IANAL, but I've worked with them for years now as a paramalegal. There are ethical rules that attorneys need to follow (some of which we follow, too). AFAIK, Thompson was acting contrary to many of those standards which are part of staying with the bar, hence his disbarment.
Yep. But this is slashdot. Tot he powers that be it probably shows "great promise" and, since it is a machine, would be "unbiased."
All the things it is tagging as "suspicious" could also be explained by a bad phone call just before you come in range. Maybe your wife just caleld to say she's leaving you for your sister. Again.
I was thinking of impartiality from a different tack. If a new means of explaining evolution, call it mechanism X was discovered which explained it better and had even more solid proof, Science would accept it. Science is impartial in that whatever it is capable of accepting new theories. The bacteria which causes ulcers being a great example. Scientists scoffed at it being possible for a long time, but, once proven, it became accepted.
Religion, on the other hand, is tied to The Truth. And where The Truth and evidence differ, it is the evidence that must be explained away, not The Truth that must be altered. So, in that sense, since religion has a vested interest in a particular answer it is not impartial.
It really comes down to design philosophy. Airliners have to be able to withstand 3 positive G's (I'm pretty sure about the number, but it could be more). Boeing makes theiur planes to where they can withstand at least 4 if not 5 or 6. Airbus will make the plane so that it will only be able to pull 3 G's and then program the controls to prevent the pilot from ever pulling more than that. So the Airbus can then be built lighter because they can't handle the same stresses. The computer, essentially, trumps the pilots judgment. And, to me at least, that is very worrisome.
I said it wasn't because, in all honesty, we have additional evidence from human history (in the form of world religions) that do have something to say about the matter and science ignores it. Now I understand that science looks for the truth based on falsifiable theories, but if science specifically ignores and pretends that religious assertions don't exist, they're closing their eyes to possibilities that might lead them towards truths they should consider.
There are three possibilities: 1) Religion is right. 2) Science is right. 3) They're both right. If science ignores possibilities #1 and #3, that might be science but they might never get the right answer--and what good is that?
Science is only concerned with verifiable facts. So to Science, the creation story of any culture is dismissed because it is un-verifiable. It's faith. Science is a rigorous logical structure which is impartial. I'm not saying that the scientists practicing it are always impartial, I'm saying the system itself with the big capital "S" is. To acheive that impartiality it cannot simply assume belief and faith as the same as verifiable fact.
So saying that Science is ignoring evidence is really a question of semantics. It's not so much that it's not evidence, it's just inadmissable.
Should passengers be discrimating based on the technical merits of Boeing versus Airbus planes
Should and will are different. I will not fly on an Airbus unless there is simply no other way. The chances of something going wrong on an airline are quite small, but if that number comes up I'd much rather be in a Boeing product than Airbus. But I'm not the normal passenger so I have no illusions as to how people actually choose. Cost.
Its not like a CD and thumbrdrive will take up more space than one or the other. If you can convert the photos to a DVD format slide show and include a DVD player, that might stand the best chance of surviving.
They simply couldn't admit their own mistakes and learn from them; preferring self-rightious extinction over humbling erudition. Those few who remain are called Neocons.
the Galaxy Explorer was the first Lego set I ever had.
Not my first (that one goes to the Coast Guard Station one), but pretty darn close. Man that thing was cool!
The one thing that bothered me with the space minifigs is you could see their smiling faces with the helmets. But I knew (as only an elementary schooler can) that you couldn't see the astronauts faces through the visors. So I would turn their heads around so all you could see was the yellow through the helmet.
He was actually only trying to call one person, but every time the caller ID came up as FEMA the guy panicked and wouldn't answer. When the authorities showed up at the poor guys house he was in a fetal position, rocking himself back and forth saying over and over again, "FEMA. Keeps Calling. Won't stop. FEMA!!!"
Yep. They needed this result before the conference. Unfortunately, the Courts work at their own pace, and since the MBTA published everything in court documents already public, they will have only themselves to blame if anything nefarious happens.
Of course if there had been an Ignignokt slide they would've all been shot.
Slashdot Mirror
Also leaked was a transcipt for their prospective moon landing...
Shenzhou 11: Base this is Shenzhou 11. Shenzhou has landed. Jesus H. Christ Base, We're on the fucking moon. Over.
Base: Roger, Shenzhou, we copy you. We cannot believe you are on the fucking moon. Repeat: Cannot fucking believe it. Over.
I'm not aware of any illegal activities
IANAL, but I've worked with them for years now as a paramalegal. There are ethical rules that attorneys need to follow (some of which we follow, too). AFAIK, Thompson was acting contrary to many of those standards which are part of staying with the bar, hence his disbarment.
Does this sound idiotic to anyone else?
Yep. But this is slashdot. Tot he powers that be it probably shows "great promise" and, since it is a machine, would be "unbiased."
All the things it is tagging as "suspicious" could also be explained by a bad phone call just before you come in range. Maybe your wife just caleld to say she's leaving you for your sister. Again.
Republicans are cowards.
Yeah this discussion is going to go well...
But if I build a house that isn't up to code, and it passes inspection, it's the inspector that looses his job when the house collapses.
True, but it is you who is buried under the pile.
--Nuke the Whales--
Since they are actually tardigrades I believe the slogan you want is:
--Nuke the Tards--
The exchange goes down at the same time that the US buys two huge, failing monoliths?
"Turn the bloody thing off! We'll just blame Microsoft and see how the rest of the markets shake out, shall we?"
I was thinking of impartiality from a different tack. If a new means of explaining evolution, call it mechanism X was discovered which explained it better and had even more solid proof, Science would accept it. Science is impartial in that whatever it is capable of accepting new theories. The bacteria which causes ulcers being a great example. Scientists scoffed at it being possible for a long time, but, once proven, it became accepted.
Religion, on the other hand, is tied to The Truth. And where The Truth and evidence differ, it is the evidence that must be explained away, not The Truth that must be altered. So, in that sense, since religion has a vested interest in a particular answer it is not impartial.
It really comes down to design philosophy. Airliners have to be able to withstand 3 positive G's (I'm pretty sure about the number, but it could be more). Boeing makes theiur planes to where they can withstand at least 4 if not 5 or 6. Airbus will make the plane so that it will only be able to pull 3 G's and then program the controls to prevent the pilot from ever pulling more than that. So the Airbus can then be built lighter because they can't handle the same stresses. The computer, essentially, trumps the pilots judgment. And, to me at least, that is very worrisome.
Science is only concerned with verifiable facts. So to Science, the creation story of any culture is dismissed because it is un-verifiable. It's faith. Science is a rigorous logical structure which is impartial. I'm not saying that the scientists practicing it are always impartial, I'm saying the system itself with the big capital "S" is. To acheive that impartiality it cannot simply assume belief and faith as the same as verifiable fact.
So saying that Science is ignoring evidence is really a question of semantics. It's not so much that it's not evidence, it's just inadmissable.
Should passengers be discrimating based on the technical merits of Boeing versus Airbus planes
Should and will are different. I will not fly on an Airbus unless there is simply no other way. The chances of something going wrong on an airline are quite small, but if that number comes up I'd much rather be in a Boeing product than Airbus. But I'm not the normal passenger so I have no illusions as to how people actually choose. Cost.
All you have to do is swap 30 Farenheit for 30 Celsius and the problem will reconcile itself forthwith.
Move the room to Antarctica, turn off the heat.
Yeah, but if he's running Windows the penguins down there will attack.
Its not like a CD and thumbrdrive will take up more space than one or the other. If you can convert the photos to a DVD format slide show and include a DVD player, that might stand the best chance of surviving.
They simply couldn't admit their own mistakes and learn from them; preferring self-rightious extinction over humbling erudition. Those few who remain are called Neocons.
the Galaxy Explorer was the first Lego set I ever had.
Not my first (that one goes to the Coast Guard Station one), but pretty darn close. Man that thing was cool!
The one thing that bothered me with the space minifigs is you could see their smiling faces with the helmets. But I knew (as only an elementary schooler can) that you couldn't see the astronauts faces through the visors. So I would turn their heads around so all you could see was the yellow through the helmet.
Call me crazy, but I think I found a flaw in their system.
That would depend on where they're hiding it...
It is well known that many serious Lego enthusiasts will take various stimulants and brick building supplements to give them that edge.
Fixed that for ya...
I actually heard Bart's voice, "Can't sleep- clown'll eat me. Can't sleep- clown'll eat me..." but Abe's Eeeeepaaa is definitely more on point;-)
He was actually only trying to call one person, but every time the caller ID came up as FEMA the guy panicked and wouldn't answer. When the authorities showed up at the poor guys house he was in a fetal position, rocking himself back and forth saying over and over again, "FEMA. Keeps Calling. Won't stop. FEMA!!!"
Yep. They needed this result before the conference. Unfortunately, the Courts work at their own pace, and since the MBTA published everything in court documents already public, they will have only themselves to blame if anything nefarious happens.
Of course if there had been an Ignignokt slide they would've all been shot.
Isn't this the country that banned potato guns?
Yes. They kept shooting potatoes at all the motorized office chairs.
...I want blogs to cause stammering inarticulate rage, bleeding from the ears and epileptic seizures in people...
You're looking for Idle then are, ya?
That sounds like a lot, but it did come with fries.
What he said. If you're near Portland, I'd recommend FreeGeek as a great place to donate (and get a tax write-off, too).