"At some point, you want to avoid a single point of failure."
Why would society care? Individuals might, but why would we spend resources so that humanity can survive if it doesn't benefit us? After all, we will probably have essentially no contact with them and for all intents and purposes they will be "alien".
This isn't like crossing an ocean to extract a few resources with the expectation that you will arrive back home filthy rich. Or sponsoring such an expedition. The entire benefit of travelling to another star will be in the abstract to those who are not going.
"The Half Sigma [halfsigma.com] blog points out a serious flaw in the design of this poll..."
How is it a serious flaw? I mean, I can see how it might be one. But do you have any evidence? And how is this different from any other poll? After all, at least in this poll you can access all of the questions and answers and know who they polled. The Pew poll may suck, but it sucks less than the others....
But if there is a serious difference between the public and members of the AAAS (which you imply not to be real scientists), I find it hard to believe that the difference will be less with "real" scientists. Not to mention how you would define "real" scientists and then poll them....
"Aligning oneself with one party or the other would seem to violate everything science is about."
Why? Politics is not science. Science is not politics. Science is only one of many inputs to public policy.
Hell, I was taught paleontology by a devout Mormon. And he did an excellent job of it. You can do excellent science no matter what party or religion you align yourself with. The reverse is also true....
"Perhaps Pew could not do their research on such a decidedly biased sample to begin with -- but I suppose that is asking too much these days."
I hate to break it to you but Pew is about as unbiased (or open) as you can get from an organization that does polling. How many groups that do polling allow you to download the data and do your own analysis rather than report selected information....
"Someone should also tell the Antarctic ice to stop growing."
And this is at odds with the Arctic ice melting due to global warming how? Arctic ice is based on freezing water, Antarctic ice is based on snow. Relatively warmer air can provide a greater amount of snow.
"What is "addiction"? Basically that the body (or mind) wants some stimulus that you handed him for a long time."
Incorrect.
You just described dependence. Dependence is NOT addiction. Anything that alters brain chemistry can conceivably lead to dependence (meds, activities, etc.)
"Why does it want it? Because the stimulus was/is positive and not getting it is subjectively negative."
If you are dependent on a substance you will get withdrawal symptons. Perfectly normal. Does not indicate addiction.
"I'm not sure why so many Slashdotters are so opposed to software patents as a concept. To my mind, the problem has been that the "non-obvious" requirement has been ignored or interpretted in such a way as to render it meaningless."
I think your second sentence answered your first:)
In any case, what's the useful purpose of having a patent on something that is copyrighted? Especially due to the permanence of copyright.
"and this is easily done by simply using a turnkey reactor plant design..."
Then why hasn't it been done? Probably because a "turnkey" reactor is still really expensive. Not to mention that if you don't actually need a significant portion of the power NOW it is even more expensive.
"High dosages generally do need a prescription, so TFA is technically correct."
You only need a prescription if you want to get 800 mg tablets. Nothing stopping you from taking 4 smaller tablets of ibuprofen from the store. Which one you do depends on cost.
"Suppose I need to look up a mathematical identity which is not obvious. I go to Wikipedia and find it there. Then I sit down, verify it myself (math has that advantage),..."
You probably don't have to cite it. Especially if it would be considered "general" or "basic" knowledge in the field of study. That doesn't mean YOU didn't know it.
In geology, for instance, you don't have to cite where you got the chemical formula of a mineral or the general characteristics of a rock, etc. even if it is rare or you have to look it up. Now if you had to go to the original source or close to it, you should cite it in some way.
It generally won't hurt to cite it but if you cite everything, you really haven't done any research... And you look like a clueless idiot.
As there is no "-1 Wrong" moderation, I'll respond instead:
"It's still plagiarism even if it's allowed by the original author."
You are wrong. It is called authorized copying. There may also be some legal issues if the author wasn't allowed to get permission.
"Students get in trouble if they get someone to take their exams for them."
This is called cheating. Not plagiarism.
"As long as there's misrepresentation going on, even if the original person gave permission for the misrepresentation, it's still a form of deception."
Deception is not plagiarism. It may be considered unethical but that does not make it plagiarism.
"If the misrepresentation was unintentional then that's different..."
It doesn't matter. Now the penalties, if any, may be lower.
"But the point is, even folks who "pay for the paper" aren't doing so; it's a specious argument."
No it isn't.
The subscription does pay for the paper, otherwise you wouldn't get a copy. Sure, it only covers a portion of the cost but without delivery and subscriptions most papers cease to exist. What's the point of paying for ads in the paper if nobody sees them?
The real problem is that newspapers never bothered to tell their readers this. Some still don't. Probably because it would tarnish their "reputation" as an "unbiased" source of news. Readers might wonder about their motives if they realized that they are the product rather than the customers....
Maybe you should have at least read the summary before commenting. As there is no mod for illiteracy or lack of reading comprehension, I'll summarize instead:
In the "real world", if the case had not been dismissed then damages (in the low five figures) would have been awarded.
"Given that the very best medical care is expensive.."
Define "best". If by best you pay paying an amazing amount of money for amazing things that may have been prevented then yes.
If by best you mean maximizing health outcomes and minimizing cost then no. The US spends vast amounts of money for crappy results.
"...you are really saying is that if everybody can't have it, nobody should get it, right?"
Show me a system where you can't get the "best" healthcare if you desire. It doesn't exist. Granted, you may not be able to pay for it but after all that applies to all goods and services....
Slashdot Mirror
"I'd give my NPR and PBS stations a similar amount of money if they would make donor privacy a primary concern."
I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't accept an anonymous donation.
"The first time I hear them pledge to destory all donor information within 90 days or less will be the first time I donate."
Have you asked if you can donate and not be on their mailing list?
I suspect that you just don't want to give them money. It's fine if you don't want to give them money, just don't whine that it's their fault.
"I don't agree with the grade inflation hype.
it happens in grade school, it does not happen in college."
Quite possibly the funniest thing I've read lately. I mean, I assume it was meant to be funny.
Or to paraphrase an excellent professor at a branch campus of Ohio State "If they can't get a 'B' here...."
Grade inflation is common. Makes it easier on the parties that are involved. Sucks if you are trying to figure out what grades mean, though.
"well, they're cheap too: union-free with dirt wages to boot"
Just like any other big box store. However, they do pay well for certain positions that are really important in their system.
"At some point, you want to avoid a single point of failure."
Why would society care? Individuals might, but why would we spend resources so that humanity can survive if it doesn't benefit us? After all, we will probably have essentially no contact with them and for all intents and purposes they will be "alien".
This isn't like crossing an ocean to extract a few resources with the expectation that you will arrive back home filthy rich. Or sponsoring such an expedition. The entire benefit of travelling to another star will be in the abstract to those who are not going.
"We could build colony ships designed to send generations of people places."
First we would need the technology. Then we would need the resources. Finally, we would need a really good reason to use the resources and technology.
I don't see a really good reason for society to do such a thing.
"In addition, the bigger effective size we can get our interconnected system, the more stable our power demand and supply will be."
Maybe. But it also means that there could be more problems that affect more people.
"The Half Sigma [halfsigma.com] blog points out a serious flaw in the design of this poll..."
How is it a serious flaw? I mean, I can see how it might be one. But do you have any evidence? And how is this different from any other poll? After all, at least in this poll you can access all of the questions and answers and know who they polled. The Pew poll may suck, but it sucks less than the others....
But if there is a serious difference between the public and members of the AAAS (which you imply not to be real scientists), I find it hard to believe that the difference will be less with "real" scientists. Not to mention how you would define "real" scientists and then poll them....
"Aligning oneself with one party or the other would seem to violate everything science is about."
Why? Politics is not science. Science is not politics. Science is only one of many inputs to public policy.
Hell, I was taught paleontology by a devout Mormon. And he did an excellent job of it. You can do excellent science no matter what party or religion you align yourself with. The reverse is also true....
"Perhaps Pew could not do their research on such a decidedly biased sample to begin with -- but I suppose that is asking too much these days."
I hate to break it to you but Pew is about as unbiased (or open) as you can get from an organization that does polling. How many groups that do polling allow you to download the data and do your own analysis rather than report selected information....
"Someone should also tell the Antarctic ice to stop growing."
And this is at odds with the Arctic ice melting due to global warming how? Arctic ice is based on freezing water, Antarctic ice is based on snow. Relatively warmer air can provide a greater amount of snow.
"What is "addiction"? Basically that the body (or mind) wants some stimulus that you handed him for a long time."
Incorrect.
You just described dependence. Dependence is NOT addiction. Anything that alters brain chemistry can conceivably lead to dependence (meds, activities, etc.)
"Why does it want it? Because the stimulus was/is positive and not getting it is subjectively negative."
If you are dependent on a substance you will get withdrawal symptons. Perfectly normal. Does not indicate addiction.
"I'm not sure why so many Slashdotters are so opposed to software patents as a concept. To my mind, the problem has been that the "non-obvious" requirement has been ignored or interpretted in such a way as to render it meaningless."
I think your second sentence answered your first :)
In any case, what's the useful purpose of having a patent on something that is copyrighted? Especially due to the permanence of copyright.
Aside from stifling innovation, of course...
"and this is easily done by simply using a turnkey reactor plant design..."
Then why hasn't it been done? Probably because a "turnkey" reactor is still really expensive. Not to mention that if you don't actually need a significant portion of the power NOW it is even more expensive.
"High dosages generally do need a prescription, so TFA is technically correct."
You only need a prescription if you want to get 800 mg tablets. Nothing stopping you from taking 4 smaller tablets of ibuprofen from the store. Which one you do depends on cost.
with this as long as their batteries are reasonably priced.
If they go Lexmark, however....
"Suppose I need to look up a mathematical identity which is not obvious. I go to Wikipedia and find it there. Then I sit down, verify it myself (math has that advantage),..."
You probably don't have to cite it. Especially if it would be considered "general" or "basic" knowledge in the field of study. That doesn't mean YOU didn't know it.
In geology, for instance, you don't have to cite where you got the chemical formula of a mineral or the general characteristics of a rock, etc. even if it is rare or you have to look it up. Now if you had to go to the original source or close to it, you should cite it in some way.
It generally won't hurt to cite it but if you cite everything, you really haven't done any research... And you look like a clueless idiot.
As there is no "-1 Wrong" moderation, I'll respond instead:
"It's still plagiarism even if it's allowed by the original author."
You are wrong. It is called authorized copying. There may also be some legal issues if the author wasn't allowed to get permission.
"Students get in trouble if they get someone to take their exams for them."
This is called cheating. Not plagiarism.
"As long as there's misrepresentation going on, even if the original person gave permission for the misrepresentation, it's still a form of deception."
Deception is not plagiarism. It may be considered unethical but that does not make it plagiarism.
"If the misrepresentation was unintentional then that's different..."
It doesn't matter. Now the penalties, if any, may be lower.
"yes, damn those pesky voters"
The problem IS the voters. They want lots of things but don't want to pay for them. A recipe for disaster.
At least now they have been forced to chose. Of course it will be less at the same cost....
"Your telling me your family doesn't have an album, no wedding pictures, baby pictures ? "
No, probably, maybe.
"The fact is they are priceless."
For you maybe. Frankly I don't give a damn about baby pictures or wedding pictures. Heck, I don't even have current pictures of my relatives.
BTW, how many copies do you have of those priceless pictures? If it's not more than one, then they probably aren't priceless....
"But the point is, even folks who "pay for the paper" aren't doing so; it's a specious argument."
No it isn't.
The subscription does pay for the paper, otherwise you wouldn't get a copy. Sure, it only covers a portion of the cost but without delivery and subscriptions most papers cease to exist. What's the point of paying for ads in the paper if nobody sees them?
The real problem is that newspapers never bothered to tell their readers this. Some still don't. Probably because it would tarnish their "reputation" as an "unbiased" source of news. Readers might wonder about their motives if they realized that they are the product rather than the customers....
"Nobody is going to put their job on the line for your insane privacy needs."
Sure. But it is reasonable for them to ask a superior to see if they can, especially when the customer WANTS to shovel money in their direction.
Of course, the employees may not give a damn. Which tells you a great deal about the company....
Maybe you should have at least read the summary before commenting. As there is no mod for illiteracy or lack of reading comprehension, I'll summarize instead:
In the "real world", if the case had not been dismissed then damages (in the low five figures) would have been awarded.
"Given that the very best medical care is expensive.."
Define "best". If by best you pay paying an amazing amount of money for amazing things that may have been prevented then yes.
If by best you mean maximizing health outcomes and minimizing cost then no. The US spends vast amounts of money for crappy results.
"...you are really saying is that if everybody can't have it, nobody should get it, right?"
Show me a system where you can't get the "best" healthcare if you desire. It doesn't exist. Granted, you may not be able to pay for it but after all that applies to all goods and services....
"...he doesn't want to do a lot of extra work to prevent students from cheating, because he's a teacher, not the academic honesty police."
Unfortunately for the instructor, he is responsible for insuring academic honesty. And so are the students.
Luckily for the lazy, very few really care...
Sucks for the honest...
"Somalia is not a libertarian system, it's an anarchy."
I believe that anarchy CAN be considered libertarian. I would suspect that most libertarians are not anarchists.