>you'd see that the officers involved had overstepped their bounds, they arrested no one and they've been reassigned.
1. They thought they were doing the correct thing. This is after their training. After getting approved for acting as a government official. After talking to another trained person (each other). (And MAYBE after talking to other trained persons, including their supervisor.) 2. The librarian, who knows what legal knowlege he had, had to talk to them in private. How did it even get to this point? Even then, they had to call in a police officer. 3. If we hadn't heard of this, would they have been reassigned? Why aren't they let go? Its clear they didn't get their training. Will they ever be in the field again in the future? Are they in a position to use their judgement again, even behind the desk (where they could potentially do even greater damage)?
I don't TRUST the police/law enforment, just because they have a badge and a nice uniform because in the end they are just human, like anyone without a badge and nice uniform. I give them a certain amount of respect, but I give everyone the same amount of respect.
(Police/law enforement don't trust their own either, ask them if they have locks on their lockers in the police station.)
If you can't arrest the suspected offender after being called over 5 times a week, he/she's smart enough to fool a video camera, sound or no sound.
Say you install one everywhere except the bathroom, the beatings will occur in the bathroom. Seeing both people go in, time passes, both people go out proves nothing. Its still he-said/she-said.
>What I don't think is ok is being ignorant and asking others for advice without doing any basic research yourself.
I'm all for bashing Ask Slashdot questions that should be Googled and "Do my homework plz" type questions but he really just a kid (look at his homepage).
Kids are suppose to be ignorant and ask advice about really basic stuff.
One of the biggest things that people don't realize is that our food production has grown highly dependent on oil.
I can't find a really good article, but we can change by reducing packaging, switching to alternative fuels etc with realitive ease, but we don't really have an alternative to eating food. At least not the way food is generally grown today.
>And while QuickBooks (it's QuickBooks, not "Quickbook", just so you know) may have somewhat of a following with small businesses, it's nowhere near as widely used by major business users.
So these people aren't "business" enough to be counted? Huh?
>Honestly I don't see much of a logical reason to avoid the market.
"We are holding our basic principal of "Don't be evil." and moving into China we will get into a situation where we would be violating them."
"Google.com is already accessable in China. We do not see how a Google.CN would increase profits."
"We at Google feel that greater profit can be generated from focusing our resources at providing our current markets with better services and innovations such as Google Video or Google Chat. We are currently evaulating China but at this time feel there is no need to increase our presence in that market."
Need anymore? Look at any company that does not do business in China and find out its reasons.
>When I look at googles dedicated following, I don't see many people bothered by this.
Isn't that by definition? (If they are bothered by this then they are not Google's dedicated following.)
>They are required by law to make all decisions in such a way that will maximize profit.
Not at the sacrifice of all. For example socially conscious companies.
Also, profit maximization is really at the discression of the management. "Yes we could have made more, but we didn't want to take the risk/bad publicity/focus of our core compentencies/short term capitial expenses/better profit max in other areas."
>They are responsible to millions of shareholders,
This does not apply to Google, since its voting shares are held by a small group.
>don't corporations have an obligation to obey the law in countries they operate in?
For me the more interesting question is; Why would a company operate in a countries which have laws that force them to do something that is unethical? (in this case, these laws would force Google to violate its own "Do no evil" principal.)
This is not about reading your email. Its about finding out who and when you sent an email.
Encrypt it all you want, they are not interested in what you are sending, and not even the subject, they are interested who you are communicating with and when.
Draw two partially overlapping circles. One label it Muslims, the other label Idiots.
Notice that not all Muslims are Idiots and that all Idiots are not Muslims. Yes, there are Muslims that are Idiots, but by the all-powerful Flying Spaghetti Monster, please don't generalize.
>Nobody has been able to take non-living chemicals and make even the simplest living thing out of them, thus PREDICTING the future through experiment.
I don't think that the theory of Evolution is saying this. It is basically starting with that there is life already and then it changes. It does not say anything about non-life turning into life. (I'm not even sure how does non-life "survives" or become more adapotable to its environment?)
Assume I have very little understanding of string theory. Could you please explain this in more detail; exactly what part and why string theory is not falsifiable.
There is no governing body that certifies theories. Saying something is a theroy does not specify how certain it is, how close it is to the "truth", how popular it is, how accepted it is within a group, how does it compare to other theories, how close it is being falsified. "Being worthy of academic discussion" is another idea.
(Some people would be scared because of this, saying that it makes science weak. But it doesn't, because science is about being open to ideas and exploring them, which means that everything is open, even to "crazy ideas" like string theory which should be evaluated and proven/disproven by its merits along, not on some title given by a set of people.)
>I know you don't mean to be facetious about the coin through the table comment but that's what it comes across as.
I actually meant it to be a simple question related to the scientific principle of observation and human perception.
>Any one who has been involved in science knows that with the standard scientific method you must do statistics in your experiments.
What about cases where there isn't possible for realistic statisical data? For example: Is the current warming of the planet abnormal? We only have the tempature history of one planet, ours. We don't know if the warming is natural or due to man's actions. Yes, we do have theories and evidence, but thats not statistics. Even if we look at nearby planets, I'm not sure of a sample set of 3 is reilable.
What about experiments performed in say subatomic collisions or experiments in growing plants in space? They only do experiments a few times, depending on the quality of the results and limitations of equipment/opportunity. Another group might check on them to duplicate the results. For something to be statistically significant, you need to do it more times than a few. If they do it only a few times, is it science? Where is the statistics?
>where the level of certainty is somewhere in the region of greater than 95% or more.
Exactly how do we measure this level of certainty? Is it a poll of top trustworthy scientists? Some sort of unbiased, impartial set of conditions?
If a child sees a magic trick and believes, with > 95% certainty, that the coin went through the table, is it proven that the coin went through the table?
>has repeatedly held up when tested and compared to observation, it is perfectly reasonable to call it "proven"
Thats fine, but then you've just taken away one of the strengths of science (and in my mind what differentiates it and religion).
Using your definition, science now dictates one set of beliefs (why do we need to look any further if its "proven" in any realistic definition of the word? How can two related but different ideas be both "proven"?) and cannot say "this is the way we think things are, but lets keep on looking." You have taken away its strengths as a tool for exploration and discovery.
(and to see how this makes science like religion, replace the word "science" with "religion")
>has been extensively proven out by observation, and while the origin of the bang itself is unknown, what happened during and immediately after the Bang is considered extremely solid and proven.
I'm all for free-speech and shooting your mouth off, but really I can't believe that this stuff gets modded up.
Nothing about the Big Bang is "proven". There is "strong evidence", "leads one to believe" etc, but its not proven.
Slashdot Mirror
>you'd see that the officers involved had overstepped their bounds, they arrested no one and they've been reassigned.
1. They thought they were doing the correct thing. This is after their training. After getting approved for acting as a government official. After talking to another trained person (each other). (And MAYBE after talking to other trained persons, including their supervisor.)
2. The librarian, who knows what legal knowlege he had, had to talk to them in private. How did it even get to this point? Even then, they had to call in a police officer.
3. If we hadn't heard of this, would they have been reassigned? Why aren't they let go? Its clear they didn't get their training. Will they ever be in the field again in the future? Are they in a position to use their judgement again, even behind the desk (where they could potentially do even greater damage)?
I don't TRUST the police/law enforment, just because they have a badge and a nice uniform because in the end they are just human, like anyone without a badge and nice uniform. I give them a certain amount of respect, but I give everyone the same amount of respect.
(Police/law enforement don't trust their own either, ask them if they have locks on their lockers in the police station.)
If you can't arrest the suspected offender after being called over 5 times a week, he/she's smart enough to fool a video camera, sound or no sound.
Say you install one everywhere except the bathroom, the beatings will occur in the bathroom. Seeing both people go in, time passes, both people go out proves nothing. Its still he-said/she-said.
I think if it would help if he read some background on these types of tools;
http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.14/14
>What I don't think is ok is being ignorant and asking others for advice without doing any basic research yourself.
I'm all for bashing Ask Slashdot questions that should be Googled and "Do my homework plz" type questions but he really just a kid (look at his homepage).
Kids are suppose to be ignorant and ask advice about really basic stuff.
One of the biggest things that people don't realize is that our food production has grown highly dependent on oil.
I can't find a really good article, but we can change by reducing packaging, switching to alternative fuels etc with realitive ease, but we don't really have an alternative to eating food. At least not the way food is generally grown today.
>And while QuickBooks (it's QuickBooks, not "Quickbook", just so you know) may have somewhat of a following with small businesses, it's nowhere near as widely used by major business users.
So these people aren't "business" enough to be counted? Huh?
>Recall, most of the serious users of business applications are already on systems from IBM or Sun.
Recall?!?!?
Seriously;
Quickbook, Autocad, Lotus Notes, need any more examples for your serious users of business applications?
>Honestly I don't see much of a logical reason to avoid the market.
"We are holding our basic principal of "Don't be evil." and moving into China we will get into a situation where we would be violating them."
"Google.com is already accessable in China. We do not see how a Google.CN would increase profits."
"We at Google feel that greater profit can be generated from focusing our resources at providing our current markets with better services and innovations such as Google Video or Google Chat. We are currently evaulating China but at this time feel there is no need to increase our presence in that market."
Need anymore? Look at any company that does not do business in China and find out its reasons.
>When I look at googles dedicated following, I don't see many people bothered by this.
Isn't that by definition? (If they are bothered by this then they are not Google's dedicated following.)
>They are required by law to make all decisions in such a way that will maximize profit.
Not at the sacrifice of all. For example socially conscious companies.
Also, profit maximization is really at the discression of the management. "Yes we could have made more, but we didn't want to take the risk/bad publicity/focus of our core compentencies/short term capitial expenses/better profit max in other areas."
>They are responsible to millions of shareholders,
This does not apply to Google, since its voting shares are held by a small group.
>a large board of directors,
Nine is large?
http://investor.google.com/board.html
>If Google took actions (i.e. avoiding Chinese market) that significantly reduced profits, for no logical reason
Do you really think they couldn't have come up with some a logical reason to avoid the Chinese market?
>don't corporations have an obligation to obey the law in countries they operate in?
For me the more interesting question is; Why would a company operate in a countries which have laws that force them to do something that is unethical? (in this case, these laws would force Google to violate its own "Do no evil" principal.)
>So the next time someone put you on the spot just shrug your shoulders and say "what ever".
I haven't studied Buddhism but this does work. Sort of like the "Don't bring work home, leave it at work." idea, which does work wonders.
I suppose thats why they say "Your health and family are the most important things in your life" because you can't ignore them.
I'm not saying what they are doing is ok. I'm just saying that encryption would not prevent anything in this situation.
This is not about reading your email. Its about finding out who and when you sent an email.
Encrypt it all you want, they are not interested in what you are sending, and not even the subject, they are interested who you are communicating with and when.
>A person losing their job is a scary thing for that person and their family. It's not necessarily sad. What is your philosophy when it comes to this?
Its the lack of control that makes it sad.
You become reliant on the steady pay, the feeling of worth, the "something to do/place to go" because you belong.
Draw two partially overlapping circles. One label it Muslims, the other label Idiots.
Notice that not all Muslims are Idiots and that all Idiots are not Muslims. Yes, there are Muslims that are Idiots, but by the all-powerful Flying Spaghetti Monster, please don't generalize.
>'free speach zones'
I am drooling at the thought of free juicy fruit.
>Nobody has been able to take non-living chemicals and make even the simplest living thing out of them, thus PREDICTING the future through experiment.
I don't think that the theory of Evolution is saying this. It is basically starting with that there is life already and then it changes. It does not say anything about non-life turning into life. (I'm not even sure how does non-life "survives" or become more adapotable to its environment?)
I'll have to look up this stuff later on but thank you for giving me pointers on what to look for.
>String theory is not falsifiable
Assume I have very little understanding of string theory. Could you please explain this in more detail; exactly what part and why string theory is not falsifiable.
>how was the "theory" part conferred?
There is no governing body that certifies theories. Saying something is a theroy does not specify how certain it is, how close it is to the "truth", how popular it is, how accepted it is within a group, how does it compare to other theories, how close it is being falsified. "Being worthy of academic discussion" is another idea.
(Some people would be scared because of this, saying that it makes science weak. But it doesn't, because science is about being open to ideas and exploring them, which means that everything is open, even to "crazy ideas" like string theory which should be evaluated and proven/disproven by its merits along, not on some title given by a set of people.)
>I know you don't mean to be facetious about the coin through the table comment but that's what it comes across as.
I actually meant it to be a simple question related to the scientific principle of observation and human perception.
>Any one who has been involved in science knows that with the standard scientific method you must do statistics in your experiments.
What about cases where there isn't possible for realistic statisical data? For example: Is the current warming of the planet abnormal? We only have the tempature history of one planet, ours. We don't know if the warming is natural or due to man's actions. Yes, we do have theories and evidence, but thats not statistics. Even if we look at nearby planets, I'm not sure of a sample set of 3 is reilable.
What about experiments performed in say subatomic collisions or experiments in growing plants in space? They only do experiments a few times, depending on the quality of the results and limitations of equipment/opportunity. Another group might check on them to duplicate the results. For something to be statistically significant, you need to do it more times than a few. If they do it only a few times, is it science? Where is the statistics?
>Educated and scientifically literate people are less likely to be religious
But shouldn't educated people also be tolerant and respectful of other people's religous views?
>where the level of certainty is somewhere in the region of greater than 95% or more.
Exactly how do we measure this level of certainty? Is it a poll of top trustworthy scientists? Some sort of unbiased, impartial set of conditions?
If a child sees a magic trick and believes, with > 95% certainty, that the coin went through the table, is it proven that the coin went through the table?
>has repeatedly held up when tested and compared to observation, it is perfectly reasonable to call it "proven"
Thats fine, but then you've just taken away one of the strengths of science (and in my mind what differentiates it and religion).
Using your definition, science now dictates one set of beliefs (why do we need to look any further if its "proven" in any realistic definition of the word? How can two related but different ideas be both "proven"?) and cannot say "this is the way we think things are, but lets keep on looking." You have taken away its strengths as a tool for exploration and discovery.
(and to see how this makes science like religion, replace the word "science" with "religion")
>has been extensively proven out by observation, and while the origin of the bang itself is unknown, what happened during and immediately after the Bang is considered extremely solid and proven.
I'm all for free-speech and shooting your mouth off, but really I can't believe that this stuff gets modded up.
Nothing about the Big Bang is "proven". There is "strong evidence", "leads one to believe" etc, but its not proven.