Right, but they also had a much richer school environment. They did not have to suffer through this back to basics, three R's crap that started in the 80's. Creative problem solving, critical thinking, you don't get that with a 'stick to the reading writing and math' regimen.
Um, no. The reason that "three R's crap" is emphasized is because we found we had entire graduating classes full of kids who were never taught reading, writing, or simple math skills. Largely because the teachers and admins were infatuated with peripheral subjects and trendy new teaching methods that simply didn't work very well when put into practice.
Creative problem solving is very important, but it's hard to be creative without basic skills kids need to make their way in life. If you can't read well, you're dramatically limiting the scope of your complex critical thinking. If you don't understand numbers, then your personal finances and your taxes are a complete mystery. If you lack language skills then you can't effectively communicate your thoughts and ideas, however clever they may be. If you can't do these things then you're not a functioning citizen, you're a serf. Some people like serfs, but no one wants to be one.
Unfortunately we still have a long way to go. Take a look at the enrollment stats for your local colleges and see how many freshly graduated adults (they're not kids anymore at 18) have to spend a substantial part of their first years at college in remedial classes. Why? It's not because they're mentally deficient. It's not because it's all that hard to teach this stuff. And it's not because the students skipped "creative problem solving" class one too many times. It's because they've endured 12 years as pawns in an inefficient, ineffective, and self-indulgent educational system that largely wasted their time. But if we give them more money and bandwidth I'm sure they'll do much better.
If an online retailer (or Walmart for that matter) uses low prices, sometimes so low that they aren't even making a profit but are willing to take it on the chin to clear out the market, and then jacks them back up, there will not be a return of the local small retailers.
That particular shop may not return, but if there's a profit to be made then someone else will take their place.
If low prices are the only reason people do business with a shop then that shop is probably doomed anyway. We shouldn't romanticize local stores, because the world is littered with small, local retailers that really suck. They have mediocre selection, poor customer service, little expertise, limited hours, bad environment, and high prices. Many have ridden on the backs of their communities for years and invested nothing in improving these faults, and they've gotten away with it because they have had no real competition. Now, suddenly, they do. And they discover that they have no customer loyalty, no value-added, and no special dispensation to survive.
Essentially the "ultra low cost seller" takes a higher effective profit because they pay no contribution towards maintaining the support network (advertising, support, repairs etc).
That's not a bug, it's a feature. With any product, there will be certain buyers for whom price is the primary consideration. Aftermarket support is nice, but useless to me if the overhead means that I can't afford the product in the first place. Or if I happen to have a level of expertise (or know someone who does) such that I will never, ever require any support from a reseller.
If a retailer wants to sell at a higher price and justify that using aftermarket considerations then they really need to explain why that's a good tradeoff for the customer. And they need to be willing to accept that sometimes it won't be.
The problem is in the form of the rogue trader who sells today and is gone 14 days later and yes, customers will and do go and find one of the other resellers to scream and yell when it doesn't work, whom -will- then get shafted if they don't support the item in terms of bad-mouthing (by the customer) or financially (by taking on the problem above and beyond their responsibility - simply to keep the good name).
I'm not familiar with the model airplane market, so I may be misunderstanding, but why would something that I just bought suddenly not work? If that's happening often enough to be a problem then the manufacturer needs to take responsibility and fix the problem, not foist it off on loyal resellers.
Anyhow, an angry owner comes in with a defective product. I can see how that would be annoying, but it also seems like a good way to win over a future customer. After all, their "fly-by-night" is gone, they clearly need some support after all, and here you are, being helpful.
Don't we dig it out of the ground because it's already there in the ground?
Even worse, lead could be lurking underground almost anywhere. There's chance that there's toxic, brain-damaging lead in the ground right below your house. Maybe even under your child's playground.
There's only one way to make sure that our children are safe. I propose that we organize an industry to remove as much lead from the ground as possible. We can then mix the lead with other metals, and safely sequester the resulting mixture inside plastic and metal boxes where it can't reach out and victimize our innocent little ones. Maybe we can even run electrical charges through boxes to deter anyone from attempting to open the containers and touch the dangerous lead inside.
It's a bold plan, I know. But aren't our kids worth it?
Dude, have been to the theater lately? Everything is recycled.
Not to sound all Ecclesiastical, but even that is nothing new. Browse through IMDB sometime and take a look at how many movies made in the first half of the 20th century were based on theater musicals, plays, comics, novels, or short stories. Then note how many are remakes, serials, or spinoffs of other movies.
I think you'll find that the proportion of "original" movies to recycled plots is pretty much the same. It's not as obvious as what we see today because we weren't around then, but no matter what decade you're in, Sturgeon's Law remains inviolate. Most of us don't go back and watch forgotten, mediocre old movies -- just the soon-to-be-forgotten, mediocre new movies.
Of course not. Huge corporations don't have any real problem complying with Sarbanes-Oxley. They can absorb it as the cost of doing business. Smaller businesses, on the other hand, can't afford it. So they either skate along on the edge of compliance, go out of business, or sell out to someone with the necessary fleets of lawyers and accountants.
It's a myth that large corporate interests fear regulation -- big corporations thrive on regulations. The more regulations you impose, and the more complex they become, the fewer businesses will be able (or willing) to comply. Which is great, as far as the big fish are concerned, because some of those guys may have eventually grown into competitors. Our current regulatory scheme is the a really good environment for breeding large corporations and killing off smaller corporations that threaten their interests. That's is what you want, right?
Read the original article. This started when firefighters arrived at the house to put out an unrelated fire, and it was the firefighters who reported the chemicals. It's not unreasonable for firefighters to be worried about unknown (potentially flammable or toxic) chemicals while putting out a fire, even if those chemicals are completely legal.
But it is unreasonable for the authorities to just destroy the chemicals after testing them. They're his property and they should be returned. The vague invocation of zoning laws is also pretty lame. If he had an industrial operation running from his home then that might make sense, but for personal research? That sounds like the Chemicals Are Evil brigade talking. Is there a special zoning requirement now for practicing intellectual curiosity?
Your right to work is therefore one of those things you cannot sign away, and thus this ruling.
Maybe. But when people start enforcing my "rights" by telling me what I am not allowed to do, I start to worry that their concept of individual rights might be a wee bit shaky.
Anyway, you may want to ask some union leaders about that "right to work" thing. Because their power is built around the premise that they control people's right to work. And when they demand their members stop working, and some of them don't listen, they have a long record of doing very nasty things in response. If those sorts of labor contracts are legal then I'm not sure why non-competes shouldn't be.
Apparently that's not a photo of the actual DIY device. It's a photo of the larger sort of dialysis machine that would not have worked for the small child.
Just a minute, now. Are you sure that Obama is the lesser of two evils?
Obama's sudden change of heart/lying duplicity on the FISA bill is hardly making a blip with his mainstream supporters. Pundits who previously compared proponents of this bill to Nazis are now happily making excuses for Obama or spinning this as a sophisticated act of realpolitik. Love is blind, and they've already printed up the wedding invitations.
If you want a President who's scrutinized by a skeptical press and held accountable for his public statements then you should vote for McCain. On the other hand, if you thought Reagan was coated in Teflon, just wait until President Obama is in the White House.
No, not exactly. Declarations of war, at the time, were mostly just a formality to recognize hostilities that had already started and begin allocating funds to cover the expenses. Which is pretty much the only role Congress is given as far as fighting wars. Likewise treaties, at least treaties related to wars. Congress doesn't get to be a committee of Commanders in Chief. They'd just tried an arrangement like that with the Articles of Confederation and it just didn't work.
The President is not required to wait for Congress to agree with him before responding to, starting, or stopping hostilities. The fact there have been only five formally declared wars in the history of the United States should make this pretty clear. Presidents Adams, Jefferson, and Madison all engaged in undeclared wars, and it's pretty hard to argue that they misunderstood the Constitution. Even in WWII, FDR played fast and loose with his CinC authority to aid the Allies prior to Pearl Harbor, back when Congress didn't want to get involved.
I also find it sad that current launches go off with out much fan fare or press. It's like we as a Nation have become spoiled to the fact that we send folks into space these days.
I'm not so sure that's a bad thing, at least not in the long run. My dream is for space travel to be boring and routine, like transatlantic flights or deep-sea cable runs.
In early aviation, pioneers like Lindbergh were hailed as heroes because they were doing things that had never been done before. After the speeches were finished and the confetti swept up, everyone got busy with the hard work of making yesterday's heroism practical and commonplace. We need to do the same.
I think most people don't realize (or have forgotten about it) the danger these men and women face during a mission.
Yes, they've chosen to do a complex, dangerous job in a lethal and unforgiving environment. And if Earth ever gets serious about space travel it's inevitable that many more brave astronauts, cosmonauts, and civilians are going to die. We should be prepared to mourn them and honor their memories by getting on with the it, like we do today in a thousand other dangerous but necessary jobs. Enough drama. There's work to do.
This is just really sad; everybody involved loses.
This particular platitude always bothers me. Nina Reiser and her family did not "lose" her, as if someone misplaced their luggage or lost their car keys. Her life was taken from her, violently and without just cause. And Hans Reiser is the one who did it. The victims deserve sympathy. Murderers deserve punishment.
But bad as bullying is, cyberbullying is several degrees worse.
I'm sorry, but I think that's absurd. Mean things said on the Internet are in no way comparable to physical abuse, or even verbal threats. You can turn off your computer. You can simply ignore them. You can even respond in kind. You have a whole range of possible responses, none of which require throwing people in jail for hurting your feelings. If teenagers really don't understand this, who's fault is that?
But we can't punish if there isn't a law that makes it a crime.
There are many ways to punish undesirable behavior without criminalizing speech. Seriously, the last thing we want to do is raise a generation of kids who think that every nasty comment or stupid flamewar is, literally, a Federal case.
You should realize that people already get genetic testing prior to getting married and/or prior to having children. This is not a new scenario. For example, those marrying in Jewish communities may check for Tay Sachs, blacks might check for sickle-cell disease, and couples with a family history of certain rare genetic disorders can check specifically for those.
These aren't relatively minor issues like a club-foot or cleft palate; these are genetic disorders that often fatal or crippling. And I think it's perfectly understandable that a couple would want to know about them before having a baby. It's certainly better for everyone (IMHO) than getting pregnant, discovering the problem later on an ultrasound, and then having an abortion. Which is, in fact, what many women who discover they have Downs babies have chosen to do.
"That isn't a straw man, but a battle over epistemology and the nature of rationality. ID advocates want to redefine science to include the supernatural."
It's a straw man in the sense that it distracts from much more important practical issues. I actually agree with you about ID, but I'd prefer we focused our efforts on giving kids a strong basic education and letting them make up their own minds about the subject.
"I'm not sure which science you're referring to. The global warming issue is mainstream consensus in the climatalogical community."
Sorry, "Consensus" is not a synonym for "Correct". I didn't even mention the subject, but, yes, right now there's arguably a consensus for some kind of anthropogenic climate change. That certainly doesn't mean we stop asking questions or doing research. In the 1850's the best medical minds of the day concurred that miasma caused epidemic diseases. Many biologists in the early 20th century sincerely believed that sterilizing mental defectives and preventing interracial breeding was vital to the health of society. There was consensus. There was data. There were models and theories based on the best evidence available, maybe with just a little harmless fudging thrown in to clear up that pesky ambiguous data. Those theories were sanctioned by the state and enshrined by law. They were also wrong.
I really don't want to get into a global warming debate, except to remind you that theories come and go all the time. Read through the Wikipedia entry on superseded scientific theories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories
Some of the more recent items on that list were things I learned in school as scientific facts, and I'm only in my 30's. Being dogmatic about science is not a good idea.
"Trying to discredit science by saying "it's been politicized" every time it doesn't agree with the Republican platform IS politicizing science"
And I don't think that anyone's political party is relevant to the science they do. Science is not ideology and it's not religion. I don't think the Republicans or the Democrats have a monopoly on bad science. If you argue Republicans have impeded, say, stem cell or climate research, then I can point to Democrats and Green "environmentalists" blocking safe, clean nuclear power for the last 30 years. And spreading disinformation about pesticides that could have prevented widespread death and suffering from malaria. And blocking the development of genetically engineered crops that could save millions from malnutrition. And both parties have screwed us over by insisting that only NASA can get Americans into space.
The problem in all these cases is that we have ceded control of the science to the government, and squelched out contrary notions as heresy unworthy of intelligent debate or funding. Demanding that the government take even more control isn't going to make either of us happy, because the government is not a reliable ally. And that is my point. If you can get past arguing about Republican boogeymen long enough to see it.
"Yes, and yes. The USA has been largely taken over by religious fundamentalists. To the extent that they don't rule outright, their influence is still pervasive, and moves the entire country in that cultural direction. Science and scientists are openly held in amused contempt by about half of Americans, if not more."
That's the most ridiculous thing I've read in a long time. You'd pretty much have to define "fundementalist" as "non-atheist" or "vaguely socially conservative" to even approach being correct.
There are three major problems with the state of science in the US. All three are fairly simple and none have anything to do with eeevil fundementalists stealing your precious bodily fluids:
1. Politicians (of all parties, sadly) don't bother to fund basic research because they'd prefer to spend goverment money on pet projects that get them re-elected. Congress wastes enough money every year on ridiculous earmarks to fund that lab for a long time. The new Farm Bill is a perfect example. It's filled with ridiculous and contradictory subsidies, most targeted right back to the sponsors' home states.
2. Schools waste student and teacher time on peripheral nonsense and neglect the basics. This has nothing to do with evolution vs creative design or any of the other popular straw men. The problem is that the unions that control the schools are always ready to throw their resources behind implementing whatever trend is in vogue at the time. There's only so much money and time, and the basics of reading, writing, math, and science inevitably suffer.
Take a look at the exploding enrollment in your local university and community college remedial education courses. Ask yourself, why do so many young adults who have just graduated from high school need to take special courses before they can function in even entry level college courses.
3. Modern big science is easily hijacked by ideology. Sexy issues get the money. Boring things don't. Whether you agree with me here or not, it seems to me that there's one basic lesson we all should embrace: Allowing all your science to be funded and run by the government is a very bad idea. The political winds are fickle, and you can't rely on them to blow in the same direction long enough to reach your destination. Even worse, it inevitably corrupts basic science into supporting political ends. You end up with stupid and dangerous nonsense like miasmatism, eugenics, Lysenkoism, and the Great Leap Forward. That kind of ideological "science" kills people and wrecks countries. Basic science is best done in a distributed, decentralized model that allows for independent innovation and avoids groupthink.
I'm not sure I understand the author's point. In the real world, things are worth pretty much whatever people are willing to pay for them. The cost of the infrastructure only determines the lowest profitable price. Yep, SMS can be expensive. Don't like that? Ok, find another provider who offers it cheaper, use another alternative technology instead, or get by without it.
SMS has value to people because it's useful to them, so the mobile companies charge what the market will bear. People get a service at a price that they find acceptable (they must, because they're buying lots of it) and the phone company makes a profit for their shareholders. Everyone wins.
The French law is a dumb law, and I hope Google makes that very clear. If other countries were to enact such laws it would be a disaster to everyone who cares about social documentary. Google will probably give in, but the shouldn't do it without a fight.
Some of the best street photography ever was taken on the streets of France. Now most of his work would probably be illegal. It's easy to go after a relatively mechanistic photography like Google's project, but in the end there's no difference between photography and photography.
This bill simply added some penalties if you succeeded in making such a recording, and started selling or distributing copies.
And that's the problem. If a private venue wants to have policies restricting the recording of live performances then it's fine with me. However, it's also up to them to enforce the policies they choose to embrace. Are there widespread violations? Too much trouble to watch for violations and kick people out? Can't enforce house rules without having the government "add penalties" to make it a crime? Well, maybe that should mean something to you.
Lots of stores here in the states have signs on the door that say "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service". Fancy restaurants require men to wear ties. That's their right: If they don't like how I'm dressed they can refuse service and ask me to leave. It does not mean that they should be able to pass laws and recruit the police to enforce their mandatory dress codes. See the difference?
I don't see anything controversial about that case. If you actively participate in a violent crime and someone dies then you're just as responsible as the person who pulls the trigger. Don't want to be responsible for a murder? Then don't be a getaway driver for a gang of doped up armed robbers. It's not difficult.
Patent submitters typically know about the most obvious examples of prior art, so most patents are worded to carefully carve out a niche in which the patent almost, but not quite, describes existing technologies.
Fine. Then the submitter should almost, but not quite, deserve a patent.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, but they also had a much richer school environment. They did not have to suffer through this back to basics, three R's crap that started in the 80's. Creative problem solving, critical thinking, you don't get that with a 'stick to the reading writing and math' regimen.
Um, no. The reason that "three R's crap" is emphasized is because we found we had entire graduating classes full of kids who were never taught reading, writing, or simple math skills. Largely because the teachers and admins were infatuated with peripheral subjects and trendy new teaching methods that simply didn't work very well when put into practice.
Creative problem solving is very important, but it's hard to be creative without basic skills kids need to make their way in life. If you can't read well, you're dramatically limiting the scope of your complex critical thinking. If you don't understand numbers, then your personal finances and your taxes are a complete mystery. If you lack language skills then you can't effectively communicate your thoughts and ideas, however clever they may be. If you can't do these things then you're not a functioning citizen, you're a serf. Some people like serfs, but no one wants to be one.
Unfortunately we still have a long way to go. Take a look at the enrollment stats for your local colleges and see how many freshly graduated adults (they're not kids anymore at 18) have to spend a substantial part of their first years at college in remedial classes. Why? It's not because they're mentally deficient. It's not because it's all that hard to teach this stuff. And it's not because the students skipped "creative problem solving" class one too many times. It's because they've endured 12 years as pawns in an inefficient, ineffective, and self-indulgent educational system that largely wasted their time. But if we give them more money and bandwidth I'm sure they'll do much better.
If an online retailer (or Walmart for that matter) uses low prices, sometimes so low that they aren't even making a profit but are willing to take it on the chin to clear out the market, and then jacks them back up, there will not be a return of the local small retailers.
That particular shop may not return, but if there's a profit to be made then someone else will take their place.
If low prices are the only reason people do business with a shop then that shop is probably doomed anyway. We shouldn't romanticize local stores, because the world is littered with small, local retailers that really suck. They have mediocre selection, poor customer service, little expertise, limited hours, bad environment, and high prices. Many have ridden on the backs of their communities for years and invested nothing in improving these faults, and they've gotten away with it because they have had no real competition. Now, suddenly, they do. And they discover that they have no customer loyalty, no value-added, and no special dispensation to survive.
Essentially the "ultra low cost seller" takes a higher effective profit because they pay no contribution towards maintaining the support network (advertising, support, repairs etc).
That's not a bug, it's a feature. With any product, there will be certain buyers for whom price is the primary consideration. Aftermarket support is nice, but useless to me if the overhead means that I can't afford the product in the first place. Or if I happen to have a level of expertise (or know someone who does) such that I will never, ever require any support from a reseller.
If a retailer wants to sell at a higher price and justify that using aftermarket considerations then they really need to explain why that's a good tradeoff for the customer. And they need to be willing to accept that sometimes it won't be.
The problem is in the form of the rogue trader who sells today and is gone 14 days later and yes, customers will and do go and find one of the other resellers to scream and yell when it doesn't work, whom -will- then get shafted if they don't support the item in terms of bad-mouthing (by the customer) or financially (by taking on the problem above and beyond their responsibility - simply to keep the good name).
I'm not familiar with the model airplane market, so I may be misunderstanding, but why would something that I just bought suddenly not work? If that's happening often enough to be a problem then the manufacturer needs to take responsibility and fix the problem, not foist it off on loyal resellers.
Anyhow, an angry owner comes in with a defective product. I can see how that would be annoying, but it also seems like a good way to win over a future customer. After all, their "fly-by-night" is gone, they clearly need some support after all, and here you are, being helpful.
Don't we dig it out of the ground because it's already there in the ground?
Even worse, lead could be lurking underground almost anywhere. There's chance that there's toxic, brain-damaging lead in the ground right below your house. Maybe even under your child's playground.
There's only one way to make sure that our children are safe. I propose that we organize an industry to remove as much lead from the ground as possible. We can then mix the lead with other metals, and safely sequester the resulting mixture inside plastic and metal boxes where it can't reach out and victimize our innocent little ones. Maybe we can even run electrical charges through boxes to deter anyone from attempting to open the containers and touch the dangerous lead inside.
It's a bold plan, I know. But aren't our kids worth it?
Not to sound all Ecclesiastical, but even that is nothing new. Browse through IMDB sometime and take a look at how many movies made in the first half of the 20th century were based on theater musicals, plays, comics, novels, or short stories. Then note how many are remakes, serials, or spinoffs of other movies.
I think you'll find that the proportion of "original" movies to recycled plots is pretty much the same. It's not as obvious as what we see today because we weren't around then, but no matter what decade you're in, Sturgeon's Law remains inviolate. Most of us don't go back and watch forgotten, mediocre old movies -- just the soon-to-be-forgotten, mediocre new movies.
Of course not. Huge corporations don't have any real problem complying with Sarbanes-Oxley. They can absorb it as the cost of doing business. Smaller businesses, on the other hand, can't afford it. So they either skate along on the edge of compliance, go out of business, or sell out to someone with the necessary fleets of lawyers and accountants.
It's a myth that large corporate interests fear regulation -- big corporations thrive on regulations. The more regulations you impose, and the more complex they become, the fewer businesses will be able (or willing) to comply. Which is great, as far as the big fish are concerned, because some of those guys may have eventually grown into competitors. Our current regulatory scheme is the a really good environment for breeding large corporations and killing off smaller corporations that threaten their interests. That's is what you want, right?
Read the original article. This started when firefighters arrived at the house to put out an unrelated fire, and it was the firefighters who reported the chemicals. It's not unreasonable for firefighters to be worried about unknown (potentially flammable or toxic) chemicals while putting out a fire, even if those chemicals are completely legal.
But it is unreasonable for the authorities to just destroy the chemicals after testing them. They're his property and they should be returned. The vague invocation of zoning laws is also pretty lame. If he had an industrial operation running from his home then that might make sense, but for personal research? That sounds like the Chemicals Are Evil brigade talking. Is there a special zoning requirement now for practicing intellectual curiosity?
Your right to work is therefore one of those things you cannot sign away, and thus this ruling.
Maybe. But when people start enforcing my "rights" by telling me what I am not allowed to do, I start to worry that their concept of individual rights might be a wee bit shaky.
Anyway, you may want to ask some union leaders about that "right to work" thing. Because their power is built around the premise that they control people's right to work. And when they demand their members stop working, and some of them don't listen, they have a long record of doing very nasty things in response. If those sorts of labor contracts are legal then I'm not sure why non-competes shouldn't be.
Apparently that's not a photo of the actual DIY device. It's a photo of the larger sort of dialysis machine that would not have worked for the small child.
Just a minute, now. Are you sure that Obama is the lesser of two evils?
Obama's sudden change of heart/lying duplicity on the FISA bill is hardly making a blip with his mainstream supporters. Pundits who previously compared proponents of this bill to Nazis are now happily making excuses for Obama or spinning this as a sophisticated act of realpolitik. Love is blind, and they've already printed up the wedding invitations.
If you want a President who's scrutinized by a skeptical press and held accountable for his public statements then you should vote for McCain. On the other hand, if you thought Reagan was coated in Teflon, just wait until President Obama is in the White House.
No, not exactly. Declarations of war, at the time, were mostly just a formality to recognize hostilities that had already started and begin allocating funds to cover the expenses. Which is pretty much the only role Congress is given as far as fighting wars. Likewise treaties, at least treaties related to wars. Congress doesn't get to be a committee of Commanders in Chief. They'd just tried an arrangement like that with the Articles of Confederation and it just didn't work.
The President is not required to wait for Congress to agree with him before responding to, starting, or stopping hostilities. The fact there have been only five formally declared wars in the history of the United States should make this pretty clear. Presidents Adams, Jefferson, and Madison all engaged in undeclared wars, and it's pretty hard to argue that they misunderstood the Constitution. Even in WWII, FDR played fast and loose with his CinC authority to aid the Allies prior to Pearl Harbor, back when Congress didn't want to get involved.
I also find it sad that current launches go off with out much fan fare or press. It's like we as a Nation have become spoiled to the fact that we send folks into space these days.
I'm not so sure that's a bad thing, at least not in the long run. My dream is for space travel to be boring and routine, like transatlantic flights or deep-sea cable runs.
In early aviation, pioneers like Lindbergh were hailed as heroes because they were doing things that had never been done before. After the speeches were finished and the confetti swept up, everyone got busy with the hard work of making yesterday's heroism practical and commonplace. We need to do the same.
I think most people don't realize (or have forgotten about it) the danger these men and women face during a mission.
Yes, they've chosen to do a complex, dangerous job in a lethal and unforgiving environment. And if Earth ever gets serious about space travel it's inevitable that many more brave astronauts, cosmonauts, and civilians are going to die. We should be prepared to mourn them and honor their memories by getting on with the it, like we do today in a thousand other dangerous but necessary jobs. Enough drama. There's work to do.
This is just really sad; everybody involved loses.
This particular platitude always bothers me. Nina Reiser and her family did not "lose" her, as if someone misplaced their luggage or lost their car keys. Her life was taken from her, violently and without just cause. And Hans Reiser is the one who did it. The victims deserve sympathy. Murderers deserve punishment.
But bad as bullying is, cyberbullying is several degrees worse.
I'm sorry, but I think that's absurd. Mean things said on the Internet are in no way comparable to physical abuse, or even verbal threats. You can turn off your computer. You can simply ignore them. You can even respond in kind. You have a whole range of possible responses, none of which require throwing people in jail for hurting your feelings. If teenagers really don't understand this, who's fault is that?
But we can't punish if there isn't a law that makes it a crime.
There are many ways to punish undesirable behavior without criminalizing speech. Seriously, the last thing we want to do is raise a generation of kids who think that every nasty comment or stupid flamewar is, literally, a Federal case.
You should realize that people already get genetic testing prior to getting married and/or prior to having children. This is not a new scenario. For example, those marrying in Jewish communities may check for Tay Sachs, blacks might check for sickle-cell disease, and couples with a family history of certain rare genetic disorders can check specifically for those.
These aren't relatively minor issues like a club-foot or cleft palate; these are genetic disorders that often fatal or crippling. And I think it's perfectly understandable that a couple would want to know about them before having a baby. It's certainly better for everyone (IMHO) than getting pregnant, discovering the problem later on an ultrasound, and then having an abortion. Which is, in fact, what many women who discover they have Downs babies have chosen to do.
"That isn't a straw man, but a battle over epistemology and the nature of rationality. ID advocates want to redefine science to include the supernatural."
It's a straw man in the sense that it distracts from much more important practical issues. I actually agree with you about ID, but I'd prefer we focused our efforts on giving kids a strong basic education and letting them make up their own minds about the subject.
"I'm not sure which science you're referring to. The global warming issue is mainstream consensus in the climatalogical community."
Sorry, "Consensus" is not a synonym for "Correct". I didn't even mention the subject, but, yes, right now there's arguably a consensus for some kind of anthropogenic climate change. That certainly doesn't mean we stop asking questions or doing research. In the 1850's the best medical minds of the day concurred that miasma caused epidemic diseases. Many biologists in the early 20th century sincerely believed that sterilizing mental defectives and preventing interracial breeding was vital to the health of society. There was consensus. There was data. There were models and theories based on the best evidence available, maybe with just a little harmless fudging thrown in to clear up that pesky ambiguous data. Those theories were sanctioned by the state and enshrined by law. They were also wrong.
I really don't want to get into a global warming debate, except to remind you that theories come and go all the time. Read through the Wikipedia entry on superseded scientific theories:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories
Some of the more recent items on that list were things I learned in school as scientific facts, and I'm only in my 30's. Being dogmatic about science is not a good idea.
"Trying to discredit science by saying "it's been politicized" every time it doesn't agree with the Republican platform IS politicizing science"
And I don't think that anyone's political party is relevant to the science they do. Science is not ideology and it's not religion. I don't think the Republicans or the Democrats have a monopoly on bad science. If you argue Republicans have impeded, say, stem cell or climate research, then I can point to Democrats and Green "environmentalists" blocking safe, clean nuclear power for the last 30 years. And spreading disinformation about pesticides that could have prevented widespread death and suffering from malaria. And blocking the development of genetically engineered crops that could save millions from malnutrition. And both parties have screwed us over by insisting that only NASA can get Americans into space.
The problem in all these cases is that we have ceded control of the science to the government, and squelched out contrary notions as heresy unworthy of intelligent debate or funding. Demanding that the government take even more control isn't going to make either of us happy, because the government is not a reliable ally. And that is my point. If you can get past arguing about Republican boogeymen long enough to see it.
"Yes, and yes. The USA has been largely taken over by religious fundamentalists. To the extent that they don't rule outright, their influence is still pervasive, and moves the entire country in that cultural direction. Science and scientists are openly held in amused contempt by about half of Americans, if not more."
That's the most ridiculous thing I've read in a long time. You'd pretty much have to define "fundementalist" as "non-atheist" or "vaguely socially conservative" to even approach being correct.
There are three major problems with the state of science in the US. All three are fairly simple and none have anything to do with eeevil fundementalists stealing your precious bodily fluids:
1. Politicians (of all parties, sadly) don't bother to fund basic research because they'd prefer to spend goverment money on pet projects that get them re-elected. Congress wastes enough money every year on ridiculous earmarks to fund that lab for a long time. The new Farm Bill is a perfect example. It's filled with ridiculous and contradictory subsidies, most targeted right back to the sponsors' home states.
2. Schools waste student and teacher time on peripheral nonsense and neglect the basics. This has nothing to do with evolution vs creative design or any of the other popular straw men. The problem is that the unions that control the schools are always ready to throw their resources behind implementing whatever trend is in vogue at the time. There's only so much money and time, and the basics of reading, writing, math, and science inevitably suffer.
Take a look at the exploding enrollment in your local university and community college remedial education courses. Ask yourself, why do so many young adults who have just graduated from high school need to take special courses before they can function in even entry level college courses.
3. Modern big science is easily hijacked by ideology. Sexy issues get the money. Boring things don't. Whether you agree with me here or not, it seems to me that there's one basic lesson we all should embrace: Allowing all your science to be funded and run by the government is a very bad idea. The political winds are fickle, and you can't rely on them to blow in the same direction long enough to reach your destination. Even worse, it inevitably corrupts basic science into supporting political ends. You end up with stupid and dangerous nonsense like miasmatism, eugenics, Lysenkoism, and the Great Leap Forward. That kind of ideological "science" kills people and wrecks countries. Basic science is best done in a distributed, decentralized model that allows for independent innovation and avoids groupthink.
Hey, that's the first time I've ever been moderated as Flamebait. And I wasn't even trying!
I'm not sure I understand the author's point. In the real world, things are worth pretty much whatever people are willing to pay for them. The cost of the infrastructure only determines the lowest profitable price. Yep, SMS can be expensive. Don't like that? Ok, find another provider who offers it cheaper, use another alternative technology instead, or get by without it.
SMS has value to people because it's useful to them, so the mobile companies charge what the market will bear. People get a service at a price that they find acceptable (they must, because they're buying lots of it) and the phone company makes a profit for their shareholders. Everyone wins.
The French law is a dumb law, and I hope Google makes that very clear. If other countries were to enact such laws it would be a disaster to everyone who cares about social documentary. Google will probably give in, but the shouldn't do it without a fight.
Some of the best street photography ever was taken on the streets of France. Now most of his work would probably be illegal. It's easy to go after a relatively mechanistic photography like Google's project, but in the end there's no difference between photography and photography.
Yes, if your entire market is based on selling imaginary "organic" benefits to gullible people, then you're in trouble.
But, really, it was only a matter of time.
This bill simply added some penalties if you succeeded in making such a recording, and started selling or distributing copies.
And that's the problem. If a private venue wants to have policies restricting the recording of live performances then it's fine with me. However, it's also up to them to enforce the policies they choose to embrace. Are there widespread violations? Too much trouble to watch for violations and kick people out? Can't enforce house rules without having the government "add penalties" to make it a crime? Well, maybe that should mean something to you.
Lots of stores here in the states have signs on the door that say "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service". Fancy restaurants require men to wear ties. That's their right: If they don't like how I'm dressed they can refuse service and ask me to leave. It does not mean that they should be able to pass laws and recruit the police to enforce their mandatory dress codes. See the difference?
BEEP
I don't see anything controversial about that case. If you actively participate in a violent crime and someone dies then you're just as responsible as the person who pulls the trigger. Don't want to be responsible for a murder? Then don't be a getaway driver for a gang of doped up armed robbers. It's not difficult.
Fine. Then the submitter should almost, but not quite, deserve a patent.