people outside of broad academia try to jump in and play politics with the conduct of research...Openness is great in principle, but...Openness is great in principle
What exactly are Al Gore's scientific credentials? He has a journalism degree, childhood was basically no different than a trust-fund baby and according to Wikipedia he did poorly in science and math classes at Harvard. Except for his stance on AGW, he would be ridiculed beyond belief on Slashdot because if this resumé.
In almost all other disciplines, Slashdotters tend to prefer the experts to be experts in a field. But for climate research, experts can be anyone involved in any field at all, regardless of how little that field actually contributes to meteorology and climate otherwise.
yes... but that does not require artificially increasing the cost of said fuels with taxes aimed at reducing their use.
Rather than progressives/liberals spending money lobbying various governments to spend other people's money looking for alternatives, the progressive/liberals should spend their own money looking for alternatives. If a liberal actually believed that fossil fuels were running out he would be trying to corner the market on the alternatives so as to become wealthy beyond belief.
Or, Al "AGW" Gore's boxes as well. After all, he backed Tipper when she was running that campaign right before they figured out that they could climb higher by joining Bill and his crowd than in fighting them. if we are going to repudiate evereything someone has done because they promoted some censorship, let's be fair across the board.
These are the college students who are getting degrees now and will fill payrolls in 2020.
What kind of Comp Sci or related degree takes 10+ years. I would hope that someone currently in college is on a payroll (at least trying to be) well before 2020.
From the article:
Another didn't know what an invoice was.
Of course not, the Warez 'r' Us.com generally doesn't send those out to their "customers."
They seem to be looking at the really slooooow kids, the PhD candidates (are they really a different group) and those who have never purchased anything. No wonder they are finding a general lack of usable skills.
What about an employer that is not a corporation like a sole proprietor? Is that employer not also a private citizen and would have the right to watch what someone is doing with his property?
What if the employer is a family owned business? What if the employer is a small group of citizens? What, really, difference does it make how large or small the number of owners or number of employees?
If a society believes in and fosters the concept of private property then it must respect the rights of the owners of property to control that property.
So, in order to protect the rights of the employed citizens, we must trample on the rights of the employing citizens. It seems to be a fair trade to some. An unfair trade to others. And then there is the group that cannot even understand that the trade exists. That latter group needs to rethink their conceptions of the world.
Landlord... No because I am paying him to use the apartment and the landlord does retain some right to occasionally have a look that I am not destroying his property. The landlord is not paying me to use his property and provide a service to him.
ISP... No because I am paying them to carry my traffic. They are not paying me to use their service and equipment.
Government... Money is not really the property of the government. It is something that governments produce and distribute to facilitate commerce.
Notice the reversal of responsibilities between the employer/employee relationship and your red herrings (or whatever logical fallacy you were using).
Since the summary was talking about what an employer was allowed (or not) to do, why is most of the discussion focusing on whether it is bad for the government to be doing it. Actually, I think governments should be watching government employees to make sure they are actually working. If they are not working but the work is getting done, then we can lay some of them off and save the taxpayers some money.
The government should not be monitoring everyone for everything... It should only monitor those who it is paying to do something to make sure they are doing what they are paid to do and not doing things they are not supposed to do.
The political spectrum really is not a linear spectrum. It is circular. Think of a compass to picture this. Libertarians are north; Progressives are west and Conservatives are east. All of the various forms of dictatorships are at south.
Viewed this way, the only difference between communism and fascism really is "from which direction did you approach?" because they both restrict freedom to equal extents. They just make up different excuses for doing it.
We used to teach "your rights end where my nose begins." Now, it seems, we teach that "as long as you shatter everyone's nose, then your rights end slightly further in."
And Charlie Rangel demonstrated very well the standards to which he wanted tax law applied to his earnings...
Problem is, what legislators want others to do and what legislators want themselves to do are most often not one and the same. So we cannot use Markey's actions (or lack thereof) to be a guide as to what he expects the rest of the world to do.
What I can't understand is why this concept of just getting what you paid for is so damn difficult for people in office who seem to be championing Net Neutrality yet want to overly complicate things with regulation on top of regulation.
1. Creating long, complicated laws gives themselves (lawyers) and their best friends (lawyers) job security as they endlessly argue about what those long, complicated laws really prohibit or allow.
2. Creating long, complicated laws gives them an out when they choose not to follow them, AKA the Charlie "I didn't realize I was not in compliance because that stuff is complicated" Rangel excuse.
3. Unfortunately, society seems to believe that the proper measure of whether a particular Congress has been "effective" is "by how many reams did they expand the US Code?" We should be measuring their effectivenesss based on how much they trim from the law.
Yup, a bit more reeducating and we'll all happily live in one of Asimov's cities with the sliding sidewalks that run from St. Louis to Dallas and whatnot.
Yeah, public trans works great in the farming community of 900 people that is located about 30 miles from the neighboring farming community of 200 people, especially when you realize that the communities consist of a handful of businesses and town offices and a hundred or so multi-hundred acre farms. I find it both amusing and sad that so many don't even realize that most of the area of the US is not inside a large city or their suburbs.
Public transportation for most of the US (by area) is cost effective in the same sense that perpetual motion is possible.
In the US, we do have the right to move freely from town to town and state to state. Do we not modernize the means of transportation to facilitate that movement to now include motor vehicles or do we say that right only applies to the modes of transportation available in the 1700s?
If we don't modernize the modes of transportation to keep this right modern, why should we try to modernize the search prohibitions to apply to electronic communications?
The conversation was about whether EVs are as useful as current gasoline powered. Your response indicates that you believe they are if we change equality to mean different. Point is, I don't have to stop in any of those little places (as in a couple of buildings) with my current Yukon XL or my wife's Saturn L300 if I don't want to. The EV is not as useful in my opinion if it will require me to stop more frequently and not allow me to plan my expenditures and stops the same as what I currently drive.
Yes, I checked the routes and didn't really see any towns of consequence that I would want to stop in because, unlike you, I do consider price differences to be important to the conversation.
Yes, I was responding to a post that said
if you take US 50 instead.
In other words, if I give up the freedom to choose my route and take the one he suggests, then all is the same. Except that I had to give up something and do something different so it isn't really the same after all. My response had nothing to do with a gas station operator's freedom to charge more than the guys in the larger town 90 miles further down the road. With my current gas-powered vehicles I have the choice to skip them and it seems as though I would lose that choice with the current state of EVs.
And that is really what the EV pushing crowd is really all about right now. Pay attention to all the comments about how EVs only having half the range of gas not really being a problem because we really shouldn't have the freedom that gas is currently giving us.
If you happen to have keys to company doors on your keyring, you are required to return them. If you happen to have been given a company car, you are required to return it.
Just because you have been fired does not mean that you are free to keep whatever company property you may have in your possession. The question then becomes whether passwords are considered company property.
Also, as pointed out elsewhere... An administrator that had so little common sense as to not plan for his untimely demise (as in others already have those passwords should he suddenly die), should really be considered as nothing more than a bumbling fool by real professionals.
And yes, I believe most people would consider any code or other work-product on your computer but not yet committed to source control as company property (they already paid you for providing it) so you must help them access it. Yes, most company network admins can do this with their accounts and that can be considered good enough.
Have a look at crossing Wyoming: Cheyenne to Evanston is 357 miles and most stations in between charge about 25% more for gas than stations in those two towns. or look at Las Vegas, NV to Ely, NV which is 246 miles and nothing in between.
Also, have you ever traveled those routes? Do you think charging stations in the very small towns would not charge well above the rates of the ones in the larger towns? The gas stations do that. That is why people generally drive from Cheyenne to Evanston without stopping for fuel. It saves a whole lot of money.
Take a different route because my preferred one is not to your liking. And here I was thinking that progressives were all about personal choice and personal freedom.
The correct solution is simple: let's regulate gas pumps to only pump one cup per minute (or one teaspoon per minute) or whatever rate is necessary to make battery charging faster. That way we will all want to charge batteries because we can charge them way faster than we can fill an old-fashioned tank.
This is the same mentality that claims that the solution to everyone not rushing out to demand an EV or install solar panels or whatever is because we aren't artificially raising the price of hydrocarbons via taxes enough to make the "alternatives" competitive.
You do realize that all political commentators are paid by corporations? You do realize that The Huffington Post, Mother Jones magazine, Sierra Club, ACLU, etc. are also corporations?
Are you also advocating that NBC, CBS and ABC along with all of their associated other networks also make absolutely no comments about anything political?
How about the New York Times, the John D and Catherine T MacArthur foundation, any Hollywood production group, PBS, NPR, any other public radio or TV? They are all corporations of one form or another.
If these groups are not restricted, then what is the rationale used to distinguish which corporations are allowed the "freedom of speech" and which ones aren't?
Correct in that giving money is not speech. That is why we still have restrictions on direct donations. However, using money to make speech IS exactly what the Founding Fathers were trying to protect. Do you really think they didn't spend any of their money nor pool their money together to print pamphlets and such to rally support against King George?
Why is it so difficult to admit that it takes money to get a message out and that like-minded people pooling their money to do so is neither new nor immoral nor unethical?
One, as pointed out earlier, the so-called "Ban on Assault Weapons" banned no such thing as such things had already been banned. "Assault weapons" (term derived from the Germans Sturmgewehr, are either fully automatic or selective fire (semi-auto, burst, or full-auto). Those were banned in either the 30s or the 60s by federal law. Banning a semi-auto long rifle because it has a bayonet mount but not banning another semi-auto long rifle of the same caliber because it does not have the bayonet mount does not really do much in the way of anything. As Sen. Hatch said, "He'll consider banning bayonet mounts when he starts reading about drive-by bayonettings."
Two, banning any personal weapon or firearm from citizens that the government might issue to soldiers or police goes against the thinking of many of the Founding Fathers.
Slashdot Mirror
people outside of broad academia try to jump in and play politics with the conduct of research ...Openness is great in principle, but...Openness is great in principle
What exactly are Al Gore's scientific credentials? He has a journalism degree, childhood was basically no different than a trust-fund baby and according to Wikipedia he did poorly in science and math classes at Harvard. Except for his stance on AGW, he would be ridiculed beyond belief on Slashdot because if this resumé.
In almost all other disciplines, Slashdotters tend to prefer the experts to be experts in a field. But for climate research, experts can be anyone involved in any field at all, regardless of how little that field actually contributes to meteorology and climate otherwise.
yes... but that does not require artificially increasing the cost of said fuels with taxes aimed at reducing their use.
Rather than progressives/liberals spending money lobbying various governments to spend other people's money looking for alternatives, the progressive/liberals should spend their own money looking for alternatives. If a liberal actually believed that fossil fuels were running out he would be trying to corner the market on the alternatives so as to become wealthy beyond belief.
Or, Al "AGW" Gore's boxes as well. After all, he backed Tipper when she was running that campaign right before they figured out that they could climb higher by joining Bill and his crowd than in fighting them. if we are going to repudiate evereything someone has done because they promoted some censorship, let's be fair across the board.
the same way we put George Washington's slave ownership in the context of his time.
Most progressives seem to put it into this context: "He owned slaves so anything he did or said is evil and is to be ignored.
From the article:
These are the college students who are getting degrees now and will fill payrolls in 2020.
What kind of Comp Sci or related degree takes 10+ years. I would hope that someone currently in college is on a payroll (at least trying to be) well before 2020.
From the article:
Another didn't know what an invoice was.
Of course not, the Warez 'r' Us.com generally doesn't send those out to their "customers."
They seem to be looking at the really slooooow kids, the PhD candidates (are they really a different group) and those who have never purchased anything. No wonder they are finding a general lack of usable skills.
What about an employer that is not a corporation like a sole proprietor? Is that employer not also a private citizen and would have the right to watch what someone is doing with his property?
What if the employer is a family owned business? What if the employer is a small group of citizens? What, really, difference does it make how large or small the number of owners or number of employees?
If a society believes in and fosters the concept of private property then it must respect the rights of the owners of property to control that property.
So, in order to protect the rights of the employed citizens, we must trample on the rights of the employing citizens. It seems to be a fair trade to some. An unfair trade to others. And then there is the group that cannot even understand that the trade exists. That latter group needs to rethink their conceptions of the world.
Landlord... No because I am paying him to use the apartment and the landlord does retain some right to occasionally have a look that I am not destroying his property. The landlord is not paying me to use his property and provide a service to him.
ISP... No because I am paying them to carry my traffic. They are not paying me to use their service and equipment.
Government... Money is not really the property of the government. It is something that governments produce and distribute to facilitate commerce.
Notice the reversal of responsibilities between the employer/employee relationship and your red herrings (or whatever logical fallacy you were using).
Since the summary was talking about what an employer was allowed (or not) to do, why is most of the discussion focusing on whether it is bad for the government to be doing it. Actually, I think governments should be watching government employees to make sure they are actually working. If they are not working but the work is getting done, then we can lay some of them off and save the taxpayers some money.
The government should not be monitoring everyone for everything... It should only monitor those who it is paying to do something to make sure they are doing what they are paid to do and not doing things they are not supposed to do.
Seriously...
The political spectrum really is not a linear spectrum. It is circular. Think of a compass to picture this. Libertarians are north; Progressives are west and Conservatives are east. All of the various forms of dictatorships are at south.
Viewed this way, the only difference between communism and fascism really is "from which direction did you approach?" because they both restrict freedom to equal extents. They just make up different excuses for doing it.
I think Asimov had them first but his were simply for pedestrians.
We used to teach "your rights end where my nose begins." Now, it seems, we teach that "as long as you shatter everyone's nose, then your rights end slightly further in."
Glad to have that cleared up.
And Charlie Rangel demonstrated very well the standards to which he wanted tax law applied to his earnings...
Problem is, what legislators want others to do and what legislators want themselves to do are most often not one and the same. So we cannot use Markey's actions (or lack thereof) to be a guide as to what he expects the rest of the world to do.
What I can't understand is why this concept of just getting what you paid for is so damn difficult for people in office who seem to be championing Net Neutrality yet want to overly complicate things with regulation on top of regulation.
1. Creating long, complicated laws gives themselves (lawyers) and their best friends (lawyers) job security as they endlessly argue about what those long, complicated laws really prohibit or allow.
2. Creating long, complicated laws gives them an out when they choose not to follow them, AKA the Charlie "I didn't realize I was not in compliance because that stuff is complicated" Rangel excuse.
3. Unfortunately, society seems to believe that the proper measure of whether a particular Congress has been "effective" is "by how many reams did they expand the US Code?" We should be measuring their effectivenesss based on how much they trim from the law.
Yup, a bit more reeducating and we'll all happily live in one of Asimov's cities with the sliding sidewalks that run from St. Louis to Dallas and whatnot.
Yeah, public trans works great in the farming community of 900 people that is located about 30 miles from the neighboring farming community of 200 people, especially when you realize that the communities consist of a handful of businesses and town offices and a hundred or so multi-hundred acre farms. I find it both amusing and sad that so many don't even realize that most of the area of the US is not inside a large city or their suburbs.
Public transportation for most of the US (by area) is cost effective in the same sense that perpetual motion is possible.
Are you sure about the right vs. privilege?
In the US, we do have the right to move freely from town to town and state to state. Do we not modernize the means of transportation to facilitate that movement to now include motor vehicles or do we say that right only applies to the modes of transportation available in the 1700s?
If we don't modernize the modes of transportation to keep this right modern, why should we try to modernize the search prohibitions to apply to electronic communications?
The conversation was about whether EVs are as useful as current gasoline powered. Your response indicates that you believe they are if we change equality to mean different. Point is, I don't have to stop in any of those little places (as in a couple of buildings) with my current Yukon XL or my wife's Saturn L300 if I don't want to. The EV is not as useful in my opinion if it will require me to stop more frequently and not allow me to plan my expenditures and stops the same as what I currently drive.
Yes, I checked the routes and didn't really see any towns of consequence that I would want to stop in because, unlike you, I do consider price differences to be important to the conversation.
Yes, I was responding to a post that said
if you take US 50 instead.
In other words, if I give up the freedom to choose my route and take the one he suggests, then all is the same. Except that I had to give up something and do something different so it isn't really the same after all. My response had nothing to do with a gas station operator's freedom to charge more than the guys in the larger town 90 miles further down the road. With my current gas-powered vehicles I have the choice to skip them and it seems as though I would lose that choice with the current state of EVs.
And that is really what the EV pushing crowd is really all about right now. Pay attention to all the comments about how EVs only having half the range of gas not really being a problem because we really shouldn't have the freedom that gas is currently giving us.
Not exactly true.
If you happen to have keys to company doors on your keyring, you are required to return them. If you happen to have been given a company car, you are required to return it.
Just because you have been fired does not mean that you are free to keep whatever company property you may have in your possession. The question then becomes whether passwords are considered company property.
Also, as pointed out elsewhere... An administrator that had so little common sense as to not plan for his untimely demise (as in others already have those passwords should he suddenly die), should really be considered as nothing more than a bumbling fool by real professionals.
And yes, I believe most people would consider any code or other work-product on your computer but not yet committed to source control as company property (they already paid you for providing it) so you must help them access it. Yes, most company network admins can do this with their accounts and that can be considered good enough.
Oh yeah, Obamacare was definitely the path of least resistance.
In other words...
Give up some more freedom for the sake of keeping the freedom-loving progressives happy.
Have a look at crossing Wyoming: Cheyenne to Evanston is 357 miles and most stations in between charge about 25% more for gas than stations in those two towns. or look at Las Vegas, NV to Ely, NV which is 246 miles and nothing in between.
Also, have you ever traveled those routes? Do you think charging stations in the very small towns would not charge well above the rates of the ones in the larger towns? The gas stations do that. That is why people generally drive from Cheyenne to Evanston without stopping for fuel. It saves a whole lot of money.
Take a different route because my preferred one is not to your liking. And here I was thinking that progressives were all about personal choice and personal freedom.
The correct solution is simple: let's regulate gas pumps to only pump one cup per minute (or one teaspoon per minute) or whatever rate is necessary to make battery charging faster. That way we will all want to charge batteries because we can charge them way faster than we can fill an old-fashioned tank.
This is the same mentality that claims that the solution to everyone not rushing out to demand an EV or install solar panels or whatever is because we aren't artificially raising the price of hydrocarbons via taxes enough to make the "alternatives" competitive.
What different vehicles with different needs? In the poster's Utopia, we will all ENJOY driving identical somethings.
Just to be clear...
You do realize that all political commentators are paid by corporations? You do realize that The Huffington Post, Mother Jones magazine, Sierra Club, ACLU, etc. are also corporations?
Are you also advocating that NBC, CBS and ABC along with all of their associated other networks also make absolutely no comments about anything political?
How about the New York Times, the John D and Catherine T MacArthur foundation, any Hollywood production group, PBS, NPR, any other public radio or TV? They are all corporations of one form or another.
If these groups are not restricted, then what is the rationale used to distinguish which corporations are allowed the "freedom of speech" and which ones aren't?
Correct in that giving money is not speech. That is why we still have restrictions on direct donations. However, using money to make speech IS exactly what the Founding Fathers were trying to protect. Do you really think they didn't spend any of their money nor pool their money together to print pamphlets and such to rally support against King George?
Why is it so difficult to admit that it takes money to get a message out and that like-minded people pooling their money to do so is neither new nor immoral nor unethical?
One, as pointed out earlier, the so-called "Ban on Assault Weapons" banned no such thing as such things had already been banned. "Assault weapons" (term derived from the Germans Sturmgewehr, are either fully automatic or selective fire (semi-auto, burst, or full-auto). Those were banned in either the 30s or the 60s by federal law. Banning a semi-auto long rifle because it has a bayonet mount but not banning another semi-auto long rifle of the same caliber because it does not have the bayonet mount does not really do much in the way of anything. As Sen. Hatch said, "He'll consider banning bayonet mounts when he starts reading about drive-by bayonettings."
Two, banning any personal weapon or firearm from citizens that the government might issue to soldiers or police goes against the thinking of many of the Founding Fathers.