Deliberately withholding information like that because you plan to benefit from it is scummy, dishonest, and barely short of causing the problem yourself.
Yes, withholding facts is dishonest: Its commonly referred to as a Lie By Omission. It is also one of the most common (and despicable) lies in society and business. Practically every advertisement in existance uses some variation on this.
The behavior is not going away any time soon, so deal with it.
Actually, I believe both missions together cost only $800 million.
A mere pittance...especially when you consider all the "techno-wood*" that has been generated so far. God know how many geekitos and geekitas have been conceived since mission start.
*Techno-wood is copyleft 2005 NoseBag. Use it at your own peril. I did.
"Natural selection" is a process, not a consciousness. Whatever alters behavior in favor of increases in progeny will be selected - by definition.
As was aluded to in earlier posts, ignorance, poverty, low native intelligence of individuals (for whatever reason), poor education, etc often result in higher birthrates. The converse tends to be true too.
We have advanced far enough to have fairly consistently removed the threat "natural" selectors, e.g. lions and tigers and bears, but this simply means that other factors will have an increasingly important impact on our continuing evolution. The process continues, albeit in (perhaps) a different direction.
AFAIK, all the "water" finds on Mars have been indirect - albeit very convincing - evidence of surface water in the past.
But the radars on this puppy might just punch down - maybe only a few feet - and get a hard f*ing ice reflection, which would put paid to all the surmise and deduction. Then we would know its still there.
"Why do pipe stress freaks and crystalography weenies prefer Fortran?"
One simple answer is We're not writing a F'ing application!!
A great deal of scientific programming done by scientists and engineerse is NOT to develop an application with a nice gui and users manual - it to solve a complex problem ONCE for him/herself ONLY and get data/results that can be processed by other std application. Rude, crude, and vulgar - tha't is just fine! I write BASIC, Fortran (for 30 years) and C#, assembler, (all of the above) etc, and find that when I want to solve a problem, the last thing I want to pgm in is Cxx. I have watched sw programming change over the years from an emphasis on problem-solving to applications, applications, applications. Not everyone wants, needs, or has time to write an "application" package, Just give me my answer.
A good suggestion in principle, but a good chunk of PR technique is in non-verbal evocation/ response.
When I take a second glance at a car commercial because they're playing an old Led Zep tune (one of my fav's), then - they got me! There was no cognition involved, no intellectualization, no pondering.
Yeah, I am as capable as the next person of intellectually "girding myself" against this technique, but I really don't care to go thru life constantly on my guard for it.
But I assume you were referring to misleading adverts, etc. In this respect you are corect - get a brain and be selective and recognise these things for what they are, and you'll be fine.
PR firms and advertisers and sales folks have spent billions over the last half-century (?) or so rigorously testing and figuring precisely how to influence the average - and even non-average - schmo. Its a science and they are 21st century, computer-enhanced masters at it, and the media are their lapdogs. And I'm not talking "america" or "surburbia". I'm talking world wide. Note - I'm not trolling - I actually admire their single-mindedness and stunning success at it. I just hate being on the receiving end of it.
Today, if you don't want to be influenced, then you'll have to cut off all your sensory input.
"You seem to be assuming that if they can collect this information, they will."
I assume no such thing. I simply assert a solution (litigation)exists if such an action occurs.
"...it's quite plain that they aren't, and that they have no plans to do so."
Plans (and ethics) can change. Just wave some money (and plausible deniability) in front of their management - or one unscrupulous employee in a key position.
Implicit in the discussions is the issue of the ability to capture personal and *by definition* confidential information (tax return info). I don't want Turbotax doing it (not that they are) and I don't want the in-betweens doing it (not that they are). But I can't hold the IRS accountable for this personal info until it gets there. And if someone in that chain (IRS e-filing) is doing it, I suspect I have just cause for a lawsuit.
My main point is the considered position that the IRS took - a position that is in the article that I did read. Your false assumptions and ad hominem attacks do not do you credit. Time for nappies?
Actually, the IRS position is a smart one. Basically they are saying "Until it gets to us (e-mail or snail mail or whatever) we have no knowledge of it, or its journey, or what happened to it between you and us."
That's fair, damn it.
The issue is with the go-betweens. I say - take 'em to court and smoke 'em.
Slashdot Mirror
"Look really fast."
Yeah...then I'd just be a little hesitant, and only mildly lost.
Come to think of it, the above describes most of us anyway. Hmmm.
The majority of Kerry supporters are blue-collar.
No less so than the smaller number than supported the other bad idea.
Deliberately withholding information like that because you plan to benefit from it is scummy, dishonest, and barely short of causing the problem yourself.
Yes, withholding facts is dishonest: Its commonly referred to as a Lie By Omission. It is also one of the most common (and despicable) lies in society and business. Practically every advertisement in existance uses some variation on this.
The behavior is not going away any time soon, so deal with it.
Debugging the project is inherently impossible.
They are obviously not using RAID.
Actually, I believe both missions together cost only $800 million.
A mere pittance...especially when you consider all the "techno-wood*" that has been generated so far. God know how many geekitos and geekitas have been conceived since mission start.
*Techno-wood is copyleft 2005 NoseBag. Use it at your own peril. I did.
I was thinking...poppies. And the occasionaly errant balloon.
But that's just me all over.
The above is well-considered.
"Natural selection" is a process, not a consciousness. Whatever alters behavior in favor of increases in progeny will be selected - by definition.
As was aluded to in earlier posts, ignorance, poverty, low native intelligence of individuals (for whatever reason), poor education, etc often result in higher birthrates. The converse tends to be true too.
We have advanced far enough to have fairly consistently removed the threat "natural" selectors, e.g. lions and tigers and bears, but this simply means that other factors will have an increasingly important impact on our continuing evolution. The process continues, albeit in (perhaps) a different direction.
AFAIK, all the "water" finds on Mars have been indirect - albeit very convincing - evidence of surface water in the past.
But the radars on this puppy might just punch down - maybe only a few feet - and get a hard f*ing ice reflection, which would put paid to all the surmise and deduction. Then we would know its still there.
....It will be quite a spectacle.
I've seen several versions of this article recently, and have been resisting (until..uh..now) asking a question:
If I slaughter and eat one of the sheep am I guilty of cannibalism?
"Why do pipe stress freaks and crystalography weenies prefer Fortran?"
One simple answer is We're not writing a F'ing application!!
A great deal of scientific programming done by scientists and engineerse is NOT to develop an application with a nice gui and users manual - it to solve a complex problem ONCE for him/herself ONLY and get data/results that can be processed by other std application. Rude, crude, and vulgar - tha't is just fine! I write BASIC, Fortran (for 30 years) and C#, assembler, (all of the above) etc, and find that when I want to solve a problem, the last thing I want to pgm in is Cxx. I have watched sw programming change over the years from an emphasis on problem-solving to applications, applications, applications. Not everyone wants, needs, or has time to write an "application" package, Just give me my answer.
A good suggestion in principle, but a good chunk of PR technique is in non-verbal evocation/ response.
When I take a second glance at a car commercial because they're playing an old Led Zep tune (one of my fav's), then - they got me! There was no cognition involved, no intellectualization, no pondering.
Yeah, I am as capable as the next person of intellectually "girding myself" against this technique, but I really don't care to go thru life constantly on my guard for it.
But I assume you were referring to misleading adverts, etc. In this respect you are corect - get a brain and be selective and recognise these things for what they are, and you'll be fine.
Whooaa! Thanks for the book ref. I will find this.
This stuff should not be a surprise.
PR firms and advertisers and sales folks have spent billions over the last half-century (?) or so rigorously testing and figuring precisely how to influence the average - and even non-average - schmo. Its a science and they are 21st century, computer-enhanced masters at it, and the media are their lapdogs. And I'm not talking "america" or "surburbia". I'm talking world wide. Note - I'm not trolling - I actually admire their single-mindedness and stunning success at it. I just hate being on the receiving end of it.
Today, if you don't want to be influenced, then you'll have to cut off all your sensory input.
Why is it that the really amusing articles and comments hit /. right after I use my last moderation point? Damn...
eom.
Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin didn't have to deal with "Mighty Bruce & his 12-inch Love-Log", or "Lucy Does Lumberjacks".
Remember, this was waaaay back when France was our friend...
Thanks for saying it nicely. I didn't RTFA...or the posts...sorry to waste your time.
"The incident happened 2 years ago, but has become public this week because the lawsuit was just filed by the girl, now 19."
Headline "15 year-old..."
Uh...15...plus 2..."girl now 19"....uh...
Here's a thought:
If these puppies are to be up there for 18 months (yes, I RTFA), will they comprise a new "environment" that species could adapt to?
The floaty things would make a great rest area for migrating birds or bugs. Birds that migrate at 65K feet, that is. Maybe I should rethink this...
I'm glad you agree that it only takes one - in the right position and (implicitly) with the right skills.
"You seem to be assuming that if they can collect this information, they will."
I assume no such thing. I simply assert a solution (litigation)exists if such an action occurs.
"...it's quite plain that they aren't, and that they have no plans to do so."
Plans (and ethics) can change. Just wave some money (and plausible deniability) in front of their management - or one unscrupulous employee in a key position.
Implicit in the discussions is the issue of the ability to capture personal and *by definition* confidential information (tax return info). I don't want Turbotax doing it (not that they are) and I don't want the in-betweens doing it (not that they are). But I can't hold the IRS accountable for this personal info until it gets there. And if someone in that chain (IRS e-filing) is doing it, I suspect I have just cause for a lawsuit.
My main point is the considered position that the IRS took - a position that is in the article that I did read. Your false assumptions and ad hominem attacks do not do you credit. Time for nappies?
Actually, the IRS position is a smart one. Basically they are saying "Until it gets to us (e-mail or snail mail or whatever) we have no knowledge of it, or its journey, or what happened to it between you and us."
That's fair, damn it.
The issue is with the go-betweens. I say - take 'em to court and smoke 'em.