but problems with the current system don't excuse problems with the proposed system.
What problems? You seem to think that there's some "immoral" reason against the sale of organs. But we have here an example where something which is supposedly "moral' kills a lot of people each year through organ shortages.
Does that count the crusades, inquisition, witch hunts, and numerous other actions by kings who were technically heads of churches or important members of?
Technically, these were for the most part small matters compared to modern genocides, and there were similar atrocities on the Muslim side (particular the empires of Islamic Mongols, Ottomans, and Mughals). Frankly, I think even mentioning these relatively minor atrocities indicates that you are unaware of far larger and more lethal actions by both religions (on the Christian side - such as the die-off of indigenous Americans by Christian monarchies, the Thirty Years War, or theTaiping Rebellion. On the Muslim side by the atrocities of Timur (or Tamerlane) and picking a fight with Genghis Khan).
I think of both the three modern large predominately Muslim genocides of non-Muslim minorities (the Armenian genocide by Turkey, the Bangladesh/East Pakistan genocide by Pakistan, and at least two episodes of genocide in Indonesia, during and after the civil war and the suppression of East Timor) and of rather nasty civil wars with a strong Islamic component (eg, the recent civil wars of Algeria, Iraq, and Syria). I think those are considerably larger than any other modern religious or religious-ethnic large scale atrocity or conflict.
a person who is professionally involved in politics, esp. as a holder of or a candidate for an elected office
Looks like non-elected offices are allowed as well. I suppose I'll distinguish this second category as government bureaucrats then to avoid the issue you're speaking of.
What makes you think I have problems with "big numbers"? For example, the EU plans to spend about 30 billion a year on climate change-related issues from 2014 to 2020. That was rationalized on the basis of climate research.
The only reason to have large amounts of summaries of other people's research beyond a couple intro paragraphs is to either respond to someone else's specific work (and you're doing it wrong if the summaries/repeat descriptions of their work take up any where near the majority of your paper), or a review paper which is explicitly labeled as such usually.
The copy/paste was supposedly a few sentences which would easily fit into any of the more or less legit situations you mention. At a brief glance, the copied section didn't appear to me to be discussing original research, but I didn't look at it in context.
But in addition to not attributing the additional authors of the previous paper, they apparently didn't cite the paper either.
The article also cites the biggest problem of all which can be inferred from the odd name of the journal. Apparently, the sponsoring business was expecting a physics journal, not an advocacy journal for a particular flavor of climatology theories. I wonder how things got that out of hand.
Military technology development is a good example. Horse cavalry no longer commands the sort of respect that it had prior to 1900 AD. It's quite obsolete and as a result there's little interest or funding in creating specific tactics or technologies to counter cavalry except perhaps as part of a more general asymmetric warfare strategy. The threat went away and so did the interest.
A lot of programming places a much lower priority on memory usage efficiency than it used to. Memory for most applications is now quite cheap and the obstacles have shifted to other things, such as ease of development and maintenance or interface/usage constraints. The benefit went away and so did the interest.
Even if it was a single author, just copying from an earlier work is enough to be considered self-plagiarism. You must publish original research.
Not at all. There's a fair amount of boilerplate that goes into a paper. If it hasn't changed since the last research paper by the authors, then it doesn't require a rewrite. It's not original research.
I'm pretty sure I could come up with high profile examples from mathematical physics, for example where an author copy/pasted from one of their previous papers, summaries of other peoples' research.
As was noted elsewhere by artor3, the real problem was not crediting additional authors of the previous work. Even that doesn't strike me as a very serious problem since the primary author was the same for both papers, apparently, and may well be the sole author of the copied text.
Instead, the nepotism is probably what ended the journal. That's a much more serious issue.
I'm sure there's plenty of climatology research to do without considering greenhouse gases at all.
And funding for that research would probably be one to two orders of magnitude smaller than it currently is.
It's as if you're claiming that astronomy would fall apart if we developed an asteroid shield, or that geology would fall apart if we could stop earthquakes, or that meteorology would fall apart if we could prevent hurricanes.
Or that these fields would receive far less funding if the compelling interests such as asteroid strikes or space development, large earthquakes, or cyclones didn't exist. Many fields are driven by perceived threat or benefit and if that goes away, then so does most of the impetus for doing the research.
Is it about punishment or deterrence? In the latter case, eye for eye does not apply.
No, tit for tat is both punishment and deterrence. The deterrence is in that the punishment is an added consequence of the action. You don't just pluck peoples' eyes out arbitrarily but only for acts where they harm someone else in certain ways.
And it is about punishment both from the obvious aspect that it appoints a punishment, but also as noted elsewhere in this thread, as a constraint on the degree of punishment. The punishment is not arbitrarily large. My eye isn't plucked out because I jaywalked or insulted someone.
However, I would be the first to defend the Chinese and the rest who are simply being outsourced by the West to create all our junk. Its still OUR pollution, just because they are the ones getting paid to do it doesn't make it their fault.
I think we'll have to get past this bullshit guilt tripping some day. China isn't going to decrease its pollution because the West buys less of its junk. It'll do so because it is in its interests to do so. You should ask why that isn't the case now.
Which incidentally is not a prediction of global warming. Instead, a prediction is that there will be a higher frequency of high temperature events and a lower frequency of low temperature events.
One such fact of this "trend" is that it is very short, "35+" years. It'd be more relevant if it continues for a statistically significant period of time and can't be tied to near past land use. A big part of the problem as I see it is also the propensity for chicken littles to blame every climate change on global warming. There are other ways for humans and nature to change climates.
For example, turning arid land into farmland lowers its albedo and increases moisture content of the air, both which contribute to local heating and retention of heat. I bet you that's a thing in Australia over the past 35 years.
They don't. Last time I played this game, someone tried to claim Nazis were Christians. They weren't.
In contrast, you have several relatively bloody conflicts in the Middle and Far East in the recent past that are or were religion driven by Islam, such as the civil war in Algeria or the genocides of Bangladesh (East Pakistan at the time) and East Timor. As far as ideology body counts go, they don't hold a candle to the death count from Fascism and Communism, but they are higher than any modern religious conflicts spurred by Christianity.
If you're going to the distant past, then both Christianity and Islam have some pretty big slaughters in their past such as Christian subjugation of South and Central America and the Taiping Rebellion, or the various conquests (and defeats) of Islam (particularly, a rebuke of Genghis Khan that backfired on a legendary scale, the wars of Tamerlane, or the atrocities of some of the Mughal emperors).
Remember, libertarians: power will always find a vacuum.
The problem here is that unless resisted, power concentrates. There isn't a vacuum, but rather power being taken from other sources, namely, individuals, the states, and businesses.
If companies (or rather, executives) can't be honest about what they're doing if they think it's right, then perhaps some shaming is needed to bring things to light.
Slashdot Mirror
but problems with the current system don't excuse problems with the proposed system.
What problems? You seem to think that there's some "immoral" reason against the sale of organs. But we have here an example where something which is supposedly "moral' kills a lot of people each year through organ shortages.
It's 200 billion euros over six years. And that's just for the EU-level. Each national government has their own thing.
People like the head of the FCC, who are appointed, or heads of the banks that make up the Federal Reserve who are neither elected, nor appointed?
All of the above. Also career bureaucrats who may or may not be appointed, but have accumulated considerable power over many years.
Does that count the crusades, inquisition, witch hunts, and numerous other actions by kings who were technically heads of churches or important members of?
Technically, these were for the most part small matters compared to modern genocides, and there were similar atrocities on the Muslim side (particular the empires of Islamic Mongols, Ottomans, and Mughals). Frankly, I think even mentioning these relatively minor atrocities indicates that you are unaware of far larger and more lethal actions by both religions (on the Christian side - such as the die-off of indigenous Americans by Christian monarchies, the Thirty Years War, or theTaiping Rebellion. On the Muslim side by the atrocities of Timur (or Tamerlane) and picking a fight with Genghis Khan).
I think of both the three modern large predominately Muslim genocides of non-Muslim minorities (the Armenian genocide by Turkey, the Bangladesh/East Pakistan genocide by Pakistan, and at least two episodes of genocide in Indonesia, during and after the civil war and the suppression of East Timor) and of rather nasty civil wars with a strong Islamic component (eg, the recent civil wars of Algeria, Iraq, and Syria). I think those are considerably larger than any other modern religious or religious-ethnic large scale atrocity or conflict.
a person who is professionally involved in politics, esp. as a holder of or a candidate for an elected office
Looks like non-elected offices are allowed as well. I suppose I'll distinguish this second category as government bureaucrats then to avoid the issue you're speaking of.
What makes you think I have problems with "big numbers"? For example, the EU plans to spend about 30 billion a year on climate change-related issues from 2014 to 2020. That was rationalized on the basis of climate research.
How much can climate research cost anyway?
At least tens of billions of dollars a year just in the EU. The cost is not just in the research, but in the public funding it helps rationalize.
The only reason to have large amounts of summaries of other people's research beyond a couple intro paragraphs is to either respond to someone else's specific work (and you're doing it wrong if the summaries/repeat descriptions of their work take up any where near the majority of your paper), or a review paper which is explicitly labeled as such usually.
The copy/paste was supposedly a few sentences which would easily fit into any of the more or less legit situations you mention. At a brief glance, the copied section didn't appear to me to be discussing original research, but I didn't look at it in context.
But in addition to not attributing the additional authors of the previous paper, they apparently didn't cite the paper either.
The article also cites the biggest problem of all which can be inferred from the odd name of the journal. Apparently, the sponsoring business was expecting a physics journal, not an advocacy journal for a particular flavor of climatology theories. I wonder how things got that out of hand.
Military technology development is a good example. Horse cavalry no longer commands the sort of respect that it had prior to 1900 AD. It's quite obsolete and as a result there's little interest or funding in creating specific tactics or technologies to counter cavalry except perhaps as part of a more general asymmetric warfare strategy. The threat went away and so did the interest.
A lot of programming places a much lower priority on memory usage efficiency than it used to. Memory for most applications is now quite cheap and the obstacles have shifted to other things, such as ease of development and maintenance or interface/usage constraints. The benefit went away and so did the interest.
Even if it was a single author, just copying from an earlier work is enough to be considered self-plagiarism. You must publish original research.
Not at all. There's a fair amount of boilerplate that goes into a paper. If it hasn't changed since the last research paper by the authors, then it doesn't require a rewrite. It's not original research.
I'm pretty sure I could come up with high profile examples from mathematical physics, for example where an author copy/pasted from one of their previous papers, summaries of other peoples' research.
As was noted elsewhere by artor3, the real problem was not crediting additional authors of the previous work. Even that doesn't strike me as a very serious problem since the primary author was the same for both papers, apparently, and may well be the sole author of the copied text.
Instead, the nepotism is probably what ended the journal. That's a much more serious issue.
I'm sure there's plenty of climatology research to do without considering greenhouse gases at all.
And funding for that research would probably be one to two orders of magnitude smaller than it currently is.
It's as if you're claiming that astronomy would fall apart if we developed an asteroid shield, or that geology would fall apart if we could stop earthquakes, or that meteorology would fall apart if we could prevent hurricanes.
Or that these fields would receive far less funding if the compelling interests such as asteroid strikes or space development, large earthquakes, or cyclones didn't exist. Many fields are driven by perceived threat or benefit and if that goes away, then so does most of the impetus for doing the research.
Is it about punishment or deterrence? In the latter case, eye for eye does not apply.
No, tit for tat is both punishment and deterrence. The deterrence is in that the punishment is an added consequence of the action. You don't just pluck peoples' eyes out arbitrarily but only for acts where they harm someone else in certain ways.
And it is about punishment both from the obvious aspect that it appoints a punishment, but also as noted elsewhere in this thread, as a constraint on the degree of punishment. The punishment is not arbitrarily large. My eye isn't plucked out because I jaywalked or insulted someone.
However, I would be the first to defend the Chinese and the rest who are simply being outsourced by the West to create all our junk. Its still OUR pollution, just because they are the ones getting paid to do it doesn't make it their fault.
I think we'll have to get past this bullshit guilt tripping some day. China isn't going to decrease its pollution because the West buys less of its junk. It'll do so because it is in its interests to do so. You should ask why that isn't the case now.
Stuff gets more extreme
Which incidentally is not a prediction of global warming. Instead, a prediction is that there will be a higher frequency of high temperature events and a lower frequency of low temperature events.
One such fact of this "trend" is that it is very short, "35+" years. It'd be more relevant if it continues for a statistically significant period of time and can't be tied to near past land use. A big part of the problem as I see it is also the propensity for chicken littles to blame every climate change on global warming. There are other ways for humans and nature to change climates.
For example, turning arid land into farmland lowers its albedo and increases moisture content of the air, both which contribute to local heating and retention of heat. I bet you that's a thing in Australia over the past 35 years.
Christians have a much higher body count.
They don't. Last time I played this game, someone tried to claim Nazis were Christians. They weren't.
In contrast, you have several relatively bloody conflicts in the Middle and Far East in the recent past that are or were religion driven by Islam, such as the civil war in Algeria or the genocides of Bangladesh (East Pakistan at the time) and East Timor. As far as ideology body counts go, they don't hold a candle to the death count from Fascism and Communism, but they are higher than any modern religious conflicts spurred by Christianity.
If you're going to the distant past, then both Christianity and Islam have some pretty big slaughters in their past such as Christian subjugation of South and Central America and the Taiping Rebellion, or the various conquests (and defeats) of Islam (particularly, a rebuke of Genghis Khan that backfired on a legendary scale, the wars of Tamerlane, or the atrocities of some of the Mughal emperors).
I don't see it. I see you making a comment about how somehow capitalism and freedom leads to problems which are irrelevant to my question.
They must clearly beyond money's sphere of influence!
With a captive revenue stream and considerable lack of accountability, I imagine they experience quite a bit of influence when they want to.
if you need to take emergency related calls 24x7 then sit by a phone the whole time.
They are. The phone is just a cell phone.
So do you have an answer somewhere in there to the question I asked?
You're naive and, frankly, stupid if you were to actually believe that the politicians' power weren't to crumble without the banking elites' money.
Oh yea, if they need more money they can either trade a little power or even just take it. "Naive".
The politicians surely have the power; but luckily they're replaceable in 2 to 6 year cycles.
A lot of the politicians with power aren't elected.
Remember, libertarians: power will always find a vacuum.
The problem here is that unless resisted, power concentrates. There isn't a vacuum, but rather power being taken from other sources, namely, individuals, the states, and businesses.
Name names please (even as an AC).
If companies (or rather, executives) can't be honest about what they're doing if they think it's right, then perhaps some shaming is needed to bring things to light.
At the least, it'd be a heads up warning.
I too am shocked that organisms with brains get brain tumors.
But the state is funding education not indoctrination to your stupid beliefs.
Would be nice if that were so. What I see is a struggle over whose indoctrination gets taught in schools.
Christina fundamentalism is as bad as Muslim fundamentalism, and just as dangerous.
Not by body count.