There's nothing wrong with that approach to corporate ethics, as long as corporations don't participate in defining or enforcing the rules of the game. If they are, then in effect there are no rules.
A foundation in ethics would necessarily include the critical study of a number of philosophical approaches to ethics (rights/duties, consequentialism, character-based ethics etc.) Although these approaches are fundamentally different, they each correspond in certain situations to common intuitive notions of right and wrong, and in other cases they may challenge our assumptions, which is actually a good thing if you don't enjoy being blindsided.
If you are looking for an oracle or a simple algorithm that gives you easy, pat answers to questions, look no farther than your personal prejudices and biases. We are never more sure of ourselves than when we're squarely in the center of whatever blind spot we have. But a study of ethics enriches our decisions with perspective.
I always felt that an interest in philosophical ethics and the social sciences gave me an advantage as a system designer. The reason is that when a node in dome UML diagram happens to be a person or group, there's a lot of complexity your model is missing.
People have rights and opinions and needs and attitudes. A study of ethics doesn't tell you necessarily the right things to do about that, but it does open your mind to some of that complexity. That's good, because unlike robots, people behave in unpredictable ways when they feel they've been treated unfairly, or that their needs have been ignored, or their dignity has been disrespected. We all understand this in relation to ourselves, but we forget when dealing with other people.
Which brings me to Kant's second formulation of the Categorical Imperative: always treat humanity, in yourself as a person or other people, as an end as well as a means to an end. My practical take on this is that when you're a designer everyone who plays a role in your system is on some level your client, not just an abstract worker bee or resource to be tapped.
Of course ethical design remains a choice, and this kind of knowledge can be used for harm and exploitation, like any other. For examples look no farther than social media, which despite highminded rhetoric about connecting people is in fact ruthlessly designed to exploit tribalism for profit.
Yea numb nuts. Want to tell me any explorer from Europe from those days, no matter what nationality that didn't rack up double digit death tolls of the new worlds they discovered.
Amerigo Vespucci. Fernão Mendes Pinto.
But you're right, much of the exploration of the age was done by Spanish Conquistadors, and while they were bold they were by modern standards barbaric and are not particularly deserving of being lionized. In fact by contemporary world standards Europe was pretty barbaric.
There's nothing magic about LEDs that enables you to block light that comes from them. I suspect these glasses block the exact wavelengths of red, green, and blue used to produce a white backlight for transmissive panels. If the red in an red traffic light happened to be the same wavelength, it would disappear, but it won't necessarily disappear.
Just looking at a few datasheets, red power LEDs run from 615nm to about 670nm. They're all red, but they have distinctive wavelengths that could be filtered out separately.
Being prepared to do when things fail is an important part of any security regime. That's why they have those civil defense drills where they simulate a plane crash; that doesn't mean you give up on keeping planes from falling out of the sky.
Being warned in advance that you have a serious threat from a well resourced nation-state actor allows you to tighten up cybersecurity and likely prevent such an attack. No, this kind of information leak, if true, reflects a new level of dumbassery.
That of course is dependent upon knowing where to put your resources to prepare. Tactics are always about finding your opponent's weak spot, but all too often people focus on strengthening things that are already strong enough.
No, you definitely want the other guys to know you've got a superweapon, while at the same time maintaining under the pretext of secrecy the position that nobody should have such weapons.
Weapons are in general much better for having (or more to the point, being known to have) than for using.
Let me illustrate this with an example. Suppose you have a devastatingly powerful karate chop. If you walk into a bar where everyone knows this, you'll be treated with respect. If you walk into a bar where nobody knows this, you might actually have to use it, and then you'll find out whether it's better than what anyone else there happens to have, which you can't know for sure in advance.
You're confusing issues here. Believe it or not, not everything is about Trump.
Now we have to assume any hostile country which *could* interfere with our elections would. The thing is nobody has produced any evidence that China has done so. We know for a fact that both psy-ops and hacking operations out of Russia have targeted US political systems. If evidence emerged that China was doing so we'd have to take it seriously, but all indications are that China remains focused on economic and technological espionage, which makes geopolitical sense.
Russia is a third rate power and third rate economy trying to maintain the status it had as the core of the old Soviet empire; and it's run by an old time KGB ratf*cker. China doesn't have to play that dangerous game; all it has to do is bide its time and build its strength, and it will displace the US as the dominant military and economic power on the planet.
In other news, Musk is underwriting drinking water filtration for Flint Michigan schools and households with the highest contamination levels. That's pretty damn awesome, but calling that cave diver a pedophile is pretty damned scuzzy.
Norway is not a member of the EU, but it is a member of the EEA so it has to obey all the regulations about commerce and immigration. It is also the best place in the world to become a millionaire if you aren't one already.
It's really a meaningless distinction. Species are a useful construct, but actual distinct populations consist of a continuum of genetic variants that shade into each other.
Saying that an individual animal is a hybrid -- particularly a hybrid of closely related species that routinely produce fertile hybrid offspring -- probably says more about our terminology than it does about that individual.
We distinguish between H sapiens and H neanderthalis (or according to some H s sapiens and H s neanderthalensis) because it's helpful in publishing papers about the fossil record.
I occasionally dip into white nationalists sites to keep tabs on what's going on there, and some racists are actually embracing the Neanderthal heritage thing as a justification for supposed European genetic superiority.
As usual this kind of "just so" pseudoscience is based on the highly selective choice of data that's always underpinned various racial theories. There are some 20,000 protein encoding genes in the human genome, and if you look for geographic clusters of the 324 million known gene variants you will find some, whether it's for white skin or red hair. If you look at the big picture you find that people aren't that picky about who they have sex with, such that looking for a population that is genetically inbred over the course of more than a few hundred years is a fool's errand.
Well, that's true of the market for everything. The most precious commodity there is for human survival is air, but there is nonetheless the cliche "Free as air."
Market prices in an ideal economy reflect efficient distribution of resources like paint, canvas and skilled labor, without passing any ethical or aesthetic judgment on the use to which they are put. Take for example, this item. It has no utility value, and it's taste is questionable, but the fact that it can be sold for $90 justifies putting the resources into making it rather than, say, medical prosthetics or water purification equipment for some poor village.
The great virtue of the market economy is that it works, not that it makes any sense. It only makes sense in a circular fashion; if you define what is sensible by what the market economy chooses to do.
The class also uses four of the same air-independent Stirling engines used in the Swedish Gotland class subs, each delivering about 100 horsepower. While not as quiet a fuel cells, they are still pretty quiet and are cheaper to operate.
So I guess what happens is that the submarine operates on the Stirling engines then shifts to batteries for combat.
It's improved, absolutely, particularly on a purely technical level. But it's always had the same flaw deep in its DNA. Windows is not designed around the needs of users. It's designed primarily for people who make other people use it.
How is this any different than any other house brand?
At present about 49% of all online purchases are made through Amazon. And that number is climbing. That's what's different.
If I'm American Standard and I'm competing against Home Depot's in house brand of faucets, I can pull my products out of Home Depot if I think I'm not getting fair treatment. I can still sell stuff through Lowes, or plumbing supply stores like Grainger or F.W. Webb. But Amazon is well on its way to owning retail ecommerce. It's not so much that Amazon is a retail monopoly, but that it's becoming a wholesale monopsony.
Comes up all the time when you are searching for stuff for DIY builds and fixing stuff. I just bought a 24 foot spool of 8 gauge stainless steel wire off of Amazon and it was branded "small parts". You search for bushings, bearings, metal dowels and rods, odd sized or material bolts or nuts your hardware store won't carry, and that brand comes up.
The thing is, as much as I despise Amazon as company, the stuff they offer through Small Parts are incredibly useful, but hard to find.
Slashdot Mirror
There's nothing wrong with that approach to corporate ethics, as long as corporations don't participate in defining or enforcing the rules of the game. If they are, then in effect there are no rules.
A foundation in ethics would necessarily include the critical study of a number of philosophical approaches to ethics (rights/duties, consequentialism, character-based ethics etc.) Although these approaches are fundamentally different, they each correspond in certain situations to common intuitive notions of right and wrong, and in other cases they may challenge our assumptions, which is actually a good thing if you don't enjoy being blindsided.
If you are looking for an oracle or a simple algorithm that gives you easy, pat answers to questions, look no farther than your personal prejudices and biases. We are never more sure of ourselves than when we're squarely in the center of whatever blind spot we have. But a study of ethics enriches our decisions with perspective.
I always felt that an interest in philosophical ethics and the social sciences gave me an advantage as a system designer. The reason is that when a node in dome UML diagram happens to be a person or group, there's a lot of complexity your model is missing.
People have rights and opinions and needs and attitudes. A study of ethics doesn't tell you necessarily the right things to do about that, but it does open your mind to some of that complexity. That's good, because unlike robots, people behave in unpredictable ways when they feel they've been treated unfairly, or that their needs have been ignored, or their dignity has been disrespected. We all understand this in relation to ourselves, but we forget when dealing with other people.
Which brings me to Kant's second formulation of the Categorical Imperative: always treat humanity, in yourself as a person or other people, as an end as well as a means to an end. My practical take on this is that when you're a designer everyone who plays a role in your system is on some level your client, not just an abstract worker bee or resource to be tapped.
Of course ethical design remains a choice, and this kind of knowledge can be used for harm and exploitation, like any other. For examples look no farther than social media, which despite highminded rhetoric about connecting people is in fact ruthlessly designed to exploit tribalism for profit.
Yea numb nuts. Want to tell me any explorer from Europe from those days, no matter what nationality that didn't rack up double digit death tolls of the new worlds they discovered.
Amerigo Vespucci. Fernão Mendes Pinto.
But you're right, much of the exploration of the age was done by Spanish Conquistadors, and while they were bold they were by modern standards barbaric and are not particularly deserving of being lionized. In fact by contemporary world standards Europe was pretty barbaric.
Er... the sun is a black body.
There's nothing magic about LEDs that enables you to block light that comes from them. I suspect these glasses block the exact wavelengths of red, green, and blue used to produce a white backlight for transmissive panels. If the red in an red traffic light happened to be the same wavelength, it would disappear, but it won't necessarily disappear.
Just looking at a few datasheets, red power LEDs run from 615nm to about 670nm. They're all red, but they have distinctive wavelengths that could be filtered out separately.
Being prepared to do when things fail is an important part of any security regime. That's why they have those civil defense drills where they simulate a plane crash; that doesn't mean you give up on keeping planes from falling out of the sky.
Being warned in advance that you have a serious threat from a well resourced nation-state actor allows you to tighten up cybersecurity and likely prevent such an attack. No, this kind of information leak, if true, reflects a new level of dumbassery.
That of course is dependent upon knowing where to put your resources to prepare. Tactics are always about finding your opponent's weak spot, but all too often people focus on strengthening things that are already strong enough.
No, you definitely want the other guys to know you've got a superweapon, while at the same time maintaining under the pretext of secrecy the position that nobody should have such weapons.
Weapons are in general much better for having (or more to the point, being known to have) than for using.
Let me illustrate this with an example. Suppose you have a devastatingly powerful karate chop. If you walk into a bar where everyone knows this, you'll be treated with respect. If you walk into a bar where nobody knows this, you might actually have to use it, and then you'll find out whether it's better than what anyone else there happens to have, which you can't know for sure in advance.
I'm not disputing that, but it has nothing to do with the chips in Apple's servers.
You're two years ahead of where the actual work on Flint's water system is.
You're confusing issues here. Believe it or not, not everything is about Trump.
Now we have to assume any hostile country which *could* interfere with our elections would. The thing is nobody has produced any evidence that China has done so. We know for a fact that both psy-ops and hacking operations out of Russia have targeted US political systems. If evidence emerged that China was doing so we'd have to take it seriously, but all indications are that China remains focused on economic and technological espionage, which makes geopolitical sense.
Russia is a third rate power and third rate economy trying to maintain the status it had as the core of the old Soviet empire; and it's run by an old time KGB ratf*cker. China doesn't have to play that dangerous game; all it has to do is bide its time and build its strength, and it will displace the US as the dominant military and economic power on the planet.
If your'e a ham you set them up in the radio room, to send and receive warnings about ice and distress signals.
Why not both?
In other news, Musk is underwriting drinking water filtration for Flint Michigan schools and households with the highest contamination levels. That's pretty damn awesome, but calling that cave diver a pedophile is pretty damned scuzzy.
Norway is not a member of the EU, but it is a member of the EEA so it has to obey all the regulations about commerce and immigration. It is also the best place in the world to become a millionaire if you aren't one already.
It's really a meaningless distinction. Species are a useful construct, but actual distinct populations consist of a continuum of genetic variants that shade into each other.
Saying that an individual animal is a hybrid -- particularly a hybrid of closely related species that routinely produce fertile hybrid offspring -- probably says more about our terminology than it does about that individual.
We distinguish between H sapiens and H neanderthalis (or according to some H s sapiens and H s neanderthalensis) because it's helpful in publishing papers about the fossil record.
I occasionally dip into white nationalists sites to keep tabs on what's going on there, and some racists are actually embracing the Neanderthal heritage thing as a justification for supposed European genetic superiority.
As usual this kind of "just so" pseudoscience is based on the highly selective choice of data that's always underpinned various racial theories. There are some 20,000 protein encoding genes in the human genome, and if you look for geographic clusters of the 324 million known gene variants you will find some, whether it's for white skin or red hair. If you look at the big picture you find that people aren't that picky about who they have sex with, such that looking for a population that is genetically inbred over the course of more than a few hundred years is a fool's errand.
Yes, and what will happen is the write will fail when space runs out, leaving your real data intact.
Well, that's true of the market for everything. The most precious commodity there is for human survival is air, but there is nonetheless the cliche "Free as air."
Market prices in an ideal economy reflect efficient distribution of resources like paint, canvas and skilled labor, without passing any ethical or aesthetic judgment on the use to which they are put. Take for example, this item. It has no utility value, and it's taste is questionable, but the fact that it can be sold for $90 justifies putting the resources into making it rather than, say, medical prosthetics or water purification equipment for some poor village.
The great virtue of the market economy is that it works, not that it makes any sense. It only makes sense in a circular fashion; if you define what is sensible by what the market economy chooses to do.
The class also uses four of the same air-independent Stirling engines used in the Swedish Gotland class subs, each delivering about 100 horsepower. While not as quiet a fuel cells, they are still pretty quiet and are cheaper to operate.
So I guess what happens is that the submarine operates on the Stirling engines then shifts to batteries for combat.
It is a good reason to be careful about research into methods for infecting people.
It's improved, absolutely, particularly on a purely technical level. But it's always had the same flaw deep in its DNA. Windows is not designed around the needs of users. It's designed primarily for people who make other people use it.
Point being, Excel is good for something, and lousy for others. R is good for somethings, and difficult and overkill for others.
You misunderstand why I'd steer them to R. Somehow you've got the impression I want to help them.
How is this any different than any other house brand?
At present about 49% of all online purchases are made through Amazon. And that number is climbing. That's what's different.
If I'm American Standard and I'm competing against Home Depot's in house brand of faucets, I can pull my products out of Home Depot if I think I'm not getting fair treatment. I can still sell stuff through Lowes, or plumbing supply stores like Grainger or F.W. Webb. But Amazon is well on its way to owning retail ecommerce. It's not so much that Amazon is a retail monopoly, but that it's becoming a wholesale monopsony.
Even as crappy as Access is, it's a better database than Excel.
That said, people do do modeling in Excel. In that case I'd steer them to R.
Comes up all the time when you are searching for stuff for DIY builds and fixing stuff. I just bought a 24 foot spool of 8 gauge stainless steel wire off of Amazon and it was branded "small parts". You search for bushings, bearings, metal dowels and rods, odd sized or material bolts or nuts your hardware store won't carry, and that brand comes up.
The thing is, as much as I despise Amazon as company, the stuff they offer through Small Parts are incredibly useful, but hard to find.