any system that requires the highest level of ethical human behavior is not a good system.
This system doesn't require the highest level of human ethical behavior. There is a wealth of information on the Internet about products, so people can check elsewhere to get a second opinion. And if the customer finds that the company is consistantly hyping its products they trust in the reviews will drop and then there is a question why have reviews anyway? Even for the sucker who buys a crappy product because of a hyped set of reviews... if they don't like it they'll return it (added cost for the company) or go somewhere else next time (lost customer).
The company wants to keep its customers... and with the information avaialble today they really aren't in a position to aggressively censor the reviews.
First off, ID isn't a collection of holes in evolution. That's all you hear from IDers/Creationists because thats really all they have to say. "Evolution is broken because of ___ so God/Guiding Power did it all!" That's not science.
I didn't say this... I simply said you need to teach about the issues with the theory when they are significant. I didn't say teach them and then tell everyone about the God of the Old Testament, or the force, or anything else.
You can't say that because they won't let teachers teach their religious beliefs in school that they're preventing debate on evolution.
I am not saying that teachers should teach their religious beliefs in school. I am saying that they should teach evolution, the predominant scientific theory of human origins, but also comment on the scientific arguments questioning its plausability. That doesn't mean teach about Jesus, or karma, or Muhammad or anything else.
The debate was never missing! It's be there since evolution came about!
The debate is being quashed because no one can even question the theory of evolution in a public school, particularly an elementary or high school.
Nothing's easier than saying "Sorry, I won't do it again" and pulling up your pants after getting caught. It doesn't change the fact you WERE caught and you DID do what you were caught doing.I also in no way guarantees that this behavior will not resurface at a later date.
They had a problem... people would post useless reviews "it's good", "I hated it", "Buy me an Ipod", etc. and this was detrimental to the customers who were trying to figure out whether or not they wanted the product. So they tried a solution... to have the product team screen the reviews to make sure they were accurate based on what the product teams new about the products. A good idea, in that who is better to validate a review than the people who manage the product. Of course, the unforseen consequence was that the product team didn't want to look like they were buying crappy products and not doing their job (or they just though they had the best products) so they biased the screening process. The marketing team has in theory less bias (and less knowlege of the product perhaps), and in theory should do a better job with the screening process this time. The point is that the company is interested in providing the customers with valueable meaningful reviews and in order to do that they are willing to continuously improve their process.
As long as they keep working to make it better for the customers and then that is a good thing.
Intelligent Design is a collection of holes in evolutionary theory. It is very much scientific. It's not possible to prove that these holes add up to a Designer, but that doesn't mean they have no value.
Hear hear! Arguing against a scientific theory using science should be allowed in public schools. When did it become ok to not allow any reasoned debate? To ask questions? This is not a seperation of Church and State issue in the slightest... the arguments against the current theories of evolution are scientific and targeted at science.
The problem is two-fold as I see it. One, some people are demanding the ONLY evolution be taught and the theories that support it should not be questioned in the slightest. This is in support of a particular (anti-relgious?) social agenda. If it were not pushing a social agenda... then one might consider allowing contradictory scientific evidence to be presented.
Two, this should absolutely not be a FEDERAL issue. Let the states decide. Seperation of Church and State is understood to be federal... and I understand that... but since this isn't a religious argument the federal government should not say that all states MUST teach these opposing theories or all states MUST NOT teach them. They should allow each state/school district(?) to decide.
Lastly, at no point in the entire article was "equal time" called for. That's another example of a flamebait, misleading headline. Bush simply said that these opposing theories should be taught if the district wanted to teach them, not that the time must be equal or that all schools must teach them. Quit spreading all of that exagerated bullshit.
One other point... if the theories individually do raise questions in evolution wouldn't presentation of some of the best of them, and the scientific-establishments best counter-argument/explanation be a great way to teach students how to logically analyze an argument and determine if it is well-formed or not? Critical thinking skills need to be developed.
Why does it seem like the scientific-establishment is protecting a straw-man argument like the relgious-establishment did 80 years ago during the Scopes Trial?
This is another example of poor reporting on both sides. The first report was Apple will have DRM, based on what? Anonymous sources and speculation. Not hard facts, or confirmation from Apple or another source that would know. Now we have an anonymous source contradicting the original report.
The media needs to focus on reporting the facts! Don't turn headlines into flamebait or exagerations used to draw in readers and sell more ads.
The ISP was pretty much forced to take down the block because of public outcry... With regulation the Canadian government has two options:
Ah yes, the old government needs to get involved where the peopl have already solved the problem argument. The Canadian government doesn't need to do anything here. If Telus did violate a law on the books then the ONLY thing government should do is prosecute them, and that should come from the judicial part of the government, not the legislative part (I'm not sure exactly how Canada has all of this structured, hence the generic terms). Point is... congress and Co. are a bunch of kharma trolling whores that love to run in after a problem has already been solved, write soem hideous red-tape legislation, and take credit for solving the problem all the while mugging for the camera so they can get reelected during their next terms.
I personally prefer to let people hurt them in the wallet when they pull crap like this. Corporations take more notice when something hurts them in the wallet.
Maybe I misread you... because it seems like this solution should be option c)... meaning keep the government out of it. I would agree with this option.
If this article had been about offshoring programming jobs to non-1st world countries the majority of the posts would be about how you can't just replace "good" American programmers with "bad" programmers. It's not a cost savings!
But since this article is about how you only need the best programmers, most of the posts are about how elitist this post is and what an idiot this guy is for even suggesting such a thing.
Sounds like there are a lot of very insecure folks around here (*gasp* someone repeats something everyone else has known for years!)
I would think it would take more materials to make a working moonbase/mine. So you wouldn't be really saving anything from a fuel perspective... if you were only planning a few trips. I wonder what the break even point would be to justify building the moonbase.
And I would guess it would as long or longer than a trip to Mars to build a moonbase. So wouldn't the people building the moonbase die of cancer due to prolonged exposure to cosmic radiation?
It sounds like we won't be exploring Mars until we have a population of would-be explorers that is 1) worse off here than in space, 2) led by a captain with a penchant for the lash, and 3) drunk off their arse.
I've never wanted to be an astronaut until you decided to put virtual pen to paper... this actually sounds like a fun adventure!
Clearly expidited ozone depletion is the answer to this question. Right now, we consider a 10% risk of cancer to be too high. But if we worked hard to deplete the ozone layer and banned all sun block we'd all become quite comfortable w/ a 10% cancer rate. Let's bring back those cloraflorawhatsinthisherespraycans.
serving two masters: the general public, who have a right to know every true fact, and the advertisers.
I agree with your general analysis of the problem but completely disagree with your solution. The problem is that people buy newsatainment, watch it, and mindlessly go along with what they're being told. The public must protect their "right" to know the facts by avoiding news sources that misrepresent the facts and by demanding quality accurate reporting. There is no monopoloy on the news! Far from it. A single individual has more information today then ever before in the history of the world, but they CHOOSE to watch/read op-ed pieces disguised as news, they obsess over completely irrelevant stories like Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson, Bennifer, and they accept cursory 1-3 minute coverage of extremely complex issues. People are the problem... the media feeds that problem, but at the root of it all the people are the one's dumb enough to go along with it.
I think this illuminates the problems discussed in the post about anonymous sources. This article is a perfect example of the problem with anonymous sources. "one Microsoft programmer" talks about a "few of the key people", makes other claims, slanders Gates, and basically makes a totally unsubstantiated claim. Is there any supporting evidence that there were actually problems with Lotus 1-2-3 and DOS 2.0? If so, is there some record of what the issue was (a bug report), a patch to DOS 2.0 or to 1-2-3? Any other proof other than the allegations of an unnamed unconfirmed programmer who allegedly worked for Microsoft?
n anonymous source doesn't necessarily mean the reporter doesn't know his identity, but that the source does not wish to be identified to the public, for a variety of reasons.
I understand that, but I don't trust the news media. They have political biases (left or right or other leaning), they lie to protect their jobs (that guy for the New York Times who made up 1 or 2 years of stories), they're primary objective is to write fantastic stories that sell advertisements. I want to know what the source of the information is so that I can judge for myself if it is worth believing. If the information is validated by other verifiable information then the source becomes less important, but alone, an anonymous source's information should not be reported.
I agree with this. Using anonymous sources to find information is one thing, but reporting what the anonymous source told you without strong proof is ridiculous (and I believe too common). You should go to press with verifiable facts. Allegations, opinions, or unverifiable information from anonymous sources should never be reported by news media that intends to report the truth.
Hear hear! Big newsatainment-media bent on selling advertisements and stirring up their target audience is a vile plague on this world. They should not be protected even when they adopt their self-righteous arrogance. The press is a good thing, and freedom of the press is a good thing, but anonymous sources presenting facts that are not verifiable or coroborated by verifiable sources are being abused in order to further political agendas and lie to the public.
All media that cite anonymous sources should be required to post a notice to the public indicatign that the story containing the information from the anonymous source could be completely fabricated bullshit created by a media conglomerate to sell more advertisements and further their left/right/middle wing political agenda.
"An anonymous researcher reports he has used stem cells to cure cancer, diabeties, and parkensons.......President Bush has vowed to hunt the terrorist down and bring him to justice!".
Meanwhile you can order the cure in a single simple pill and get Fr33 V14gr4!!!! Order NOW!!!
Good idea, let's trust anonymous sources w/ unverifiable claims.
If they are reporting a crime that the organizaiton is committing then they should be protected by whistleblower laws right? If they're leaking information about a new product, internal business practices, etc. and violating company policy, policy allowed by the shareholders, then they should be fired for that type of activity.
Furthermore, I'd wonder about someone whose "pure motives" caused them to leak info to the press about the evil organization they work for only to keep working for said evil organization (I guess it could get better ??).
Are anonymous sources trustworthy? Do you know their biases? Their intentions? If you know the source you can judge the quality of the information. If you don't know the source... well the information should be given the equivalent of Score: 0... don't bother paying any attention to it unless it's validated by some other verifiable facts.
Slashdot Mirror
any system that requires the highest level of ethical human behavior is not a good system.
This system doesn't require the highest level of human ethical behavior. There is a wealth of information on the Internet about products, so people can check elsewhere to get a second opinion. And if the customer finds that the company is consistantly hyping its products they trust in the reviews will drop and then there is a question why have reviews anyway? Even for the sucker who buys a crappy product because of a hyped set of reviews... if they don't like it they'll return it (added cost for the company) or go somewhere else next time (lost customer).
The company wants to keep its customers... and with the information avaialble today they really aren't in a position to aggressively censor the reviews.
First off, ID isn't a collection of holes in evolution. That's all you hear from IDers/Creationists because thats really all they have to say. "Evolution is broken because of ___ so God/Guiding Power did it all!" That's not science.
I didn't say this... I simply said you need to teach about the issues with the theory when they are significant. I didn't say teach them and then tell everyone about the God of the Old Testament, or the force, or anything else.
You can't say that because they won't let teachers teach their religious beliefs in school that they're preventing debate on evolution.
I am not saying that teachers should teach their religious beliefs in school. I am saying that they should teach evolution, the predominant scientific theory of human origins, but also comment on the scientific arguments questioning its plausability. That doesn't mean teach about Jesus, or karma, or Muhammad or anything else.
The debate was never missing! It's be there since evolution came about!
The debate is being quashed because no one can even question the theory of evolution in a public school, particularly an elementary or high school.
Nothing's easier than saying "Sorry, I won't do it again" and pulling up your pants after getting caught. It doesn't change the fact you WERE caught and you DID do what you were caught doing.I also in no way guarantees that this behavior will not resurface at a later date.
They had a problem... people would post useless reviews "it's good", "I hated it", "Buy me an Ipod", etc. and this was detrimental to the customers who were trying to figure out whether or not they wanted the product. So they tried a solution... to have the product team screen the reviews to make sure they were accurate based on what the product teams new about the products. A good idea, in that who is better to validate a review than the people who manage the product. Of course, the unforseen consequence was that the product team didn't want to look like they were buying crappy products and not doing their job (or they just though they had the best products) so they biased the screening process. The marketing team has in theory less bias (and less knowlege of the product perhaps), and in theory should do a better job with the screening process this time. The point is that the company is interested in providing the customers with valueable meaningful reviews and in order to do that they are willing to continuously improve their process.
As long as they keep working to make it better for the customers and then that is a good thing.
Intelligent Design is a collection of holes in evolutionary theory. It is very much scientific. It's not possible to prove that these holes add up to a Designer, but that doesn't mean they have no value.
Hear hear! Arguing against a scientific theory using science should be allowed in public schools. When did it become ok to not allow any reasoned debate? To ask questions? This is not a seperation of Church and State issue in the slightest... the arguments against the current theories of evolution are scientific and targeted at science.
The problem is two-fold as I see it. One, some people are demanding the ONLY evolution be taught and the theories that support it should not be questioned in the slightest. This is in support of a particular (anti-relgious?) social agenda. If it were not pushing a social agenda... then one might consider allowing contradictory scientific evidence to be presented.
Two, this should absolutely not be a FEDERAL issue. Let the states decide. Seperation of Church and State is understood to be federal... and I understand that... but since this isn't a religious argument the federal government should not say that all states MUST teach these opposing theories or all states MUST NOT teach them. They should allow each state/school district(?) to decide.
Lastly, at no point in the entire article was "equal time" called for. That's another example of a flamebait, misleading headline. Bush simply said that these opposing theories should be taught if the district wanted to teach them, not that the time must be equal or that all schools must teach them. Quit spreading all of that exagerated bullshit.
One other point... if the theories individually do raise questions in evolution wouldn't presentation of some of the best of them, and the scientific-establishments best counter-argument/explanation be a great way to teach students how to logically analyze an argument and determine if it is well-formed or not? Critical thinking skills need to be developed.
Why does it seem like the scientific-establishment is protecting a straw-man argument like the relgious-establishment did 80 years ago during the Scopes Trial?
This is another example of poor reporting on both sides. The first report was Apple will have DRM, based on what? Anonymous sources and speculation. Not hard facts, or confirmation from Apple or another source that would know. Now we have an anonymous source contradicting the original report.
The media needs to focus on reporting the facts! Don't turn headlines into flamebait or exagerations used to draw in readers and sell more ads.
when big corporations would just hire a bunch of thugs to beat the hell out of union organizers.
The ISP was pretty much forced to take down the block because of public outcry... With regulation the Canadian government has two options:
Ah yes, the old government needs to get involved where the peopl have already solved the problem argument. The Canadian government doesn't need to do anything here. If Telus did violate a law on the books then the ONLY thing government should do is prosecute them, and that should come from the judicial part of the government, not the legislative part (I'm not sure exactly how Canada has all of this structured, hence the generic terms). Point is... congress and Co. are a bunch of kharma trolling whores that love to run in after a problem has already been solved, write soem hideous red-tape legislation, and take credit for solving the problem all the while mugging for the camera so they can get reelected during their next terms.
I personally prefer to let people hurt them in the wallet when they pull crap like this. Corporations take more notice when something hurts them in the wallet.
Maybe I misread you... because it seems like this solution should be option c)... meaning keep the government out of it. I would agree with this option.
If this article had been about offshoring programming jobs to non-1st world countries the majority of the posts would be about how you can't just replace "good" American programmers with "bad" programmers. It's not a cost savings!
But since this article is about how you only need the best programmers, most of the posts are about how elitist this post is and what an idiot this guy is for even suggesting such a thing.
Sounds like there are a lot of very insecure folks around here (*gasp* someone repeats something everyone else has known for years!)
Now we know why I'm not working for NASA. :)
I would think it would take more materials to make a working moonbase/mine. So you wouldn't be really saving anything from a fuel perspective... if you were only planning a few trips. I wonder what the break even point would be to justify building the moonbase.
And I would guess it would as long or longer than a trip to Mars to build a moonbase. So wouldn't the people building the moonbase die of cancer due to prolonged exposure to cosmic radiation?
It sounds like we won't be exploring Mars until we have a population of would-be explorers that is 1) worse off here than in space, 2) led by a captain with a penchant for the lash, and 3) drunk off their arse.
I've never wanted to be an astronaut until you decided to put virtual pen to paper... this actually sounds like a fun adventure!
Is that the new politcally correct term for Martians bent on destroying our cosmonauts? I always preferred the term Native Martianians.
I was with you until you suggested playing golf on Mars... and then I knew I had a purpose in life.
I always wondered why the Cure for Cancer wonder would increase the success of your travel to Alpha Centauri by 50%. Now I know.
Clearly expidited ozone depletion is the answer to this question. Right now, we consider a 10% risk of cancer to be too high. But if we worked hard to deplete the ozone layer and banned all sun block we'd all become quite comfortable w/ a 10% cancer rate. Let's bring back those cloraflorawhatsinthisherespraycans.
serving two masters: the general public, who have a right to know every true fact, and the advertisers.
I agree with your general analysis of the problem but completely disagree with your solution. The problem is that people buy newsatainment, watch it, and mindlessly go along with what they're being told. The public must protect their "right" to know the facts by avoiding news sources that misrepresent the facts and by demanding quality accurate reporting. There is no monopoloy on the news! Far from it. A single individual has more information today then ever before in the history of the world, but they CHOOSE to watch/read op-ed pieces disguised as news, they obsess over completely irrelevant stories like Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson, Bennifer, and they accept cursory 1-3 minute coverage of extremely complex issues. People are the problem... the media feeds that problem, but at the root of it all the people are the one's dumb enough to go along with it.
Good research... way to track that one down.
I think this illuminates the problems discussed in the post about anonymous sources. This article is a perfect example of the problem with anonymous sources. "one Microsoft programmer" talks about a "few of the key people", makes other claims, slanders Gates, and basically makes a totally unsubstantiated claim. Is there any supporting evidence that there were actually problems with Lotus 1-2-3 and DOS 2.0? If so, is there some record of what the issue was (a bug report), a patch to DOS 2.0 or to 1-2-3? Any other proof other than the allegations of an unnamed unconfirmed programmer who allegedly worked for Microsoft?
n anonymous source doesn't necessarily mean the reporter doesn't know his identity, but that the source does not wish to be identified to the public, for a variety of reasons.
I understand that, but I don't trust the news media. They have political biases (left or right or other leaning), they lie to protect their jobs (that guy for the New York Times who made up 1 or 2 years of stories), they're primary objective is to write fantastic stories that sell advertisements. I want to know what the source of the information is so that I can judge for myself if it is worth believing. If the information is validated by other verifiable information then the source becomes less important, but alone, an anonymous source's information should not be reported.
I agree with this. Using anonymous sources to find information is one thing, but reporting what the anonymous source told you without strong proof is ridiculous (and I believe too common). You should go to press with verifiable facts. Allegations, opinions, or unverifiable information from anonymous sources should never be reported by news media that intends to report the truth.
Aye. I'm a little uptight it seems... fortunately it's 5 o'clock. Time to unwind and quit being such an ass.
Hear hear! Big newsatainment-media bent on selling advertisements and stirring up their target audience is a vile plague on this world. They should not be protected even when they adopt their self-righteous arrogance. The press is a good thing, and freedom of the press is a good thing, but anonymous sources presenting facts that are not verifiable or coroborated by verifiable sources are being abused in order to further political agendas and lie to the public.
All media that cite anonymous sources should be required to post a notice to the public indicatign that the story containing the information from the anonymous source could be completely fabricated bullshit created by a media conglomerate to sell more advertisements and further their left/right/middle wing political agenda.
"An anonymous researcher reports he has used stem cells to cure cancer, diabeties, and parkensons.......President Bush has vowed to hunt the terrorist down and bring him to justice!".
Meanwhile you can order the cure in a single simple pill and get Fr33 V14gr4!!!! Order NOW!!!
Good idea, let's trust anonymous sources w/ unverifiable claims.
Aren't there whistleblower laws that protect individuals who leak information about crimes committed by organizations they work for?
If they are reporting a crime that the organizaiton is committing then they should be protected by whistleblower laws right? If they're leaking information about a new product, internal business practices, etc. and violating company policy, policy allowed by the shareholders, then they should be fired for that type of activity.
Furthermore, I'd wonder about someone whose "pure motives" caused them to leak info to the press about the evil organization they work for only to keep working for said evil organization (I guess it could get better ??).
Are anonymous sources trustworthy? Do you know their biases? Their intentions? If you know the source you can judge the quality of the information. If you don't know the source... well the information should be given the equivalent of Score: 0... don't bother paying any attention to it unless it's validated by some other verifiable facts.
and just HOW are they going to restrict it, pray tell?
DRM. The distribution method is irrelevant if you can't actually use the file once you've downloaded it.