they're churning out graduates who are indistinguishable, in HR's eye, from people who have real degrees from real universities. I disagree that we don't have the problem on the same scale -- AFAICT the for-profit diploma mill business is booming all over.
Real science is done on the public funded universities.
True enough, and as an academic scientist I'm very glad to be out of the corporate rat race. But I remember it all too well, particularly the infestation of MBAs. They've wrecked business and are now knocking on the doors of academia; hopefully we can fight them off, but it won't be easy. (They've also made serious inroads in medicine and the military, two other worlds I know something about and where the b-school mentality is equally destructive.) It's easy to sneer at them, but you shouldn't underestimate them. They're numerous, well-funded, and cunning.
He wanted to bitch about America and it probably does not matter what the story is he was going to get in some America bashing.
What I'm bashing is the business class -- the new nobility -- and their hangers-on who cluster around them in hopes that someday they might get to sit at the high table, like the illiterate thugs back in Ye Badde Olde Dayes who called themselves "knights" and slavishly followed other illiterate thugs who happened to hold titles in hopes that someday they might earn the privilege of being one of those titled thugs themselves. The forms have changed; the mindset remains exactly the same. If I use America as an example, it's because I'm American and so the American variety is the one I'm most familiar with; the point of my post is that I'm saddened but not surprised that Germany has the same problem. It is, sadly, a mindset which knows no borders.
The article says he got a grade of 2.3. Does Germany use a different grading system than the US? Over here that would be a pretty terrible grade.
According to this chart, it's about equivalent to an A-/B+ average under the US system.
... what do you expect? America is infested with "business" and "management" degree-holders who don't contribute anything, don't produce anything, don't create anything, and yet have managed to worm their way into control of a substantial portion of the economy; and with schools that cater to those hoping to join their ranks. I'm not at all surprised that Germany has the same problem, or that such people turn on each other at the least opportunity. No honor among thieves.
I hate statistical studies. They're only done correctly about 23.8 percent of the time. And only 12.4 percent of the time provide proper methodology. And then about 18.83 percent of them are completely fabricated.
And approximately 0.00274% (+- 0.00013% with 95% confidence) of Slashdot users ever bother to actually read the studies before they go on a tear about how bad they are.
They did in fact control for a number of risk factors: "BMI, physical activity, smoking status, childhood reaction to sun, severe sunburns, moles, hair color, family history of melanoma, sun exposures at different age intervals, UV index, and history of nonskin cancer." If you have access through a university library or other source, here's the link to the actual article.
Why is your family growing if you are looking at possible layoff?
Because maybe they decided to have another kid before he knew his job was in danger?
Don't be a dick. If all you can come up with to say to someone who's in a bad situation is, "Well, if you'd done this, that, and the other thing differently, you wouldn't be in this situation right now" then you should probably just keep your mouth shut. Really, it says a lot more about you than it does about the person you're talking to -- and none of what it says is good.
Yes, and they also understand how science works. People who think that the accuracy of weather forecasts says anything about the accuracy of climate forecasts, like OP, clearly do not.
It's really sad that these climate theorists consider computer models the equivalent of science.
What's sad is that you think that "climate theorists consider computer models the equivalent of science" is in any way an accurate description of how climatology works. But your post illustrates perfectly why it's impossible to have a rational debate on climate change: one side is talking about science, while the other side is talking about their idea of what the first side is talking about, and that idea has no connection with reality.
If the weather cannot be accurately predicted 100% of the time for three days in advance, why would anyone believe they can predict it based on some trending for the next 50 years?
Because they understand how science works.
Oh, I understand the underlying "thought" process. I'm just sometimes shocked when it's presented so blatantly.