Oh Lord... Listen people, free speech cuts both way. It not only allows you to say what/you/ believe, but it also allows others to say what/they/ believe.
There's no love lost for insurance companies from me, but I'd much rather they too have free speech, even if it means "spinning" things their way, than to start censoring anyone who disagree with Michael Moore.
Yahoo doesn't see itself as a search engine, they see themselves as a portal.
Yes and no. I worked there for five years -- while Yahoo has obviously always had the portal-side, the "we're not a search engine" bit was dropped years ago, when Inktomi was purchased.
For the last two years at least, Search has been a major focus for the company.
Weitzner, a lawyer and Washington insider before moving to the W3C, said making an event discussing government transparency less transparent was necessary because government officials could then speak more freely "without wondering how the press would interpret what they have to say."
At the end of the day, Scientists are just like every other human. They can make mistakes, have pre-conceived bias, etc.
I was tempted to copy/paste the whole of Fenyman's Cargo Cult Science essay, but I'll stick to the most relevant pieces:
We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.
Why didn't they discover the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of -- this history -- because it's apparent that people did things like this: when they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong -- and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that. We've learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don't have that kind of a disease.
But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves -- of having utter scientific integrity -- is, I'm sorry to say, something that we haven't specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you've caught on by osmosis.
Funny. Every time I do that, I end up with organized labor. They dominate the list of groups throwing around their weight in terms of political contributions. Unions hold the #1 (AFSCME/$38 million), #6 (IBEW/$26M), #7 (Laborers/$25M), #9 (SEIU/$25M), and #10 (Carpenters & Joiners Union/$24M).
It's a shame as 1) people often have no choice & are forced to join the union, and 2) that money could be spent on improving the lives of their members.
Are you crazy? You can't just ASSUME what wrong with the guy & begin to treat him for your guess. More than likely you'll KILL him. So much for "do no harm."
If you've actually ever been in an ER, you know they don't do anything until they know the cause. Know the cause, know the treatment. Anything else, you're seeing a witch doctor or something.
Bring it back to the article, you're missing the central point. If carbon emissions really aren't causing global warming, reducing them will have absolutely no effect. The earth will still get hotter, we're still be in square one, only with less time & money.
Actually, I was thinking of why review it from a different angle: Why have an editor review it himself, submit it to himself, and decide himself he's going to post it himself.
Not that editors shouldn't be able to submit stories -- far from it. Instead, why not have them submit their stories just like a regular user? There could be an anonymizer so that one editor's couldn't have bias for fellow editors.
If the Slashdot submission process works, and the story is homepage worth, then we'll still see it; Just like any other user.
I guess if you agree w/ me, mod me up, but if you don't feel free to mod me down.
-Bill
[ ObAck: Yes, I agree, this is technically OffTopic, but where *would* this be no topic? ]
To be among the richest 10% of adults in the world required $61,000 in assets, and more than $500,000 was needed to belong to the richest 1%, a group which
So basically, anyone owning a house in California or New York is automatically in the richest 1%. And, for that matter, the majority of Slashdot readers fall into the top 10%.
People need to remember that economics is not a zero-sum game. The "rich", by being "rich" have not necessarily taken/exploited the poor. Ask yourself this: is the world any better off if the rich 2% and half the worlds wealth just suddenly disappeared?
What exactly are you guys smoking? How paranoid are you?
The Left has been clamoring for Rumsfield to step down for ever. Now that he does, you get even more crazy.
How, in any way, is this cut & run from his position? How, in any way, is he still not accountable for past actions? How, in any way, is he still not accountable for any actions by either House of Congress?
Do you even know how this country works? They can still subpoena Rumsfield just the same. What's changed? The only thing I can see is his input future actions, which is exactly what you wanted.
If anything, this is an olive branch Dubya is trying to extend as a recognition of yesterday's ass whipping.
Everything on the planet isn't a conspiracy out to get you.
I'm wondering if you actually know what you're talking about, of if you're just some pedantic idiot attempting to assert he's smarter in something to his parents. Example:...just simple measures like logging off of the PC when it's not in use.
WTF? Why do they need to log off their own damn computer in their own damn house? If someone breaks in and gets physical access, I'm betting that unauthorized surfing isn't their top concern. And if you think having them log-off with thwart a thief from getting their data, you're crazy. If the thieves want the data, they'll get it by just stealing the drive & mounting it as a secondary drive.
People like your parents are easy. They don't need to know about viruses & worms. You just set anti-virus to run and automatically update & have them use a mail client other than Outlook (e.g., Thunderbird or Euroda). You set up the firewall & just leave it. They don't need to know how to administer the fucking thing. Past that, you tell them basic things to avoid phising, never install anything without asking me. That's basically what we did with my mom & no problems. There's little chance of her fucking anything up, because, by and large, she doesn't know enough to get herself into trouble. She's not going to change the config on the firewall, as she doesn't even know what the hell a firewall is.
It's typically people with a little knowledge that are a problem. They're the ones who get themselves into trouble. And while it sounds like your parents don't fall into that category, it sounds like their son does.
I don't think Libertarians really are the same as Conservatives. While they are similar on the fiscal side, there's a lot of differences on the social side (e.g., legalization of drugs).
Often during our heated political discussions on slashdot, several people will mention their desire to leave the country.
Off the cuff, I can think of specific names of prominent lefties who've said they want to leave the country (generally based on condition -- e.g., Bush winning again in '04), but I can't think of any people on the right.
Is it just I can't think of them/haven't heard of it? Are there prominent conservatives who declared they'll leave the country if ______ happens?
You're still thinking in a cold war tit-for-tat mentality, a dangerous thing in a changed world.
What this does is give NK a nuclear shield. From behind that shield, it can more or less do whatever it desires with little fear of military action from the rest of the world. Sponsor terrorism, sell nuclear technology, etc. There's little the UN or anyone else would be willing to do.
Couldn't it be slightly ironic? A censor espousing free speech?
That seems like it would fall into the the definition on dictionary.com:
ronic Audio pronunciation of "ironic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-rnk) also ironical (-rn-kl) adj.
1. Characterized by or constituting irony.
2. Given to the use of irony. See Synonyms at sarcastic.
3. Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended: madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker.
ironically adv. ironicalness n.
Usage Note: The words ironic, irony, and ironically are sometimes used of events and circumstances that might better be described as simply "coincidental" or "improbable," in that they suggest no particular lessons about human vanity or folly. Thus 78 percent of the Usage Panel rejects the use of ironically in the sentence In 1969 Susie moved from Ithaca to California where she met her husband-to-be, who, ironically, also came from upstate New York. Some Panelists noted that this particular usage might be acceptable if Susie had in fact moved to California in order to find a husband, in which case the story could be taken as exemplifying the folly of supposing that we can know what fate has in store for us. By contrast, 73 percent accepted the sentence Ironically, even as the government was fulminating against American policy, American jeans and videocassettes were the hottest items in the stalls of the market, where the incongruity can be seen as an example of human inconsistency.
Slashdot Mirror
One wonders how such a long-established blogging company can be so ignorant about the nature of the world wide web.
The real wonder is how Slashdot hasn't hired them yet.
-Bill
Oh Lord... Listen people, free speech cuts both way. It not only allows you to say what /you/ believe, but it also allows others to say what /they/ believe.
There's no love lost for insurance companies from me, but I'd much rather they too have free speech, even if it means "spinning" things their way, than to start censoring anyone who disagree with Michael Moore.
-Bill
Yahoo doesn't see itself as a search engine, they see themselves as a portal.
Yes and no. I worked there for five years -- while Yahoo has obviously always had the portal-side, the "we're not a search engine" bit was dropped years ago, when Inktomi was purchased.
For the last two years at least, Search has been a major focus for the company.
-Bill
Seems straight forward enough to me...
-Bill
timothy? is that you?
I was tempted to copy/paste the whole of Fenyman's Cargo Cult Science essay, but I'll stick to the most relevant pieces:
-Bill
Ummmm... how exactly would having anti-virus or anti-spyware stop things, if it's a physical keylogger?
Do you know how these things work?
Funny. Every time I do that, I end up with organized labor. They dominate the list of groups throwing around their weight in terms of political contributions. Unions hold the #1 (AFSCME/$38 million), #6 (IBEW/$26M), #7 (Laborers/$25M), #9 (SEIU/$25M), and #10 (Carpenters & Joiners Union/$24M).
It's a shame as 1) people often have no choice & are forced to join the union, and 2) that money could be spent on improving the lives of their members.
-Bill
CO2 reduction is one of the few things that we could improve that would have an effect.
Did you actually read the article? The central point is that, no, this may not have an effect.
But to say "We should do absolutely nothing until we know absolutely everything"
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything to that effect.
-Bill
Are you crazy? You can't just ASSUME what wrong with the guy & begin to treat him for your guess. More than likely you'll KILL him. So much for "do no harm."
If you've actually ever been in an ER, you know they don't do anything until they know the cause. Know the cause, know the treatment. Anything else, you're seeing a witch doctor or something.
Bring it back to the article, you're missing the central point. If carbon emissions really aren't causing global warming, reducing them will have absolutely no effect. The earth will still get hotter, we're still be in square one, only with less time & money.
-Bill
Actually, I was thinking of why review it from a different angle: Why have an editor review it himself, submit it to himself, and decide himself he's going to post it himself.
Not that editors shouldn't be able to submit stories -- far from it. Instead, why not have them submit their stories just like a regular user? There could be an anonymizer so that one editor's couldn't have bias for fellow editors.
If the Slashdot submission process works, and the story is homepage worth, then we'll still see it; Just like any other user.
I guess if you agree w/ me, mod me up, but if you don't feel free to mod me down.
-Bill
[ ObAck: Yes, I agree, this is technically OffTopic, but where *would* this be no topic? ]
Uh, oh just install Parallels? ;-)
-Bill
No worries, you still have french military victories.
-Bill
So basically, anyone owning a house in California or New York is automatically in the richest 1%. And, for that matter, the majority of Slashdot readers fall into the top 10%.
People need to remember that economics is not a zero-sum game. The "rich", by being "rich" have not necessarily taken/exploited the poor. Ask yourself this: is the world any better off if the rich 2% and half the worlds wealth just suddenly disappeared?
-Bill
What exactly are you guys smoking? How paranoid are you?
The Left has been clamoring for Rumsfield to step down for ever. Now that he does, you get even more crazy.
How, in any way, is this cut & run from his position? How, in any way, is he still not accountable for past actions? How, in any way, is he still not accountable for any actions by either House of Congress?
Do you even know how this country works? They can still subpoena Rumsfield just the same. What's changed? The only thing I can see is his input future actions, which is exactly what you wanted.
If anything, this is an olive branch Dubya is trying to extend as a recognition of yesterday's ass whipping.
Everything on the planet isn't a conspiracy out to get you.
Whatever you're smoking, next time don't inhale.
-Bill
The sad thing is this idiot is going to be working for out IT departments in five years.
-Bill
I'm wondering if you actually know what you're talking about, of if you're just some pedantic idiot attempting to assert he's smarter in something to his parents. Example: ...just simple measures like logging off of the PC when it's not in use.
WTF? Why do they need to log off their own damn computer in their own damn house? If someone breaks in and gets physical access, I'm betting that unauthorized surfing isn't their top concern. And if you think having them log-off with thwart a thief from getting their data, you're crazy. If the thieves want the data, they'll get it by just stealing the drive & mounting it as a secondary drive.
People like your parents are easy. They don't need to know about viruses & worms. You just set anti-virus to run and automatically update & have them use a mail client other than Outlook (e.g., Thunderbird or Euroda). You set up the firewall & just leave it. They don't need to know how to administer the fucking thing. Past that, you tell them basic things to avoid phising, never install anything without asking me. That's basically what we did with my mom & no problems. There's little chance of her fucking anything up, because, by and large, she doesn't know enough to get herself into trouble. She's not going to change the config on the firewall, as she doesn't even know what the hell a firewall is.
It's typically people with a little knowledge that are a problem. They're the ones who get themselves into trouble. And while it sounds like your parents don't fall into that category, it sounds like their son does.
-Bill
Why Democrats do something unconvential, why is it called a "new campaign tactic", but if Republicans do it, it's called a "dirty trick"?
-Bill
Heh. I, for one, was willing to kick in for Alec Baldwin's plane ticket.
-Bill
I don't think Libertarians really are the same as Conservatives. While they are similar on the fiscal side, there's a lot of differences on the social side (e.g., legalization of drugs).
-Bill
Often during our heated political discussions on slashdot, several people will mention their desire to leave the country.
Off the cuff, I can think of specific names of prominent lefties who've said they want to leave the country (generally based on condition -- e.g., Bush winning again in '04), but I can't think of any people on the right.
Is it just I can't think of them/haven't heard of it? Are there prominent conservatives who declared they'll leave the country if ______ happens?
-Bill
Editor 1: I'm having basic tech support problems!!!
Editor 2: Quick, post it to the home page!
-Bill
You're still thinking in a cold war tit-for-tat mentality, a dangerous thing in a changed world.
What this does is give NK a nuclear shield. From behind that shield, it can more or less do whatever it desires with little fear of military action from the rest of the world. Sponsor terrorism, sell nuclear technology, etc. There's little the UN or anyone else would be willing to do.
That's a pretty big change.
-Bill
That seems like it would fall into the the definition on dictionary.com:
Not sure why the article doesn't link to the video, but after searching around, found this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IZSqXUSwHRI
-Bill