If I go to a customer with my concept of a solution, and the customer comes back to me with some changes he wants, I will incorporate them in my concept, if possible or feasible. It does not mean that I am "flipflopping" about my concepts. It just means that I listen to my customer and will provide him with a solution as optimal as possible fit to his needs. But if a politican goes to his electorate with a concept how to govern, and the electorate (via polls) comes back with some changes, he should be barred from changing his concepts? Don't we want politicans who listen to the people? Do we really want stubborn executors of some pre-stabilized ideology instead?
If new information changes the situation, if one gets convinced that the own stance was misguided, why not make up your mind and change your opinion? People unable to react if circumstances change and old concepts cede to work should not be the masters of our fate.
Ok. This means that the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Constitutional Court) of Germany is wrong too, because the Zensurverbot in section 5 of the German Grundgesetz means exactly that: Censorship is the control of any media before publishing it.
So you have not only to convince me, but also the german Constitutional Court.
No. Censorship is, when you can't publish anything without governmental approval. This is a far cry from a private entity ending its contract with you because of something it didn't like.
Your information is more than 250 years outdated. Back in 1631, the german inquisitor Friedrich Spee published the Cautio Criminalis, in which he argued, that torture does not reveal truth, but is nothing than a reinforcement of the torturer's prejudices.
One of the main reasons to have a state and a judicary is to have contracts enforced. There is a whole body of law just for contract disputions, it's called Civil Law.
With rare exception, software projects end up half assed, 90% feature complete, and skip implementation of anything difficult. The "it's good enough" approach.
No, they aren't. But that's not the problem. Every single scientist has its own viewpoint. Most of them like to see their viewpoint spread. There are animosities, and there are personal feuds. There are people writing mails while being angry or in a generally bad mood. There is the pressure to get tenure and research grants. There is the attraction of conference travel and wellpaid positions in the industry. And there is just human error. Experiments and calculations can be faulty, are error prone and scientists can just be confused about details and not discover their own mistakes. But there are two things that overcome this problems:
a) replication of experiments. Results that can't be replicated are worthless, and papers based on those results can at most be considered scientific curiosities. This weeds out most bad science and fraud and helps to overcome errors and mistakes.
b) postulations and predictions A theory worth to consider does not only explain hitherto known facts, it allows to postulate facts which are not known yet. Any theory worth its salt is reducing possibilities. Any theory worth its salt can be formulated as a negation: "It is impossible that..." And that are those famous falsificable predictions. A theory predicts the impossibility of certain events. If those events happen anyway, then the theory failed (or the measurement was faulty;) ).
Bad science is not so much about betrayal, it is more like a badly designed and written program. Sooner or later, we discover most of the bugs, and if the bugs don't get fixed or the program doesn't do anything we need, we will stop using the program. And if the need for which the program was installed in the first place persists, we will look for a new program to use. Bad science will either be fixed or thrown out. And if the scientific question still exists, it will be answered by new science.
You seem to bei neither. Because you willfully ignore that any attempt to prove that climate scientists committed fraud resulted into nothing. Not a single instance of fraud! Despite lots of accusations and investigations, still no evidence of fraud. Instead every project so far to independently gather the data, analyze them and then prove the climate theories wrong (as a scientist would do it), resulted in the same predictions the climate scientists already made.
But instead of being a scientist and accepting the facts and thus thinking that the climate science might under certain circumstances have some valid claims, you continue to spread baseless claims of fraud.
The Global Cooling was a prediction for the year 5000, not for 2100. It might confuse you, but actually both Global Warming and Global Cooling could be correct. We have proof that in 1981, there were sufficiently exact climate models for the last 30 years, and we have good arguments, that the Global Cooling is a valid prediction too.
Yes, they can, because they implant the patented genes with a special shuttle vector or gene shuttle. The presence of this plasmid indicates that the gene in question wasn't mutated in the plant itself, but intentionally transported there.
Terminator seeds only work if they are not crossbreeding. But in most cases, it is about non-Monsanto seeds crossbreeding with Monsanto ones. And if the courts determine, that Monsanto had a patent on those plants too, then it's Monsanto's responsibility to keep the seeds from crossbreeding. No farmer not in a business relationship with Monsanto should be forced to throw some of their products away just because they are contaminated with Monsanto's patented DNA. It wasn't the farmer who planted the Monsanto seeds in the first place. So it's Monsanto negligently damaging the farmer's harvest.
There is a solution though. If Monsanto insists on claiming patent infrigment on those plants and their seeds which are the result of crossbreeding due to pollution of neighbouring non-Monsanto fields, and if this claim is uphold, they should have the responsibility to buy all plants and seeds which are contaminated with their patented DNA at the market prices for the incontaminated one until they manage it to create such seeds that the resulting plants don't pollute non-Monsanto ones.
But in 1977, a regular PC (e.g. an Apple ][) was $1298, about six times the cost of an Atari 2600. Today's enthusiast gamer PC setup will come in at around the same price (~$1300), and thus a console for $199 has about the same pricing distance as it was 35 years ago.
If you look at prices, don't just adjust for inflation, you have also to check for the alternatives then and today.
We do IT because it increases our productivity. IT is not an means to itself. IT is a tool. Don't mix up tool making with doing art! There are art forms, that are tools too, like design or typography. Also music can be a tool, like the elevator muzak or the music in commercials. But this art is not a means to itself.
But l'art pour l'art is something different.
I do IT for a living. I am a toolmaker. I expect the guys who buy my tools to make heavy use of it, and I don't expect them to pay me everytime they use it. There is no "hitting license" attached to a hammer. There is no counter in the screwdriver for the number of times it was turned. There is no regio coding for the wrench. There is no money flow to me everytime someone hits the servers I am maintaining and there is no license attached to the configuration files I wrote. If the customer decides to modify the switch setup I did for him, I don't get asked for a permission to create a derivate work.
I do art as a leisure. I like doing art. I don't do it for the money. Art is no tool I create. Art is a means to itself.
According to "Stand Your Ground", it's sufficient that you feel threatened by a perpetrator to use deadly force on him (at least that's the defense of Mr. Zimmerman, who went free because of it). Mr. Martin obviously felt threatened and was fully within his rights when attacking Mr. Zimmerman.
Martin was on his hometurf, he felt threatened and according to SYG was fully right to attack his opponent with deadly force. And that's following Mr. Zimmerman's reporting of the events.
According to "Stand your ground", confronting the dude and using force against him is completely within the limits of the law. So what Mr. Martin did was completely ok. What Mr. Zimmerman did, is quite questionable still.
If "Stand your ground" means, that you can use deadly force against someone you feel threatened by if you are on your own hometurf, and Mr. Zimmerman can rightfully claim this, then how comes, Mr. Martin should not have the right to confront someone he feels threatened by with deadly force?
If Mr. Zimmerman had this right, then Mr. Martin had it more, because his fears were obviously justified.
Slashdot Mirror
If I go to a customer with my concept of a solution, and the customer comes back to me with some changes he wants, I will incorporate them in my concept, if possible or feasible. It does not mean that I am "flipflopping" about my concepts. It just means that I listen to my customer and will provide him with a solution as optimal as possible fit to his needs.
But if a politican goes to his electorate with a concept how to govern, and the electorate (via polls) comes back with some changes, he should be barred from changing his concepts? Don't we want politicans who listen to the people? Do we really want stubborn executors of some pre-stabilized ideology instead?
Actually, his father is hungarian, and his mother, while french, is of jewish-greek origin.
There is nothing wrong with "flipflopping". One of the most successful chancellors of Germany is often quoted with "What do I care about my chitchat from yesterday?".
If new information changes the situation, if one gets convinced that the own stance was misguided, why not make up your mind and change your opinion? People unable to react if circumstances change and old concepts cede to work should not be the masters of our fate.
Ok. This means that the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Constitutional Court) of Germany is wrong too, because the Zensurverbot in section 5 of the German Grundgesetz means exactly that: Censorship is the control of any media before publishing it.
So you have not only to convince me, but also the german Constitutional Court.
No. Censorship is, when you can't publish anything without governmental approval. This is a far cry from a private entity ending its contract with you because of something it didn't like.
No, Germany has a tax only on empty media, but not on HDs.
Your information is more than 250 years outdated. Back in 1631, the german inquisitor Friedrich Spee published the Cautio Criminalis, in which he argued, that torture does not reveal truth, but is nothing than a reinforcement of the torturer's prejudices.
... which helps those already infected or dead because of non-vaccinations of others exactly how?
The problem is that your system only starts kicking in when the catastrophe has already happened.
One of the main reasons to have a state and a judicary is to have contracts enforced. There is a whole body of law just for contract disputions, it's called Civil Law.
A year with him is like a day... :)
Slashdot was founded in 1997 and only in 1999 got sold to Andover.net. Geeknet, Inc. is the reincarnation of the merger of Andover.net and VA Linux.
With rare exception, software projects end up half assed, 90% feature complete, and skip implementation of anything difficult. The "it's good enough" approach.
There. Fixed thad for you.
No, they aren't. But that's not the problem. Every single scientist has its own viewpoint. Most of them like to see their viewpoint spread. There are animosities, and there are personal feuds. There are people writing mails while being angry or in a generally bad mood. There is the pressure to get tenure and research grants. There is the attraction of conference travel and wellpaid positions in the industry. And there is just human error. Experiments and calculations can be faulty, are error prone and scientists can just be confused about details and not discover their own mistakes.
But there are two things that overcome this problems:
a) replication of experiments.
Results that can't be replicated are worthless, and papers based on those results can at most be considered scientific curiosities.
This weeds out most bad science and fraud and helps to overcome errors and mistakes.
b) postulations and predictions ;) ).
A theory worth to consider does not only explain hitherto known facts, it allows to postulate facts which are not known yet. Any theory worth its salt is reducing possibilities. Any theory worth its salt can be formulated as a negation: "It is impossible that..." And that are those famous falsificable predictions. A theory predicts the impossibility of certain events. If those events happen anyway, then the theory failed (or the measurement was faulty
Bad science is not so much about betrayal, it is more like a badly designed and written program. Sooner or later, we discover most of the bugs, and if the bugs don't get fixed or the program doesn't do anything we need, we will stop using the program. And if the need for which the program was installed in the first place persists, we will look for a new program to use. Bad science will either be fixed or thrown out. And if the scientific question still exists, it will be answered by new science.
You seem to bei neither. Because you willfully ignore that any attempt to prove that climate scientists committed fraud resulted into nothing. Not a single instance of fraud! Despite lots of accusations and investigations, still no evidence of fraud. Instead every project so far to independently gather the data, analyze them and then prove the climate theories wrong (as a scientist would do it), resulted in the same predictions the climate scientists already made.
But instead of being a scientist and accepting the facts and thus thinking that the climate science might under certain circumstances have some valid claims, you continue to spread baseless claims of fraud.
So, whatever you are, you are not a scientist.
The Global Cooling was a prediction for the year 5000, not for 2100. It might confuse you, but actually both Global Warming and Global Cooling could be correct. We have proof that in 1981, there were sufficiently exact climate models for the last 30 years, and we have good arguments, that the Global Cooling is a valid prediction too.
Yes, they can, because they implant the patented genes with a special shuttle vector or gene shuttle. The presence of this plasmid indicates that the gene in question wasn't mutated in the plant itself, but intentionally transported there.
Terminator seeds only work if they are not crossbreeding. But in most cases, it is about non-Monsanto seeds crossbreeding with Monsanto ones. And if the courts determine, that Monsanto had a patent on those plants too, then it's Monsanto's responsibility to keep the seeds from crossbreeding.
No farmer not in a business relationship with Monsanto should be forced to throw some of their products away just because they are contaminated with Monsanto's patented DNA. It wasn't the farmer who planted the Monsanto seeds in the first place. So it's Monsanto negligently damaging the farmer's harvest.
There is a solution though. If Monsanto insists on claiming patent infrigment on those plants and their seeds which are the result of crossbreeding due to pollution of neighbouring non-Monsanto fields, and if this claim is uphold, they should have the responsibility to buy all plants and seeds which are contaminated with their patented DNA at the market prices for the incontaminated one until they manage it to create such seeds that the resulting plants don't pollute non-Monsanto ones.
But in 1977, a regular PC (e.g. an Apple ][) was $1298, about six times the cost of an Atari 2600. Today's enthusiast gamer PC setup will come in at around the same price (~$1300), and thus a console for $199 has about the same pricing distance as it was 35 years ago.
If you look at prices, don't just adjust for inflation, you have also to check for the alternatives then and today.
You don't think this was a wyse decision?
We do IT because it increases our productivity. IT is not an means to itself. IT is a tool. Don't mix up tool making with doing art!
There are art forms, that are tools too, like design or typography. Also music can be a tool, like the elevator muzak or the music in commercials. But this art is not a means to itself.
But l'art pour l'art is something different.
I do IT for a living. I am a toolmaker. I expect the guys who buy my tools to make heavy use of it, and I don't expect them to pay me everytime they use it. There is no "hitting license" attached to a hammer. There is no counter in the screwdriver for the number of times it was turned. There is no regio coding for the wrench. There is no money flow to me everytime someone hits the servers I am maintaining and there is no license attached to the configuration files I wrote. If the customer decides to modify the switch setup I did for him, I don't get asked for a permission to create a derivate work.
I do art as a leisure. I like doing art. I don't do it for the money. Art is no tool I create. Art is a means to itself.
There is evidence. There is a dead guy and another one who shot him.
How's that not evidence enough?
According to "Stand Your Ground", it's sufficient that you feel threatened by a perpetrator to use deadly force on him (at least that's the defense of Mr. Zimmerman, who went free because of it). Mr. Martin obviously felt threatened and was fully within his rights when attacking Mr. Zimmerman.
Martin was on his hometurf, he felt threatened and according to SYG was fully right to attack his opponent with deadly force. And that's following Mr. Zimmerman's reporting of the events.
According to "Stand your ground", confronting the dude and using force against him is completely within the limits of the law. So what Mr. Martin did was completely ok. What Mr. Zimmerman did, is quite questionable still.
If "Stand your ground" means, that you can use deadly force against someone you feel threatened by if you are on your own hometurf, and Mr. Zimmerman can rightfully claim this, then how comes, Mr. Martin should not have the right to confront someone he feels threatened by with deadly force?
If Mr. Zimmerman had this right, then Mr. Martin had it more, because his fears were obviously justified.