By making a list a cheating points, and build a ranking of discredited scientists?
Productivity points earned by being published in peer reviewd journals, would easily be lost by being published on the cheater's list.
Would this be possible? If not, why?
Because the phone wouldnt be WORTH STEALING in the first place, if it wasnt for AT&T.
Car machine shops are at a much different relation because your car doesnt need to be authenticated by the providers network to be able to unlock the car doors.
I thought you had read the original analogy a few posts above. Just in case you don't find it:
""If somebody steals a car that is equipped with a kill-switch in the engine and I, knowing that it is stolen, disables the kill switch so that the thief can drive the car, then I'm going to go to prison. The only difference between my behavior and AT&T's is that I am not a massive corporation, so I am subject to the laws of the United States."
If court was to find AT&T guilty of this "aiding and abetting", would they also be liable for any non-phone related damages that happened due to the phone being stolen or how it was stolen(ie. medical expenses due to getting a bottle smashed into your head from behind)?
I don't see how your post could be related to the direct crime of enabling a stolen phone, when it has been properly reported as stolen.
The car analogy is valid. Anyone helping to re-enable a stolen car is committing a crime, why in this case would be different? aren't a phone and a car stolen objects?
I get a SMS if my car moves 2ft when I'm not in it. My 3 yellow labs all have id chips as well as GPS trackers. My laptop and phone have "find me" features so I don't loose my precious terminal.
However your kids, your husband, wife, parents run around in complete secrecy under the guise of "privacy"
When people aren't looking, people do HORRIBLE THINGS. When teachers aren't looking kids do screwed up things, uncles "touch" and ask to not "tell", priests take advantage, people have strokes on hiking trips, pass out in bars.
I should not only know where my most precious humans are, but I should know they are safe, conscious and alive.
Sex trafficking, kidnapping, dump luck kill, wounds and mentally damages the brother and sisters and wives and husbands of all of us, and we sit around saying " oh it's totally worth it, because "privacy" is so critical.
I grew up in a town with a secret gov facility. We were all under constant surveillance We all knew it.
If sunlight or starlight can touch you, so can anyone who wants to. Anyone who thinks differently is kidding themselves.
It's time we get over that book and start taking care of our loved ones.
It MUST be transparent. It MUST have watchers watching watchers watching watchers. It MUST be optional.
and we MUST stop losing humans like car keys.
I agree with you, I prefer security over privacy. I have nothing to hide, but I have a life to lose, a kid who could stay orphan if I'm killed.
Same for my kid, screw privacy, I prefer to know that my kid is safe. I've been a teenager before and put my health and even my life in danger, I commited academic mistakes that changed my life forever. Sometimes excessive 'freedom' is not good when you're not mature enough.
I'll put an extrem example. If you give total freedom to a kid, he'll prefer to watch TV and eat candies and junk food far more that it's wise to allow.
With teenagers perhaps is not that obvious, but they also need surveillance and sometimes to be protected from themselves.
"A new study has failed to find evidence that psychic ability is real." TFS says they failed to have a positive result, not that they proved a negative result. I think the scientists who conducted the study would also be smart enough not to claim that proved that humans don't have psychic abilities. The best that science can do is provide evidence that humans have such an ability, or fail provide evidence.
You can't prove a negative, so any serious scientist wouldn't attempt to do it.
You can't prove fairies don't exist, god doesn't exist, you can only show lack of evidence.
It is absurd for supertitious people to stick to the excuse "but it wasn't proven that ti doesn't exist" because the burden of the proof is in the side making the claim, not on the side denying it.
This is the really interesting (and shocking) bit of the story. One has to wonder how much real understanding of the scientific method the editors of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology really have. If they don't understand the value of independent replication - then what are they publishing ? Interesting anecdotes ?
Psychology is hardly a real science, that's the answer to your question.
A wouldn't trust a lot in a 'Journal' of the so-called 'Social sciences'.
The problem is that most of the proposed merit-based evaluation systems that are going into place are as bad as, if not worse than, the existing system.
Evaluating teachers based on student performance results in:
1) Teachers that "teach the test" - as a result we have mediocre educational performance getting rewarded.
2) Teachers penalized for things not under their control - For example, in a large district like Manhattan, if teachers in the high-crime inner-city schools are evaluated in the same pool as the teachers serving students who live on Park Avenue, those teachers will be at a fundamental disadvantage simply because their job is harder.
However the current seniority-based system is also shit - once a teacher receives tenure there is no incentive to continue performance.
We need to move away from the current system - that much is clear. The problem is that so far, all of the "merit" based proposals don't have any metrics for "merit" that are worth jack shit, and will make our educational system even worse than it already is.
Environment should be included in the evaluation process.
For instance, having historical records of performances, and then comparing the actual teacher classroom performance against such historical results. Relative evaluation, not absolute.
Teachers teaching the tests? Then critical thinking tests, creativity tests, should also be used, to see if the teacher teach the students to think, rather than memorize.
Personal friend of mine, had its Facebook account closed by a lot of religious zealots accusing the account of mocking their religious views.
I've personally saw the posts, some jokes, and other times strong arguments against religions and god's idea. So, how come Facebook is letting a bunch of zealots have the power to close an account by simple accusation without given the right to argue back?
If I am right, I invite ANYONE to mock about my ideas, I would fight back with ARGUMENTS, because I feel I'm right. It would denote myself being mentally challenged if I ask to have the other party shut up, instead of being able to defend my ideas myself.
Non technical leaders have had a lot of opportunies through history, and they rely on appealing to emotions in masses to screw the majority and get personal gains. So, why would it be bad that geeks and nerds get a real chance?
Why are so many afraid of logic and reason being in power positons?
Why would stancard politicians, lawyers and greedy businessmen be the only options to get the decision making power?
Slashdot Mirror
By making a list a cheating points, and build a ranking of discredited scientists? Productivity points earned by being published in peer reviewd journals, would easily be lost by being published on the cheater's list. Would this be possible? If not, why?
Because the phone wouldnt be WORTH STEALING in the first place, if it wasnt for AT&T.
Car machine shops are at a much different relation because your car doesnt need to be authenticated by the providers network to be able to unlock the car doors.
I thought you had read the original analogy a few posts above. Just in case you don't find it: ""If somebody steals a car that is equipped with a kill-switch in the engine and I, knowing that it is stolen, disables the kill switch so that the thief can drive the car, then I'm going to go to prison. The only difference between my behavior and AT&T's is that I am not a massive corporation, so I am subject to the laws of the United States."
If court was to find AT&T guilty of this "aiding and abetting", would they also be liable for any non-phone related damages that happened due to the phone being stolen or how it was stolen(ie. medical expenses due to getting a bottle smashed into your head from behind)?
I don't see how your post could be related to the direct crime of enabling a stolen phone, when it has been properly reported as stolen.
The car analogy is valid. Anyone helping to re-enable a stolen car is committing a crime, why in this case would be different? aren't a phone and a car stolen objects?
I get a SMS if my car moves 2ft when I'm not in it. My 3 yellow labs all have id chips as well as GPS trackers. My laptop and phone have "find me" features so I don't loose my precious terminal.
However your kids, your husband, wife, parents run around in complete secrecy under the guise of "privacy"
When people aren't looking, people do HORRIBLE THINGS. When teachers aren't looking kids do screwed up things, uncles "touch" and ask to not "tell", priests take advantage, people have strokes on hiking trips, pass out in bars.
I should not only know where my most precious humans are, but I should know they are safe, conscious and alive.
Sex trafficking, kidnapping, dump luck kill, wounds and mentally damages the brother and sisters and wives and husbands of all of us, and we sit around saying " oh it's totally worth it, because "privacy" is so critical.
I grew up in a town with a secret gov facility. We were all under constant surveillance We all knew it.
If sunlight or starlight can touch you, so can anyone who wants to. Anyone who thinks differently is kidding themselves.
It's time we get over that book and start taking care of our loved ones.
It MUST be transparent. It MUST have watchers watching watchers watching watchers. It MUST be optional.
and we MUST stop losing humans like car keys.
I agree with you, I prefer security over privacy. I have nothing to hide, but I have a life to lose, a kid who could stay orphan if I'm killed. Same for my kid, screw privacy, I prefer to know that my kid is safe. I've been a teenager before and put my health and even my life in danger, I commited academic mistakes that changed my life forever. Sometimes excessive 'freedom' is not good when you're not mature enough. I'll put an extrem example. If you give total freedom to a kid, he'll prefer to watch TV and eat candies and junk food far more that it's wise to allow. With teenagers perhaps is not that obvious, but they also need surveillance and sometimes to be protected from themselves.
"A new study has failed to find evidence that psychic ability is real." TFS says they failed to have a positive result, not that they proved a negative result. I think the scientists who conducted the study would also be smart enough not to claim that proved that humans don't have psychic abilities. The best that science can do is provide evidence that humans have such an ability, or fail provide evidence.
You can't prove a negative, so any serious scientist wouldn't attempt to do it. You can't prove fairies don't exist, god doesn't exist, you can only show lack of evidence. It is absurd for supertitious people to stick to the excuse "but it wasn't proven that ti doesn't exist" because the burden of the proof is in the side making the claim, not on the side denying it.
This is the really interesting (and shocking) bit of the story. One has to wonder how much real understanding of the scientific method the editors of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology really have. If they don't understand the value of independent replication - then what are they publishing ? Interesting anecdotes ?
Psychology is hardly a real science, that's the answer to your question.
A wouldn't trust a lot in a 'Journal' of the so-called 'Social sciences'.
The Immortal Life Cycle of Turritopsis, with diagrams http://9e.devbio.com/preview_article.php?ch=2&id=6 __ Inmmortal human cells. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Henrietta-Lacks-Immortal-Cells.html
The problem is that most of the proposed merit-based evaluation systems that are going into place are as bad as, if not worse than, the existing system.
Evaluating teachers based on student performance results in: 1) Teachers that "teach the test" - as a result we have mediocre educational performance getting rewarded. 2) Teachers penalized for things not under their control - For example, in a large district like Manhattan, if teachers in the high-crime inner-city schools are evaluated in the same pool as the teachers serving students who live on Park Avenue, those teachers will be at a fundamental disadvantage simply because their job is harder.
However the current seniority-based system is also shit - once a teacher receives tenure there is no incentive to continue performance.
We need to move away from the current system - that much is clear. The problem is that so far, all of the "merit" based proposals don't have any metrics for "merit" that are worth jack shit, and will make our educational system even worse than it already is.
Environment should be included in the evaluation process. For instance, having historical records of performances, and then comparing the actual teacher classroom performance against such historical results. Relative evaluation, not absolute. Teachers teaching the tests? Then critical thinking tests, creativity tests, should also be used, to see if the teacher teach the students to think, rather than memorize.
Personal friend of mine, had its Facebook account closed by a lot of religious zealots accusing the account of mocking their religious views. I've personally saw the posts, some jokes, and other times strong arguments against religions and god's idea. So, how come Facebook is letting a bunch of zealots have the power to close an account by simple accusation without given the right to argue back? If I am right, I invite ANYONE to mock about my ideas, I would fight back with ARGUMENTS, because I feel I'm right. It would denote myself being mentally challenged if I ask to have the other party shut up, instead of being able to defend my ideas myself.
Meego project had huge potential, but you went for the quick bucks.
Non technical leaders have had a lot of opportunies through history, and they rely on appealing to emotions in masses to screw the majority and get personal gains. So, why would it be bad that geeks and nerds get a real chance? Why are so many afraid of logic and reason being in power positons? Why would stancard politicians, lawyers and greedy businessmen be the only options to get the decision making power?