Carbon dating seems infallible. However, the assumption that we know the starting condition of the object seems wrong.
Radioactive decay is quite accepted, and quantified. It's very consistent.
However, if you RC-Date a burned bone, it'll give you a goofy number.
So you also date by strata, and as many other clues as you can, then cross-check.
The people who rush around publishing insane results from carbon dating aren't scientists - they're people who expect infallible machines to guess what they're trying to learn and give an unequivocal and guaranteed answer. The machine very definitively says "The ratio of isotopes in this sample is x/y", and you have to use that factoid carefully, not just assume that the outcome it implies is true or that the technology is faulty.
Can't imagine how that'll happen. If your entire game system is predicated on a bunch of idiots kicking-open doors and getting beaten half to death, you need magic potions.
(A)D&D is totally and fatally based on absorbing damage in a video-game way. Other RPGs tend to have relatively fixed numbers of hitpoints and you try to avoid damage - rather than letting people stick spears into you just slower than you can heal. More skilled people can't take more spears in their gut - instead they get better at avoiding the spears.
Done right, an adventure shouldn't need a cleric. In fact, having one along takes the challenge out of it. But D&D isn't for adventures, it's a tabletop fighting game with character detail for your guy.
D&D always was a fantasy battle simulation - moving closer to WoW is just part of that.
ID is funny because I proposed something similar to a religious friend in a debate years ago.
"How do you know evolution is false? Maybe your god is making it happen?"
How was I supposed to know it'd get popular?
As for right/wrong, you are correct that because ID can't be shown to be right, or wrong, that it can't be said to be wrong. That's because we're focusing on the wrong meaning of the word wrong. It indicates factual incorrectness, but also worthlessness.
A tautology is right, but worthless.
"Which way to we go?" "The right way!"
ID isn't incorrect (what predictions?), but is likewise worthless
"What happened?" "Dunno, but god did it!"
So ID is wrong whenever the context is a useful answer and right when the question is what christians believe. But worthless throughout.
That said, I think the trick would be for people to avoid contentious words, especially when they aren't their group's word. Obviously a scientist will understand the implications of 'theory' better than a layman, and a religious person will have their own language. If the religious people choose to argue for hours about what atheists believe while ignoring the atheist in front of them trying to explain that it's a lack of belief, they're not talking about anything other than labels.
If instead they discussed issues: "Whatever you call it - when you don't believe in X,...." they might actually have a discussion.
Because the glazier makes out well, people assume the economy is healthy.
However, their customers would have spent the money elsewhere if their windows were intact, spreading the wealth further and encouraging more creation.
Because Microsoft makes money, people assume the economy is healthy.
Microsoft, like the glazier, fixes the apparent problem (lack of w/Windows) but because it's a tax on computer usage, tends to slow down adoption and thus the economy.
FOSS really is more efficient. If you need Apache, why rewrite it? Non-software companies want a website to do things with, not for the sake of the website. Having a cheaper website (not having to buy Windows + IIS) means less waste. Either more profit, or lower prices.
Sometimes you want Atlas rockets, or Lamborghini, and the rarity of your solution means a commercial vendor is the best choice in the area. But you've got more money to spend with them because you aren't paying a fortune for the little stuff anymore.
I think the two work well together. FOSS so nobody reinvents wheels, and businesses to write unpopular code.
Because someone told them that scientists think science is good. So they feel that if they browbeat people until their views are called science that scientists will think their views are good.
Really, they can call them anything they want. A polished turd is still a turd.
I'm not hung up on labels though. There's bad science being performed all the time. If they want to call it that they can join the ranks of tobacco lobbyists and other "scientists". They'll fit right in. Decide on the truth, become a 'scientist', find evidence, discard that which doesn't fit the truth.
There's a far more damaging label to attach to ID though. Wrong.
Personally, I think it'd be hilarious to do a John-Galt sort of thing. Everyone who knows this isn't science - move to Canada. We'll let the rest to build airplanes, computers, and medicines with their science, and see how they do.
But those ideas are all wrong. (Flat-Earth, ID, etc)
Failing to meet rigor would be if I did a study and concluded (rightly) that birds could fly, but in such a way that my research/conclusions were sloppy.
Finally, what you call science class is a high-school introduction (much like shop class) to the larger world of 'science'. It mentions history more than a higher level course to give students an understanding of how information is acquired without spending too much time on any given detail.
In that sense, ID should definitely be mention in science class. And examined. And found wanting. Certainly a student should flunk an assignment if all they cite is Wikipedia, so too should they flunk if all they cite is the bible. It shows a misunderstanding of the purpose of that reference. Also, students should understand falsifiability - what could disprove a theory - and how a theory like "God did it" isn't falsifiable, and as such, isn't a theory. It's a hypothesis.
Actually, I think science class would be stronger with more of James Randi's influence, so maybe I should encourage ID in the classroom. Day 1, ID. Day 2, Flat-earth...
"Evolutionists with their painfully paranoid agenda"
Yes, because if we can get 50% of the world to believe, the devil wins! Yay!
What the hell is going through your pointy little head when you suggest that "evolutionists", (why not "proofists" or "rightists"?) have an agenda. Like, the main organization sends us a card with monthly talking points when it hands out our anti-god assignments?
You even misunderstood the post you replied to.
It mentioned those who take Genesis literally (creationists) and those who think it's a metaphor (ID - god created the world but not in a literal week). You probably take it as a metaphor.
If there was even one IDer (or creationist - but they know they aren't scientific - their honesty is refreshing) with the answers to these basic question, they might get a modicum of respect.
1) Why your religion? All religions claim be *the* one? 2) You do understand non-falsifiable theories are useless?
But unfortunately, to an IDer, "evidence" is a good insult you can shout at a real thinking person. Go get your sign, dumbass, your team needs your research skills on the street corner.
The shame of all of this is that you don't even understand the big words. Here's a rundown. You have no proof. The bible isn't. You don't even have a theory, as to have a theory you have to have an idea of what could make your idea wrong.
Watching religious people "think" is like watching the tobacco industry lobby. It's not about facts in any way, but about what masses of them want facts to be. Popular answers spread through the group like wildfire, but nobody is willing to support anything with citations or arguments. Also, your main defense is to point out potential failures in the opposition and hope it distracts from your lack of proof. You're far more concerned with the appearance of being right than any actual correctness.
Spend all the time you want showing that many people believe ID. It's not like to makes it look better - it merely gives us a better idea of Scientology's potential user-base. Science and truth aren't popularity based. I don't need the support of a herd of cows to speak the truth - you're all idiots and you have no proof. Not even the hope of proof.
The problem is that we don't optimize properly. Treat law like a living program - one that has been hacked multiple times since deployment. You can't expect it to be the most elegant code anymore. So you write tests of the current behavior and start refactoring the code till it looks/works better.
Anti-gun/weapon laws. Why so many complications?
Any device for the sole or usual use of severely injuring or killing a person should be regulated in manner X, this includes but isn't limited to guns, tazers, spring knives.
Then, based on what kind of weapons we want to have, we include them based on function.
I think it'd be possible to get gun laws down to a page or two. How big does the logic tree really need to be?
I think part of the problem is that we write insanely complex laws, as if we expect that our limited viewpoint now is going to enable us to cover every possible contingency in the future. Anyways, the outcome is modified by everything from the judge's mood, and precedent, to the phase of the moon, which renders the whole thing moot more often than not.
In programming terms, the legal system as a whole, would be/suffer from:
0) putting in way too much up-front design 1) unaudited except by black-hats - fixed only in response to blatant failure 2) deploying changes to a live system 3) working without a test suit to guide implementation 4) waterfall methodology - idea -> law - through linear set of phases 5) no user stories, only seagull managers (lobbyists) 6) no follow-up studies, or metrics, no research into quality of results 7) failure to encapsulate design - inability to inherit cleanly 8) unclear naming terminology, obsolete technical references 9) Not-Invented-Here syndrome - each statute rewrites the wheel
just to name a few issues.
spec Murder
should "punish those who kill others"
a = Person.new 'Able' ; c = Person.new 'Cain'
c.murder a
c.guilt.should be_true
should "not count for cases of self defense"
should "catch murder of, and by aliens"...
c.murder Person.new('Jar Jar')
c.guilt.should be_true # unfortunately
should "reduce effects of violent crime on populations"
simulate...
test_population_with_law.should live_longer_than test_population_without_law...
law Murder
version =>:draft
include Requires::Intent
include Requires::Compotency
include Exceptions::SelfDefense
purpose "prevent killing and threats of killing humans"
When, oh mouthy one, did I claim that the PTA was the school board? However, I think it's reasonable to expect to find some representatives of the school board at PTA meetings. Perhaps this isn't the best place to petition them, but I didn't say it was.
However, your hostile attitude and inability to admit that you're wrong is ample demonstration of why I called you a troll.
Your sarcastic comments, rude lists, implying insult to your mother's honor, calling me ignorant and juvenile, and then writing a "I'm storming out now, so you needn't bother saying anything" post are a few examples from this thread.
You're continually putting words in my mouth, and trying to trap me into - what? An admission that I don't get involved with schools much? Wow. Why didn't you just ask?
I'm not trying to prove that schools are always wasteful, merely that I have seen them this way and it would influence how I'd be willing to fund them.
Frugal means thrifty. He was thrifty because he didn't have a guaranteed source of money. Needing to get money at every turn made him frugal. Was this really so hard to figure out that you needed to imply, rudely yet again, that I didn't know what the word meant?
a: You're a troll. b: You merely act like it.
When you're a taxpayer you're a wallet, preferably without a voice. If you had ever cared to try and voice your opinions to the board you would know that this simply isn't true with regard to school districts at large. This is hardly related. I'm sure the school board would listen to my concerns if I went to a PTA meeting. They'd probably individually care even. But the organization as a whole isn't going to be half as responsive as if I was writing them a cheque.
Your "alternate" school was doing great things by being frugal, but these public schools are doing something evil when they try to find an alternative revenue stream to taxation? My example of the schools was to show responsiveness to concerns. That's hardly the same as advertising to the students. You're conflating again.
The regular school was funded through tax money, the alternate was funded mainly by donation. The regular school cared very little about our feelings on waste - not enough to even justify their actions. Not surprising, considering they already had the money.
The alternate on the other hand was very responsive to concerns because they still had to get the money. That is what made them frugal.
Advertising to students is something that most students and parents I've talked to or heard have been against. Advertising is pretty much, by definition, the last thing I'd want to subject children to.
You make a good case for the sorry state of public schools. But that doesn't justify them acting against the wishes of their financial supporters and students.
As for the computers, good for them - in this case. But if the computers were given to them because parents wanted their children to use them, I'd be annoyed if they traded them away for buses.
You're trolling. Spending more time setting up strawmen "do you just want to feel smart" "who did you vote for" "are there any concrete examples you have (NOW)" rather than actually responding to my point. Tax vs Donation.
You bitched about people fighting schools on tax - I tried to explain why. You are right there are ways to influence schools (PTA meeting, etc) but my point is that they are all less effective the more money a school gets from taxes.
My examples of an unresponsive school date mainly from the last time I was forcibly involved with a school, when I attended.
The school had a habit of spending "leftover" funds on unneeded things, with the excuse that "there's not enough left to get anything that would help students". We provided examples of things that could be done with that money, and of just saving it till next year by putting a down-payment on something. They didn't even bother refuting our points, just went ahead and wasted the money.
One the other hand, an alternate school I attended was incredibly frugal. I donated $5 while attending and the teacher bought multiple (used) textbooks with it. He'd even asked which subjects I cared about most to make sure he got books I'd support.
Large amounts (the Alternate's entire yearly budget, likely) were wasted by the mainstream school, because their budget was paid from taxes. They knew they'd get it again next year, with no regard for its use this year. Whereas the alternate, having to make due with donations that it wouldn't get again unless it used them well, provided value to the students and the person providing the donation.
I've seen the same behavior since, in schools and other charities. If the money is guaranteed they'll waste it at year-end to make sure they get it again next year (WTF!?) and if the money is tight they'll woo the community much more attentively.
When I responded to you I was explaining why I fight taxes, not schools. You then started mudslinging and assuming I'm totally apathetic. You need to pay more careful attention to where I'm going with this.
All else being equal, a school(/anything) cares more about my opinions when they have to ask for my money.
That's it.
Because of that I'm down on taxes to support schools and up on community involvement. Taxes are just money and even in proper supply often end in rundown and unloved schools full of violent prisoners. On the other hand even the poorest communities can have respect for their schools, teachers, and students. If we tax people we assure the basic funding, but deal the schools an almost fatal blow of apathy. Now that schools are tax-funded, everyone thinks it's taken care of and doesn't go to PTA meetings.
Similar things are hands-off with similar disastrous results. The army is being paid with tax money. You quite literally pay a share of the money spent torturing people in Guantanamo. The government refuses to listen to the people who say they don't support torture. If our army were a charity, giving to it would be a war crime and/or terrorist support. But because it's a government entity we can't even refuse to support it.
I support the army, and I support schools - I think we need the function of both to be fulfilled. But I'm not liking the service or respect I'm getting from these institutions. I believe they'd both be much better if funding was not guaranteed. (Trust-fund children often end up spoiled, so to do institutions.)
When you're a taxpayer you're a wallet, preferably without a voice.
But, you already wrote that off as "whining about the government I have no control over". I can see that you desperately want my support and activism if it's exactly aligned with yours, but want me to fuck off if I've got different priorities. I'm terribly sorry that my inability to choose the actions I fund is bothering you. I'll just slink off and support all those tax grabs then.
You totally ignored my comments about judging the needs of the school. You just blindly berate me for not forking out, without knowing where I am, what schools I could be talking about, or what my complaints with them would be.
Many schools I believe are serious when they say need money. I try to help these. Others have spent too much on decoration for me to believe them when they beg for money.
Regardless, I try to donate money to schools directly instead of helping them perpetuate this tax-grab. When I'm taxed to support schools I lose the power to influence them. I'd rather that the school understand that their money comes from me, not the government. That way they'll serve my wishes, not try to meet some wacky federal curriculum that will soon enough bar the teaching of evolution.
You assume these schools would do what, with the money I'm withholding? Cure cancer? Provide lunches? Pay teachers? Those things I support. But where on my taxes can I indicate what I'm willing to fund?
(That said, taxes are just a travesty. I've funded the murder of an Iraqi, who did nothing but live in a country whose unelected leader pissed off Bush. By our own definition, I and every other taxpayer in the USA/Canada/etc should be charged for terrorism - for providing financial support to a terrorist organization. If I can't choose the "Don't murder people with my money" box, I'm not surprised I can't check "Don't waste this on stupid school policies" either.)
Apple claims that. Do you have *any* proof that it is so?
I have a ton of proof that it is not. Mainly, that anything other than a standard implied contract of sale would require the specific knowledge and intent of the customer, and proof of this - something you couldn't possibly have during what looked like a sale. If one party believes it's just a sale, it is.
Deal with Oracle - they license software. You will know you've been through a licensing process. It's *very* clear. As contracts must be. If you have not been through this, you have *not* licensed software.
Apple also says reverse engineering (their products) is illegal.
Perhaps they're fucking liars and will say anything that suits them...?
The problem is that they're government schools. They get your kids, and your tax money, no matter what. Basically, they just aren't accountable to any of the groups that the people feel should be their bosses, the parents as taxpayers, or the children as the receivers of the teaching. Instead, schools are indebted only to our system of handouts and meeting those arbitrary metrics.
I'd stop dealing with a private school that did this, but as a public school they get to double-dip, taking tax money *and* getting paid for pushing marketing on the kids, and the government keeps stuffing kids in with hardly any concern over the desires of the parents or students.
It's not the poorest schools that are doing this either. If this was some inner-city crack-shack that was doing this to afford rat traps, or school breakfasts, it might be forgivable. Instead it's always some fairly wealthy school (who wants to advertise to poor kids?) that's seeking ever more money.
You can tell how much a school really needs money by how closely its administration building (where the principal/dean is most of the time) matches the condition of the rest of the campus. If one is posh and the other not, the school (like many) has a lot of fat to cut in administrative areas before they really get close to needing money. If on the other hand administrators work in worse conditions than students, they probably do need the money.
It's a tax-based thing, I can't pick a school I trust and fund it - my taxes go to help the badly run schools that spend more on admin toys and pompous architecture than teaching as much as they help any other school. Because of that I do fight schools' tax grabs, like all other tax grabs, because I have absolutely no oversight over that money once they take it and I can be sure they aren't as careful with it as I would be, nor half as useful to students or society.
Not because it's more likely "true", but because it's more likely what you're looking for, be it a blog, pics of drunk students passed out on the floor, or whatever. It's not that you "trust" them (.edu domains), just that you "trust" they're less likely to be wasting your time.
Of course, nobody really does, because the purpose of TLDs has been totally ignored (essentially) and doesn't serve its original purpose. goatse wasn't on Christmas Island, after all...
I'd be surprised if Google actually weighted.edu domains higher. If there is a bonus it's likely just from having the same domain as other people who aren't spammers, having non-spammers link to you, etc.
With your own lonely spam blog on your own lonely domain the.edu isn't going to be helping much.
Yes, with what are apparently fake ad views because they happen at 10/second from the same host. Any ad provider is going to recognize those as not being legitimate views and not pay out. And that's if they're paid for impressions, not clicks.
If there were too many fake views that it was hard for the ad company to pay out it might not be profitable to continue... If you've got a botnet, maybe it'd be worth pulling it off of the RIAA for a day or two.:)
By the short additions, and pattern of links, and back links. And they don't need to know it's a blog, just that more of its links are to and from non.edu sites so it's likely not.edu related. If they do give a bonus to.edu sites, I imagine it'd be easy to change into.edu connected sites.
In fact, I can't imagine Google doing something static like that. Not all schools are on.edu domains so hard coding it wouldn't have been effective or even worth while.
It depends on what you call your product. Do you try to conflate it with an unmodified Craftsman tool?
However, there's nothing wrong with selling Craftsman tools with ipods welded onto them if you wish, and using the trademarked name as a reference to the product is certainly allowed. "Craftsman vice-grips with ipod touch welded on - $50"
If it's legal to add third-party parts to your Toyota, it's legal to do it to your tools. If it's legal to do it, it's legal to sell it.
This whole issue is ridiculous. EULAs would only be required if you needed a license to use a copyrighted work. Obviously (from books) you do not, but US copyright law went one further to explicitly allowing use without a license, including where that involved copying in so much as it is necessary for normal working of the software. EULAs typically offer nothing to the user except for the 'right' to use the software. As it is already unquestionably the users right to do so, the EULA offers nothing of value. Under even trivial examination EULAs are absolutely worthless.
By selling OS X Apple has implicitly given the user a patent license on any Apple patents, the right to copy the software to drive, memory, and cache, and to use the software as they see fit. Seeing as 'OS X' is simply descriptive, Apple cannot even complain about the use of its trademark. None of the three 'IP' laws will help them in the slightest, as all respect the rights of a user to buy, use, modify, discuss, and sell a product.
Selling a 'Computer running a modified copy of Apple OS X(tm Apple corp)' is thoroughly legal. As legal as '1983 Toyota - painted blue, aftermarket stereo'.
Anyone telling you otherwise is selling something - something detrimental to you.
It's that podcasts are hard to skim, hard to search, and hard to mark-up.
They're great anywhere books on tape are because they're exactly that, books on the new 'tape'.
Wikipedia is what it is because of the ease of use and editing. Can you imagine a podcast version? It might be neat to listen to someone describe something, but how could you fix a mistake? Download and remix the file?
Written content on the other hand, is easy to look back at to reference, can be quoted, etc.
When audio content finally goes anywhere, it will do so only because of automated transcribing and bookmarking, thumbnailing, etc. Ways of letting you see an overview instead of just starting to slog through the whole thing in linear order. Imagine try to find details on an issue by going through old news radio programs versus old newspapers and you see why I think it's needed.
But who listens to slow boring people "Umm" for an hour when they could read a transcript of the same thing in five minutes?
Drivers. The blind. And the illiterate. In other words, radio listeners.
Podcasting won't go anywhere. Anyone who says it will is an idiot. It's just sounds in a file, and that's here to stay. But the huge kick people get out of finding one? Gone. Already. It used to be "wow, you can download a whole radio show?" but now they aren't "new" and nobody is interested. Well, it's still as thrilling as radio...
We have *always* been at war with Oceania, comrade. How else could it have been? But, I am going to have to ask you to stay over the weekend and fix this crazy typo...
Aren't you glad we've got all the important history down to fit in one book? This would have been such a nightmare if there were more.
If merely owning a copyright has no value, why do people value them? Certainly a grant is a grant, even if you don't get around to using it fully.
As for why we grant patents, consider this. If I had a working FTL drive and described it to someone at the wrong time, I wouldn't get a patent. If someone overheard me discussing notes with someone and wrote their own proposal, they'd get the patent. It's *not* about value to society, it's about complying to the rules that were left when the last leech was finished lobbying, to get a bigger scrape of the pie than you'd be given, if the rules weren't screwy.
People who invent for free don't deserve patents, since they weren't necessary to encourage them to invent. When you reward something, what do you get? Are you proposing we reward innovating? No. Helping society? No. Boosting the market by rewarding good ideas? No. You're proposing we help someone who is a snoop and good at filling out forms, over the inventor of the thing they snooped.
Patents are pretty much guaranteed not to be of use to society. Those who could, simply did. Those who couldn't whined until we gave them handouts. If we believe the free market to be effective, then why do we need to restrict it for its own good?
If you want inventions, pay inventors. If you want people to fight over 'IP' rights, pay lawyers.
Well, I'd call monopoly rights a reward, even if I still had to make them profitable.
I know that the government doesn't give a copyright on lame poetry as a reward, but it gives the reward of a copyright to encourage the industry in general.
So my point was mostly that these are industry and circumstance specific grants, not a general "thanks for your good idea" reward.
That's what I meant about the standards for patents. If we were just being nice and rewarding helpful ideas we'd reward anything original and useful. As is it must be unpublished, technological, etc. Not to discriminate, but discriminatory in that it selects only some members from a set.
The guy who said "don't follow too closely in traffic" got nothing. The guy who put cats together with laser pointers got a patent. In other words, totally unrelated to social utility or actual inventiveness.
I know this isn't news. I was merely using it to support my statement of 'arbitrarily granted', by which I mean not based on utility but on unrelated (political) rules (such as having to applying for a patent instead of just sharing the idea).
Slashdot Mirror
Carbon dating seems infallible. However, the assumption that we know the starting condition of the object seems wrong.
Radioactive decay is quite accepted, and quantified. It's very consistent.
However, if you RC-Date a burned bone, it'll give you a goofy number.
So you also date by strata, and as many other clues as you can, then cross-check.
The people who rush around publishing insane results from carbon dating aren't scientists - they're people who expect infallible machines to guess what they're trying to learn and give an unequivocal and guaranteed answer. The machine very definitively says "The ratio of isotopes in this sample is x/y", and you have to use that factoid carefully, not just assume that the outcome it implies is true or that the technology is faulty.
When that big business makes money selling software, perhaps not. But when that big business makes money selling hardware, FOSS is a goldmine.
Businesses who try to profit from proprietary software fail too, so should we assume that it shows the great failure of capitalism?
Can't imagine how that'll happen. If your entire game system is predicated on a bunch of idiots kicking-open doors and getting beaten half to death, you need magic potions.
(A)D&D is totally and fatally based on absorbing damage in a video-game way. Other RPGs tend to have relatively fixed numbers of hitpoints and you try to avoid damage - rather than letting people stick spears into you just slower than you can heal. More skilled people can't take more spears in their gut - instead they get better at avoiding the spears.
Done right, an adventure shouldn't need a cleric. In fact, having one along takes the challenge out of it. But D&D isn't for adventures, it's a tabletop fighting game with character detail for your guy.
D&D always was a fantasy battle simulation - moving closer to WoW is just part of that.
ID is funny because I proposed something similar to a religious friend in a debate years ago.
...." they might actually have a discussion.
"How do you know evolution is false? Maybe your god is making it happen?"
How was I supposed to know it'd get popular?
As for right/wrong, you are correct that because ID can't be shown to be right, or wrong, that it can't be said to be wrong. That's because we're focusing on the wrong meaning of the word wrong. It indicates factual incorrectness, but also worthlessness.
A tautology is right, but worthless.
"Which way to we go?" "The right way!"
ID isn't incorrect (what predictions?), but is likewise worthless
"What happened?" "Dunno, but god did it!"
So ID is wrong whenever the context is a useful answer and right when the question is what christians believe. But worthless throughout.
That said, I think the trick would be for people to avoid contentious words, especially when they aren't their group's word. Obviously a scientist will understand the implications of 'theory' better than a layman, and a religious person will have their own language. If the religious people choose to argue for hours about what atheists believe while ignoring the atheist in front of them trying to explain that it's a lack of belief, they're not talking about anything other than labels.
If instead they discussed issues: "Whatever you call it - when you don't believe in X,
That sounds just like the fallacy.
Because the glazier makes out well, people assume the economy is healthy.
However, their customers would have spent the money elsewhere if their windows were intact, spreading the wealth further and encouraging more creation.
Because Microsoft makes money, people assume the economy is healthy.
Microsoft, like the glazier, fixes the apparent problem (lack of w/Windows) but because it's a tax on computer usage, tends to slow down adoption and thus the economy.
FOSS really is more efficient. If you need Apache, why rewrite it? Non-software companies want a website to do things with, not for the sake of the website. Having a cheaper website (not having to buy Windows + IIS) means less waste. Either more profit, or lower prices.
Sometimes you want Atlas rockets, or Lamborghini, and the rarity of your solution means a commercial vendor is the best choice in the area. But you've got more money to spend with them because you aren't paying a fortune for the little stuff anymore.
I think the two work well together. FOSS so nobody reinvents wheels, and businesses to write unpopular code.
Because someone told them that scientists think science is good. So they feel that if they browbeat people until their views are called science that scientists will think their views are good.
Really, they can call them anything they want. A polished turd is still a turd.
I'm not hung up on labels though. There's bad science being performed all the time. If they want to call it that they can join the ranks of tobacco lobbyists and other "scientists". They'll fit right in. Decide on the truth, become a 'scientist', find evidence, discard that which doesn't fit the truth.
There's a far more damaging label to attach to ID though. Wrong.
Personally, I think it'd be hilarious to do a John-Galt sort of thing. Everyone who knows this isn't science - move to Canada. We'll let the rest to build airplanes, computers, and medicines with their science, and see how they do.
Correct. Wrong and Non-rigorous are not the same.
But those ideas are all wrong. (Flat-Earth, ID, etc)
Failing to meet rigor would be if I did a study and concluded (rightly) that birds could fly, but in such a way that my research/conclusions were sloppy.
Finally, what you call science class is a high-school introduction (much like shop class) to the larger world of 'science'. It mentions history more than a higher level course to give students an understanding of how information is acquired without spending too much time on any given detail.
In that sense, ID should definitely be mention in science class. And examined. And found wanting. Certainly a student should flunk an assignment if all they cite is Wikipedia, so too should they flunk if all they cite is the bible. It shows a misunderstanding of the purpose of that reference. Also, students should understand falsifiability - what could disprove a theory - and how a theory like "God did it" isn't falsifiable, and as such, isn't a theory. It's a hypothesis.
Actually, I think science class would be stronger with more of James Randi's influence, so maybe I should encourage ID in the classroom. Day 1, ID. Day 2, Flat-earth...
Well, what have you done that's supposed to give you a relevant opinion?
Wake me when the list is longer than "read the bible".
Are you clinically unstable?
"Evolutionists with their painfully paranoid agenda"
Yes, because if we can get 50% of the world to believe, the devil wins! Yay!
What the hell is going through your pointy little head when you suggest that "evolutionists", (why not "proofists" or "rightists"?) have an agenda. Like, the main organization sends us a card with monthly talking points when it hands out our anti-god assignments?
You even misunderstood the post you replied to.
It mentioned those who take Genesis literally (creationists) and those who think it's a metaphor (ID - god created the world but not in a literal week). You probably take it as a metaphor.
If there was even one IDer (or creationist - but they know they aren't scientific - their honesty is refreshing) with the answers to these basic question, they might get a modicum of respect.
1) Why your religion? All religions claim be *the* one?
2) You do understand non-falsifiable theories are useless?
But unfortunately, to an IDer, "evidence" is a good insult you can shout at a real thinking person. Go get your sign, dumbass, your team needs your research skills on the street corner.
The shame of all of this is that you don't even understand the big words. Here's a rundown. You have no proof. The bible isn't. You don't even have a theory, as to have a theory you have to have an idea of what could make your idea wrong.
Watching religious people "think" is like watching the tobacco industry lobby. It's not about facts in any way, but about what masses of them want facts to be. Popular answers spread through the group like wildfire, but nobody is willing to support anything with citations or arguments. Also, your main defense is to point out potential failures in the opposition and hope it distracts from your lack of proof. You're far more concerned with the appearance of being right than any actual correctness.
Spend all the time you want showing that many people believe ID. It's not like to makes it look better - it merely gives us a better idea of Scientology's potential user-base. Science and truth aren't popularity based. I don't need the support of a herd of cows to speak the truth - you're all idiots and you have no proof. Not even the hope of proof.
The problem is that we don't optimize properly. Treat law like a living program - one that has been hacked multiple times since deployment. You can't expect it to be the most elegant code anymore. So you write tests of the current behavior and start refactoring the code till it looks/works better.
...
... ...
:draft
:victim => [:dead, :unwilling, :sentient] :defendant => [:soldier => :legal_war]
:rank => nil # illegal-combatants, police, politicians, etc :imprisoned
Anti-gun/weapon laws. Why so many complications?
Any device for the sole or usual use of severely injuring or killing a person should be regulated in manner X, this includes but isn't limited to guns, tazers, spring knives.
Then, based on what kind of weapons we want to have, we include them based on function.
I think it'd be possible to get gun laws down to a page or two. How big does the logic tree really need to be?
I think part of the problem is that we write insanely complex laws, as if we expect that our limited viewpoint now is going to enable us to cover every possible contingency in the future. Anyways, the outcome is modified by everything from the judge's mood, and precedent, to the phase of the moon, which renders the whole thing moot more often than not.
In programming terms, the legal system as a whole, would be/suffer from:
0) putting in way too much up-front design
1) unaudited except by black-hats - fixed only in response to blatant failure
2) deploying changes to a live system
3) working without a test suit to guide implementation
4) waterfall methodology - idea -> law - through linear set of phases
5) no user stories, only seagull managers (lobbyists)
6) no follow-up studies, or metrics, no research into quality of results
7) failure to encapsulate design - inability to inherit cleanly
8) unclear naming terminology, obsolete technical references
9) Not-Invented-Here syndrome - each statute rewrites the wheel
just to name a few issues.
spec Murder
should "punish those who kill others"
a = Person.new 'Able' ; c = Person.new 'Cain'
c.murder a
c.guilt.should be_true
should "not count for cases of self defense"
should "catch murder of, and by aliens"
c.murder Person.new('Jar Jar')
c.guilt.should be_true # unfortunately
should "reduce effects of violent crime on populations"
simulate
test_population_with_law.should live_longer_than test_population_without_law
law Murder
version =>
include Requires::Intent
include Requires::Compotency
include Exceptions::SelfDefense
purpose "prevent killing and threats of killing humans"
matches
excludes
ensure
ensure
It just needs to be refactored, a lot.
When, oh mouthy one, did I claim that the PTA was the school board? However, I think it's reasonable to expect to find some representatives of the school board at PTA meetings. Perhaps this isn't the best place to petition them, but I didn't say it was.
However, your hostile attitude and inability to admit that you're wrong is ample demonstration of why I called you a troll.
Your sarcastic comments, rude lists, implying insult to your mother's honor, calling me ignorant and juvenile, and then writing a "I'm storming out now, so you needn't bother saying anything" post are a few examples from this thread.
You're continually putting words in my mouth, and trying to trap me into - what? An admission that I don't get involved with schools much? Wow. Why didn't you just ask?
I'm not trying to prove that schools are always wasteful, merely that I have seen them this way and it would influence how I'd be willing to fund them.
Frugal means thrifty. He was thrifty because he didn't have a guaranteed source of money. Needing to get money at every turn made him frugal. Was this really so hard to figure out that you needed to imply, rudely yet again, that I didn't know what the word meant?
The regular school was funded through tax money, the alternate was funded mainly by donation. The regular school cared very little about our feelings on waste - not enough to even justify their actions. Not surprising, considering they already had the money.
The alternate on the other hand was very responsive to concerns because they still had to get the money. That is what made them frugal.
Advertising to students is something that most students and parents I've talked to or heard have been against. Advertising is pretty much, by definition, the last thing I'd want to subject children to.
You make a good case for the sorry state of public schools. But that doesn't justify them acting against the wishes of their financial supporters and students.
As for the computers, good for them - in this case. But if the computers were given to them because parents wanted their children to use them, I'd be annoyed if they traded them away for buses.
You're trolling. Spending more time setting up strawmen "do you just want to feel smart" "who did you vote for" "are there any concrete examples you have (NOW)" rather than actually responding to my point. Tax vs Donation.
You bitched about people fighting schools on tax - I tried to explain why. You are right there are ways to influence schools (PTA meeting, etc) but my point is that they are all less effective the more money a school gets from taxes.
My examples of an unresponsive school date mainly from the last time I was forcibly involved with a school, when I attended.
The school had a habit of spending "leftover" funds on unneeded things, with the excuse that "there's not enough left to get anything that would help students". We provided examples of things that could be done with that money, and of just saving it till next year by putting a down-payment on something. They didn't even bother refuting our points, just went ahead and wasted the money.
One the other hand, an alternate school I attended was incredibly frugal. I donated $5 while attending and the teacher bought multiple (used) textbooks with it. He'd even asked which subjects I cared about most to make sure he got books I'd support.
Large amounts (the Alternate's entire yearly budget, likely) were wasted by the mainstream school, because their budget was paid from taxes. They knew they'd get it again next year, with no regard for its use this year. Whereas the alternate, having to make due with donations that it wouldn't get again unless it used them well, provided value to the students and the person providing the donation.
I've seen the same behavior since, in schools and other charities. If the money is guaranteed they'll waste it at year-end to make sure they get it again next year (WTF!?) and if the money is tight they'll woo the community much more attentively.
When I responded to you I was explaining why I fight taxes, not schools. You then started mudslinging and assuming I'm totally apathetic. You need to pay more careful attention to where I'm going with this.
All else being equal, a school(/anything) cares more about my opinions when they have to ask for my money.
That's it.
Because of that I'm down on taxes to support schools and up on community involvement. Taxes are just money and even in proper supply often end in rundown and unloved schools full of violent prisoners. On the other hand even the poorest communities can have respect for their schools, teachers, and students. If we tax people we assure the basic funding, but deal the schools an almost fatal blow of apathy. Now that schools are tax-funded, everyone thinks it's taken care of and doesn't go to PTA meetings.
Similar things are hands-off with similar disastrous results. The army is being paid with tax money. You quite literally pay a share of the money spent torturing people in Guantanamo. The government refuses to listen to the people who say they don't support torture. If our army were a charity, giving to it would be a war crime and/or terrorist support. But because it's a government entity we can't even refuse to support it.
I support the army, and I support schools - I think we need the function of both to be fulfilled. But I'm not liking the service or respect I'm getting from these institutions. I believe they'd both be much better if funding was not guaranteed. (Trust-fund children often end up spoiled, so to do institutions.)
When you're a taxpayer you're a wallet, preferably without a voice.
But, you already wrote that off as "whining about the government I have no control over". I can see that you desperately want my support and activism if it's exactly aligned with yours, but want me to fuck off if I've got different priorities. I'm terribly sorry that my inability to choose the actions I fund is bothering you. I'll just slink off and support all those tax grabs then.
You totally ignored my comments about judging the needs of the school. You just blindly berate me for not forking out, without knowing where I am, what schools I could be talking about, or what my complaints with them would be.
Many schools I believe are serious when they say need money. I try to help these. Others have spent too much on decoration for me to believe them when they beg for money.
Regardless, I try to donate money to schools directly instead of helping them perpetuate this tax-grab. When I'm taxed to support schools I lose the power to influence them. I'd rather that the school understand that their money comes from me, not the government. That way they'll serve my wishes, not try to meet some wacky federal curriculum that will soon enough bar the teaching of evolution.
You assume these schools would do what, with the money I'm withholding? Cure cancer? Provide lunches? Pay teachers? Those things I support. But where on my taxes can I indicate what I'm willing to fund?
(That said, taxes are just a travesty. I've funded the murder of an Iraqi, who did nothing but live in a country whose unelected leader pissed off Bush. By our own definition, I and every other taxpayer in the USA/Canada/etc should be charged for terrorism - for providing financial support to a terrorist organization. If I can't choose the "Don't murder people with my money" box, I'm not surprised I can't check "Don't waste this on stupid school policies" either.)
Apple claims that. Do you have *any* proof that it is so?
I have a ton of proof that it is not. Mainly, that anything other than a standard implied contract of sale would require the specific knowledge and intent of the customer, and proof of this - something you couldn't possibly have during what looked like a sale. If one party believes it's just a sale, it is.
Deal with Oracle - they license software. You will know you've been through a licensing process. It's *very* clear. As contracts must be. If you have not been through this, you have *not* licensed software.
Apple also says reverse engineering (their products) is illegal.
Perhaps they're fucking liars and will say anything that suits them...?
The problem is that they're government schools. They get your kids, and your tax money, no matter what. Basically, they just aren't accountable to any of the groups that the people feel should be their bosses, the parents as taxpayers, or the children as the receivers of the teaching. Instead, schools are indebted only to our system of handouts and meeting those arbitrary metrics.
I'd stop dealing with a private school that did this, but as a public school they get to double-dip, taking tax money *and* getting paid for pushing marketing on the kids, and the government keeps stuffing kids in with hardly any concern over the desires of the parents or students.
It's not the poorest schools that are doing this either. If this was some inner-city crack-shack that was doing this to afford rat traps, or school breakfasts, it might be forgivable. Instead it's always some fairly wealthy school (who wants to advertise to poor kids?) that's seeking ever more money.
You can tell how much a school really needs money by how closely its administration building (where the principal/dean is most of the time) matches the condition of the rest of the campus. If one is posh and the other not, the school (like many) has a lot of fat to cut in administrative areas before they really get close to needing money. If on the other hand administrators work in worse conditions than students, they probably do need the money.
It's a tax-based thing, I can't pick a school I trust and fund it - my taxes go to help the badly run schools that spend more on admin toys and pompous architecture than teaching as much as they help any other school. Because of that I do fight schools' tax grabs, like all other tax grabs, because I have absolutely no oversight over that money once they take it and I can be sure they aren't as careful with it as I would be, nor half as useful to students or society.
Not because it's more likely "true", but because it's more likely what you're looking for, be it a blog, pics of drunk students passed out on the floor, or whatever. It's not that you "trust" them (.edu domains), just that you "trust" they're less likely to be wasting your time.
.edu domains higher. If there is a bonus it's likely just from having the same domain as other people who aren't spammers, having non-spammers link to you, etc.
.edu isn't going to be helping much.
Of course, nobody really does, because the purpose of TLDs has been totally ignored (essentially) and doesn't serve its original purpose. goatse wasn't on Christmas Island, after all...
I'd be surprised if Google actually weighted
With your own lonely spam blog on your own lonely domain the
Yes, with what are apparently fake ad views because they happen at 10/second from the same host. Any ad provider is going to recognize those as not being legitimate views and not pay out. And that's if they're paid for impressions, not clicks.
:)
If there were too many fake views that it was hard for the ad company to pay out it might not be profitable to continue... If you've got a botnet, maybe it'd be worth pulling it off of the RIAA for a day or two.
By the short additions, and pattern of links, and back links. And they don't need to know it's a blog, just that more of its links are to and from non .edu sites so it's likely not .edu related. If they do give a bonus to .edu sites, I imagine it'd be easy to change into .edu connected sites.
.edu domains so hard coding it wouldn't have been effective or even worth while.
In fact, I can't imagine Google doing something static like that. Not all schools are on
It depends on what you call your product. Do you try to conflate it with an unmodified Craftsman tool?
However, there's nothing wrong with selling Craftsman tools with ipods welded onto them if you wish, and using the trademarked name as a reference to the product is certainly allowed. "Craftsman vice-grips with ipod touch welded on - $50"
If it's legal to add third-party parts to your Toyota, it's legal to do it to your tools. If it's legal to do it, it's legal to sell it.
This whole issue is ridiculous. EULAs would only be required if you needed a license to use a copyrighted work. Obviously (from books) you do not, but US copyright law went one further to explicitly allowing use without a license, including where that involved copying in so much as it is necessary for normal working of the software. EULAs typically offer nothing to the user except for the 'right' to use the software. As it is already unquestionably the users right to do so, the EULA offers nothing of value. Under even trivial examination EULAs are absolutely worthless.
By selling OS X Apple has implicitly given the user a patent license on any Apple patents, the right to copy the software to drive, memory, and cache, and to use the software as they see fit. Seeing as 'OS X' is simply descriptive, Apple cannot even complain about the use of its trademark. None of the three 'IP' laws will help them in the slightest, as all respect the rights of a user to buy, use, modify, discuss, and sell a product.
Selling a 'Computer running a modified copy of Apple OS X(tm Apple corp)' is thoroughly legal. As legal as '1983 Toyota - painted blue, aftermarket stereo'.
Anyone telling you otherwise is selling something - something detrimental to you.
It's that podcasts are hard to skim, hard to search, and hard to mark-up.
They're great anywhere books on tape are because they're exactly that, books on the new 'tape'.
Wikipedia is what it is because of the ease of use and editing. Can you imagine a podcast version? It might be neat to listen to someone describe something, but how could you fix a mistake? Download and remix the file?
Written content on the other hand, is easy to look back at to reference, can be quoted, etc.
When audio content finally goes anywhere, it will do so only because of automated transcribing and bookmarking, thumbnailing, etc. Ways of letting you see an overview instead of just starting to slog through the whole thing in linear order. Imagine try to find details on an issue by going through old news radio programs versus old newspapers and you see why I think it's needed.
Well, that's the explanation. The radio business.
But who listens to slow boring people "Umm" for an hour when they could read a transcript of the same thing in five minutes?
Drivers. The blind. And the illiterate. In other words, radio listeners.
Podcasting won't go anywhere. Anyone who says it will is an idiot. It's just sounds in a file, and that's here to stay. But the huge kick people get out of finding one? Gone. Already. It used to be "wow, you can download a whole radio show?" but now they aren't "new" and nobody is interested. Well, it's still as thrilling as radio...
We have *always* been at war with Oceania, comrade. How else could it have been? But, I am going to have to ask you to stay over the weekend and fix this crazy typo...
Aren't you glad we've got all the important history down to fit in one book? This would have been such a nightmare if there were more.
As for why we grant patents, consider this. If I had a working FTL drive and described it to someone at the wrong time, I wouldn't get a patent. If someone overheard me discussing notes with someone and wrote their own proposal, they'd get the patent. It's *not* about value to society, it's about complying to the rules that were left when the last leech was finished lobbying, to get a bigger scrape of the pie than you'd be given, if the rules weren't screwy. People who invent for free don't deserve patents, since they weren't necessary to encourage them to invent. When you reward something, what do you get? Are you proposing we reward innovating? No. Helping society? No. Boosting the market by rewarding good ideas? No. You're proposing we help someone who is a snoop and good at filling out forms, over the inventor of the thing they snooped.
Patents are pretty much guaranteed not to be of use to society. Those who could, simply did. Those who couldn't whined until we gave them handouts. If we believe the free market to be effective, then why do we need to restrict it for its own good?
If you want inventions, pay inventors. If you want people to fight over 'IP' rights, pay lawyers.
Well, I'd call monopoly rights a reward, even if I still had to make them profitable.
I know that the government doesn't give a copyright on lame poetry as a reward, but it gives the reward of a copyright to encourage the industry in general.
So my point was mostly that these are industry and circumstance specific grants, not a general "thanks for your good idea" reward.
That's what I meant about the standards for patents. If we were just being nice and rewarding helpful ideas we'd reward anything original and useful. As is it must be unpublished, technological, etc. Not to discriminate, but discriminatory in that it selects only some members from a set.
The guy who said "don't follow too closely in traffic" got nothing. The guy who put cats together with laser pointers got a patent. In other words, totally unrelated to social utility or actual inventiveness.
I know this isn't news. I was merely using it to support my statement of 'arbitrarily granted', by which I mean not based on utility but on unrelated (political) rules (such as having to applying for a patent instead of just sharing the idea).