As for your minority dissent argument (A few "scientists" must be heretics, because the majority disagrees), you might consider that Galileo was considered a heretic because of his accurate minority opinion.
The thing about sience is that eventually all these heretics like Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, Darwin, Einstein... made it into the mainstream. The majority of other people who were considered fruitcakes at the time they presented their ideas, are still considered fruitcakes. That's because after a long period of deliberation and initial rejection of their ideas, other scientist were not forced to accept them by the overwhelming evidence. Though obviously the scientific mainstream is always lagging behind the thought leaders, it will eventually move onto the right path. We know that because the result of science - increased knowledge about the workings of the world, is measurable: we can now send vehicles to Mars, we can run computer networks all around the globe, we can travel to far away destinations in jet planes which use GPS navigation systems. None of these things were possible in Galileo's time. At any given time (unless you are personally an expert in the field) it makes more sense to trust the scientific mainstream then the possible genuises who could also be possible fruitcakes. As we know from observation the genius to fruitcake ratio is very low, and the scientific mainstream will identify the geniuses in time - as it has always done.
The best way for a scientist to make a career is to be part of the genius vs fruitcake analysis process. There are no nobel prizes handed out for people who write articles stating that they agree with the already established findings of the mainstream, or that they've repeated what many others before them have already measured. If you want funding, recogition and respect, you need to come up with things others have not thought of. If you can take an established theory and punch holes into it, you've struck gold. It's your own self-interest which is moving forward your field of research.
One of the problems in Europe is that the vegetation is geared towards cold weather. During the last ice age vegetation which needed more heat was slowly pushed south. In America it just moved back north once the temperature was on the rise again, but in America the mountain ranges run north-south, while in Europe they run east-west. So in Germany only the vegetation suited for northern climate survived. This vegetation has not been tested against parasites which like it warm.
So even assuming that Germans will be healthier when the weather is warmer, there could be other problems when the forests are destroyed by parasites and the top soil washes away.
The big deal is, that US society is now so morally bankrupt that we don't even worry about blatant unethical behaviour anymore. As long as lying and cheating results in someone profiting from it, it's not just fine and dandy - it's all but required! So if you ever take a job in which you somehow have to interact with the public you'd better get used to lying, cause if someone tries to force you into unethical behaviour, the public will be on his side. If something mildly inconvenient happens to him because he's found out - well then the public will feel sorry for him.
There IS a huge double standard when it comes to criticizing Christianity.
Whose double-standard, though? I'm ok with putting bibles or korans into the toilet, if someone thinks that's art. Personally I think it's retarded, but it's still free expression and I don't need to like it. I accept it because I'm for free expression, and that means I need to respect other people's _right_ to express themselves freely, too. Now those muslims who burn embassies and kill people because of some cartoons, probably do not actually believe in free expression. While their actions would make them assholes, it does not make them hypocritical - they don't claim to want everybody to be free, they want everybody to live according to their rules.
Now if you refer to people who complain about prisoners being forced to watch something destroyed which they hold dear, but not complaining about christian symbols being defiled in museums - there is a difference in these situations. Certainly both cases are not torture, but I don't think it's something which a civilized country should do to prisoners. If it became standard practice in the US to urinate on bibles in front of Christians prisoners, I would think that to be uncivilized, too.
BTW, while I'm at it "pain approaching that of organ failure" - I'd really recommend some people to visit an ER, and watch patients with kidney stones cry. Anybody who thinks inflicting that on purpose wouldn't be torture is a deranged monster.
Sorry, I don't mean this in an unfriendly way, but you don't know what capitalism is. It's not another word for "economy", nor does it mean "business". Capitalism is an economic theory which claims that the best economic results are achieved under a specific set of conditions. You can argue that patents are good for the economy if you like, but you should be aware that you are then automatically arguing that capitalism is flawed as an economic theory. (Which is fair enough, if that's what you want to argue.)
What irks me is that many people treat capitalism as if it was holy truth as long as thats convenient, then completely abandon its theory when some other economic aspect is discussed.
Patents and capitalism don't belong in the same category. Patents explicitly prevent the market from being free, that's the whole point of issuing them.
I don't measure the success of a healthcare system based on how cheap it is per-capita. I want to know how well I'll be cared for if I need medical attention.
According to the article quoted: "Overall, Canada did better, and in fact we found a statistically significant five per cent mortality advantage to people with diagnoses in Canada compared to their counterparts in the United States...". So that would mean you get on average better treatment. Of course if you are well off you might not care so much that poor Canadians get better healthcare than poor Americans, and might prefer a situation where well-off Americans receive better health care than well-off Canadians... (The article doesn't state whether this applies, but that could be possible.)
In every society you get what you pay for.
Getting exactly what you pay for is a statistical anomaly at best.:-) There is nothing in a capitalist economy which would make that happen - prices are determined by supply and demand, not by some mystical rule that you should get fair value for good money.
I don't see why even the investigation should have been justified. There is nothing in the web comic which could be construed as being threatening. I can see that someone might hear part of the conversation, and get spooked about that part, but I can't see how you could get spooked reading the comic, that's just way outside of the way any normal person would read it. That such a flimsy excuse would cause a police investigation, even to the point of bothering the guy at home is frankly absurd. And it does send the message "better watch what you are saying, we always have an eye on you".
Personally, I would argue that probable cause does not apply here because there is an understanding that probable cause is an "emergency procedure"
Well the US constitution says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause... ". Wikipedia gives me "...probable cause refers to the standard by which a police officer may make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search or obtain a warrant." I may be wrong, but I don't see the emergency angle. What do you base it on?
Anyone else seeing reasonable doubt flying out the window with this crap decision?
No, "reasonable doubt" is for convictions, the paragraph you quote was about search warrants. For these you only need probable cause. Those are two very distinct legal concepts.
someone who knows enough about wireless to raise the "open access point" defense also knows enough to know the risks of an open WAP
I don't think that conclusion is valid. In this case the guy was obviously guilty, so yes likely he left the WAP open on purpose. However for the general case it's certainly reasonable to allow that someone accussed of a crime in connection with a WAP, starts to learn about WAPs at the very time when he's being accussed. Wouldn't you do that, in the hypothetical case that you were innocently accussed and didn't know about WAPs already?
Well, the distinction should be pretty easy - if you have customers you are an ISP, if you don't you are not. So once you start charging other people to use your access point, then you have to obey the rules applying to ISPs.
They don't need to encrypt their hard drives, on which they probably store nothing more sensitive than their really bad first novel draft.
I'd argue that the average user likely has online banking and naked pictures of his spouse on that harddrive. Lots of private information he cares about or have a high monetary value compared to his income level.
People need to get effective security solutions for their REALISTIC needs.
I agree with your approach, but I don't think your needs evaluation is remotely realistic.
Putting the blame on another organization without having conducted a thorough investigation _is_ "anti US".
At the very most it would be "anti that other organization".
Actually - Fermilab thinks no such thing.
Yes, they do. It's their press release, and their current thinking is that it's their fault. They may be mistaken, and probably hope they are, but they think it's their fault.
CERN _is_ making gratuitous:anti US" statements.
As pointed out many times in this discussion: the text posted at CERN's website was written by Fermilab. That's indicated by the title "Fermilab Statement on LHC Magnet Test Failure".
CERN *had* to have reviewed the magnet design
Well, I'm not familiar with the processes they use, but in my field a review is a way to help the designer, the designer still owns any defects which were not found in the review. In any case, CERN is not playing political games by posting Fermilab's statements.
Also - large power supplies generate heat inside of the PC case which needs to be removed with fans. I don't really want that, I'd much prefer a few more cables and less noise.
No, putting the blame for a specific problem on some US organization is not "anti US". Everybody makes mistakes, and it's good engineering practice to accept responsibility for them when that happens. Fermilab thinks that the problem occured on their side, and they are trying to solve it.
Working in a multi-national company with multi-national customers and designing safety-critical systems, I have some experience with handling mistakes. The best approach solving these technical issues, is to keep political games at bay as much as possible. Investigate thoroughly, take responsibility if you own the problem, then work on solving it. Once you start thinking "it's just that the other guys hate us" you've already lost. Any discussion will turn into a political slugfest, and lots of time will be wasted. The flipside is that you also need to keep good records - if someone tries to blame you for something you didn't do, you should have material to nip that in the bud. That works much better once you've gained a reputation for owning up to your own problems, btw.
It seems to me, that in a democracy it should be important to come to a common understanding about what's fair for the artists and for listeners. Our laws should then reflect that understanding. Certainly it's not fair if artists get to money for their work. Likewise it's not fair that copyright terms get extended infinitely, that companies get to dictate the usage of things after they've already sold them, that companies use lobbying to keep outdated business models alive.
I think allofmp3.com shows how a fair exchange between users and producers could work. It demonstrates that if you could buy music cheaply, online and in standard formats, then consumers would be willing to pay for it. Each artist should get a share of the sales price, and they should be paid for each song sold. There should be no contractual nonsense with exclusive contracts for a specific delivery platform, there should be no attempt to restrict the customers.
This is only one approach, there may be other models. It is - to a certain extent, up to artists to come up with ideas regarding this, and it is up to artists to get rid of the music industry as it is today - they are middle men who contribute nothing but take most of the profit. We users are no longer willing to pay for them - it's up to you guys to adjust to the world as it is today and build a business model for the mp3 era. If my job gets outsourced to India, I can't ask artists to somehow provide for my expenses - I need to find myself another job, maybe need to adjust my skill set, or move someplace else. Artists need to do the same thing, and while I grant you that it's annoying, it just needs to be done, there is no alternative. You can not legislate your way out of this, that's hopeless.
When I was studying in Manchester the sysadmins had added a feature to protect users from accidentially using rm. So when you were typing "rm" it was really executing "rm -i". Of course, sometimes it's necessary to use rm without the "-i" - the sysadmins realized that, too. So typing "rm -i" would really get you "rm". One of my colleagues, being intimately familiar with Unix, but not being aware of that setup.... Well, I'll spare you the rest.
I think before speculating whether this or that gadget in a car is decreasing traffic safety, it would make sense to establish whether traffic safety is increasing or decreasing. This here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety _in_the_United_States shows that safety is actually increasing (googling easily finds other references).
Obviously the safety of a complex system like an entire transportation system depends on many factors - it's to be expected that some changes which occured are detrimental, while others are beneficial. Analysing the overall performance of the system can not directly be used to determine which factors are detrimental - it can only show that the detrimental changes (I think we can safely assume that there are some) are cancelled out by the effects of the beneficial changes.
Given that, suggesting a return to 50 year old technology as the article suggests, is almost certainly the wrong thing to do. The whole approach of coming up with wild theories, based on nothing but gut feelings is not only non-scientific - it's dangerous. Mr Leno has not the slightest idea whether any of his suggestions and speculations have a connection with reality. It's not even based on anecdotical evidence - it's based on anecdotical gut feelings. This is the sort of nonsense which causes some people to reject airbags and ABS.
Mr Leno if you advise people on matters of live and death, is it so much to ask that you learn something about the subject? Or alternatively keep quiet on topics you don't know anything about?
Disclaimer: I develop chips for automotive applications (e.g. airbag controllers). However my salary does not depend on anything my company sells (actually, unfortunately it doesn't even depend on my performance - I'm an engineer...). Anyway, if you are really concerned about your safety your best bet is public transport.
He's wrong on occasion - but that doesn't mean he's ALWAYS wrong.
Well, if it's a binary decision even a complete idiot has a 50% chance of being right. Maybe he is right this time, but given his record I don't see why his opinion on the point should be worth considering. There are valid arguments in this discussion, but they've been made before on Slashdot - Dvorak doesn't contribute anything of interest to it.
But man, Circuit City? The company that even beats cable companies at the BBB for number of complaints? Buying there is idiotic enough (Go NewEgg!), working there about the same.
I don't know you, but I suspect we are probably both in the same position of having a good education and valuable skills. Not everybody is in that nice position and can really chose where they work. Not everybody even has the capability to gain those skills, quite apart from having the opportunity. For some people working at Circuit City probably sounds like a dream compared with being a Walmart greeter. I don't think it's fair to look down on people just for taking that job.
About buying there I tend to agree with you, though...
While there is a certain amount of vigilante justice to that (and I'd be sorely tempted to do the same thing in his shoes) Davidson is probably going to be in legal trouble for this.
I don't like McCain politically, but I seriously doubt he'll do something a stupid as suing this guy. I don't think he wants a reputation as a humourless twit.
With all the car analogies, I'd like to supply my own: it's like... a joke - laugh.
They were looking at the searches, then using them to investigate what she did. So they found she was searching for instant poisons/undetectable poisons/fatal dioxin doses and also accessing www.walgreens.com/storelocator. Then they used this information to find the pharamacist who filled the prescription for chloral hydrate (written by the accused's alleged boyfriend who happens to be a doctor). So apparently they used the information on her computer as a starting point. I think that's a valid police technique. They don't have proof that the drug in question (chloral hydrate) was actually used on her husband, though. Just from the data given in the article it would also be possible that someone else had purchased the chloral hydrate, or that the chloral hydrate was not used in the murder at all.
During murder investigations police can search personal belongings of suspects. I think it must be a horrible feeling to have this happen to you. On the other hand, it certainly seems reasonable that the police would not just search hand-written things but also data which is on a suspects computer (provided there is a proper legal process in place to prevent arbitrary searches). If they find that someone searched for poisons on the internet, on a computer you have access to, just the day before your spouse was murdered - I think that's valid circumstantial evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing about sience is that eventually all these heretics like Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, Darwin, Einstein... made it into the mainstream. The majority of other people who were considered fruitcakes at the time they presented their ideas, are still considered fruitcakes. That's because after a long period of deliberation and initial rejection of their ideas, other scientist were not forced to accept them by the overwhelming evidence. Though obviously the scientific mainstream is always lagging behind the thought leaders, it will eventually move onto the right path. We know that because the result of science - increased knowledge about the workings of the world, is measurable: we can now send vehicles to Mars, we can run computer networks all around the globe, we can travel to far away destinations in jet planes which use GPS navigation systems. None of these things were possible in Galileo's time. At any given time (unless you are personally an expert in the field) it makes more sense to trust the scientific mainstream then the possible genuises who could also be possible fruitcakes. As we know from observation the genius to fruitcake ratio is very low, and the scientific mainstream will identify the geniuses in time - as it has always done.
The best way for a scientist to make a career is to be part of the genius vs fruitcake analysis process. There are no nobel prizes handed out for people who write articles stating that they agree with the already established findings of the mainstream, or that they've repeated what many others before them have already measured. If you want funding, recogition and respect, you need to come up with things others have not thought of. If you can take an established theory and punch holes into it, you've struck gold. It's your own self-interest which is moving forward your field of research.
So even assuming that Germans will be healthier when the weather is warmer, there could be other problems when the forests are destroyed by parasites and the top soil washes away.
The big deal is, that US society is now so morally bankrupt that we don't even worry about blatant unethical behaviour anymore. As long as lying and cheating results in someone profiting from it, it's not just fine and dandy - it's all but required! So if you ever take a job in which you somehow have to interact with the public you'd better get used to lying, cause if someone tries to force you into unethical behaviour, the public will be on his side. If something mildly inconvenient happens to him because he's found out - well then the public will feel sorry for him.
Whose double-standard, though? I'm ok with putting bibles or korans into the toilet, if someone thinks that's art. Personally I think it's retarded, but it's still free expression and I don't need to like it. I accept it because I'm for free expression, and that means I need to respect other people's _right_ to express themselves freely, too. Now those muslims who burn embassies and kill people because of some cartoons, probably do not actually believe in free expression. While their actions would make them assholes, it does not make them hypocritical - they don't claim to want everybody to be free, they want everybody to live according to their rules.
Now if you refer to people who complain about prisoners being forced to watch something destroyed which they hold dear, but not complaining about christian symbols being defiled in museums - there is a difference in these situations. Certainly both cases are not torture, but I don't think it's something which a civilized country should do to prisoners. If it became standard practice in the US to urinate on bibles in front of Christians prisoners, I would think that to be uncivilized, too.
BTW, while I'm at it "pain approaching that of organ failure" - I'd really recommend some people to visit an ER, and watch patients with kidney stones cry. Anybody who thinks inflicting that on purpose wouldn't be torture is a deranged monster.
What irks me is that many people treat capitalism as if it was holy truth as long as thats convenient, then completely abandon its theory when some other economic aspect is discussed.
Patents and capitalism don't belong in the same category. Patents explicitly prevent the market from being free, that's the whole point of issuing them.
According to the article quoted: "Overall, Canada did better, and in fact we found a statistically significant five per cent mortality advantage to people with diagnoses in Canada compared to their counterparts in the United States ...". So that would mean you get on average better treatment. Of course if you are well off you might not care so much that poor Canadians get better healthcare than poor Americans, and might prefer a situation where well-off Americans receive better health care than well-off Canadians... (The article doesn't state whether this applies, but that could be possible.)
In every society you get what you pay for.
Getting exactly what you pay for is a statistical anomaly at best. :-) There is nothing in a capitalist economy which would make that happen - prices are determined by supply and demand, not by some mystical rule that you should get fair value for good money.
I don't see why even the investigation should have been justified. There is nothing in the web comic which could be construed as being threatening. I can see that someone might hear part of the conversation, and get spooked about that part, but I can't see how you could get spooked reading the comic, that's just way outside of the way any normal person would read it. That such a flimsy excuse would cause a police investigation, even to the point of bothering the guy at home is frankly absurd. And it does send the message "better watch what you are saying, we always have an eye on you".
Well the US constitution says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause ... ". Wikipedia gives me "...probable cause refers to the standard by which a police officer may make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search or obtain a warrant." I may be wrong, but I don't see the emergency angle. What do you base it on?
No, "reasonable doubt" is for convictions, the paragraph you quote was about search warrants. For these you only need probable cause. Those are two very distinct legal concepts.
I don't think that conclusion is valid. In this case the guy was obviously guilty, so yes likely he left the WAP open on purpose. However for the general case it's certainly reasonable to allow that someone accussed of a crime in connection with a WAP, starts to learn about WAPs at the very time when he's being accussed. Wouldn't you do that, in the hypothetical case that you were innocently accussed and didn't know about WAPs already?
Well, the distinction should be pretty easy - if you have customers you are an ISP, if you don't you are not. So once you start charging other people to use your access point, then you have to obey the rules applying to ISPs.
I'd argue that the average user likely has online banking and naked pictures of his spouse on that harddrive. Lots of private information he cares about or have a high monetary value compared to his income level.
People need to get effective security solutions for their REALISTIC needs.
I agree with your approach, but I don't think your needs evaluation is remotely realistic.
We have older evidence already. This here gives us 12000 at least: http://www.swr.de/international/en/2007/01/22/beit rag3.html
At the very most it would be "anti that other organization".
Actually - Fermilab thinks no such thing.
Yes, they do. It's their press release, and their current thinking is that it's their fault. They may be mistaken, and probably hope they are, but they think it's their fault.
CERN _is_ making gratuitous :anti US" statements.
As pointed out many times in this discussion: the text posted at CERN's website was written by Fermilab. That's indicated by the title "Fermilab Statement on LHC Magnet Test Failure".
CERN *had* to have reviewed the magnet design
Well, I'm not familiar with the processes they use, but in my field a review is a way to help the designer, the designer still owns any defects which were not found in the review. In any case, CERN is not playing political games by posting Fermilab's statements.
Also - large power supplies generate heat inside of the PC case which needs to be removed with fans. I don't really want that, I'd much prefer a few more cables and less noise.
Working in a multi-national company with multi-national customers and designing safety-critical systems, I have some experience with handling mistakes. The best approach solving these technical issues, is to keep political games at bay as much as possible. Investigate thoroughly, take responsibility if you own the problem, then work on solving it. Once you start thinking "it's just that the other guys hate us" you've already lost. Any discussion will turn into a political slugfest, and lots of time will be wasted. The flipside is that you also need to keep good records - if someone tries to blame you for something you didn't do, you should have material to nip that in the bud. That works much better once you've gained a reputation for owning up to your own problems, btw.
I think allofmp3.com shows how a fair exchange between users and producers could work. It demonstrates that if you could buy music cheaply, online and in standard formats, then consumers would be willing to pay for it. Each artist should get a share of the sales price, and they should be paid for each song sold. There should be no contractual nonsense with exclusive contracts for a specific delivery platform, there should be no attempt to restrict the customers.
This is only one approach, there may be other models. It is - to a certain extent, up to artists to come up with ideas regarding this, and it is up to artists to get rid of the music industry as it is today - they are middle men who contribute nothing but take most of the profit. We users are no longer willing to pay for them - it's up to you guys to adjust to the world as it is today and build a business model for the mp3 era. If my job gets outsourced to India, I can't ask artists to somehow provide for my expenses - I need to find myself another job, maybe need to adjust my skill set, or move someplace else. Artists need to do the same thing, and while I grant you that it's annoying, it just needs to be done, there is no alternative. You can not legislate your way out of this, that's hopeless.
When I was studying in Manchester the sysadmins had added a feature to protect users from accidentially using rm. So when you were typing "rm" it was really executing "rm -i". Of course, sometimes it's necessary to use rm without the "-i" - the sysadmins realized that, too. So typing "rm -i" would really get you "rm". One of my colleagues, being intimately familiar with Unix, but not being aware of that setup.... Well, I'll spare you the rest.
Hmm - I guess I should clarify that when I refer to "the article" I mean the one about "dangerous auto technology".
Obviously the safety of a complex system like an entire transportation system depends on many factors - it's to be expected that some changes which occured are detrimental, while others are beneficial. Analysing the overall performance of the system can not directly be used to determine which factors are detrimental - it can only show that the detrimental changes (I think we can safely assume that there are some) are cancelled out by the effects of the beneficial changes.
Given that, suggesting a return to 50 year old technology as the article suggests, is almost certainly the wrong thing to do. The whole approach of coming up with wild theories, based on nothing but gut feelings is not only non-scientific - it's dangerous. Mr Leno has not the slightest idea whether any of his suggestions and speculations have a connection with reality. It's not even based on anecdotical evidence - it's based on anecdotical gut feelings. This is the sort of nonsense which causes some people to reject airbags and ABS.
Mr Leno if you advise people on matters of live and death, is it so much to ask that you learn something about the subject? Or alternatively keep quiet on topics you don't know anything about?
Disclaimer: I develop chips for automotive applications (e.g. airbag controllers). However my salary does not depend on anything my company sells (actually, unfortunately it doesn't even depend on my performance - I'm an engineer...). Anyway, if you are really concerned about your safety your best bet is public transport.
Well, if it's a binary decision even a complete idiot has a 50% chance of being right. Maybe he is right this time, but given his record I don't see why his opinion on the point should be worth considering. There are valid arguments in this discussion, but they've been made before on Slashdot - Dvorak doesn't contribute anything of interest to it.
I don't know you, but I suspect we are probably both in the same position of having a good education and valuable skills. Not everybody is in that nice position and can really chose where they work. Not everybody even has the capability to gain those skills, quite apart from having the opportunity. For some people working at Circuit City probably sounds like a dream compared with being a Walmart greeter. I don't think it's fair to look down on people just for taking that job.
About buying there I tend to agree with you, though...
I don't like McCain politically, but I seriously doubt he'll do something a stupid as suing this guy. I don't think he wants a reputation as a humourless twit.
With all the car analogies, I'd like to supply my own: it's like ... a joke - laugh.
They were looking at the searches, then using them to investigate what she did. So they found she was searching for instant poisons/undetectable poisons/fatal dioxin doses and also accessing www.walgreens.com/storelocator. Then they used this information to find the pharamacist who filled the prescription for chloral hydrate (written by the accused's alleged boyfriend who happens to be a doctor). So apparently they used the information on her computer as a starting point. I think that's a valid police technique. They don't have proof that the drug in question (chloral hydrate) was actually used on her husband, though. Just from the data given in the article it would also be possible that someone else had purchased the chloral hydrate, or that the chloral hydrate was not used in the murder at all.
During murder investigations police can search personal belongings of suspects. I think it must be a horrible feeling to have this happen to you. On the other hand, it certainly seems reasonable that the police would not just search hand-written things but also data which is on a suspects computer (provided there is a proper legal process in place to prevent arbitrary searches). If they find that someone searched for poisons on the internet, on a computer you have access to, just the day before your spouse was murdered - I think that's valid circumstantial evidence.