I suggest letting the scientists do science - i.e the models - and let software engineers do the implementation.
I'm quite sure your scientisits don't go out and chop wood to produce their own desks and paper either, right?
(... and when the scientists want to do statistics, they should consult statisticians)
Generally, the research grants I know of have just enough money to cover a grad student, some summer salary, travel to conferences. Software engineers as valuable as they may be, aren't in the budget. When the tools are available we do refrain from chopping wood, but often it is more cost effective to develop models in fairly dynamic research codes.
Right of free speech + right of association = right of groups, as corporations, to speak freely.
I believe the what is not appreciated in the above sentiment nor was apparently even considered by the Supreme Court is that corporations are not ' groups' as stated above, but are property. They can be bought and sold, unlike a group of like-minded individuals. This makes them fundamentally different from PACs, unions, churches and any other group of like-minded individuals.
What the Supreme Court was more interested in is not permitting the government, representing the voting citizens, to invoke laws effectively 'chilling (the) political speech' of for-profit corporations (from the Syllabus of CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION). Considerable effort is expended in discussing how the government position interferes with corporate free speech rights (already assuming that for-profit corporation have such a right). What they choose to neglect is the diluting effect of the so-called corporate free speech rights on my political voice.
Personally, I would go beyond the now over-turned laws and ban PACs funded from 'their general treasury funds,' on the ground that property (in contrast to the owners of property) can not hold a political opinion. Yes - I know the boundary between such an optimistic hope and complete delusion is very narrow.
When the 'cut the taxes' party starts talking about what programs to eliminate, I will start listening. Are they advocating cutting the military, the state police, education, road repairs, payments on the national debt? Or do they think these things will magically take care of themselves?
Until they are willing to stay what part of the state budget they will 'slash' then they are just hot air.
In some sense the constitution is inconsistent with corporations as individuals. An interpretation of this is that corporations are individuals which can be bought and sold which is slavery and was made unconstitutional by the 13th amendment .
Slashdot Mirror
I'm curious, which of the references above are from scientists?
I suggest letting the scientists do science - i.e the models - and let software engineers do the implementation.
I'm quite sure your scientisits don't go out and chop wood to produce their own desks and paper either, right?
(... and when the scientists want to do statistics, they should consult statisticians)
Generally, the research grants I know of have just enough money to cover a grad student, some summer salary, travel to conferences. Software engineers as valuable as they may be, aren't in the budget. When the tools are available we do refrain from chopping wood, but often it is more cost effective to develop models in fairly dynamic research codes.
Right of free speech + right of association = right of groups, as corporations, to speak freely.
I believe the what is not appreciated in the above sentiment nor was apparently even considered by the Supreme Court is that corporations are not ' groups' as stated above, but are property. They can be bought and sold, unlike a group of like-minded individuals. This makes them fundamentally different from PACs, unions, churches and any other group of like-minded individuals.
What the Supreme Court was more interested in is not permitting the government, representing the voting citizens, to invoke laws effectively 'chilling (the) political speech' of for-profit corporations (from the Syllabus of CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION). Considerable effort is expended in discussing how the government position interferes with corporate free speech rights (already assuming that for-profit corporation have such a right). What they choose to neglect is the diluting effect of the so-called corporate free speech rights on my political voice.
Personally, I would go beyond the now over-turned laws and ban PACs funded from 'their general treasury funds,' on the ground that property (in contrast to the owners of property) can not hold a political opinion. Yes - I know the boundary between such an optimistic hope and complete delusion is very narrow.
When the 'cut the taxes' party starts talking about what programs to eliminate, I will start listening. Are they advocating cutting the military, the state police, education, road repairs, payments on the national debt? Or do they think these things will magically take care of themselves? Until they are willing to stay what part of the state budget they will 'slash' then they are just hot air.
In some sense the constitution is inconsistent with corporations as individuals. An interpretation of this is that corporations are individuals which can be bought and sold which is slavery and was made unconstitutional by the 13th amendment .