Judging by the increase in the number of journals over time, they lack the John Cleese negative feedback loop proposed in the third paragraph of GP, and don't meet the "cage match" requirements.
I was subscribed to Management Information Systems Quarterly for a couple of years.
The short form of the journal's title, pronounced "MIScue", doubled as a one-word review.
One sees these duelling studies, some for, some against cellular phone usage,
and one can't help but recall the Steven Wright joke about getting a humidifier
and a de-humidifier for Christmas. So he put them in one room and let them
fight it out.
Maybe there could be some kind of academic cage match between the two camps,
wherein they have to explain their research publicly, and get to critique the
methodology of the opposing camp.
The match ends when intellectual honesty compels one camp to admit that their
work is an absolut waste of human time, at which point enter John Cleese to issue
a Wensleydale.
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. (Eccl 1:9)
This was never more true than in the case of software patents.
The correct question is not "Why use computers"", or "Why not just hire a psychologist?".
This is a government funding exercise. The correct answer is, "Why not do both?". We can frivolously blow twice the cash on white-collar welfare if we refuse to limit ourselves. Remember: the proper boolean operator is AND, not OR.
Now, Brian: proceed to your journal, write a post saying "AND, not OR" 500 times, and quit wasting valuable/. time with these half-measures.
The difference it makes is that you know who is respectable in the community.
The GPL is equally worthy of esteem, except the part where (for a thankfully small minority) it becomes a religion and all who've "sinned, and fall short of the glory of" the four freedoms are anathematized.
If someone wants to build a house of of highly contentious material like "ethics", then it helps to provide a fully developed ethical system in print, so we can all see how the various objects like buyer, seller, marketplace, copyright, trademark, and patent interact within that ethical system.
Just saying "those who disagree are unethical, because I say so" is just a bit too simplified.
Coming full circle, the support a company like Apple offers becomes another aspect of advertising, and the companies can be trained to see that people wanting to see the source code are not mere clowns, but actually adding shareholder value to the products, and providing splendid word of mouth advertising. All without being flogged by an idealogue.
Credit where due: we would possibly not even have this kind of discussion if not for RMS. He does deserve respect, if not agreement.
Much of the output of the various news sources today is, arguably, spam.
So the question I would have liked to pose is:
Since we can't filter out bias, how can the technology help to make the news biases more transparent and quantifiable?
For example, work like this about VP Cheney deserves to be bagged, tagged, and ignored, for it is a blemish on the face of legitimate journalism.
...corrected for the spiritual traditions of the couples.
My gut feeling is that, if the couple isn't on the same wavelength, they are indeed fairly tubed.
You know, if we really hated our wealthy global elite overlords, we'd have an anti-materialist counter-revolution.
But I interrupt my SUV-lusting to say that.
So, since your local elected representatives are impotent, you'd prefer to abdicate further sovereignty and bring in the Fed?
That's one solution, I suppose.
Recall that precedent is a mother, and she bears unintended children.
"meet the new boss,same as the old boss"
Maybe the global need is for greater transparency?
Rather than reject your point entirely, I'll offer that poor people do realize some improvement in context as a result of "social programs".
However to say "poor people have exactly zero chance of ever getting back on their feet" is to a) overstate the biases in society, and b) completely let people off the hook for becoming self-starters.
I know at least one person of rather humble origins who has managed to do reasonably well in society.
Social programs, like a cast on a broken limb, are great for solving the acute problem of mending a bone, but, like a cast on a broken limb, lead to atrophy if left in place overlong.
The essential paradigm of Japanese Sage Darby refers creating partially situated flavor identities out of actual or potential social cheese culture reality in terms of canonical forms of human contact, thus re-normalizing the phenomenology of fromage space and requiring the naturalization of the inter-subjective cognitive flavor strategy, and thereby resolving the dialectics of metaphorical thoughts and aromas, each problematic to the other, collectively redefining and reifying the paradigm of the parable of the model of the metaphor of the cheese.
How so? This topic has always been the subject of dispassionate, even-handed debate, and characterized by respectful, collegial differences of opinion.
Truly a wonderful community.
Oh we're not talking about Venezuelan Beaver Cheese Production in the pre-Spanish Years? Sorry.
Slashdot Mirror
To peek or not to peek ain't the question:
Rather, who owneth the eyeballs, and the policy wherewith their wanderings be managed!
Judging by the increase in the number of journals over time, they lack the John Cleese negative feedback loop proposed in the third paragraph of GP, and don't meet the "cage match" requirements.
I was subscribed to Management Information Systems Quarterly for a couple of years.
The short form of the journal's title, pronounced "MIScue", doubled as a one-word review.
One sees these duelling studies, some for, some against cellular phone usage,
and one can't help but recall the Steven Wright joke about getting a humidifier
and a de-humidifier for Christmas. So he put them in one room and let them
fight it out.
Maybe there could be some kind of academic cage match between the two camps,
wherein they have to explain their research publicly, and get to critique the
methodology of the opposing camp.
The match ends when intellectual honesty compels one camp to admit that their
work is an absolut waste of human time, at which point enter John Cleese to issue
a Wensleydale.
If it ain't some all-wood hunting lodge with lots of heads on the walls, I don't want to hear about it.
The correct question is not "Why use computers"", or "Why not just hire a psychologist?". This is a government funding exercise. The correct answer is, "Why not do both?". We can frivolously blow twice the cash on white-collar welfare if we refuse to limit ourselves. Remember: the proper boolean operator is AND, not OR. /. time with these half-measures.
Now, Brian: proceed to your journal, write a post saying "AND, not OR" 500 times, and quit wasting valuable
Ah, but killing the loose-lipped bird in the bush is worth more than a stone in one hand.
This is poetry
So pronounce it "ting-uh-ling"
Or be ding-a-ling
The submit button
Made your post into a line
Like a fencing foil?
Greed and money,
Like a thicket of beard,
Obscure good and sunny:
Let all things be sheared.
Burma Shave
http://www.m4gw.com:2005/m4gw/multimedia.html
The splendid "If we had some global warming" is the second video downpage.
If by this you mean, let's load-shed federal retirement and medical plans, I say: preach it, brother!
Nah, you just need to paraphrase Gandhi:
"I think ethics in IT would be a wonderful idea."
The difference it makes is that you know who is respectable in the community.
The GPL is equally worthy of esteem, except the part where (for a thankfully small minority) it becomes a religion and all who've "sinned, and fall short of the glory of" the four freedoms are anathematized.
If someone wants to build a house of of highly contentious material like "ethics", then it helps to provide a fully developed ethical system in print, so we can all see how the various objects like buyer, seller, marketplace, copyright, trademark, and patent interact within that ethical system.
Just saying "those who disagree are unethical, because I say so" is just a bit too simplified.
Coming full circle, the support a company like Apple offers becomes another aspect of advertising, and the companies can be trained to see that people wanting to see the source code are not mere clowns, but actually adding shareholder value to the products, and providing splendid word of mouth advertising. All without being flogged by an idealogue.
Credit where due: we would possibly not even have this kind of discussion if not for RMS. He does deserve respect, if not agreement.
Much of the output of the various news sources today is, arguably, spam.
So the question I would have liked to pose is:
Since we can't filter out bias, how can the technology help to make the news biases more transparent and quantifiable?
For example, work like this about VP Cheney deserves to be bagged, tagged, and ignored, for it is a blemish on the face of legitimate journalism.
...corrected for the spiritual traditions of the couples.
My gut feeling is that, if the couple isn't on the same wavelength, they are indeed fairly tubed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxGuBeyQM2M
Books, specifically, come up around halfway through.
We all have to avoid being slaves to the culture that spawned us, no?
Allow me to past in the first couple of lines:
Apparently, milw0rm does have a patch for that.
You know, if we really hated our wealthy global elite overlords, we'd have an anti-materialist counter-revolution.
But I interrupt my SUV-lusting to say that.
That's one solution, I suppose.
Recall that precedent is a mother, and she bears unintended children. Maybe the global need is for greater transparency?
The whole system is geared to preclude tyranny, and so this compromised muddle represents a moronic form of success.
Rather than reject your point entirely, I'll offer that poor people do realize some improvement in context as a result of "social programs".
However to say "poor people have exactly zero chance of ever getting back on their feet" is to a) overstate the biases in society, and b) completely let people off the hook for becoming self-starters.
I know at least one person of rather humble origins who has managed to do reasonably well in society.
Social programs, like a cast on a broken limb, are great for solving the acute problem of mending a bone, but, like a cast on a broken limb, lead to atrophy if left in place overlong.
How so? This topic has always been the subject of dispassionate, even-handed debate, and characterized by respectful, collegial differences of opinion.
Truly a wonderful community.
Oh we're not talking about Venezuelan Beaver Cheese Production in the pre-Spanish Years? Sorry.