People don't equate the actions of their office with their own actions.
I the supervisor must make decisions and take actions based on company policy not my own ethics and morality. The two have little or no relation.
I the executive who makes those policies must decisions based on the company charter and my obligation to shareholders not my own personal ethics and morality. The two have little or no relation.
I the shareholder don't have generally utilize any say in the management of the company and therefore don't feel I have any actions in this regard to equate to ethics and morality. I simply invest my money where I believe it will yield the greatest returns and get stock in my account with a ticker name by it.
Starting to get the picture? Companies may be made up of people but they are not people and all of those people just do their job and do not confuse their duties as an employee/or investment selections with their own personal choices/actions/morals.
You say that as if the scale doesn't matter. It may not matter in a hypothetical happyland where results and not intentions matter scale is pretty damn important.
If you are designing a network and ten thousand users go down are you going to argue that mistakes happen and it is no different having a single point of failure for four users versus having a single point of failure for ten thousand?
Allowing the failure of a single device to impact ten thousand users is poor design. The same is true of allowing the decisions of a single person or entity to hurt ten million people.
I doubt it was even that well thought out. Releasing the results of a study of this sort would be the exception and not the rule of modern corporate culture.
Bottom line, unless it is a PR report, companies don't pay for their competitors research. If nintendo was considering 3d then let nintendo spend as much as possible finding out the technology of the day wouldn't work. After all, you can always turn the report into a PR report if nintendo were stupid enough to release without safety testing (not that there is much chance of that anyway).
Not but I would feel obligated not to release the dangerous product the report was about. Apparently Sega felt the same. If the results had been positive Sega would have 'buried' it in the same manner.
Companies normally don't release these reports regardless of the results. Leave it to other vendors to do their own testing and pay for that testing.
It's messed up anyway. Web browsing isn't a useful metric for measuring internet speed on broadband. We need HD quality real time video streams that are large enough to negate any benefit added by speedbooster.
There are probably more people on dialup in the US than consumer 100Mbps internet connections. Of the six thousand in the sample, what would be representative... one?
And this would be different from removing anonymity in the voting booth how? A petition is a vote to vote on an issue nothing more or less, voting should be anonymous.
If I sign a petition to have say, drug testing in the workplace banned. I may not want my drug testing workplace to know about it.
You don't have to feel strongly about an issue to sign a petition anyway. You aren't even voting for the issue, merely voting that it go on the ballot to be considered in most cases.
"Getting back to this conversation,...I'm not saying that under certain conditions, fluoride might not have adverse effects, but the effects from adding it to drinking water are so unlikely to cause any of them as too really not even be considered."
And what is the basis for you making this claim? There are number of fairly solid studies showing fluoride to be a mutagen that directly affects mammal eggs. A search for peer reviewed papers reveals quite a few. There are papers where little mutation is seen with fluoride but they either do not involve mammals or do not involve ingestion.
Fluoride is harmless when used as a contact agent with tooth enamel like a treatment at the dentist. But the evidence I have seen does not suggest it is safe to ingest, especially for female mammals.
Make no mistake. I fully support Fluoride as a dental treatment and really don't see any reason it shouldn't be provided for home treatments as part of a dental health regime. But to date, there is no solid evidence to show that brief contact even strengthens teeth and there is evidence of possible dangers. Last but not least there is certainly no reason to believe putting the stuff in the water supply would yield a benefit to someone who used prolonged fluoride treatments as part of a regular dental care plan.
Even if you interpret the evidence differently and believe it is a small risk, there is a far smaller chance of benefit and a certainty of expense. How could that possibly add up?
"Not exactly, quite the opposite. Claiming there's a unicorn is a positive, claiming I was not given money is a negative. Or to correspond to you giving me money, it would be relatively easy for you to show based on preponderance of evidence that I was given money. A canceled check that was deposited in my banking account for instance. That is a positive."
How is that the opposite? It is exactly what I said. The burden of proof is on the positive claim and the negative is the default state lacking that claim.
The person claiming the unicorn has the burden of the proof as the positive claim. In your example, again, the person who claims money was given, the positive claim, has the burden to prove it. Lacking that proof any coherent system must assume the negative. In this case, that no money was given.
Exactly. If I claim there is an invisible unicorn in the room the burden is on me to prove it. Not on you to prove there is not. The negative is the default lacking evidence of the positive.
"Jesus christ, is this seriously how you remember this conversation? Click on your original comment and read what you wrote - You demanded others to provide citations for you,"
You are misreading. Here is my original post. Note, there is no mention of anyone providing citations.
"You had me up to here. That an odd reason but fluoride is a well established mutagen and probably a carcinogen and there is zero evidence that repeated brief exposure to low levels (such as in drinking water) strengthens teethe. Even if it did I'm not sure that benefit would compare with the fact there is plenty of reason to think that same regular exposure saturates our bodies with a mutagen."
Here is your original post (in reply to the above) where you "recommended" I use google scholar and provide citations:
"Look it up on google scholar - its a free service, and most of the important and popular papers have pdf links to them that are free. This way when you make a statement of scientific inquiry you can put a little [1] next to them and link them to a paper. Neat - and it pre-empts accusations that you have no idea what you are talking about."
Here is you both congratulating me for coming into compliance for your demand of citations and then telling me to get off my arse and look up the citations for others in the same post:
"So I assume my paper saying that the sky is not blue will be accepted into nature without any citations?
Its really quite simple - when you make an assertion of any kind you have to provide evidence for it."
Accepted into nature? Papers in nature are not assertions, they are documentation of observations.
The gentleman who claims the sky IS blue is left with the burden of evidence. In this case a rather difficult burden since the sky is composed of colorless gas (a claim which could use a citation).
"FFS this is not some pre-internet age where you have to write letters to someone across the world and wait 6 months for a reply. Be proactive - if you what to find out something dont challenge the internet to find it for you - just look it up on wikipedia and you will have your answer plus all the statements are backed up with citations (including negative ones!!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_flouridation [wikipedia.org]"
Troll. You demand I provide citations. When I suggest others do the same you suggest I get off my tail and find their citations for them. Make up your mind.
Negatives don't require citations, positives do. Thus far, nobody has been able to cite studies backing their assertion that fluoride strengthens teeth in low dose brief exposure. The default is that it does not.
However, I did state fluoride is a mutagen which is a positive assertion. Your search engine turns up plenty of support for that:
Even if I conceded that fluoride strengthens teeth it doesn't change that it is well established to cause mutations and chromosomal aberrations (especially in mammalian eggs).
"wants to protect our purity of essence and precious bodily fluids by opposing fluoridation of water"
You had me up to here. That an odd reason but fluoride is a well established mutagen and probably a carcinogen and there is zero evidence that repeated brief exposure to low levels (such as in drinking water) strengthens teethe. Even if it did I'm not sure that benefit would compare with the fact there is plenty of reason to think that same regular exposure saturates our bodies with a mutagen.
I think that is a move in the wrong direction. We need to make additional efforts to weaken the grip of the powers of be and strengthen the voice of the people. You are suggesting letting the puppets of the powers at be select additional puppets.
Essentially, that would let them get their federal senators for the purchase price of their state senators.
You waste your money an overpriced corporate IT admin college grad and support contracts. Your admin had information thrust at him rapidfire in school so the school can claim an impressive curriculum, of which every class is worthless without several months of in the trenches experience BEFORE the next class. So he doesn't know a damn thing, except maybe some impressive sounding operational theory that might be useful to troubleshoot some fringe cases.
As a result, your admin makes you pay ridiculous prices so everything is quad redundant, the more visible to management and users a failure, the more redundant it must be. This way he has time to call support and get the answer.
Since you are paying so much for these support contracts and he is incompetent so he will call them about EVERYTHING. Demanding detailed explanations for minor and unimportant glitches with simple workarounds or that caused one device in a redundant pair to have to be rebooted once in two years.
The 'engineer' he calls is just a guy who doesn't have the option of calling anyone else but his co-workers and thus becomes knowledgable. He expends the time and effort to find the answer or wastes the time of real engineers/developers fixing your obscure and unimportant glitch.
ridiculous. that is thinking about scale. It applies equally when treating the database solution as a black box and affect different database products the same way.
P.S. it is also possible you are undervaluing the infrastructure that makes your profits possible. I have seen ignorant companies that think sales have a greater impact on their profit than infrastructure.
The reality of course is that while sales is easy to measure and visible an infrastructure (including tech staff) breakdown will cause the house of cards to collapse just as surely.
Slashdot Mirror
People don't equate the actions of their office with their own actions.
I the supervisor must make decisions and take actions based on company policy not my own ethics and morality. The two have little or no relation.
I the executive who makes those policies must decisions based on the company charter and my obligation to shareholders not my own personal ethics and morality. The two have little or no relation.
I the shareholder don't have generally utilize any say in the management of the company and therefore don't feel I have any actions in this regard to equate to ethics and morality. I simply invest my money where I believe it will yield the greatest returns and get stock in my account with a ticker name by it.
Starting to get the picture? Companies may be made up of people but they are not people and all of those people just do their job and do not confuse their duties as an employee/or investment selections with their own personal choices/actions/morals.
"it's no worse except maybe for the scale"
You say that as if the scale doesn't matter. It may not matter in a hypothetical happyland where results and not intentions matter scale is pretty damn important.
If you are designing a network and ten thousand users go down are you going to argue that mistakes happen and it is no different having a single point of failure for four users versus having a single point of failure for ten thousand?
Allowing the failure of a single device to impact ten thousand users is poor design. The same is true of allowing the decisions of a single person or entity to hurt ten million people.
I doubt it was even that well thought out. Releasing the results of a study of this sort would be the exception and not the rule of modern corporate culture.
Bottom line, unless it is a PR report, companies don't pay for their competitors research. If nintendo was considering 3d then let nintendo spend as much as possible finding out the technology of the day wouldn't work. After all, you can always turn the report into a PR report if nintendo were stupid enough to release without safety testing (not that there is much chance of that anyway).
This isn't flamebait it's a prediction based on historical data.
Welcome to the real world peaches.
Not but I would feel obligated not to release the dangerous product the report was about. Apparently Sega felt the same. If the results had been positive Sega would have 'buried' it in the same manner.
Companies normally don't release these reports regardless of the results. Leave it to other vendors to do their own testing and pay for that testing.
It's messed up anyway. Web browsing isn't a useful metric for measuring internet speed on broadband. We need HD quality real time video streams that are large enough to negate any benefit added by speedbooster.
Regular speed tests are useless with comcast. Speedboost skews the results.
There are probably more people on dialup in the US than consumer 100Mbps internet connections. Of the six thousand in the sample, what would be representative... one?
And they were so thrilled about it that they determined voting had to be anonymous for a free society.
And this would be different from removing anonymity in the voting booth how? A petition is a vote to vote on an issue nothing more or less, voting should be anonymous.
If I sign a petition to have say, drug testing in the workplace banned. I may not want my drug testing workplace to know about it.
You don't have to feel strongly about an issue to sign a petition anyway. You aren't even voting for the issue, merely voting that it go on the ballot to be considered in most cases.
"Getting back to this conversation,...I'm not saying that under certain conditions, fluoride might not have adverse effects, but the effects from adding it to drinking water are so unlikely to cause any of them as too really not even be considered."
And what is the basis for you making this claim? There are number of fairly solid studies showing fluoride to be a mutagen that directly affects mammal eggs. A search for peer reviewed papers reveals quite a few. There are papers where little mutation is seen with fluoride but they either do not involve mammals or do not involve ingestion.
Fluoride is harmless when used as a contact agent with tooth enamel like a treatment at the dentist. But the evidence I have seen does not suggest it is safe to ingest, especially for female mammals.
Make no mistake. I fully support Fluoride as a dental treatment and really don't see any reason it shouldn't be provided for home treatments as part of a dental health regime. But to date, there is no solid evidence to show that brief contact even strengthens teeth and there is evidence of possible dangers. Last but not least there is certainly no reason to believe putting the stuff in the water supply would yield a benefit to someone who used prolonged fluoride treatments as part of a regular dental care plan.
Even if you interpret the evidence differently and believe it is a small risk, there is a far smaller chance of benefit and a certainty of expense. How could that possibly add up?
"Not exactly, quite the opposite. Claiming there's a unicorn is a positive, claiming I was not given money is a negative. Or to correspond to you giving me money, it would be relatively easy for you to show based on preponderance of evidence that I was given money. A canceled check that was deposited in my banking account for instance. That is a positive."
How is that the opposite? It is exactly what I said. The burden of proof is on the positive claim and the negative is the default state lacking that claim.
The person claiming the unicorn has the burden of the proof as the positive claim. In your example, again, the person who claims money was given, the positive claim, has the burden to prove it. Lacking that proof any coherent system must assume the negative. In this case, that no money was given.
Exactly. If I claim there is an invisible unicorn in the room the burden is on me to prove it. Not on you to prove there is not. The negative is the default lacking evidence of the positive.
"Jesus christ, is this seriously how you remember this conversation? Click on your original comment and read what you wrote - You demanded others to provide citations for you,"
You are misreading. Here is my original post. Note, there is no mention of anyone providing citations.
"You had me up to here. That an odd reason but fluoride is a well established mutagen and probably a carcinogen and there is zero evidence that repeated brief exposure to low levels (such as in drinking water) strengthens teethe. Even if it did I'm not sure that benefit would compare with the fact there is plenty of reason to think that same regular exposure saturates our bodies with a mutagen."
Here is your original post (in reply to the above) where you "recommended" I use google scholar and provide citations:
"Look it up on google scholar - its a free service, and most of the important and popular papers have pdf links to them that are free. This way when you make a statement of scientific inquiry you can put a little [1] next to them and link them to a paper. Neat - and it pre-empts accusations that you have no idea what you are talking about."
Here is you both congratulating me for coming into compliance for your demand of citations and then telling me to get off my arse and look up the citations for others in the same post:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1690078&cid=32610134
yeah because mutagen isn't bad enough
"So I assume my paper saying that the sky is not blue will be accepted into nature without any citations?
Its really quite simple - when you make an assertion of any kind you have to provide evidence for it."
Accepted into nature? Papers in nature are not assertions, they are documentation of observations.
The gentleman who claims the sky IS blue is left with the burden of evidence. In this case a rather difficult burden since the sky is composed of colorless gas (a claim which could use a citation).
"FFS this is not some pre-internet age where you have to write letters to someone across the world and wait 6 months for a reply. Be proactive - if you what to find out something dont challenge the internet to find it for you - just look it up on wikipedia and you will have your answer plus all the statements are backed up with citations (including negative ones!!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_flouridation [wikipedia.org]"
Troll. You demand I provide citations. When I suggest others do the same you suggest I get off my tail and find their citations for them. Make up your mind.
Negatives don't require citations, positives do. Thus far, nobody has been able to cite studies backing their assertion that fluoride strengthens teeth in low dose brief exposure. The default is that it does not.
However, I did state fluoride is a mutagen which is a positive assertion. Your search engine turns up plenty of support for that:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=fluoride+mutagen&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=10000000001&as_sdtp=on
Even if I conceded that fluoride strengthens teeth it doesn't change that it is well established to cause mutations and chromosomal aberrations (especially in mammalian eggs).
Refer to this one:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1690078&cid=32609644
"wants to protect our purity of essence and precious bodily fluids by opposing fluoridation of water"
You had me up to here. That an odd reason but fluoride is a well established mutagen and probably a carcinogen and there is zero evidence that repeated brief exposure to low levels (such as in drinking water) strengthens teethe. Even if it did I'm not sure that benefit would compare with the fact there is plenty of reason to think that same regular exposure saturates our bodies with a mutagen.
I think that is a move in the wrong direction. We need to make additional efforts to weaken the grip of the powers of be and strengthen the voice of the people. You are suggesting letting the puppets of the powers at be select additional puppets.
Essentially, that would let them get their federal senators for the purchase price of their state senators.
You waste your money an overpriced corporate IT admin college grad and support contracts. Your admin had information thrust at him rapidfire in school so the school can claim an impressive curriculum, of which every class is worthless without several months of in the trenches experience BEFORE the next class. So he doesn't know a damn thing, except maybe some impressive sounding operational theory that might be useful to troubleshoot some fringe cases.
As a result, your admin makes you pay ridiculous prices so everything is quad redundant, the more visible to management and users a failure, the more redundant it must be. This way he has time to call support and get the answer.
Since you are paying so much for these support contracts and he is incompetent so he will call them about EVERYTHING. Demanding detailed explanations for minor and unimportant glitches with simple workarounds or that caused one device in a redundant pair to have to be rebooted once in two years.
The 'engineer' he calls is just a guy who doesn't have the option of calling anyone else but his co-workers and thus becomes knowledgable. He expends the time and effort to find the answer or wastes the time of real engineers/developers fixing your obscure and unimportant glitch.
recommends someone more competent? how much do your db's go down?
ridiculous. that is thinking about scale. It applies equally when treating the database solution as a black box and affect different database products the same way.
P.S. it is also possible you are undervaluing the infrastructure that makes your profits possible. I have seen ignorant companies that think sales have a greater impact on their profit than infrastructure.
The reality of course is that while sales is easy to measure and visible an infrastructure (including tech staff) breakdown will cause the house of cards to collapse just as surely.