Cows don't have quite the brain capacity or (as recently demonstrated) technology or language sophistication of cetaceans, cows generally have much shorter lifespans, and harpoons at sea are generally not effrective or quick. So at least some of us object on grounds other than "bloody". Well, except in the usual British phrase of "you bloody morons!"
If you require a rule imposed by others in order to be ethical, civilization might as well give up and go home. A society that cannot function without having others think on their behalf isn't a society worth having. And if no individual can tell what is right from wrong without a TOS telling them, then we're all legally insane with nobody left to run the asylum. I give humans a bit more credit than that.
And, sure, Facebook is the final arbiter of what takes place on Facebook......except when you're the one being censored, when you become the final arbiter. Riiiight. Either they are or you are. Make up your mind and stick with it. If they are, you're abusing TOS by using the complaint system to censor others. Seems simple enough to me.
Schools teach material too slowly (which is why so many kids get bored at school). Given that there are 40 work hours in a week, it would not require a huge speedup to teach everything already covered, elementary business science (operational research requires you can draw a polygon, non-linear optimizations require that you can draw an S) and elementary economics theory (which is the same as elementary games theory and how many students do you know who object to learning about games?)
I don't know if that would match up with your suggestion, but I can't see how that could hurt and I can certainly see how optimization and strategy apply to so many facets of life that making them fundamental subjects could bring major benefits.
I believe that telescopes observing Japan detected some abnormalities immediately prior to the earthquake, but one observation isn't enough to tell you much about how often those abnormalities occur without earthquakes, how many earthquakes occur without those specific abormalities or whether in the Italian case even if a suitable telescope had made the observation whether there'd be enough time from it being detected, confirmed and relayed over there to make any difference in evacuation. Or, for that matter, if anyone would have paid attention.
(It took half an hour to evacuate a small shopping mall in Manchester when a 1,000 lb bomb was discovered at the Arndale Center in the mid 90s that was due to go off. People wanted to finish shopping or eating first. That was an immediate threat to life and limb. What do you think the response would be to "we expect an earthquake sometime, possibly very soon"?)
Having said that, to say that there was zero risk (when there was no possible way of knowing that) was a blatant falsehood and the person saying it knew that. I have no problem with keelhauling a guy for professional misconduct. It might deter politically-appointed scientists saying what their masters want rather than what the evidence shows. We could have done with more keelhauling in the US regarding Bush's suppression of global warming data and the very disappointing saga of inaccurate claims by Obama appointees over the BP spill, not to mention the FDA's attrocious record of approving drugs that are not clinically proven.
If a seismologist states categorically that an earthquake is not going to happen, they are stating categorically that they CAN predict earthquakes (or at least their absence).
In the US, I seriously doubt that this would be laughed out of court. I doubt manslaughter would hold up, but judges would probably rule that the complainant had a right to their day in court precisely because the experts grievously abused their position of trust by telling a falsehood to placate them.
(FWIW, I'll link this in with TEPCO's communications. It is not that the reactor content in Japan went AWOL that upsets people, it is that TEPCO abused their position of trust by telling falsehoods to placate the public that upsets people. Placating, versus being honest, is NOT acceptable policy. Ever.)
To your first question, yes. The rule plays no favourites and chooses no sides. Ethics cannot be selectively blind and rights are either universal or non-existant. This is one time where there is no middle path.
To the second question, rights are universal or non-existant. If PornHarms did indeed engage in bogus complaints to effect a takedown, then they are equally guilty or equally innocent. You can pick whichever you like. What they can't be is more guilty or less guilty.
You say "live by the sword, die by the sword" but I'm willing to bet that unless you're a hermit in a cave that you've lived by many a sword that you'd scream blue murder over if they were ever applied to you. That you'd use the word "liberal" in such a manner merely proves that particular point. Nobody but a person who lives by the sword demeans a class of people merely because they don't like the views, and nobody but a sword-wielding maniac would confuse a liberal with a censor.
Well, no. I don't agree. An archaeologist in the field can't be replaced by a computer down the hallway. It is quite impossible for a computer to tell you what you will find if you dig 7 feet at position X. On the other hand, a computer and a human eye can equally spot abnormalities in an x-ray image of intergalactic space. (Computers cannot be better, as to prevent false positives and false negatives, the algorithm must be calibrated by eye and the positives then validated by eye. What they CAN do better is sort through reams of useless junk to spot potential gems of data that can then be analyzed by experts.)
This doesn't mean that she didn't discover something significant. I'm happy to accept that she may well have done. That's not the issue. The issue is why, given the enormous amount of time the means of computerizing this sort of study has existed, students are doing the menial work. If students should be involved at all, they should be getting the results from the computer doing the menial work and then doing something REAL.
Far from a criticism of the student, who did a fine job with the dismally pathetic material available, my criticism is of those making inefficient use of student time.
If I recall correctly, authors are listed in the reverse order of importance. Thus, to be listed first is to be described as of least significance. Which, if I'm right, won't do her much credit in academia.
I was unaware that the right to express an opinion said anything about being rational or legitimate. Either they - and you - have a right to express opinions or they - and therefore you - do not.
Which would you prefer? To censor them is to say that you aren't entitled to a single opinion that isn't peer-reviewed, and that you are open to censorship if you happen to be passionate about a subject. To reject censorship of them, regardless, is to say that you reject utterly the notion that anyone has the right to dictate what opinions you are allowed to hold.
I disagree utterly with the anti-porn movement and regard them as deluded, but unlike those who merely chant the words that they'll stand up for another's right to an opinion, I'm happy to do so. I pity those contemptible to not hold their own views strongly enough to not censor.
Does it matter? If freedom is considered a fundamental right, it must include the freedom to advocate views you don't like. Yes, even if those views advocate not allowing you your freedom. Further, if a right of one person is removed through the abuse (not use) of another right of others, then it is the abusers who are in the wrong, no matter what that one person was saying or claiming.
It is the failure to recognize this that has been at the heart of all abuses of power. Many evil dictators are no better than one evil dictator, and arguably far far worse. One person you can imaginably persuade to moderate their views.
You DID try to moderate their views, right?......Right?
Ah. So I was correct on the army of evil dictators then.
No, I don't agree with the anti-porn person. I disagree with them utterly. But unlike those who merely mouth that they'll defend the other person's right to a view or to express an opinion (I imagine a lot of the censorous lot who flash-mobbed the Facebook abuse system have - at one time or another - said something like that), I'm actually here doing so rather than violating my own principles. If you say you stand for another's right to disagree with you, go ahead. I dare you to do so.
So what if you, I, and a million others disagree with them? What right do you have to abuse Facebook's complaint system through mob action to censor them?
If you don't want to be censored, if you object to being censored, you AUTOMATICALLY lose all rights to censor others, EVEN IF those others are advocating censorship.
A student has found that if you observe in the x-ray range you discover ordinary matter between the galaxies that was clearly evident in the early universe and isn't visible in other parts of the spectrum.
I'm not sure that it's altogether news that different frequencies let you see different things - to me, by far the biggest news is that despite having x-ray telescopes for a very long time and computers quite capable of crunching that data to detect potentially interesting observations, the astronomers have been opting for cheap student labor instead.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes they have. It's called Critical Path Analysis.
Well of course you'd have a problem if using reals. For four dimensions, you need to typecast to quaternions.
Cows don't have quite the brain capacity or (as recently demonstrated) technology or language sophistication of cetaceans, cows generally have much shorter lifespans, and harpoons at sea are generally not effrective or quick. So at least some of us object on grounds other than "bloody". Well, except in the usual British phrase of "you bloody morons!"
"Going" sounds superfluous given who we are talking about.
If you require a rule imposed by others in order to be ethical, civilization might as well give up and go home. A society that cannot function without having others think on their behalf isn't a society worth having. And if no individual can tell what is right from wrong without a TOS telling them, then we're all legally insane with nobody left to run the asylum. I give humans a bit more credit than that.
And, sure, Facebook is the final arbiter of what takes place on Facebook... ...except when you're the one being censored, when you become the final arbiter. Riiiight. Either they are or you are. Make up your mind and stick with it. If they are, you're abusing TOS by using the complaint system to censor others. Seems simple enough to me.
Schools teach material too slowly (which is why so many kids get bored at school). Given that there are 40 work hours in a week, it would not require a huge speedup to teach everything already covered, elementary business science (operational research requires you can draw a polygon, non-linear optimizations require that you can draw an S) and elementary economics theory (which is the same as elementary games theory and how many students do you know who object to learning about games?)
I don't know if that would match up with your suggestion, but I can't see how that could hurt and I can certainly see how optimization and strategy apply to so many facets of life that making them fundamental subjects could bring major benefits.
*lolcat mode enabled*
Oooooh! Dots!
I believe that telescopes observing Japan detected some abnormalities immediately prior to the earthquake, but one observation isn't enough to tell you much about how often those abnormalities occur without earthquakes, how many earthquakes occur without those specific abormalities or whether in the Italian case even if a suitable telescope had made the observation whether there'd be enough time from it being detected, confirmed and relayed over there to make any difference in evacuation. Or, for that matter, if anyone would have paid attention.
(It took half an hour to evacuate a small shopping mall in Manchester when a 1,000 lb bomb was discovered at the Arndale Center in the mid 90s that was due to go off. People wanted to finish shopping or eating first. That was an immediate threat to life and limb. What do you think the response would be to "we expect an earthquake sometime, possibly very soon"?)
Having said that, to say that there was zero risk (when there was no possible way of knowing that) was a blatant falsehood and the person saying it knew that. I have no problem with keelhauling a guy for professional misconduct. It might deter politically-appointed scientists saying what their masters want rather than what the evidence shows. We could have done with more keelhauling in the US regarding Bush's suppression of global warming data and the very disappointing saga of inaccurate claims by Obama appointees over the BP spill, not to mention the FDA's attrocious record of approving drugs that are not clinically proven.
How about: "We don't know how to predict earthquakes, the science doesn't exist, so to make predictions would be to lie."
If a seismologist states categorically that an earthquake is not going to happen, they are stating categorically that they CAN predict earthquakes (or at least their absence).
In the US, I seriously doubt that this would be laughed out of court. I doubt manslaughter would hold up, but judges would probably rule that the complainant had a right to their day in court precisely because the experts grievously abused their position of trust by telling a falsehood to placate them.
(FWIW, I'll link this in with TEPCO's communications. It is not that the reactor content in Japan went AWOL that upsets people, it is that TEPCO abused their position of trust by telling falsehoods to placate the public that upsets people. Placating, versus being honest, is NOT acceptable policy. Ever.)
Microsoft buys Skype. Skype announces a stoppage to all support for Linux. Skype suffers mysterious outage that gets fixed for non-Linux users.
To your first question, yes. The rule plays no favourites and chooses no sides. Ethics cannot be selectively blind and rights are either universal or non-existant. This is one time where there is no middle path.
To the second question, rights are universal or non-existant. If PornHarms did indeed engage in bogus complaints to effect a takedown, then they are equally guilty or equally innocent. You can pick whichever you like. What they can't be is more guilty or less guilty.
You say "live by the sword, die by the sword" but I'm willing to bet that unless you're a hermit in a cave that you've lived by many a sword that you'd scream blue murder over if they were ever applied to you. That you'd use the word "liberal" in such a manner merely proves that particular point. Nobody but a person who lives by the sword demeans a class of people merely because they don't like the views, and nobody but a sword-wielding maniac would confuse a liberal with a censor.
Fine, I acknowledged I could be wrong, no need for the biting.
Well, no. I don't agree. An archaeologist in the field can't be replaced by a computer down the hallway. It is quite impossible for a computer to tell you what you will find if you dig 7 feet at position X. On the other hand, a computer and a human eye can equally spot abnormalities in an x-ray image of intergalactic space. (Computers cannot be better, as to prevent false positives and false negatives, the algorithm must be calibrated by eye and the positives then validated by eye. What they CAN do better is sort through reams of useless junk to spot potential gems of data that can then be analyzed by experts.)
This doesn't mean that she didn't discover something significant. I'm happy to accept that she may well have done. That's not the issue. The issue is why, given the enormous amount of time the means of computerizing this sort of study has existed, students are doing the menial work. If students should be involved at all, they should be getting the results from the computer doing the menial work and then doing something REAL.
Far from a criticism of the student, who did a fine job with the dismally pathetic material available, my criticism is of those making inefficient use of student time.
If I recall correctly, authors are listed in the reverse order of importance. Thus, to be listed first is to be described as of least significance. Which, if I'm right, won't do her much credit in academia.
I was unaware that the right to express an opinion said anything about being rational or legitimate. Either they - and you - have a right to express opinions or they - and therefore you - do not.
Which would you prefer? To censor them is to say that you aren't entitled to a single opinion that isn't peer-reviewed, and that you are open to censorship if you happen to be passionate about a subject. To reject censorship of them, regardless, is to say that you reject utterly the notion that anyone has the right to dictate what opinions you are allowed to hold.
I disagree utterly with the anti-porn movement and regard them as deluded, but unlike those who merely chant the words that they'll stand up for another's right to an opinion, I'm happy to do so. I pity those contemptible to not hold their own views strongly enough to not censor.
Does it matter? If freedom is considered a fundamental right, it must include the freedom to advocate views you don't like. Yes, even if those views advocate not allowing you your freedom. Further, if a right of one person is removed through the abuse (not use) of another right of others, then it is the abusers who are in the wrong, no matter what that one person was saying or claiming.
It is the failure to recognize this that has been at the heart of all abuses of power. Many evil dictators are no better than one evil dictator, and arguably far far worse. One person you can imaginably persuade to moderate their views.
You DID try to moderate their views, right? ......Right?
Ah. So I was correct on the army of evil dictators then.
No, I don't agree with the anti-porn person. I disagree with them utterly. But unlike those who merely mouth that they'll defend the other person's right to a view or to express an opinion (I imagine a lot of the censorous lot who flash-mobbed the Facebook abuse system have - at one time or another - said something like that), I'm actually here doing so rather than violating my own principles. If you say you stand for another's right to disagree with you, go ahead. I dare you to do so.
If you don't like the SNR, my first question would be whether you're voting on the Firehose. My second question would be why not.
After that, I'll give up and go into a sulk on behalf of the Slashdot editors, contributors and advocators.
Damn, Rob. I was just about to go over there. You're spoiling the fun!
Ok, can we at least ask the Patron Saint of the Internet (there is one) to place a curse on K5?
So what if you, I, and a million others disagree with them? What right do you have to abuse Facebook's complaint system through mob action to censor them?
If you don't want to be censored, if you object to being censored, you AUTOMATICALLY lose all rights to censor others, EVEN IF those others are advocating censorship.
Gos is too busy maintaining the Linux kernel.
Sure it was paid for, but which costs more? A 1024-node supercomputer or an intern?
A student has found that if you observe in the x-ray range you discover ordinary matter between the galaxies that was clearly evident in the early universe and isn't visible in other parts of the spectrum.
I'm not sure that it's altogether news that different frequencies let you see different things - to me, by far the biggest news is that despite having x-ray telescopes for a very long time and computers quite capable of crunching that data to detect potentially interesting observations, the astronomers have been opting for cheap student labor instead.
And, apparently, 35% of the wildlife.
Some of those stars must have monsters wielding plasma rifles, right?