The problem is that since he is actually on the ballots in question, he has an intrinsic conflict of interest. He absolutely should have reused himself. Especially since the margin in that race is less than 1%.
This. He ran for governor while he was Secretary of State -- the person who oversaw the very election he was competing in.
And that's not all. Aside from voter-suppression accusations, there were last-minute accusations and innuendo that the Democrats hacked his election campaign and were "being investigated." How convenient. No time to examine and air the facts.
Georgia, you're on everyone's mind. You can do better than this.
You can sue anybody for anything. Whether you get a day in court and win... that's another issue. But you can still sue.
The families of the people who died can sue Amazon because it's Amazon's warehouse. I don't know whether Amazon owns the building (maybe they're renting it) but that doesn't mean they are immune to a lawsuit. Amazon has a presence at the site of the accident, so it's not a stretch to sue them.
Although, if voting is so unimportant, why are literally billions of dollars are spent trying to get people to vote one way or another?
I think you answered your own rhetorical question, but to carry the thought further...
Billions of dollars are spent to get people to vote a certain way because it is worth those billions of dollars for some people to have their gal or guy in office.
And thus we have the Golden Rule: [s]he who has the gold, makes the rules.
Campaign finance reform has tried to address the issue by limiting individual contributions and making donors' names public. But Dark Money and PACs are not encumbered so. Time to do something about them too.
Yes, and it has nothing to do with ducts. It got its name from what it was made from originally: cotton duck cloth. The adhesive version of the tape was invented in the 1940s to seal ammunition boxes so they could be opened quickly in battle.
Fair enough. But I would say that these are examples of the scientific method working as it should. Mistakes or fraud may take time to detect, but sooner or later they are corrected.
And keep in mind that science is not the only human endeavour that has occasionally wasted time, money, and effort. Science progresses most efficiently when honest actors work together in good faith, scrutinizing each other's work but also building mutual trust. The waste from occasional bad actors is eclipsed by the benefit from the good ones.
They only show what the author wants you to see, period. Whether biostats guy wants to lie to us or not... if his data bogus then stats are bogus.
No stats are even likely valid without *FULL* data being presented with nothing hidden or omitted. It is filtering process or dropping outliers, makes the stats falsehoods at best.
Remember with stats... any data can *prove* anything by at least misdirection.
A liar (scientist or not) can make a lie sound like the truth. Science does occasionally have bad actors who lie. Their lies are discovered and corrected sooner or later.
What was your point again?
This is same as the proof that shows 1=2. A=B A*A=B*A A*A-B*B=B*A-B*B (A+B)(A-B)=B(A-B) A+B=B B+B=B 2=1
"The same?" Well, no. Anyone who has take high-school math (and that includes scientists) can spot the flaw in your "proof." When you divided out the (A-B) factor, you divided by zero.
Or the hotel $1 3 guys check into a room Room cost $30 (long ago) Each paid $10. Night Audit determined the over charged, should be $25 (honest place) Bellman sent up with $5 to return to them (yes still have them too) Guys did not have change to split... so each took $1 They gave the bellman $2 So, Each paid $9 for the room for $27 and paid $2 to bellman, for a total of $29 Where is the missing dollar?
There is no missing dollar. The hotel ended up charging the 3 guys $25. They paid $27. The bellman collected a $2 arbitrage ($27 - $25 = $2.)
And when the experiment is repeated - many times, by different teams in different labs using different statistical techniques to analyse the results, the truth will come out.
But if an experiment is only performed once, never scrutinised, never checked, never tested then there can be little or no confidence in its conclusions.
Even if an experiment is not repeated exactly, its results still provide a way-point that can be scrutinized in future studies. Other scientists will try to build on previous results, and if something subsequently does not make sense, they will back-trace to find the problem. This is often how science evolves.
Experiments are often repeated, at least implicitly, if some process that previous experimenters followed must be followed again to pick up where they left off. And often it is worthwhile to repeat an experiment with improved equipment, to see whether additional insights can be found.
In short, don't dwell on whether there is a cadre of scientists who make it their mission to repeat other scientists' experiments. That's impractical, and frankly silly. Scientific studies do get scrutinized and repeated (at least implicitly) -- just not in the narrow way you suggest.
No matter what process you use, if all you're trying to do is create high-quality software, then that is an amoral position, because it is indifferent to morality.
However, if you're trying to create free software in the sense that RMS means (free as in freedom) then that is a moral position. It means you want the software you create to include certain freedoms that others have when they use your software, and that persist no matter what others do to that software.
Creating high-quality software and creating free (as in freedom) software are not incompatible goals.
Unix commands have been described as digestive noises, and a boon to two-finger typists. But the best explanation I have heard as to why they are so short and cryptic is that teletype terminals in the 1970s (when unix was developed) were slow, with keys that took some effort to press down. Reducing the number of characters you needed to type was helpful.
As unix moved onto CRT terminals with lighter-action keyboards, commands gradually got a bit longer. And sometimes improved commands got whimsical names, such as more evolving to less, and an improved man command being called woman.
Grudgingly, I must admit The Unix-Haters Handbook got it right:
A century ago, fast typists were jamming their keyboards, so engineers designed the QWERTY keyboard to slow them down. Computer keyboards don’t jam, but we’re still living with QWERTY today. A century from now, the world will still be living with rm.
Like MS could have fixed having to include C: in filename-paths?
Sometimes unfortunate design-choices can have a long life. You're faced with the dilemma of being backward-compliant, or tearing everything out and starting over. Usually the best approach is somewhere in between these extremes.
Open-source owes much of its success to embracing unix, with all of its warts. I think of it in the same way Winston Churchill thought of democracy, as the worst possible operating system, with the exception of all others that have been tried and discarded.
lol, nope they don't need to ask permission, they don't get to. Period. Unless there is a physical presence within their country, they've got zero ability to tax. Sending electrons over another company's communications channel does not constitute a physical presence.
Ever heard of tarriffs? Donald Trump certainly has.
If anybody outside of country X sells something to the residents of country X, then the government of country X can impose a tarriff on it. And the residents of country X pay that tarriff when they buy whatever the 'something' is.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that since he is actually on the ballots in question, he has an intrinsic conflict of interest. He absolutely should have reused himself. Especially since the margin in that race is less than 1%.
This. He ran for governor while he was Secretary of State -- the person who oversaw the very election he was competing in.
And that's not all. Aside from voter-suppression accusations, there were last-minute accusations and innuendo that the Democrats hacked his election campaign and were "being investigated." How convenient. No time to examine and air the facts.
Georgia, you're on everyone's mind. You can do better than this.
This one too.
Really? I would have guessed either "Never gonna give you up" or "Be sure to drink your Ovaltine."
Contract law != tort law.
I repeat: you can sue anyone for anything. A contract may be a factor in the case, but it doesn't have to be the only one.
soviet capitalism
Oxymoron.
I'm not saying the soviet system didn't result in misery and death. Just not because of capitalism.
And I don't give capitalism a complete pass either. Slavery, the Great Depression, wars ... they're all linked to capitalism.
I found this article interesting:
https://eand.co/if-communism-k...
TL/DR: any ideology can be a weapon of mass destruction.
You can sue anybody for anything. Whether you get a day in court and win ... that's another issue. But you can still sue.
The families of the people who died can sue Amazon because it's Amazon's warehouse. I don't know whether Amazon owns the building (maybe they're renting it) but that doesn't mean they are immune to a lawsuit. Amazon has a presence at the site of the accident, so it's not a stretch to sue them.
Many American companies have outsourced abusive labor practices to China, etc. That hasn't insulated them from criticism.
Covered by what? This is a matter of small-print in the contract. The writing was on the wall.
I saw what you did there. Not sure whether it helps or not.
Although, if voting is so unimportant, why are literally billions of dollars are spent trying to get people to vote one way or another?
I think you answered your own rhetorical question, but to carry the thought further...
Billions of dollars are spent to get people to vote a certain way because it is worth those billions of dollars for some people to have their gal or guy in office.
And thus we have the Golden Rule: [s]he who has the gold, makes the rules.
Campaign finance reform has tried to address the issue by limiting individual contributions and making donors' names public. But Dark Money and PACs are not encumbered so. Time to do something about them too.
Duck Tape is actually a brand name :
https://www.duckbrand.com/
Yes, and it has nothing to do with ducts. It got its name from what it was made from originally: cotton duck cloth. The adhesive version of the tape was invented in the 1940s to seal ammunition boxes so they could be opened quickly in battle.
You're right. It's inevitable that people will joke about tragedy eventually, but it's way too soon.
That being said, I lost it when I read the "People who bought this, also bought" comment above. Mea culpa.
+1000 funny!
Unless quantum-entangled weed gets you twice a high.
More like it will get you high and not high.
You won't know which until your cat tells you.
It will cut the 5 fingers of your hand, be careful!
TFS says it won't do more than sting your fingers (like a magnifying glass.)
Uh, what???
[...wait, let's read this again...]
UH, WHAT???
Fair enough. But I would say that these are examples of the scientific method working as it should. Mistakes or fraud may take time to detect, but sooner or later they are corrected.
And keep in mind that science is not the only human endeavour that has occasionally wasted time, money, and effort. Science progresses most efficiently when honest actors work together in good faith, scrutinizing each other's work but also building mutual trust. The waste from occasional bad actors is eclipsed by the benefit from the good ones.
They only show what the author wants you to see, period. Whether biostats guy wants to lie to us or not... if his data bogus then stats are bogus.
No stats are even likely valid without *FULL* data being presented with nothing hidden or omitted. It is filtering process or dropping outliers, makes the stats falsehoods at best.
Remember with stats... any data can *prove* anything by at least misdirection.
A liar (scientist or not) can make a lie sound like the truth. Science does occasionally have bad actors who lie. Their lies are discovered and corrected sooner or later.
What was your point again?
This is same as the proof that shows 1=2.
A=B
A*A=B*A
A*A-B*B=B*A-B*B
(A+B)(A-B)=B(A-B)
A+B=B
B+B=B
2=1
"The same?" Well, no. Anyone who has take high-school math (and that includes scientists) can spot the flaw in your "proof." When you divided out the (A-B) factor, you divided by zero.
Or the hotel $1
3 guys check into a room
Room cost $30 (long ago)
Each paid $10.
Night Audit determined the over charged, should be $25 (honest place)
Bellman sent up with $5 to return to them (yes still have them too)
Guys did not have change to split... so each took $1
They gave the bellman $2
So, Each paid $9 for the room for $27
and paid $2 to bellman, for a total of $29
Where is the missing dollar?
There is no missing dollar. The hotel ended up charging the 3 guys $25. They paid $27. The bellman collected a $2 arbitrage ($27 - $25 = $2.)
And when the experiment is repeated - many times, by different teams in different labs using different statistical techniques to analyse the results, the truth will come out.
But if an experiment is only performed once, never scrutinised, never checked, never tested then there can be little or no confidence in its conclusions.
Even if an experiment is not repeated exactly, its results still provide a way-point that can be scrutinized in future studies. Other scientists will try to build on previous results, and if something subsequently does not make sense, they will back-trace to find the problem. This is often how science evolves.
Experiments are often repeated, at least implicitly, if some process that previous experimenters followed must be followed again to pick up where they left off. And often it is worthwhile to repeat an experiment with improved equipment, to see whether additional insights can be found.
In short, don't dwell on whether there is a cadre of scientists who make it their mission to repeat other scientists' experiments. That's impractical, and frankly silly. Scientific studies do get scrutinized and repeated (at least implicitly) -- just not in the narrow way you suggest.
You do know that scientists are expected to acknowledge their sources of funding in their publications, right?
Victoria's Secret, FTW.
Better Microsoft than IBM. Funny how things end up
Not sure about that. I suspect MS bought github as a way to migrate those developers over to Visual Studio Online.
No matter what process you use, if all you're trying to do is create high-quality software, then that is an amoral position, because it is indifferent to morality.
However, if you're trying to create free software in the sense that RMS means (free as in freedom) then that is a moral position. It means you want the software you create to include certain freedoms that others have when they use your software, and that persist no matter what others do to that software.
Creating high-quality software and creating free (as in freedom) software are not incompatible goals.
Unix commands have been described as digestive noises, and a boon to two-finger typists. But the best explanation I have heard as to why they are so short and cryptic is that teletype terminals in the 1970s (when unix was developed) were slow, with keys that took some effort to press down. Reducing the number of characters you needed to type was helpful.
As unix moved onto CRT terminals with lighter-action keyboards, commands gradually got a bit longer. And sometimes improved commands got whimsical names, such as more evolving to less, and an improved man command being called woman.
Grudgingly, I must admit The Unix-Haters Handbook got it right:
A century ago, fast typists were jamming their keyboards, so engineers designed the QWERTY keyboard to slow them down. Computer keyboards don’t jam, but we’re still living with QWERTY today. A century from now, the world will still be living with rm.
Like MS could have fixed having to include C: in filename-paths?
Sometimes unfortunate design-choices can have a long life. You're faced with the dilemma of being backward-compliant, or tearing everything out and starting over. Usually the best approach is somewhere in between these extremes.
Open-source owes much of its success to embracing unix, with all of its warts. I think of it in the same way Winston Churchill thought of democracy, as the worst possible operating system, with the exception of all others that have been tried and discarded.
lol, nope they don't need to ask permission, they don't get to. Period.
Unless there is a physical presence within their country, they've got zero ability to tax.
Sending electrons over another company's communications channel does not constitute a physical presence.
Ever heard of tarriffs? Donald Trump certainly has.
If anybody outside of country X sells something to the residents of country X, then the government of country X can impose a tarriff on it. And the residents of country X pay that tarriff when they buy whatever the 'something' is.
Tax, tarriff? Tomayto, tomahto.