...and documents the cost of recovery, If they don't care about the risk in the first place, what possible incentive do they have to document their mistakes? That would mean admitting they were wrong!
Not only that, now their boss can clearly see what it cost the company, and what your suggestion would have saved.
Maybe YOU should document what it costs, don't expect them to.
>No matter how brilliantly, concisely, clearly, and interestingly you present the scientific facts, they will hold no sway over one who is utterly and dogmatically committed to a diametrically contrary belief.
True. Too bad the scientists don't have those facts, or choose to ignore the facts for their own agendas far too often. Or, sell out to the largest grant donor. Makes it very difficult to convince the "other side" when it's clear the opinions-results-"facts" being presented are based on the predetermined outcome you chose to support.
If that isn't the case, why do we have loud, hateful debates over things like global warming, where both sides claim "science" as their source of information? Talk about "dogmatically committed to a diametrically contrary belief".
>In short, what we need to be teaching is not science, but its underpinnings--rational thought and analysis. Until people learn to willingly employ those there truly is no hope.
Could not agree more. But again, most "scientists" are just as dogmatic when it comes to their beliefs as "religious people". Take the question of carbon dating, whether it's accurate or not. Do you suppose people bother to take a rational look at the data, or do they just REACT, with one side saying "obviously they're lying" and the other say "obviously they're nutjobs" without even considering empirical information?
Questioning the basis on which your version of "rational" is based is far too unsettling for most people to be bothered with. It would be better if one applied objective analysis to the study of one's religion/belief system, be it protestant, physics, psychology, or more. But it's a subjective topic, and people are gullible as well.
I would add, until people get over whining that "all truth is relative", no argument can be won regardless of the preponderance of fact, history, or any other source of information.
The problem is, without absolute truth, what is "true for me" is whatever I want to be allowed to get away with. Absolute truth brings right and wrong, and with that comes personal responsibility. Good luck with that in today's society.
Oh, that's nice.
In order to download a paper debunking this, I have to sign up for an account on their website.
Now, why would I want to do that?
And please, whatever you do, don't say:
"Why do you object to giving us your email, if you have nothing to hide..."
Yeah, it's the "if it were available" that's the problem. I'm in a rural area, and have the same issue: no broadband service is possible, not even from the phone company. There is no cable where I live. My choices are satellite or cell. Since there's a less-than-1-year-old tower they put up about 1,000 yards from my house, I've got an excellent cell signal. Looks like this may be the way to go.
I see another article suggesting some routers can accept a (cell modem? wireless broadband card? what's the right term now?), that might resolve the two-cards-cost-double problem.
Slashdot Mirror
They're getting ready to redo it, apparently... http://www.superheroes-r-us.com/index.php/2008/all-new-iron-manual-on-may-14/ Here's info on the first one: http://www.advancediron.org/iron-man-specials/the-iron-manual-1993
...and documents the cost of recovery, If they don't care about the risk in the first place, what possible incentive do they have to document their mistakes? That would mean admitting they were wrong!Not only that, now their boss can clearly see what it cost the company, and what your suggestion would have saved.
Maybe YOU should document what it costs, don't expect them to.
http://www.xkcd.com/397/
>No matter how brilliantly, concisely, clearly, and interestingly you present the scientific facts, they will hold no sway over one who is utterly and dogmatically committed to a diametrically contrary belief.
True. Too bad the scientists don't have those facts, or choose to ignore the facts for their own agendas far too often. Or, sell out to the largest grant donor. Makes it very difficult to convince the "other side" when it's clear the opinions-results-"facts" being presented are based on the predetermined outcome you chose to support.
If that isn't the case, why do we have loud, hateful debates over things like global warming, where both sides claim "science" as their source of information? Talk about "dogmatically committed to a diametrically contrary belief".
>In short, what we need to be teaching is not science, but its underpinnings--rational thought and analysis. Until people learn to willingly employ those there truly is no hope.
Could not agree more. But again, most "scientists" are just as dogmatic when it comes to their beliefs as "religious people". Take the question of carbon dating, whether it's accurate or not. Do you suppose people bother to take a rational look at the data, or do they just REACT, with one side saying "obviously they're lying" and the other say "obviously they're nutjobs" without even considering empirical information?
Questioning the basis on which your version of "rational" is based is far too unsettling for most people to be bothered with. It would be better if one applied objective analysis to the study of one's religion/belief system, be it protestant, physics, psychology, or more. But it's a subjective topic, and people are gullible as well.
I would add, until people get over whining that "all truth is relative", no argument can be won regardless of the preponderance of fact, history, or any other source of information.
The problem is, without absolute truth, what is "true for me" is whatever I want to be allowed to get away with. Absolute truth brings right and wrong, and with that comes personal responsibility. Good luck with that in today's society.
That, and the last mile (or even the last 25 feet) to YOUR house.
(I've always seen that quoted as "Five boxes preserve our freedoms: soap, ballot, witness, jury, and cartridge" But yeah, that.)
Oh, that's nice. In order to download a paper debunking this, I have to sign up for an account on their website. Now, why would I want to do that? And please, whatever you do, don't say: "Why do you object to giving us your email, if you have nothing to hide..."
Yeah, it's the "if it were available" that's the problem. I'm in a rural area, and have the same issue: no broadband service is possible, not even from the phone company. There is no cable where I live. My choices are satellite or cell. Since there's a less-than-1-year-old tower they put up about 1,000 yards from my house, I've got an excellent cell signal. Looks like this may be the way to go. I see another article suggesting some routers can accept a (cell modem? wireless broadband card? what's the right term now?), that might resolve the two-cards-cost-double problem.
http://www.scorched3d.co.uk/