You're wrong. There might be nothing material to be gained. Indeed, it would probably lead to a loss. But for some of us, at least, moral stature is another thing to be valued. Google would gain because it would cease odious practices -- they would be better.
The cynicism that none of this matters would be shocking if it weren't so prevalent. Shareholder-led business activism can lead to real and positive change. We knows this because it already has.
Oh, BS. This wasn't a proposal that Google hire gun-runners and try to overthrow the Chinese. It was a proposal that Google refrain from odious practices. Yes, it would cost them money. No, it wouldn't cause the Chinese Communists to wake up and say, "Oh, wait, we should allow free speech".
It would have been a principled stand. It would have been an example. And once Google was on board, attention could be turned to other companies that conduct odious operations in collusion with the Chinese government.
Don't think organized business activism can make a real difference in the world? Think that "someone else" will always just make up the difference and the system will not change? I'd suggest you talk to someone from South Africa...
Just like it takes more than your bald assurance to make a claim into a "scientific concept".
If only there were some way that the entire community of scientists could read about new discoveries and new theories, run experiments or make observations, and then publish their results and subject them to critiquing by their peers... We could call it -- oh, I don't know, how about -- peer review.
Wait, we actually have such a system and it has four centuries of wild success in weeding out insane crap and crackpot rantings, such as, say, the Electric Universe.
And look! Now we've looped back to your original post! How elegant.
Understand I'm rather a moderate as far as fair use rights go. I don't feel legally the user should be given carte blanche to copy everything they own an unlimited number of times.
Why not? I'm not trying to troll -- I honestly would like to know what your philosophy is. Why would a limited number of copies be OK but an unlimited not?
I'd wager your experience is close enough to being unique as to make no difference. Generally, stuffing everything into a monolithic file makes the data less accessible, less stable, and even less searchable. It does help Microsoft hide features and implementation details from competitors and it does make the mail program more mysterious (driving more users to paid solutions for problems). But in terms of convenience for the user, it gives bupkas.
OK, we're on the same page, I think. The tragedy of teaching is this: It is one of the hardest jobs to do well, but it is one of the easiest to simply do (if you don't care about quality).
I'm not saying the current system is working, because it's not, but why should teaching some subjects be "rewarded" whereas others are "punished"?
I don't know but that's the way the market's gone. A lot of people are missing a crucial point: Someone with training in math or science has many opportunities to earn much more money than they would teaching. It's harder to fill a vacancy in math/sci than English or history. Simple economics says, you must either offer more money to lure people away from those other jobs, or you must accept a lower general quality in the applicants. It sounds harsh and it is. That doesn't make it less true.
Disclaimer: I am in fact one of those math/sci types and I even teach high school. (Which, I suppose, means I've just painted myself as part of the lesser talent pool.:) )
One doesn't have to be comfortable with math to teach it any more than an english teacher needs to be literate. Teachers have answer books to help them. Unlike english, math is easy for a moron to teach since the answer is either exactly right, or it's wrong. There's no comprehension needed to perform at that level.
Wow, spoken exactly like someone who's never set foot in a classroom. It would be hard for you to be any more wrong than you are here, buddy. The problem with the teaching profession today is precisely that we have too many under-competent teachers faking their way through subjects they neither understand nor enjoy. I can say this, though: If you think that math is just about getting the "right answer", then I am glad you're not in the classroom. That sort of thinking is damaging.
Nah, the GPP was correct. It's why I always thought fill-in-the-blank was better than multiple choice. For the latter, your chance is 1 out of (say) 5, or 20%. But with fill-in-the-blank, you're either right or you're not -- so your chance is 50%.:)
Or is it just one more bullet added to the ammunition of defenders of proprietary software? There's symbolism in this, but it isn't unmixedly positive: The two American nations listed are already bugaboos in the US culture wars. Won't this just be used to convince consumers in the US not to adopt Linux? "See, it's really just a plot by those big scary Reds..."
Only if the coporation produces something of value. Hardly any right now...
Oh, please. You type that on a computer built only by hardworking locals following the centuries-old traditions of their people? I would wager a fair amount that the vast majority of the things you use in your daily life were produced by a corporation. I'm as willing to throw stones as the next and I fear the rise of the megacorps -- but let's not be silly and pretend that they aren't ruthlessly efficient in making stuff... stuff most people find useful and "of value". "Hardly any" indeed.
A lot of people don't want to donate but many would be more than happy to donate a few gigs of my hard drive and some small part of my bandwidth to wikipedia on occasion. [emphasis added]
I can't speak for anyone else, but I for one would be willing a few gigs of his hard drive as well as a small part of his bandwidth. Just leave mine alone. Anyone else with me?:)
I think you missed his point. A long, detailed story would be fine. But many RPGs are not both long and detailed. They're just long. The following is not a "detailed listing of my life":
Feb 1: I went to work. I came home. I read slashdot. I watched TV.
Feb 2: I went to work. I came home. I read slashdot. I watched TV.
Feb 3: I went to work. I came home. I read slashdot. I watched TV.
Feb 4: I went to work. I came home. I read slashdot. I watched TV.
Feb 5: I went to work. I came home. I read slashdot. I watched TV.
Feb 6: I went to work. I came home. I read slashdot. I read a novel.
Feb 7: I went to work. I came home. I read slashdot. I watched TV.
Having a lot to do is not the same as having something worthwhile to do. I haven't played RPGs for a while but I certainly recognize his complaints in the roots of the genre. I never finished Bard's Tale because the penultimate level of the final tower was simply 99 of every enemy in every square. Could I have slogged my way through that? Probably. But I sure as hell wasn't going to waste my time actually doing it.
If the writers of RPGs would cut out the redundant, repetitive, and arbitrary grind -- if they would focus on, you know, the story -- the genre would be vastly improved.
They find somebody that wants something proven, for a price, then they prove it.
Yep, 'cause lots of people have a financial stake in the origins of hot points on neutron star surfaces... Actually, almost never is someone paying a scientist to "prove a result". Most scientists are working on grants from universities or government agencies, and the grant basically tells them to go do research and publish it. You can argue that there are second-order effects (Everyone at NSF believes in string theory, so anti-string-theory researchers will lose their funding) but it is second-order at best. No one hands down a directive "Prove such-and-such". And really, even the grant agencies rarely have -- much less enforce -- a doctrinal position.
It's comforting, especially when you're not in the system, to think it's really just dollars-and-cents and that scientists are in it for the cash rather than the beauty of research or the betterment of humankind. It sounds corny but most scientists are in it for the beauty of research and the betterment of humankind. Although everyone carries personal biases from their own unique histories, scientists attempt to see around them. Knowing you have predispositions doesn't preclude you from wishing you didn't or from conducting yourself so as to minimize their impact.
The TI-89 can do anything taught in a math course well into a 300 level course, possibly four hundred.
Wow. If the TI-89 can actually solve the meaningful problems in your 300 level courses, then guess what? Your 300 level courses are ridiculously underpowered. Technology has moved on; maybe the curriculum should do the same. If your profs are assigning problems solely for the mathematical exercise, then they're misguided. If the problems require real understanding to solve, then the calculator won't be enough... you'll have to know enough to use the calculator.
Either way, it doesn't seem like the TI 89 is the problem here.
A slightly less rose-tinted view of history suggests that corporate charters were granted when there was an assurance that the ruling prince of the city-state, or his cronies, would get a cut.
Of course, getting his cut is exactly what a prince would define as "the public interest". Life was so much simpler back then...:)
Part of free speech means that it's not illegal to lie, and not illegal to keep such agreements and associations private.
You are free to believe that and, ironically, to say it... but it doesn't comform with either the law or generally accepted definitions. Libel is not protected; nor is slander; nor is fraud.
I understand why this instinctively triggers people's Spider Senses, and I can certainly see why people on the right distrust the people who put this in motion. But the fact of the matter is, I am a pretty die-hard free-speecher but I don't see any intrinsic problem with requiring disclosure. I haven't read this bill in detail so I accept for the sake of argument that it might have issues. But it isn't entirely crazy, the idea that you wouldn't be allowed to call yourself "Small Business Owners for Insurance Reform" when all your money comes from the largest insurer in the country, you work for said insurer, and the blog was written on company time at company direction being hosted on company machines.
Of course the FAA regulations aren't a direct part of that, but they are a step.
Actually, the FAA regs are a direct part of that. They create a known, rational regulatory environment. Ever wonder why, with all the opportunities available in (say) the former Soviet Union, lots of investment capital keeps flowing to the uS and Europe? In no small part because we have well-established regulations, a judicial infrastructure, and the oft-maligned rule of law. It's safer for money to live here. The FAA regs help reduce the uncertainty of the near-Earth (business) environment, and that will help spur investment.
My grades sucked because I was bored to tears with my classes.
Ah, yes. The I coulda done it but chose not to defense. I hope that comforts you at night. The number of students who truly do poorly because they "aren't challenged enough" is a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of those who claim it's the case. Much more often, this is just an excuse for why they couldn't exert the discipline necessary to get the good grades.
If you just want to start making crap up, then who's to say the external universe even has laws that allow black holes?
Well, clearly it must or we couldn't be inside one. Jeesh, think about these things before you post...
Sarcasm aside, you've hit the nail on the head for these "alternate theories". We should be poking around looking for new ways to understand things, but most of these people are cracked.
If a theory or whole body of theories has to resort to phenomena and processes that cannot be observed today, then perhaps it is time to examine the assumptions that make it necessary to resort to nebulous constructs, such as dark matter and energ
I totally agree! And while we're at it, what's the deal with these so-called "a-toms"? Have you ever seen an atom? No! No one has. Atoms are just hypothetical constructs invented to maintain the dominance of the currently-funded paradigm, reinforcing the existing pattern of power-exercise by societal gatekeepers. I mean, sure there are patterns in chemistry, and you can make a useful shortcut by arranging elements into a sort of table-like pattern. But that's just a calculational convenience -- it doesn't really represent reality. And there are holes in it anwya, which the so-called "atomic" chemists retroactively explain as elements we haven't discovered yet...
And before you roll your eyes too much, exactly that "criticism" could have been levelled at the atomic theory for, oh, most of its history.
It's indisputable that the current model could be wrong. But it's getting kind of tiresome for all these people to keep banging the drum and saying, "No one follows my pet theory. It must because of a giant academic consipracy, because it certainly can't be because I might be wrong."
Hmmm. Sounds like this would be -- oh, I don't know -- a research project. And the GPP was making the point that seemingly no one has produced such a study. I don't think the implicationw was that you, yourself, had to do it -- but that reference to a credible study is missing.
And sure, it sounds "reasonable" (especially superficially) that popular work gets more funding than "unpopular"... but sounding reasonable isn't the same as being reasonable, much less the same as being true.
Slashdot Mirror
You're wrong. There might be nothing material to be gained. Indeed, it would probably lead to a loss. But for some of us, at least, moral stature is another thing to be valued. Google would gain because it would cease odious practices -- they would be better.
The cynicism that none of this matters would be shocking if it weren't so prevalent. Shareholder-led business activism can lead to real and positive change. We knows this because it already has.
Oh, BS. This wasn't a proposal that Google hire gun-runners and try to overthrow the Chinese. It was a proposal that Google refrain from odious practices. Yes, it would cost them money. No, it wouldn't cause the Chinese Communists to wake up and say, "Oh, wait, we should allow free speech".
It would have been a principled stand. It would have been an example. And once Google was on board, attention could be turned to other companies that conduct odious operations in collusion with the Chinese government.
Don't think organized business activism can make a real difference in the world? Think that "someone else" will always just make up the difference and the system will not change? I'd suggest you talk to someone from South Africa...
Just like it takes more than your bald assurance to make a claim into a "scientific concept".
If only there were some way that the entire community of scientists could read about new discoveries and new theories, run experiments or make observations, and then publish their results and subject them to critiquing by their peers... We could call it -- oh, I don't know, how about -- peer review.
Wait, we actually have such a system and it has four centuries of wild success in weeding out insane crap and crackpot rantings, such as, say, the Electric Universe.
And look! Now we've looped back to your original post! How elegant.
Why not? I'm not trying to troll -- I honestly would like to know what your philosophy is. Why would a limited number of copies be OK but an unlimited not?
Am I missing something? Why couldn't someone on the side of the road measure the frequency by using, say, a stopwatch?
I'd wager your experience is close enough to being unique as to make no difference. Generally, stuffing everything into a monolithic file makes the data less accessible, less stable, and even less searchable. It does help Microsoft hide features and implementation details from competitors and it does make the mail program more mysterious (driving more users to paid solutions for problems). But in terms of convenience for the user, it gives bupkas.
OK, we're on the same page, I think. The tragedy of teaching is this: It is one of the hardest jobs to do well, but it is one of the easiest to simply do (if you don't care about quality).
I don't know but that's the way the market's gone. A lot of people are missing a crucial point: Someone with training in math or science has many opportunities to earn much more money than they would teaching. It's harder to fill a vacancy in math/sci than English or history. Simple economics says, you must either offer more money to lure people away from those other jobs, or you must accept a lower general quality in the applicants. It sounds harsh and it is. That doesn't make it less true.
Disclaimer: I am in fact one of those math/sci types and I even teach high school. (Which, I suppose, means I've just painted myself as part of the lesser talent pool.
Wow, spoken exactly like someone who's never set foot in a classroom. It would be hard for you to be any more wrong than you are here, buddy. The problem with the teaching profession today is precisely that we have too many under-competent teachers faking their way through subjects they neither understand nor enjoy. I can say this, though: If you think that math is just about getting the "right answer", then I am glad you're not in the classroom. That sort of thinking is damaging.
Nah, the GPP was correct. It's why I always thought fill-in-the-blank was better than multiple choice. For the latter, your chance is 1 out of (say) 5, or 20%. But with fill-in-the-blank, you're either right or you're not -- so your chance is 50%. :)
Or is it just one more bullet added to the ammunition of defenders of proprietary software? There's symbolism in this, but it isn't unmixedly positive: The two American nations listed are already bugaboos in the US culture wars. Won't this just be used to convince consumers in the US not to adopt Linux? "See, it's really just a plot by those big scary Reds..."
Oh, please. You type that on a computer built only by hardworking locals following the centuries-old traditions of their people? I would wager a fair amount that the vast majority of the things you use in your daily life were produced by a corporation. I'm as willing to throw stones as the next and I fear the rise of the megacorps -- but let's not be silly and pretend that they aren't ruthlessly efficient in making stuff
I can't speak for anyone else, but I for one would be willing a few gigs of his hard drive as well as a small part of his bandwidth. Just leave mine alone. Anyone else with me?
I think you missed his point. A long, detailed story would be fine. But many RPGs are not both long and detailed. They're just long. The following is not a "detailed listing of my life":
Having a lot to do is not the same as having something worthwhile to do. I haven't played RPGs for a while but I certainly recognize his complaints in the roots of the genre. I never finished Bard's Tale because the penultimate level of the final tower was simply 99 of every enemy in every square. Could I have slogged my way through that? Probably. But I sure as hell wasn't going to waste my time actually doing it.
If the writers of RPGs would cut out the redundant, repetitive, and arbitrary grind -- if they would focus on, you know, the story -- the genre would be vastly improved.
Does this demand an invocation of Goodwin's Law?
It's comforting, especially when you're not in the system, to think it's really just dollars-and-cents and that scientists are in it for the cash rather than the beauty of research or the betterment of humankind. It sounds corny but most scientists are in it for the beauty of research and the betterment of humankind. Although everyone carries personal biases from their own unique histories, scientists attempt to see around them. Knowing you have predispositions doesn't preclude you from wishing you didn't or from conducting yourself so as to minimize their impact.
Either way, it doesn't seem like the TI 89 is the problem here.
Of course, getting his cut is exactly what a prince would define as "the public interest". Life was so much simpler back then...
You are free to believe that and, ironically, to say it... but it doesn't comform with either the law or generally accepted definitions. Libel is not protected; nor is slander; nor is fraud.
I understand why this instinctively triggers people's Spider Senses, and I can certainly see why people on the right distrust the people who put this in motion. But the fact of the matter is, I am a pretty die-hard free-speecher but I don't see any intrinsic problem with requiring disclosure. I haven't read this bill in detail so I accept for the sake of argument that it might have issues. But it isn't entirely crazy, the idea that you wouldn't be allowed to call yourself "Small Business Owners for Insurance Reform" when all your money comes from the largest insurer in the country, you work for said insurer, and the blog was written on company time at company direction being hosted on company machines.
Sci Fi doesn't care. Unless you're putting eyeballs on advertisements, you're irrelevant in their calculus. That's the way TV works.
Actually, the FAA regs are a direct part of that. They create a known, rational regulatory environment. Ever wonder why, with all the opportunities available in (say) the former Soviet Union, lots of investment capital keeps flowing to the uS and Europe? In no small part because we have well-established regulations, a judicial infrastructure, and the oft-maligned rule of law. It's safer for money to live here. The FAA regs help reduce the uncertainty of the near-Earth (business) environment, and that will help spur investment.
Ah, yes. The I coulda done it but chose not to defense. I hope that comforts you at night. The number of students who truly do poorly because they "aren't challenged enough" is a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of those who claim it's the case. Much more often, this is just an excuse for why they couldn't exert the discipline necessary to get the good grades.
Well, clearly it must or we couldn't be inside one. Jeesh, think about these things before you post...
Sarcasm aside, you've hit the nail on the head for these "alternate theories". We should be poking around looking for new ways to understand things, but most of these people are cracked.
I totally agree! And while we're at it, what's the deal with these so-called "a-toms"? Have you ever seen an atom? No! No one has. Atoms are just hypothetical constructs invented to maintain the dominance of the currently-funded paradigm, reinforcing the existing pattern of power-exercise by societal gatekeepers. I mean, sure there are patterns in chemistry, and you can make a useful shortcut by arranging elements into a sort of table-like pattern. But that's just a calculational convenience -- it doesn't really represent reality. And there are holes in it anwya, which the so-called "atomic" chemists retroactively explain as elements we haven't discovered yet...
And before you roll your eyes too much, exactly that "criticism" could have been levelled at the atomic theory for, oh, most of its history.
It's indisputable that the current model could be wrong. But it's getting kind of tiresome for all these people to keep banging the drum and saying, "No one follows my pet theory. It must because of a giant academic consipracy, because it certainly can't be because I might be wrong."
Hmmm. Sounds like this would be -- oh, I don't know -- a research project. And the GPP was making the point that seemingly no one has produced such a study. I don't think the implicationw was that you, yourself, had to do it -- but that reference to a credible study is missing.
And sure, it sounds "reasonable" (especially superficially) that popular work gets more funding than "unpopular"... but sounding reasonable isn't the same as being reasonable, much less the same as being true.