My demeanor is not piss and vinegar, nor am I waking up on the wrong side of the bed, or anything else you wish to imagine.
Your assertion of your attitude is your own opinion - and you are entitled to it - but it is not really well supported by the very next thing you said:
I simply refuse to coddle people who continue to believe delusional bullshit,
nobody was doing any investigating or prosecution.
I also pointed out
That would be difficult (although I expect the Canadian laws would be more than sufficient). There are many cases of international fraud being committed over the internet with American victims, and very few (if any) result in the perpetrators being extradited.
Your response was quite angry, and your demeanor never exactly became cordial after that. Where you come up with this strange notion of my posts not meaning what they say is beyond me; the fact that you can't be bothered to quote the text that you think supports that notion suggests you can't actually support it.
I'm not sure what it is that you dislike so much about GIMP or why you find it so intolerable. Yeah, it is not a direct drop-in photoshop replacement for most people, but nothing can be.
I can tell you from my experience that I was once traveling with my wife - who is a graphic designer who uses the latest versions of every Adobe product - and we only had my laptop with. She needed to edit an image in a hurry so I told her to try GIMP (as her Adobe licenses are all Mac, which made them unusuable for me anyways). She didn't love it, but she was able to do what she needed in a short amount of time. I myself use GIMP all the time, but my needs as a scientist are much different from hers as a designer.
This is samzenpus's obligatory monthly hand-out to the liberal member of slashdot. No worries, by the end of the afternoon he will have posted something to the front page that demonizes Obama and/or Clinton.
It is generally (at the very least) very difficult to prove a negative.
WTF? You claimed that they 'may' have been under investigation, not I. I discounted that and you say I have to prove your lie is wrong?
Hopefully you wake up this morning with your underwear un-knotted so we can have an actual discussion on this matter.
To comply with the latest version of your request, I would have to be able to show now that there was an investigation started into AM before the hack was known. However, if there is an investigation underway, we generally won't know until charges are brought. That is the way many criminal investigations go; you don't want the accused to start running around destroying evidence.
However you are so full of piss and vinegar over the matter I expect that even if charges were announced tomorrow you would still be unsatisfied.
Do you see the massive difference there? Oh, I'm sure you had it before and were either defending your poor use if language or attempting to insist you were fine to assert my opinion for me.
I am not asserting an opinion for you. The fact of the matter is that Schwartz made a stupid choice and broke the law. You might happen to think highly of him regardless of it, and you are entitled to that opinion if you wish you hold it. Regardless he broke the law and deserved to face consequences - including a trial. I'm not telling you what to think about him. I'm sorry that you struggle so greatly to comprehend the written word here and that you find it justification to attack me.
I see a link for "Unicode 9.0" but it doesn't go anywhere, and clicking on it does nothing (even though my cursor changes to correct for hovering over a link). What kind of crap is this?
Certainly not. Since psychology doesn't work. Period.
It is a safe bet that if you are willing to make such a sweeping and silly generalization that you haven't studied psychology yourself much - if at all. You encounter successful applications of psychology in your daily life regularly without realizing it, and the influence of psychology on other sciences is also significant.
It is shameful that you were modded up for that comment, it shows how little people on slashdot understand about psychology.
The more they understand about it, the worse it looks.
Quite the opposite most of the time. A big problem here is that a lot of people (particularly people on slashdot, though this happens in many other circles as well) think they know a lot about psychology because they have read a lot of angry rants against it, even though they have never had formal exposure to the fundamentals or history of psychology.
If you have some interest in the outcome, for example if you yourself are a psychologist, it would be considered a minimal level of integrity to disclose that... since we're speaking of ethics now.
I am not a psychologist. I have friends and colleagues who are, and I took psychology as an undergrad. My work is in a more contemporary hard science.
It is noteworthy that you call up ethics here, when earlier in the same comment you said
That ethical concerns are part of the cause is irrelevant.
Nice of you to so consistently show concern for ethics.
Oh further along those lines, I wonder just how much the field is influenced by the incredible profitability of prescription drugs?
Last time I checked, few states allow psychologists to write drug prescriptions, that job is usually left to (medical school trained) psychiatrists (wikipedia shows only three states grant that ability to psychologists in the US). Psychologists have little to gain financially by encouraging pharmacological treatments for their patients.
I bet that would be a fascinating research topic.
The most commonly prescribed (in terms of patients who have had it prescribed to them) drug for mental health use is Prozac, which has been available generic for some time. Once a drug has become available generic, the profit is nearly gone. If you want to look in to the prescribing rates of new drugs for mental health versus other health conditions, and compare which are prescribed more quickly, that may indeed be an interesting topic. Your bias is so evident here though that I would be shocked if you were to ever attempt to undertake such a study.
I'm not so sure that nobody was doing any investigating or prosecution. Just because there wasn't front-page news about such an action doesn't mean it wasn't being done. The wheels of justice don't always turn quickly, and fraud investigations in particular are seldom quick.
First, you would need to prove this.
It is generally (at the very least) very difficult to prove a negative. There are a lot of variables at play as well; if the Canadian Mounties prosecute AM would the FBI go for it as well on behalf of American victims? If the company goes bankrupt entirely (I haven't seen any suggestion yet that this would happen, but just to consider another possible situation) would anyone bother to prosecute afterwards? What they did was criminal but not murder. If we think of other cases of fraud - Goldman Sachs and Enron come to mind - the prosecution does sometimes fold completely when the company goes broke, regardless of the fate of the people from that company who held the power to make fraudulent decisions.
Intentionally dragging feet leads to vigilantism for the same exact reason a lack of action does.
That is a rather high accusation, there. When did someone first bring accusations about the fraudulent activity of the site to the attention of authorities? Wikipedia tells us the site launched in 2001, with a lawsuit against them that went through in 2012. We don't know if anyone up to that point ever brought this site to the attention of law enforcement with allegations of fraud.
You are entitled to your opinion but the fact of the matter is that Schwartz in particular was an idiot who broke the law and deserved to be punished. He did not deserve to die but he made that choice himself. These hackers are comparable to him, but neither are comparable to Snowden or Manning.
Thanks for letting me know what my opinion was instead of asking. I didn't give an opinion positive or negative, I simply stated that these hackers are not very different from those people.
Reread what I wrote before criticizing me for writing it. I added emphasis to a part of what you quoted to direct your attention.
Just because they used illegal techniques to attack a morally reprehensible company doesn't mean their techniques are magically vindicated. Celebrating the hack is immoral as well.
If the hacker gets caught, he'll end up in jail, but tell me you didn't smile when you first heard about the hack. It's pretty hilarious.
I don't care for AM. If what I read about them on wikipedia (in particular the number of bogus "female" accounts that exist primarily to separate men from their money) is true they are a terrible operation. However, the hack did not show us what is written about them on wikipedia, other work did. This is the information that will be the most useful towards shutting them down (as a fraudulent operation).
Pretending that the hack did some kind of great public good itself does no public good.
nobody was doing any investigating or prosecution.
I'm not so sure that nobody was doing any investigating or prosecution. Just because there wasn't front-page news about such an action doesn't mean it wasn't being done. The wheels of justice don't always turn quickly, and fraud investigations in particular are seldom quick.
I'm sure that Canada has laws to protect consumers from deceptive advertising tactics and fraud.
I'm pretty sure they do as well.
If not, the US could request that Canada extradite the people responsible and provide full criminal prosecution.
That would be difficult (although I expect the Canadian laws would be more than sufficient). There are many cases of international fraud being committed over the internet with American victims, and very few (if any) result in the perpetrators being extradited.
people are too busy looking for the vigilante to see why someone thought it necessary.
I have seen far more people celebrating the vigilantes than people searching for them. For that matter, more people seem to be searching for them to celebrate them than to seek them to be prosecuted for themselves breaking the law. This sets a bad precedent for future vigilante hacking.
I see them "not so" different from Snowden, Manning, Schwartz
You are entitled to your opinion but the fact of the matter is that Schwartz in particular was an idiot who broke the law and deserved to be punished. He did not deserve to die but he made that choice himself. These hackers are comparable to him, but neither are comparable to Snowden or Manning.
I do not think many people are celebrating these hackers
Admittedly, it is hard to say how many people are celebrating them. However, there have been plenty of posts and stories here on slashdot that have been. And when hackers (and wannabe hackers) see that publicity they might consider going that way against something that they dislike as well...
Make no mistake, I don't like what Ashley Madison did. They've been exposed for running a scam web site designed to sucker men out of lots of money quickly. However, that doesn't justify the hack - which is almost certainly a criminal offense at this level. Sure, the hackers took down the CEO of Ashley Madison, but we don't know what will happen next. They might just relaunch with the same aims and different window dressing. Meanwhile we seem to be celebrating the actions of the hackers, in spite of the fact that they did break the law.
Just because they used illegal techniques to attack a morally reprehensible company doesn't mean their techniques are magically vindicated. Celebrating the hack is immoral as well.
That is contrary to the results the previous article, that regardless of the population size, we cannot reproduce the result, which is a systemic problem.
No. That is not how psychology works. It is not ethical to conduct psychology experiments on arbitrarily large groups of people. You cannot say that the experiment was expanded to a point where you can make a statement about it "regardless of the population size".
It is shameful that you were modded up for that comment, it shows how little people on slashdot understand about psychology.
I thought we were just picking on psychology today. Now we have a physics study that doesn't always work on the front page as well. Why is the physics study so awesome when it doesn't work all the time but psychology is evil if it doesn't?
Psychology is complicated. Even identical twins don't have minds that function exactly the same under the closest of possible circumstances. Failure to reproduce the results of a study don't necessarily mean it was a bad study; it just means that our understanding of the study is incomplete.
I would rather we have studies disproven or adjusted by additional work than have those studies not published at all. The human brain is a very complicated thing that we actually know very little about; if we discard psychology entirely out of hand we will then do very little to further our understanding of how it actually works.
I'm not aware of a car on the market today that hasn't been recalled for something in the past 2-3 years.
Ah, I see that you're unaware that cars are only a very small part of "industries".
I was referring to cars as a product of the automotive industry. I asked you to provide an example of an industry so we could discuss its recall rate, and you provided no example. I, however, did live up to that very simple request and provided one.
And when discussing the automotive industry, it is natural to discuss the automobile as the product of that industry. Sure, you can buy parts or hats or shirts or wallets from Toyota but their ultimate product is the automobile itself. Hence the recall rate for that industry is based on how many of their automobiles are recalled.
This is really, really, simple.
Or, you're trying to retroactively limit your former claim of "what industries?" to "what automobiles?". No dice.
There is no need to get angry, here. You could try reading instead of yelling; you might actually learn something along the way.
The papers described here are not necessarily completely bogus, however the authors gamed the review system to get them in. Whether the science was crap or not is not clear. Cheating the peer review system suggests there is a chance of the paper being fabricated completely but that does not guarantee it.
Nice - you act like all recalls should be held accountable, but hold the papers to an entirely different standard.
Try reading what you are replying to, and you will realize that your comment is your own fabrication, completely disconnected from reality. It appears that you are trying to place some great conspiracy in here when you have no evidence to support its existence.
Can you say "bias"? I thought you could.
Can you say "evidence"? Can you do simple math? Can you close out your comment without making yourself look like an angry child with no concept of what he is replying to?
Kindly fuck off.
Well, the answer to the last one is clearly no. The two prior, likely no as well. Have a nice day, son.
If the shoe were on the other foot, the rally cry would be for the liberals to go establish their own award and awards process. Why can't the conservatives do the same? Yeah, we know that slashdot has catered to the right for some time (note the breitbart link in the summary as yet another of thousands of front-page examples here) but really the hypocrisy here is rather extreme.
That isn't as useful as removing, it though. It is still there, taking up space. I have an older LG android phone (4.0.x) that has only 2GB of internal storage, so every last MB is precious.
Nope, doesn't take up any space that would be usable to you. In Android the system is split in to separate partitions for the system applications and user applications. Even if you could delete something from the system partition it will not make additional usable space in the user partition.
Regardless, that is system space from the total that is dedicated to an app that I don't want and don't use. If they had set it up without that app, the partitioning could have allocated that space to the user space instead. There do exist android phones that do not have the facebook app installed, which suggests that the owners of those phones can install the app into user space.
Assuming your phone is on 4.0 or above (which it likely is; less than 8% of devices are on older versions), you can go into Settings -> Apps -> Facebook and disable the app. That will prevent the update requests. It won't actually remove the app because it's installed on a read-only file system, but it will get it out of your face.
That isn't as useful as removing, it though. It is still there, taking up space. I have an older LG android phone (4.0.x) that has only 2GB of internal storage, so every last MB is precious. Hence it is rather frustrating that the manufacturer decided I needed this app on my phone even though I have never used it.
And yes, I know, 4.0.x is ancient. I might as well be posting this in the windows 95 thread. Some people don't enjoy upgrading their phones frequently, though. And oddly enough my phone still makes phone calls.
I wish I could convince the phone manufacturers that I don't need the facebook app. I don't have a facebook account and have no use for the app, yet my phone will not let me uninstall it. In fact my phone keeps telling me that I need to update this large app that I never use.
Yeah, ticket prices were way beyond what most people could afford. But the Concorde was viewed by a lot of people as being the first of many passenger jets that would be supersonic. In fact if you've ever seen a FedEx, UPS, or DHL 747 unloading, you can see that one of the design parameters for that jet was to carry freight - which some designers thought would be the main use of subsonic jets in the near future.
it's a criminal offence in Islamic Law, and in 21 US States (punishments vary from a ten Dollar fine in Maryland to life imprisonment in Michigan).
I have never heard of a law against introducing people with the intent of setting up an extramarital affair. If you know of such a law, please provide a citation. Again, I find the AM website immoral but I am not aware of them breaking any laws. Did they take advantage of people? Absolutely. But they themselves did not conduct acts of infidelity to the best of my understanding.
Prior to this it seemed that the most common place where people met and eventually hooked up in spite of being married was at work. Yet I have never heard of an employer being charged with criminal offenses for introducing those people to each other.
I do find the Ashley Madison site morally revolting but I am not yet aware of any crimes they have committed. Even in the most cynical view of the chatbots that they allegedly ran to bring more men to pay more money (as mentioned in the wikipedia page), I don't see how they are much different from a phone sex line.
The whole operation of Ashley Madison - at least what is described of them in wikipedia - is crooked. I have no respect for such an operation that is built on lies and deceit. However, hacking them and dumping their data publicly is illegal regardless of what they are doing (and to the best of my understanding while Ashley Madison did immoral things, they were not illegal things).
If the hackers want to shut down Ashley Madison they might accomplish that, but they have also shown in so doing that there is a market demand for the services they provided, which will just cause someone else - presumably with better network security practices - to launch an identical service.
That is not an example. Do a little research before making such an extravagant claim.
That's why recalls are such big news - they're actually pretty rare compared to the volume of products.
No. Safety recalls - such as the airbag recalls that are effecting almost every car made in Japan in the past 5 years - are huge. There are tons of smaller recalls for products all the time that don't make the news. To stick with my example of the automobile industry, I'm not aware of a car on the market today that hasn't been recalled for something in the past 2-3 years. A lot of recalls are pretty benign - things relating to audio or climate control, or exterior trim issues - but they are out there nonetheless.
(the equivalent of faked papers)
The papers described here are not necessarily completely bogus, however the authors gamed the review system to get them in. Whether the science was crap or not is not clear. Cheating the peer review system suggests there is a chance of the paper being fabricated completely but that does not guarantee it.
Slashdot Mirror
My demeanor is not piss and vinegar, nor am I waking up on the wrong side of the bed, or anything else you wish to imagine.
Your assertion of your attitude is your own opinion - and you are entitled to it - but it is not really well supported by the very next thing you said:
I simply refuse to coddle people who continue to believe delusional bullshit,
Continuing on:
My first response was cordial,
We happen to have the ability to look at that right here. There is an argument for it being somewhat "cordial", although lacking in factual support. In my reply I mostly called you out for your sweeping, fact-free assertion of
nobody was doing any investigating or prosecution.
I also pointed out
That would be difficult (although I expect the Canadian laws would be more than sufficient). There are many cases of international fraud being committed over the internet with American victims, and very few (if any) result in the perpetrators being extradited.
Your response was quite angry, and your demeanor never exactly became cordial after that. Where you come up with this strange notion of my posts not meaning what they say is beyond me; the fact that you can't be bothered to quote the text that you think supports that notion suggests you can't actually support it.
I'm not sure what it is that you dislike so much about GIMP or why you find it so intolerable. Yeah, it is not a direct drop-in photoshop replacement for most people, but nothing can be.
I can tell you from my experience that I was once traveling with my wife - who is a graphic designer who uses the latest versions of every Adobe product - and we only had my laptop with. She needed to edit an image in a hurry so I told her to try GIMP (as her Adobe licenses are all Mac, which made them unusuable for me anyways). She didn't love it, but she was able to do what she needed in a short amount of time. I myself use GIMP all the time, but my needs as a scientist are much different from hers as a designer.
Interestingly he did do editing
Slashdot "editing" is not editing as the rest of the world understands it.
This is samzenpus's obligatory monthly hand-out to the liberal member of slashdot. No worries, by the end of the afternoon he will have posted something to the front page that demonizes Obama and/or Clinton.
It is generally (at the very least) very difficult to prove a negative.
WTF? You claimed that they 'may' have been under investigation, not I. I discounted that and you say I have to prove your lie is wrong?
Hopefully you wake up this morning with your underwear un-knotted so we can have an actual discussion on this matter.
To comply with the latest version of your request, I would have to be able to show now that there was an investigation started into AM before the hack was known. However, if there is an investigation underway, we generally won't know until charges are brought. That is the way many criminal investigations go; you don't want the accused to start running around destroying evidence.
However you are so full of piss and vinegar over the matter I expect that even if charges were announced tomorrow you would still be unsatisfied.
Do you see the massive difference there? Oh, I'm sure you had it before and were either defending your poor use if language or attempting to insist you were fine to assert my opinion for me.
I am not asserting an opinion for you. The fact of the matter is that Schwartz made a stupid choice and broke the law. You might happen to think highly of him regardless of it, and you are entitled to that opinion if you wish you hold it. Regardless he broke the law and deserved to face consequences - including a trial. I'm not telling you what to think about him. I'm sorry that you struggle so greatly to comprehend the written word here and that you find it justification to attack me.
I see a link for "Unicode 9.0" but it doesn't go anywhere, and clicking on it does nothing (even though my cursor changes to correct for hovering over a link). What kind of crap is this?
No. That is not how psychology works.
Certainly not. Since psychology doesn't work. Period.
It is a safe bet that if you are willing to make such a sweeping and silly generalization that you haven't studied psychology yourself much - if at all. You encounter successful applications of psychology in your daily life regularly without realizing it, and the influence of psychology on other sciences is also significant.
It is shameful that you were modded up for that comment, it shows how little people on slashdot understand about psychology.
The more they understand about it, the worse it looks.
Quite the opposite most of the time. A big problem here is that a lot of people (particularly people on slashdot, though this happens in many other circles as well) think they know a lot about psychology because they have read a lot of angry rants against it, even though they have never had formal exposure to the fundamentals or history of psychology.
If you have some interest in the outcome, for example if you yourself are a psychologist, it would be considered a minimal level of integrity to disclose that ... since we're speaking of ethics now.
I am not a psychologist. I have friends and colleagues who are, and I took psychology as an undergrad. My work is in a more contemporary hard science.
It is noteworthy that you call up ethics here, when earlier in the same comment you said
That ethical concerns are part of the cause is irrelevant.
Nice of you to so consistently show concern for ethics.
Oh further along those lines, I wonder just how much the field is influenced by the incredible profitability of prescription drugs?
Last time I checked, few states allow psychologists to write drug prescriptions, that job is usually left to (medical school trained) psychiatrists (wikipedia shows only three states grant that ability to psychologists in the US). Psychologists have little to gain financially by encouraging pharmacological treatments for their patients.
I bet that would be a fascinating research topic.
The most commonly prescribed (in terms of patients who have had it prescribed to them) drug for mental health use is Prozac, which has been available generic for some time. Once a drug has become available generic, the profit is nearly gone. If you want to look in to the prescribing rates of new drugs for mental health versus other health conditions, and compare which are prescribed more quickly, that may indeed be an interesting topic. Your bias is so evident here though that I would be shocked if you were to ever attempt to undertake such a study.
I'm not so sure that nobody was doing any investigating or prosecution. Just because there wasn't front-page news about such an action doesn't mean it wasn't being done. The wheels of justice don't always turn quickly, and fraud investigations in particular are seldom quick.
First, you would need to prove this.
It is generally (at the very least) very difficult to prove a negative. There are a lot of variables at play as well; if the Canadian Mounties prosecute AM would the FBI go for it as well on behalf of American victims? If the company goes bankrupt entirely (I haven't seen any suggestion yet that this would happen, but just to consider another possible situation) would anyone bother to prosecute afterwards? What they did was criminal but not murder. If we think of other cases of fraud - Goldman Sachs and Enron come to mind - the prosecution does sometimes fold completely when the company goes broke, regardless of the fate of the people from that company who held the power to make fraudulent decisions.
Intentionally dragging feet leads to vigilantism for the same exact reason a lack of action does.
That is a rather high accusation, there. When did someone first bring accusations about the fraudulent activity of the site to the attention of authorities? Wikipedia tells us the site launched in 2001, with a lawsuit against them that went through in 2012. We don't know if anyone up to that point ever brought this site to the attention of law enforcement with allegations of fraud.
You are entitled to your opinion but the fact of the matter is that Schwartz in particular was an idiot who broke the law and deserved to be punished. He did not deserve to die but he made that choice himself. These hackers are comparable to him, but neither are comparable to Snowden or Manning.
Thanks for letting me know what my opinion was instead of asking. I didn't give an opinion positive or negative, I simply stated that these hackers are not very different from those people.
Reread what I wrote before criticizing me for writing it. I added emphasis to a part of what you quoted to direct your attention.
Just because they used illegal techniques to attack a morally reprehensible company doesn't mean their techniques are magically vindicated. Celebrating the hack is immoral as well.
If the hacker gets caught, he'll end up in jail, but tell me you didn't smile when you first heard about the hack. It's pretty hilarious.
I don't care for AM. If what I read about them on wikipedia (in particular the number of bogus "female" accounts that exist primarily to separate men from their money) is true they are a terrible operation. However, the hack did not show us what is written about them on wikipedia, other work did. This is the information that will be the most useful towards shutting them down (as a fraudulent operation).
Pretending that the hack did some kind of great public good itself does no public good.
nobody was doing any investigating or prosecution.
I'm not so sure that nobody was doing any investigating or prosecution. Just because there wasn't front-page news about such an action doesn't mean it wasn't being done. The wheels of justice don't always turn quickly, and fraud investigations in particular are seldom quick.
I'm sure that Canada has laws to protect consumers from deceptive advertising tactics and fraud.
I'm pretty sure they do as well.
If not, the US could request that Canada extradite the people responsible and provide full criminal prosecution.
That would be difficult (although I expect the Canadian laws would be more than sufficient). There are many cases of international fraud being committed over the internet with American victims, and very few (if any) result in the perpetrators being extradited.
people are too busy looking for the vigilante to see why someone thought it necessary.
I have seen far more people celebrating the vigilantes than people searching for them. For that matter, more people seem to be searching for them to celebrate them than to seek them to be prosecuted for themselves breaking the law. This sets a bad precedent for future vigilante hacking.
I see them "not so" different from Snowden, Manning, Schwartz
You are entitled to your opinion but the fact of the matter is that Schwartz in particular was an idiot who broke the law and deserved to be punished. He did not deserve to die but he made that choice himself. These hackers are comparable to him, but neither are comparable to Snowden or Manning.
I do not think many people are celebrating these hackers
Admittedly, it is hard to say how many people are celebrating them. However, there have been plenty of posts and stories here on slashdot that have been. And when hackers (and wannabe hackers) see that publicity they might consider going that way against something that they dislike as well...
Make no mistake, I don't like what Ashley Madison did. They've been exposed for running a scam web site designed to sucker men out of lots of money quickly. However, that doesn't justify the hack - which is almost certainly a criminal offense at this level. Sure, the hackers took down the CEO of Ashley Madison, but we don't know what will happen next. They might just relaunch with the same aims and different window dressing. Meanwhile we seem to be celebrating the actions of the hackers, in spite of the fact that they did break the law.
Just because they used illegal techniques to attack a morally reprehensible company doesn't mean their techniques are magically vindicated. Celebrating the hack is immoral as well.
That is contrary to the results the previous article, that regardless of the population size, we cannot reproduce the result, which is a systemic problem.
No. That is not how psychology works. It is not ethical to conduct psychology experiments on arbitrarily large groups of people. You cannot say that the experiment was expanded to a point where you can make a statement about it "regardless of the population size".
It is shameful that you were modded up for that comment, it shows how little people on slashdot understand about psychology.
This did not work every time.
I thought we were just picking on psychology today. Now we have a physics study that doesn't always work on the front page as well. Why is the physics study so awesome when it doesn't work all the time but psychology is evil if it doesn't?
Psychology is complicated. Even identical twins don't have minds that function exactly the same under the closest of possible circumstances. Failure to reproduce the results of a study don't necessarily mean it was a bad study; it just means that our understanding of the study is incomplete.
I would rather we have studies disproven or adjusted by additional work than have those studies not published at all. The human brain is a very complicated thing that we actually know very little about; if we discard psychology entirely out of hand we will then do very little to further our understanding of how it actually works.
I'm not aware of a car on the market today that hasn't been recalled for something in the past 2-3 years.
Ah, I see that you're unaware that cars are only a very small part of "industries".
I was referring to cars as a product of the automotive industry. I asked you to provide an example of an industry so we could discuss its recall rate, and you provided no example. I, however, did live up to that very simple request and provided one.
And when discussing the automotive industry, it is natural to discuss the automobile as the product of that industry. Sure, you can buy parts or hats or shirts or wallets from Toyota but their ultimate product is the automobile itself. Hence the recall rate for that industry is based on how many of their automobiles are recalled.
This is really, really, simple.
Or, you're trying to retroactively limit your former claim of "what industries?" to "what automobiles?". No dice.
There is no need to get angry, here. You could try reading instead of yelling; you might actually learn something along the way.
The papers described here are not necessarily completely bogus, however the authors gamed the review system to get them in. Whether the science was crap or not is not clear. Cheating the peer review system suggests there is a chance of the paper being fabricated completely but that does not guarantee it.
Nice - you act like all recalls should be held accountable, but hold the papers to an entirely different standard.
Try reading what you are replying to, and you will realize that your comment is your own fabrication, completely disconnected from reality. It appears that you are trying to place some great conspiracy in here when you have no evidence to support its existence.
Can you say "bias"? I thought you could.
Can you say "evidence"? Can you do simple math? Can you close out your comment without making yourself look like an angry child with no concept of what he is replying to?
Kindly fuck off.
Well, the answer to the last one is clearly no. The two prior, likely no as well. Have a nice day, son.
If the shoe were on the other foot, the rally cry would be for the liberals to go establish their own award and awards process. Why can't the conservatives do the same? Yeah, we know that slashdot has catered to the right for some time (note the breitbart link in the summary as yet another of thousands of front-page examples here) but really the hypocrisy here is rather extreme.
That isn't as useful as removing, it though. It is still there, taking up space. I have an older LG android phone (4.0.x) that has only 2GB of internal storage, so every last MB is precious.
Nope, doesn't take up any space that would be usable to you. In Android the system is split in to separate partitions for the system applications and user applications. Even if you could delete something from the system partition it will not make additional usable space in the user partition.
Regardless, that is system space from the total that is dedicated to an app that I don't want and don't use. If they had set it up without that app, the partitioning could have allocated that space to the user space instead. There do exist android phones that do not have the facebook app installed, which suggests that the owners of those phones can install the app into user space.
Assuming your phone is on 4.0 or above (which it likely is; less than 8% of devices are on older versions), you can go into Settings -> Apps -> Facebook and disable the app. That will prevent the update requests. It won't actually remove the app because it's installed on a read-only file system, but it will get it out of your face.
That isn't as useful as removing, it though. It is still there, taking up space. I have an older LG android phone (4.0.x) that has only 2GB of internal storage, so every last MB is precious. Hence it is rather frustrating that the manufacturer decided I needed this app on my phone even though I have never used it.
And yes, I know, 4.0.x is ancient. I might as well be posting this in the windows 95 thread. Some people don't enjoy upgrading their phones frequently, though. And oddly enough my phone still makes phone calls.
I wish I could convince the phone manufacturers that I don't need the facebook app. I don't have a facebook account and have no use for the app, yet my phone will not let me uninstall it. In fact my phone keeps telling me that I need to update this large app that I never use.
Yeah, ticket prices were way beyond what most people could afford. But the Concorde was viewed by a lot of people as being the first of many passenger jets that would be supersonic. In fact if you've ever seen a FedEx, UPS, or DHL 747 unloading, you can see that one of the design parameters for that jet was to carry freight - which some designers thought would be the main use of subsonic jets in the near future.
it's a criminal offence in Islamic Law, and in 21 US States (punishments vary from a ten Dollar fine in Maryland to life imprisonment in Michigan).
I have never heard of a law against introducing people with the intent of setting up an extramarital affair. If you know of such a law, please provide a citation. Again, I find the AM website immoral but I am not aware of them breaking any laws. Did they take advantage of people? Absolutely. But they themselves did not conduct acts of infidelity to the best of my understanding.
Prior to this it seemed that the most common place where people met and eventually hooked up in spite of being married was at work. Yet I have never heard of an employer being charged with criminal offenses for introducing those people to each other.
I do find the Ashley Madison site morally revolting but I am not yet aware of any crimes they have committed. Even in the most cynical view of the chatbots that they allegedly ran to bring more men to pay more money (as mentioned in the wikipedia page), I don't see how they are much different from a phone sex line.
The whole operation of Ashley Madison - at least what is described of them in wikipedia - is crooked. I have no respect for such an operation that is built on lies and deceit. However, hacking them and dumping their data publicly is illegal regardless of what they are doing (and to the best of my understanding while Ashley Madison did immoral things, they were not illegal things).
If the hackers want to shut down Ashley Madison they might accomplish that, but they have also shown in so doing that there is a market demand for the services they provided, which will just cause someone else - presumably with better network security practices - to launch an identical service.
How many industries have recall rates below 1%?
Pretty much every one.
That is not an example. Do a little research before making such an extravagant claim.
That's why recalls are such big news - they're actually pretty rare compared to the volume of products.
No. Safety recalls - such as the airbag recalls that are effecting almost every car made in Japan in the past 5 years - are huge. There are tons of smaller recalls for products all the time that don't make the news. To stick with my example of the automobile industry, I'm not aware of a car on the market today that hasn't been recalled for something in the past 2-3 years. A lot of recalls are pretty benign - things relating to audio or climate control, or exterior trim issues - but they are out there nonetheless.
(the equivalent of faked papers)
The papers described here are not necessarily completely bogus, however the authors gamed the review system to get them in. Whether the science was crap or not is not clear. Cheating the peer review system suggests there is a chance of the paper being fabricated completely but that does not guarantee it.