What does it mean to define something objectively?
Another model would be that for contested terms, different people will assign different boundaries to the terms, and so there will be disagreement as to who fits what model but each viewer rather than each subject chooses how to categorise things. Even though it leads to disagreements when the subjects are humans with their own views.
There are some people who really are awful to women, and they're often (but not always) really awful to work with in other ways too. Finding ways to get them to either improve or get out is tricky because they exist in the same career ladders as people who want a decent place to work.
Then there's a subset of people opposing them who insist on overly narrow notions of how people should be allowed to act, talk, and think. They take it on themselves to police speech and behaviour far more than is reasonable or necessary. In their effort to deal with a legitimate problem, they become another kind of problem.
Making all this less clear is that the boundaries between these are unclear and they tend (but don't always) to line up with political views, and political witchhunts in the workplace (or broader society) are dangerous and ill-advised.
It's messy enough that it'd be tempting to just step back from the whole thing, but the stakes are too high for that. We neither should want to waste the potential of half our population (or other subsets of the population) nor should we create a work environment or society where most kinds of differing views on gender or jokes are curtailed. So navigating this is damned tough.
It's not a social club, it's a mission-driven org. A lot of people are not suitable for participation, and they'll get weeded out. Others just have knowledge that's very common and don't want to do boring stuff. How many people does the project need? How many can it productively use? I don't think the answer is everyone on the planet.
Doesn't mean that some of the other criticisms are not also right.
Agreed. Pittsburgh has really come around from what older generations remember it as; it once was a smoggy industrial town without much to recommend it. A tech boom that started in the late 90s has picked up a lot of steam recently (having great universities eventually pays off) and it's affordable, livable, and has good public transit while still being car friendly. I lived there from 2002 to 2011 and was very happy there.
(It does have bitterly cold winters and transit to other cities is lacking, but those are the only faults I see)
I agree; I support Lessig and would support him for President if he were actually willing to do the job. I think he'd be able to do a lot of good on various issues.
I don't think his resignation pledge is compatible with taking him seriously; our nation deserves better than that. Our offices are not tools for stunts.
I'd focus on the people side - figure out what who you're going to get rid of, who you can work with, and build good habits of working well with them while you hold down the fort - feel out your first few changes to see what kinds of resistance you get from humans (and from technology). How that goes will give you a feel for the possibilities of larger change.
If I had any mod points, you'd be being upvoted for this - time normalises everything, and whether someone is getting kudos or negative attention, eventually people forget, whether it's the teeming masses or troll groups. Plenty of us have been victims at least once, and it sucks (and can be scary) at the time, but it gets better.
CIOs/CTOs are hopefully technical in a company that has these needs, and they'll also hopefully consult with their people for these kinds of questions. If they're not capable or willing to do both, the company has more pressing concerns than where to host its stuff.
Calling it occupation is nutjobbery. The historically joined it willingly, and they even recently had a vote on independence and decided they didn't want to be.
What makes you think you're more qualified to judge constitutionality or legality than our Supreme Court? Courts judge these things. Your opinion doesn't matter - these things remain legal and constitutional until and unless successfully challenged - that's how our system works. It is challenge-based. If you don't get that, you're just clueless about our Constitution, how it's judged, and the broader legal system in which it resides.
I'm saying the founders gave a rough sketch, and in this case that sketch was too vague to work right. We'd either need to fix it, or accept that it won't work. It's quite likely the founders would've accepted it, maybe not even included this restriction if they knew it wouldn't work, or done a better job drafting it. Still, their system as a whole worked well enough, and provided means for its broken bits to be improved. If some part is important now, we can still fix it. If not, why worry about it? Build momentum, propose an alternative, and maybe it'll be fixed. Our government isn't a shrine to long-dead people -it belongs to the people alive today.
It's also important not to treat the founders as if they significantly agreed with each other. They didn't. They had huge differences, long debates, and like any representative government, they had an enormously difficult time reaching agreement. Our first government failed. We're in a heavily evolved descendant of the second try.
There's nothing unconstitutional about what happened. Maybe you'd like to amend the Constitution to make some parts of it unconstitutional - maybe even some of those amendments would be ok if they were practical and enforcable, but your attempt to portray yourself a defending the Constitution here against assailants is ridiculous - you just don't like the way our system works. Which is fine, it's just the posing that's off.
There's no good way to come up with a hard line against this kind of practice. If we're going to allow bills to evolve as they pass between both houses, then how would one quantify sufficient "gutting and stuffing" to cross a threshold of "is not allowed"?
I realise it's tempting to say things like "The government isn't bound to follow the Constitution", and some political persuasions love to do that without either understanding the Constitution or how law works. We need reasonably bright (even if not necessarily precise) lines within which reasonable practices are workable.
Either way, the Constitution doesn't stand alone - like other Common Law nations, we have a body of legal practice that has evolved and will continue to evolve as our needs change and as good legal ideas come into vogue. This happened in the Founders' times, it happened well before them, and it will continue for as long as our nation does law this way.
We're not obligated to make life maximally easy for activists, nor to sacrifice everything else we want (like transparency) for their comfort. Here, I think transparency is more important. Activists should just need to learn not to expect anonymity in owning domains, and to figure out how to do their activism without. There are more important things at stake.
You're using terms wrong, and your attempts to cover this up don't hold water.
Single cell recording doesn't have anything to do with induction.
When you say "Other biological imaging techniques, such as NMR and MRI", you're implying these are different neuroimaging techniques ; they are not. MRI is another word for NMR. The method was renamed for the general public to make people less worried when they hear the word "nuclear", but it's the same thing.
Likewise, you keep asserting that we have no idea how it works, but we have significantl more than "no idea", despite not having a full path from physics to function yet. Localisation of function is part of the how. We understand a lot of the signaling between neurons and the physics within them, as well as how signals strengthen.
Crack a textbook on this. I won't say you know *nothing*, but you're not particularly knowledgable about this and reading up would help a lot. You keep saying things that don't square with current knowledge in the field, and some of the things you've never were true. I'm sure you've become emotionally invested in calling this a "cargo cult" again and again, and I don't expect you to yield in this conversation because that's not really how arguments work, but to anyone who's done work in the field you're going to come across as quite clueless and not many of them are going to bother to walk through your mistakes when you keep repeating them. This is established science you're arguing with, and your arguments simply don't matter. The science has happened without you and it will continue to happen without you.
Slashdot Mirror
What does it mean to define something objectively?
Another model would be that for contested terms, different people will assign different boundaries to the terms, and so there will be disagreement as to who fits what model but each viewer rather than each subject chooses how to categorise things. Even though it leads to disagreements when the subjects are humans with their own views.
There are some people who really are awful to women, and they're often (but not always) really awful to work with in other ways too. Finding ways to get them to either improve or get out is tricky because they exist in the same career ladders as people who want a decent place to work.
Then there's a subset of people opposing them who insist on overly narrow notions of how people should be allowed to act, talk, and think. They take it on themselves to police speech and behaviour far more than is reasonable or necessary. In their effort to deal with a legitimate problem, they become another kind of problem.
Making all this less clear is that the boundaries between these are unclear and they tend (but don't always) to line up with political views, and political witchhunts in the workplace (or broader society) are dangerous and ill-advised.
It's messy enough that it'd be tempting to just step back from the whole thing, but the stakes are too high for that. We neither should want to waste the potential of half our population (or other subsets of the population) nor should we create a work environment or society where most kinds of differing views on gender or jokes are curtailed. So navigating this is damned tough.
It's not a social club, it's a mission-driven org. A lot of people are not suitable for participation, and they'll get weeded out. Others just have knowledge that's very common and don't want to do boring stuff. How many people does the project need? How many can it productively use? I don't think the answer is everyone on the planet.
Doesn't mean that some of the other criticisms are not also right.
This is a good way to not end up with service.
Agreed. Pittsburgh has really come around from what older generations remember it as; it once was a smoggy industrial town without much to recommend it. A tech boom that started in the late 90s has picked up a lot of steam recently (having great universities eventually pays off) and it's affordable, livable, and has good public transit while still being car friendly. I lived there from 2002 to 2011 and was very happy there.
(It does have bitterly cold winters and transit to other cities is lacking, but those are the only faults I see)
"had become since I she first" - ???
I agree; I support Lessig and would support him for President if he were actually willing to do the job. I think he'd be able to do a lot of good on various issues.
I don't think his resignation pledge is compatible with taking him seriously; our nation deserves better than that. Our offices are not tools for stunts.
I'd focus on the people side - figure out what who you're going to get rid of, who you can work with, and build good habits of working well with them while you hold down the fort - feel out your first few changes to see what kinds of resistance you get from humans (and from technology). How that goes will give you a feel for the possibilities of larger change.
If I had any mod points, you'd be being upvoted for this - time normalises everything, and whether someone is getting kudos or negative attention, eventually people forget, whether it's the teeming masses or troll groups. Plenty of us have been victims at least once, and it sucks (and can be scary) at the time, but it gets better.
CIOs/CTOs are hopefully technical in a company that has these needs, and they'll also hopefully consult with their people for these kinds of questions. If they're not capable or willing to do both, the company has more pressing concerns than where to host its stuff.
(Plenty of tech companies have bad CIOs or CTOs).
Calling it occupation is nutjobbery. The historically joined it willingly, and they even recently had a vote on independence and decided they didn't want to be.
It is bad for society to allow people to control public information about them.
Where did it "rule" that? I'm not looking for an interpretation - if they ruled it, they must have actually said it. Where?
Nope. You're just documenting your own failure to understand how our kind of legal system works.
What makes you think you're more qualified to judge constitutionality or legality than our Supreme Court? Courts judge these things. Your opinion doesn't matter - these things remain legal and constitutional until and unless successfully challenged - that's how our system works. It is challenge-based. If you don't get that, you're just clueless about our Constitution, how it's judged, and the broader legal system in which it resides.
I'm saying the founders gave a rough sketch, and in this case that sketch was too vague to work right. We'd either need to fix it, or accept that it won't work. It's quite likely the founders would've accepted it, maybe not even included this restriction if they knew it wouldn't work, or done a better job drafting it. Still, their system as a whole worked well enough, and provided means for its broken bits to be improved. If some part is important now, we can still fix it. If not, why worry about it? Build momentum, propose an alternative, and maybe it'll be fixed. Our government isn't a shrine to long-dead people -it belongs to the people alive today.
It's also important not to treat the founders as if they significantly agreed with each other. They didn't. They had huge differences, long debates, and like any representative government, they had an enormously difficult time reaching agreement. Our first government failed. We're in a heavily evolved descendant of the second try.
How do you quantify resemblance?
There's nothing unconstitutional about what happened. Maybe you'd like to amend the Constitution to make some parts of it unconstitutional - maybe even some of those amendments would be ok if they were practical and enforcable, but your attempt to portray yourself a defending the Constitution here against assailants is ridiculous - you just don't like the way our system works. Which is fine, it's just the posing that's off.
There's no good way to come up with a hard line against this kind of practice. If we're going to allow bills to evolve as they pass between both houses, then how would one quantify sufficient "gutting and stuffing" to cross a threshold of "is not allowed"?
I realise it's tempting to say things like "The government isn't bound to follow the Constitution", and some political persuasions love to do that without either understanding the Constitution or how law works. We need reasonably bright (even if not necessarily precise) lines within which reasonable practices are workable.
Either way, the Constitution doesn't stand alone - like other Common Law nations, we have a body of legal practice that has evolved and will continue to evolve as our needs change and as good legal ideas come into vogue. This happened in the Founders' times, it happened well before them, and it will continue for as long as our nation does law this way.
If you look around you'll find wackos of every kind. Unless there's a lot of these attention-desperate people, why should we be interested in this?
This is at least a bit over a year old.
Nature had a good publication on this a bit (same research group) over a year ago.
http://www.nature.com/news/fir...
I don't recall what ports the Nexus Player has - anyone know if this will work with one of those?
We're not obligated to make life maximally easy for activists, nor to sacrifice everything else we want (like transparency) for their comfort. Here, I think transparency is more important. Activists should just need to learn not to expect anonymity in owning domains, and to figure out how to do their activism without. There are more important things at stake.
Steve Jobs leeched off his better cofoiunder.
He's talking about legal claims, not just asserting something.
You're using terms wrong, and your attempts to cover this up don't hold water.
Single cell recording doesn't have anything to do with induction.
When you say "Other biological imaging techniques, such as NMR and MRI", you're implying these are different neuroimaging techniques ; they are not. MRI is another word for NMR. The method was renamed for the general public to make people less worried when they hear the word "nuclear", but it's the same thing.
Likewise, you keep asserting that we have no idea how it works, but we have significantl more than "no idea", despite not having a full path from physics to function yet. Localisation of function is part of the how. We understand a lot of the signaling between neurons and the physics within them, as well as how signals strengthen.
Crack a textbook on this. I won't say you know *nothing*, but you're not particularly knowledgable about this and reading up would help a lot. You keep saying things that don't square with current knowledge in the field, and some of the things you've never were true. I'm sure you've become emotionally invested in calling this a "cargo cult" again and again, and I don't expect you to yield in this conversation because that's not really how arguments work, but to anyone who's done work in the field you're going to come across as quite clueless and not many of them are going to bother to walk through your mistakes when you keep repeating them. This is established science you're arguing with, and your arguments simply don't matter. The science has happened without you and it will continue to happen without you.