The problem with caveat emptor, especially when it comes to education, is that the people who want to take a computer programming bootcamp are mostly the people who know the least about computer programming and are thus the least qualified to tell the difference between a scam and a legitimate computer programming syllabus.
If you think THAT's bad, you should see what happened to a journal "skeptical" of climate science last week:
The nepotism and scientific malpractice became so rampant that the publisher of Pattern Recognition in Physics actually had to shut the whole thing down (it was becoming an embarrassment)! There's your fraud.
The sad part is that no matter how many times you debunk that talking point "skeptics" of climate science will just keep repeating it forever.
That kind of behavior doesn't sound like honest skepticism to me.
Ordinarily I would recommend that you put your opinion in a paper but the only journal with low enough standards to publish it just got shutdown for scientific malpractice.
Then we should be afraid [Social Darwinism]. Very afraid. [Eugenics]
Yesterday Creationists confused the science of Evolution with the political application of Evolution to public policy (Social Darwinism, & Eugenics). They were wrong. Politics never disprove science; only evidence can do that.
Today "skeptics" of climate change tell us that the science of climate change is wrong because of the possible irresponsible political applications of climate science to public policy. They too are wrong. Politics never disprove science; only evidence can do that.
" If Darwin's theory had come from a computer model and it turned out his computer model didn't match real world observations, nobody would believe it."
The people who have actually compared the model projections to observed climate changes over the past two decades have found the models to be accurate.
A scientific consensus forms when almost all scientists within a field of study are convinced, based on the strength of the available evidence, that a theory that is within their field of study is correct.
Global Climate Change has become the consensus position of Climatologists the same way that Evolution has become the consensus position of Biologists and the same way that General Relativity has become the consensus position of Physicists.
Take a look at the arguments used by Creationists in the Responsive Ed workbook:
Many of them are very similar to the arguments used by "skeptics" of Global Climate Change.
I used to use "TFGH" so that (like "ESDF") there were extra buttons in each direction, but also so that I could reach more of the # keys easily (to switch between weapons). Once I got a mouse with a scroll wheel I no longer needed to reach the # keys quickly and converted to "WASD" because it was the default.
I can't believe that Anti Cheat didn't get the joke. That is something so many Climate Change "skeptics" just lack the capacity to get. It worries me when basic critical thinking is required and just isn't there. This is why science is sacrificed over a blind religion. Fact is, climate science "skepticism" has become a religion for some. Sad.
"You cann dress it up and call it a ratio all you want but in the end, it is telling companies they cannot pay someone over a certain amount."
Wrong.
A 12:1 ratio just means that if you want to pay your CEO $12million/year you just have raise the wage of your lowest level employees up to $1million/year.
The proposed law would do nothing to forbid that.
Stretching the word "hurt" to include sitting-in at a place of business is compatible with the way some people stretch the word "theft" to include taxes.
The comment I'm replying to is the perfect example of why people are so tired of Obama-haters:
Because you can't seem to limit yourselves to talking about how much you hate his healthcare plan (or anything else about him for that matter), even when it has absolutly nothing to do with the topic at hand.
You don't like his plan: everybody everwhere in the world has heard your complaints about a million times already; give it a goddamn rest.
Just save your two minutes of hate for the next "What's wrong with HealthCare.gov?" article of which there is sure to be one every day for the next few months.
The IPCC creates reports based on the scientific studies of Climatologists.
These reports include both natural and human contributions to climate change.
The IPCC could not have come to the conclusion that human activity is partly responsible for the current period of warming if they hadn't looked at natural contributions.
NASA's Earth Observatory has a great article on the topic: "Climate model simulations that consider only natural solar variability and volcanic aerosols since 1750—omitting observed increases in greenhouse gases—are able to fit the observations of global temperatures only up until about 1950. After that point, the decadal trend in global surface warming cannot be explained without including the contribution of the greenhouse gases added by humans." Source (emphasis mine).
The description of the project: An attempt to explain the current period of warming without considering human contributions sounds like a repeat of the Koch brothers funded project "Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature" (BEST).
I'll let the founder of BEST, Richard Muller, summarize their findings: "Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause." Richard Muller
Maybe what you've described happens in places like Cuba (maybe), but it's pretty unlikely to happen in first world democracies with national healthcare systems.
It sounds to me like someone once told you a story that reeks of BS and you were gullible enough to fall for it because it fits with your ideological narrative.
I should explain what I mean a little more clearly:
I live in a country with a single-payer healthcare system. I'm pretty sure that even if a whole hospital consumed its entire year's budget before the end of the year that the provincial government would just take out a loan to cover the unexpected uptick in services required. Studies would be performed (after the fact) to determine why the actual cost didn't match the budget.
I'm pretty sure that if anyone was denied medical service "because the money has run out" that the provincial government (or, at least the opposition parties) would howl for an official inquiry.
"Every doctor I've known (which admittedly isn't many) who has worked in a country with a nationalized health care system always talks about how it is problematic because as the end of the year approaches they have to stop caring for their patients because the money has run out."
Where has that ever happened? Name the country and, for bonus points, cite examples of where people were denied services "because the money has run out".
"Without the incentive/pressure of investors looking for a return however, there will always be "just one or two more things" to finish up and the game will never actually get released."
Sure, but the other side of that coin is that Chris Roberts retains full creative control over the project.
No focus groups or market testing to ensure that the game will be as profitable as possible (and, as a side effect, water down the game).
Similarly, with movies, I can't think of an example of a movie where I liked the theatrical release better than the director's cut.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with caveat emptor, especially when it comes to education, is that the people who want to take a computer programming bootcamp are mostly the people who know the least about computer programming and are thus the least qualified to tell the difference between a scam and a legitimate computer programming syllabus.
If you think THAT's bad, you should see what happened to a journal "skeptical" of climate science last week:
The nepotism and scientific malpractice became so rampant that the publisher of Pattern Recognition in Physics actually had to shut the whole thing down (it was becoming an embarrassment)! There's your fraud.
The sad part is that no matter how many times you debunk that talking point "skeptics" of climate science will just keep repeating it forever.
That kind of behavior doesn't sound like honest skepticism to me.
Ordinarily I would recommend that you put your opinion in a paper but the only journal with low enough standards to publish it just got shutdown for scientific malpractice.
Then we should be afraid [Social Darwinism]. Very afraid. [Eugenics]
Yesterday Creationists confused the science of Evolution with the political application of Evolution to public policy (Social Darwinism, & Eugenics). They were wrong. Politics never disprove science; only evidence can do that.
Today "skeptics" of climate change tell us that the science of climate change is wrong because of the possible irresponsible political applications of climate science to public policy. They too are wrong. Politics never disprove science; only evidence can do that.
" If Darwin's theory had come from a computer model and it turned out his computer model didn't match real world observations, nobody would believe it."
That is your opinion, but I prefer facts.
"UN climate change projections made in 1990 'coming true'
Climate change projections made over two decades ago have stood the test of time, according to a report published Monday in the journal Nature."
http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2012/12/un-climate-change-projections-made-in-1990-coming-true.html (article links to the paper in Nature)
The people who have actually compared the model projections to observed climate changes over the past two decades have found the models to be accurate.
A scientific consensus forms when almost all scientists within a field of study are convinced, based on the strength of the available evidence, that a theory that is within their field of study is correct.
Global Climate Change has become the consensus position of Climatologists the same way that Evolution has become the consensus position of Biologists and the same way that General Relativity has become the consensus position of Physicists.
Take a look at the arguments used by Creationists in the Responsive Ed workbook:
Many of them are very similar to the arguments used by "skeptics" of Global Climate Change.
I used to use "TFGH" so that (like "ESDF") there were extra buttons in each direction, but also so that I could reach more of the # keys easily (to switch between weapons). Once I got a mouse with a scroll wheel I no longer needed to reach the # keys quickly and converted to "WASD" because it was the default.
I can't believe that Anti Cheat didn't get the joke. That is something so many Climate Change "skeptics" just lack the capacity to get. It worries me when basic critical thinking is required and just isn't there. This is why science is sacrificed over a blind religion. Fact is, climate science "skepticism" has become a religion for some. Sad.
I would guess that the author is trying to remind us that yesterday's tragedy can happen again tomorrow so long as we do nothing about it today.
The streets will run red with marinara sauce for this outrage!
"You cann dress it up and call it a ratio all you want but in the end, it is telling companies they cannot pay someone over a certain amount."
Wrong.
A 12:1 ratio just means that if you want to pay your CEO $12million/year you just have raise the wage of your lowest level employees up to $1million/year.
The proposed law would do nothing to forbid that.
In our house, VHS won because longer tapes were available to record more porn.
Stretching the word "hurt" to include sitting-in at a place of business is compatible with the way some people stretch the word "theft" to include taxes.
The comment I'm replying to is the perfect example of why people are so tired of Obama-haters:
Because you can't seem to limit yourselves to talking about how much you hate his healthcare plan (or anything else about him for that matter), even when it has absolutly nothing to do with the topic at hand.
You don't like his plan: everybody everwhere in the world has heard your complaints about a million times already; give it a goddamn rest.
Just save your two minutes of hate for the next "What's wrong with HealthCare.gov?" article of which there is sure to be one every day for the next few months.
"Whatever your beef with your political opponents, sneering at their education only makes you look ridiculous."
That's some pretty big talk from a person who's sig line is: "Somewhere in Chicago a community is missing an organizer."
Here's one for you:
Whatever your beef with your political opponents, sneering at their community service only makes you look ridiculous.
The IPCC creates reports based on the scientific studies of Climatologists.
These reports include both natural and human contributions to climate change.
The IPCC could not have come to the conclusion that human activity is partly responsible for the current period of warming if they hadn't looked at natural contributions.
NASA's Earth Observatory has a great article on the topic:
"Climate model simulations that consider only natural solar variability and volcanic aerosols since 1750—omitting observed increases in greenhouse gases—are able to fit the observations of global temperatures only up until about 1950. After that point, the decadal trend in global surface warming cannot be explained without including the contribution of the greenhouse gases added by humans."
Source (emphasis mine).
The description of the project: An attempt to explain the current period of warming without considering human contributions sounds like a repeat of the Koch brothers funded project "Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature" (BEST).
I'll let the founder of BEST, Richard Muller, summarize their findings:
"Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."
Richard Muller
Maybe what you've described happens in places like Cuba (maybe), but it's pretty unlikely to happen in first world democracies with national healthcare systems.
It sounds to me like someone once told you a story that reeks of BS and you were gullible enough to fall for it because it fits with your ideological narrative.
I should explain what I mean a little more clearly:
I live in a country with a single-payer healthcare system. I'm pretty sure that even if a whole hospital consumed its entire year's budget before the end of the year that the provincial government would just take out a loan to cover the unexpected uptick in services required. Studies would be performed (after the fact) to determine why the actual cost didn't match the budget.
I'm pretty sure that if anyone was denied medical service "because the money has run out" that the provincial government (or, at least the opposition parties) would howl for an official inquiry.
It would be a lot easier to believe you if you provided examples of this happening.
"Every doctor I've known (which admittedly isn't many) who has worked in a country with a nationalized health care system always talks about how it is problematic because as the end of the year approaches they have to stop caring for their patients because the money has run out."
Where has that ever happened? Name the country and, for bonus points, cite examples of where people were denied services "because the money has run out".
"Without the incentive/pressure of investors looking for a return however, there will always be "just one or two more things" to finish up and the game will never actually get released."
Sure, but the other side of that coin is that Chris Roberts retains full creative control over the project.
No focus groups or market testing to ensure that the game will be as profitable as possible (and, as a side effect, water down the game).
Similarly, with movies, I can't think of an example of a movie where I liked the theatrical release better than the director's cut.
I have Ubuntu as a host OS and I run Windows XP in a VirtualBox to play old games like "Planescape: Torment" or "Fallout: Tactics" (nothing fancy).