Well, while it was largely a joke, it was also not wholly rubbish:).
As others have pointed out, I suspect the Daily "Racist" makes much ado about nothing here-- med school is med school and there is, of course, a lot of "fact." As anyone who has been through 4-8 years of professional school may know [insert smiley], individual professors often have a tendency to insert their own perspectives or biases into their lessons, sometimes perhaps without noticing it or "unwittingly." (Equally people in a position of such "authority" can be made uncomfortable by someone pointing such quibbles and foibles out).
As an explanatory framework (not fact), evolution is critical to a good part of what medical school does-- you have to grapple with it. Not being a med school professor, I'm not particularly well-informed on whether you can pull it out and get relatively the same result. You probably could pull it out of a nursing curriculum, at least the ones I'm familiar with in the US, without much problem.
As for the heart of Twain's quote, it is more than quip. Knowledge (or explanatory frameworks) inevitably carries bias. Usually we believe that our current framework, paradigm or explanations are "true" (think classical mechanics) and that alternative paradigms (think Einstein and relativity) must be "wrong." It can take a long time for alternative, better explanations to take hold. Special Relativity was published in Annallen in 1905, yet it took well into the 1920s for Einstein to become truly famous and the theories to be entirely accepted.
Read the Lakatos-Kuhn debates for a quick primer.
Ultimately, evolution is just an "explanation" of the facts, not fact itself. It's a good explanation, and an explanation that's been substantively modified since Darwin. (Darwin, of course, is substantively misread in the popular consciousness, and one needs to really read some of him to "get it" and what he says and begin to understand what he was claiming). Alternatives certainly can and do exist-- they're just not as elegant, useful, or socially viable as explanations. And there's certainly no incompatibility with the idea of "Creation," if you take as true a proposition such as "God is the intelligent evolving machine called the Universe," which minus the word "machine" is pretty much a phrase from Genesis Chapter 1 (hey: the books is called Genesis, which is "evolving process", after all).
Read something like Stephen Jay Gould "Wonderful Life" for a primer there.
On that matter, if someone believes that "God" is an all-powerful human-like being sitting in a room somewhere directing everything, then they only need to look to good parts of the Bible (or Quu'an or such) a bit to be told that this is wrong-headed. As far as I can tell, the all-knowing all-powerful conception of a man-like God is largely an invention of King James, [my tongue is in my cheek here] intended to make the poor unwashed masses believe that he was the personal arm of God on Earth. It's not nearly as scriptual as the ignorant like to think [ok, the ignorant don't like to think]. And as another commenter put it, the ignorant, out-of-hand rejection of science and reason on so-called "biblical grounds" is something "that the Muslim world has picked up from the Christians."
"All that said," there is a little tiny wee bit of reason to suspect that all the facts etc you propose, have a lot of bias and culture in them. This is not a "bad thing;" perhaps its just the way things work!
Yum mm. Hummus is most yummous. British food [sic] sucks. But you know... Fortress Britian, Muslims are evils yada yada even if they can cook (or perform heart surgery). UK for the... UKians !
A particle is a wave is a particle-wave; all we can say about the universe, is what we can say about the universe; there's no such thing as a "real physical object."
I assure you that there are no eccentrics at Lawrence Livermore, and if there are, we are working hard at finding and removing them. -- Executive Director
You keep that stuff on your laptop and not in the cloud?:P Seriously, someone with physical access to your laptop, can access your email? Sooo 1990s!
Seriously, OP made it clear that he was technically bright (enough), that s/he was dealing with a police situation, not a technical one, and that s/he already had IP data. If someone feels silly enough to post low-quality information, they might as well be made fun of.
though of course there are lots of other 'frameworks' such as RoR, Symfony etc that one might also make comparisons to.
The two main things in the above:
WP lacks a developed permissions system. In the end, I've seen this lead to serious conflicts-- people want perms because module X requires them to be superadmin to do Y, then, they use those perms to create havoc (delete others content, for instance).
An unreviewed plugins system, especially in the theme layer. It's common enough that an organization chooses a theme based on 'look', which has serious obfuscated errors or worse (virus distribution or vulnerabilities) in the code.
Something like Drupal is a larger commitment, in terms of learning and resources, and not without its negatives (documentation, consistency etc all have serious issues at this point--- but those problems are worse in WP); but in the long term, it gives you the ability to do a lot more, and its a lot more standardized in the way it does those things.
Or to quote most of the firms I know in our metro: we just won't take on WP projects (again). It might seem attractive if you were coming from the DIY impuse, but once you've used a more developed framework, it just looks like a lot of very, very inconsistent hackery with a smooth admin backend.
FWIW; I can't really address a specific non-profit's situation, without a lot more details about it, and (some) non-profits tend to be resource-poor.
Uh... no offense... but WP pretty much vacuums in lots of ways already. Just that it's targeted to a market so ignorant that it won't notice. Sorta like Windoze.
Please, non-sir, take a course in elementary logic.
You proposed that ALL carriers should lock out IMEIs "reported stolen." I'm replying that that is absurd.
No police will *ever* investigate a stolen iPhone under normal circumstances, without someone seeing the theft. I'm sitting here will a Lieutenant, so believe me. What happens much more often, is that people "report" their phone "stolen" to their carrier, and file a police report, to get the "free" insurance upgrade.
Turning off those phones is a little stupid, no? Not to mention the huge liability risk, of allowing one carrier to turn off another carrier's phones, based on a third-party report? Are you kidding?
No one investigates these things, no one checks the record of calls-- perhaps, just perhaps, the outsourced call center dummy in the Philippines or India glances at the record of calls after the "theft," but no one is going to be doing an investigation. Over $300? Are you kidding?!?
Most fraud units won't look at anything less than $10,000. So, in the real world, you know, people may not plan to ditch their phone to get another, and just decide dumping it in a cafe, restaurant, lobby or parking lot. They may just "leave" it somewhere, and just not try to get it back. It's called "opportunity," or "lying to yourself." Or even-- I left it in the cafe across town, that's a 90-minute trip, I'd rather just collect the insurance.
Finally, most jurisdictions allow found property held for a reasonable period, sometimes as low as 7 days, to be claimed by the establishment and used or resold. C'mon.
Slashdot Mirror
Extremist groups are a parody of themselves.
But, oh, er, btw, oatmeal is about as attractive as the graham cracker. You cracker.
P.S. ^^ that pea comment was pretty darn funny.
Peas, please, give peas a chance...
I hope you are aware that my quote was actually something Einstein said ;)
Well, while it was largely a joke, it was also not wholly rubbish :).
As others have pointed out, I suspect the Daily "Racist" makes much ado about nothing here-- med school is med school and there is, of course, a lot of "fact." As anyone who has been through 4-8 years of professional school may know [insert smiley], individual professors often have a tendency to insert their own perspectives or biases into their lessons, sometimes perhaps without noticing it or "unwittingly." (Equally people in a position of such "authority" can be made uncomfortable by someone pointing such quibbles and foibles out).
As an explanatory framework (not fact), evolution is critical to a good part of what medical school does-- you have to grapple with it. Not being a med school professor, I'm not particularly well-informed on whether you can pull it out and get relatively the same result. You probably could pull it out of a nursing curriculum, at least the ones I'm familiar with in the US, without much problem.
As for the heart of Twain's quote, it is more than quip. Knowledge (or explanatory frameworks) inevitably carries bias. Usually we believe that our current framework, paradigm or explanations are "true" (think classical mechanics) and that alternative paradigms (think Einstein and relativity) must be "wrong." It can take a long time for alternative, better explanations to take hold. Special Relativity was published in Annallen in 1905, yet it took well into the 1920s for Einstein to become truly famous and the theories to be entirely accepted.
Read the Lakatos-Kuhn debates for a quick primer.
Ultimately, evolution is just an "explanation" of the facts, not fact itself. It's a good explanation, and an explanation that's been substantively modified since Darwin. (Darwin, of course, is substantively misread in the popular consciousness, and one needs to really read some of him to "get it" and what he says and begin to understand what he was claiming). Alternatives certainly can and do exist-- they're just not as elegant, useful, or socially viable as explanations. And there's certainly no incompatibility with the idea of "Creation," if you take as true a proposition such as "God is the intelligent evolving machine called the Universe," which minus the word "machine" is pretty much a phrase from Genesis Chapter 1 (hey: the books is called Genesis, which is "evolving process", after all).
Read something like Stephen Jay Gould "Wonderful Life" for a primer there.
On that matter, if someone believes that "God" is an all-powerful human-like being sitting in a room somewhere directing everything, then they only need to look to good parts of the Bible (or Quu'an or such) a bit to be told that this is wrong-headed. As far as I can tell, the all-knowing all-powerful conception of a man-like God is largely an invention of King James, [my tongue is in my cheek here] intended to make the poor unwashed masses believe that he was the personal arm of God on Earth. It's not nearly as scriptual as the ignorant like to think [ok, the ignorant don't like to think]. And as another commenter put it, the ignorant, out-of-hand rejection of science and reason on so-called "biblical grounds" is something "that the Muslim world has picked up from the Christians."
"All that said," there is a little tiny wee bit of reason to suspect that all the facts etc you propose, have a lot of bias and culture in them. This is not a "bad thing;" perhaps its just the way things work!
Seeking all knowledge, is human failing.
-- Sokrates
You can either ignore the lectures and be uninformed, or listen to them and be misinformed.
-- Mark Twain
God does not play dice.
-- Albert Einstein (aka Anti-science Jewish fundamentalist)
Yum mm. Hummus is most yummous. British food [sic] sucks. But you know... Fortress Britian, Muslims are evils yada yada even if they can cook (or perform heart surgery). UK for the... UKians !
Shit? You mean... The DSM IV doesn't hold all the answers?!?!!
But what Marx really said, is that the drug allowed us to stand the pain of the illness, until we were able to find the cure...
Evolution is the incarnation of the will of god/ Allah / Jane / whomever / the Universe. What's so hard about that ?
"The Duke" is already taken. And yeah, I figured the "real object" stuff came from the mind of the journalist, not the mind of a physicist :).
Yawn. Did these guys ever read Prince de Broglie?
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/Bohr_to_Waves/Bohr_to_Waves.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
A particle is a wave is a particle-wave; all we can say about the universe, is what we can say about the universe; there's no such thing as a "real physical object."
I'm sorry Dave, but your namespace change request has been denied, Dave.
Done. NeXt?
And we have a patent on it. Oxford, prepare to pay license fee!
Tell you what. Get me a 1:1 offset on my taxes, and *sure*, I'll fund it. Until then, you're trying to double dip :) !
I assure you that there are no eccentrics at Lawrence Livermore, and if there are, we are working hard at finding and removing them.
-- Executive Director
You keep that stuff on your laptop and not in the cloud? :P Seriously, someone with physical access to your laptop, can access your email? Sooo 1990s!
Seriously, OP made it clear that he was technically bright (enough), that s/he was dealing with a police situation, not a technical one, and that s/he already had IP data. If someone feels silly enough to post low-quality information, they might as well be made fun of.
Well... at the threat of drawing the usual ire of developers here, I might suggest you read:
http://www.chapterthree.com/blog/jennifer-lampton/wordpress-vs-drupal-saga-continues
though of course there are lots of other 'frameworks' such as RoR, Symfony etc that one might also make comparisons to.
The two main things in the above:
WP lacks a developed permissions system. In the end, I've seen this lead to serious conflicts-- people want perms because module X requires them to be superadmin to do Y, then, they use those perms to create havoc (delete others content, for instance).
An unreviewed plugins system, especially in the theme layer. It's common enough that an organization chooses a theme based on 'look', which has serious obfuscated errors or worse (virus distribution or vulnerabilities) in the code.
Something like Drupal is a larger commitment, in terms of learning and resources, and not without its negatives (documentation, consistency etc all have serious issues at this point--- but those problems are worse in WP); but in the long term, it gives you the ability to do a lot more, and its a lot more standardized in the way it does those things.
Or to quote most of the firms I know in our metro: we just won't take on WP projects (again). It might seem attractive if you were coming from the DIY impuse, but once you've used a more developed framework, it just looks like a lot of very, very inconsistent hackery with a smooth admin backend.
FWIW; I can't really address a specific non-profit's situation, without a lot more details about it, and (some) non-profits tend to be resource-poor.
Uh... no offense... but WP pretty much vacuums in lots of ways already. Just that it's targeted to a market so ignorant that it won't notice. Sorta like Windoze.
Your porn collection that valuable?
Please, non-sir, take a course in elementary logic.
You proposed that ALL carriers should lock out IMEIs "reported stolen." I'm replying that that is absurd.
No police will *ever* investigate a stolen iPhone under normal circumstances, without someone seeing the theft. I'm sitting here will a Lieutenant, so believe me. What happens much more often, is that people "report" their phone "stolen" to their carrier, and file a police report, to get the "free" insurance upgrade.
Turning off those phones is a little stupid, no? Not to mention the huge liability risk, of allowing one carrier to turn off another carrier's phones, based on a third-party report? Are you kidding?
No one investigates these things, no one checks the record of calls-- perhaps, just perhaps, the outsourced call center dummy in the Philippines or India glances at the record of calls after the "theft," but no one is going to be doing an investigation. Over $300? Are you kidding?!?
Most fraud units won't look at anything less than $10,000. So, in the real world, you know, people may not plan to ditch their phone to get another, and just decide dumping it in a cafe, restaurant, lobby or parking lot. They may just "leave" it somewhere, and just not try to get it back. It's called "opportunity," or "lying to yourself." Or even-- I left it in the cafe across town, that's a 90-minute trip, I'd rather just collect the insurance.
Finally, most jurisdictions allow found property held for a reasonable period, sometimes as low as 7 days, to be claimed by the establishment and used or resold. C'mon.