Many large corporations are now forced to essentially run boot camps for out-of-college students. They spend months in college-level courses developed specifically for new graduates to teach them enough to make them useful in the real world work. This is because universities don't prepare people for professional work force. They, for the most part, only prepare people for graduate school.
- you don't know what wealth is, and it's not money. Period.
Actually, I would go from another side of the equation. I don't think he knows what money is. Money is a token for enumerating exchange. This is why in different contexts different concepts can stand in for money: as contexts change so can the tokens used for the enumeration. And as contexts go out of existence (countries fall) the tokens used in those contexts lose their meaning. As more wealth becomes enumerable through a specific type of tokens, these tokens increase in value. If more of these tokens are issued, they decrease in value.
What do you mean "simply put"? This explanation is neither simple nor informative. It's just another rehashing. If something sounds like a marketing hype (and this explanation does), it is highly likely to be vaporware. The link on the website claiming to contain "details" does not contain details. All "explanations" seem to be heavy on claims of how it works on the social level and low on how it works on the technical level. This is slashdot. A little more meat, please. Or I'll just assume there isn't any and proceed with the rest of my comments on that assumption.
I think people (at least people without actual mental disorders) have a bias against extreme points of view.
Just as a disclosure, I am currently pretty far on the right of the spectrum so feel free to circle the mental wagons if you are on the left. I do like FOX. But I could never sit through Rush Limbaugh. Nor can I hear Hannity without catching myself thinking that this guy only survives on partisan hackery. He may brake 1 or 2 stories of actual importance per year, but that's not enough to justify a program. I would suspect that anyone on the left can make the same statement about Ed Schultz . Although I don't think of him as an angry man. I think of him as a man playing a TV personality of someone who needs medication. It's as hard to be angry at Ed Schultz as it is to be angry at a drunken guy screaming on a street corner. I am sure O'Reilly used to evoke the same reaction from people (he's gotten much milder over the past few years: I am guessing some anger management).
I've said a lot without saying much. So I'll just make the main point I was going for. I think the extreme positions in one's camp only drive people towards the middle. Again, unless the said people have some mental disorders.
By the way, by "extreme" people on the right I do NOT mean Objectivists, Tea Party or Ron Paul voters (not that they don't have their share of extremists, but they are just a tiny minority). These are people with emphasis on specific priorities. Extremists are not the people with emphasis on specific priorities, but the people who don't realize that other priorities exist.
You can drown in your Far Right Crap. Conservative is synonymous with ``What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine!
Wow! It's not often that you come across a statement which is exactly half right and exactly half wrong. How you managed both in 1 sentence is completely blowing me away.
I hope you agree that the answer is no. The long-form of the statement "patriotism is racism" would be the statement "patriotism is a form of racism." A suggestion that the other interpretation of that statement, that is the "patriotism and racism are equivalent" interpretation, would be quite a stretch. I think the most straight-forward reading of the "patriotism is racism" statement is to read in the same way as "cats are animals." That is not to say, by the way, that I am agreeing or disagreeing with the statement "patriotism is racism" itself. My issue is not with the truth value of the statement. My issue is with the logical validity of the stated implication.
My first thought was that this is an attack on free speech. But after thinking about it for 5 minutes, I think I can imagine a situation in which disorderly conduct charge was justified. If the kid distributed posters in school and was asked to stop, he'd have to follow the order to stop. While on school property, students are not in a public space. Access to that property is restricted and those administering the property are fully within their rights to set rules for access to it. If he refuses to stop the restricted behavior or agrees to stop but later on continues despite having agreed to stop, then this would be bona fide disorderly conduct.
depends on what you mean by "attack". The kind of attack that one can make with speech (a verbal attack) most certainly is protected. Just remember what it means for the speech to be protected in the first place. It means you cannot be arrested for it. The government cannot restrict your from speaking offensively. Your employer and your school, however, can.
False dichotomy. There are moves towards a goal and away from a goal. Laws and the goals they set are there to strive for a civil society. They are not there as philosophical absolutes. If something moves us away from free speech, it's a threat to free speech.
Don't forget public stoning. It's also a way how we kept people "in line." The point of the legal system is to maintain a civil society. If it fails to do that, it's a failure of the legal system. The idea that an emotionally compromised relative should be dolling out some punishment to another kid will just create a society ran by organized mob (with affinity to the stronger crime family defining one's standing in the world). Free speech goes both ways. I am sure the kid who made the posts will want to attend a college at some point. And surely any college he may want to attend will be interested in knowing about past anti-social behavior.
Nor is slander a crime. I can see someone getting sued for slander. But arrested? Arrest itself is a fairly severe punishment given the current state of the penal system. Dolling out this kind of punishment to anyone accused of slander would more than chill free speech. It would stop all speech in its tracks. I am not a lawyer.
He didn't create a new drug. He tested a combination of two drugs which seem to have already been approved (since both of them are in scinet). Combinations don't need separate approval.
One time events (like weather measurements) are not independently testable by definition. You can still do fact finding without a full scientific process. It just needs a different review process. Peer reviewed fact finding only works if you have reproducible results. One-time events have to reviewed through an adversarial review rather than peer review.
There may be multiple ways to create scripts which describe mathematical operations. But there is only one math. And in math, the associativity and precedence of operators is strict and unequivocal. This order may not carry over to the said scripts, but that doesn't change how it is set in math.
Multiplication and division have the same precedence (in math, anyway). So do addition and subtraction. Whoever taught you in school, should have mentioned that. If they taught you otherwise, they were plainly wrong. Perhaps, they should have punctuated it better, too. For example, "my dear! aunt Sally?" or "my dear, aunt Sally!" would have both conveyed the proper grouping for associativity. And before anyone even dreams of claiming that it is a matter of opinion or custom or tradition, it's not. There are plenty of higher mathematical concepts which are described in a manner which would be inconsistent with plain arithmetic if any other associativity rules were adapted.
The new contraction had only gained wide usage after mid 90's. And, from what I can see, it is reflective of the belief that there are various subjects which go by that name. But mathematics (or math for short) is one subject even though it does have many subdisciplines (each with its own name). The other singular word which gained in popularity, but whose usage has now subsided, was "moneys." As in different types of monetary instruments. It is also wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
This is literally a Ministry of Truth.
Many large corporations are now forced to essentially run boot camps for out-of-college students. They spend months in college-level courses developed specifically for new graduates to teach them enough to make them useful in the real world work. This is because universities don't prepare people for professional work force. They, for the most part, only prepare people for graduate school.
- you don't know what wealth is, and it's not money. Period.
Actually, I would go from another side of the equation. I don't think he knows what money is. Money is a token for enumerating exchange. This is why in different contexts different concepts can stand in for money: as contexts change so can the tokens used for the enumeration. And as contexts go out of existence (countries fall) the tokens used in those contexts lose their meaning. As more wealth becomes enumerable through a specific type of tokens, these tokens increase in value. If more of these tokens are issued, they decrease in value.
What do you mean "simply put"? This explanation is neither simple nor informative. It's just another rehashing. If something sounds like a marketing hype (and this explanation does), it is highly likely to be vaporware. The link on the website claiming to contain "details" does not contain details. All "explanations" seem to be heavy on claims of how it works on the social level and low on how it works on the technical level. This is slashdot. A little more meat, please. Or I'll just assume there isn't any and proceed with the rest of my comments on that assumption.
I think people (at least people without actual mental disorders) have a bias against extreme points of view.
Just as a disclosure, I am currently pretty far on the right of the spectrum so feel free to circle the mental wagons if you are on the left. I do like FOX. But I could never sit through Rush Limbaugh. Nor can I hear Hannity without catching myself thinking that this guy only survives on partisan hackery. He may brake 1 or 2 stories of actual importance per year, but that's not enough to justify a program. I would suspect that anyone on the left can make the same statement about Ed Schultz . Although I don't think of him as an angry man. I think of him as a man playing a TV personality of someone who needs medication. It's as hard to be angry at Ed Schultz as it is to be angry at a drunken guy screaming on a street corner. I am sure O'Reilly used to evoke the same reaction from people (he's gotten much milder over the past few years: I am guessing some anger management).
I've said a lot without saying much. So I'll just make the main point I was going for. I think the extreme positions in one's camp only drive people towards the middle. Again, unless the said people have some mental disorders.
By the way, by "extreme" people on the right I do NOT mean Objectivists, Tea Party or Ron Paul voters (not that they don't have their share of extremists, but they are just a tiny minority). These are people with emphasis on specific priorities. Extremists are not the people with emphasis on specific priorities, but the people who don't realize that other priorities exist.
You can drown in your Far Right Crap. Conservative is synonymous with ``What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine!
Wow! It's not often that you come across a statement which is exactly half right and exactly half wrong. How you managed both in 1 sentence is completely blowing me away.
I hope you agree that the answer is no. The long-form of the statement "patriotism is racism" would be the statement "patriotism is a form of racism." A suggestion that the other interpretation of that statement, that is the "patriotism and racism are equivalent" interpretation, would be quite a stretch. I think the most straight-forward reading of the "patriotism is racism" statement is to read in the same way as "cats are animals." That is not to say, by the way, that I am agreeing or disagreeing with the statement "patriotism is racism" itself. My issue is not with the truth value of the statement. My issue is with the logical validity of the stated implication.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a truck full of back up tapes moving at 60 mph.
Off topic, but still. About your signature: If A is B, is B A? If cats are animals, are animals cats?
My first thought was that this is an attack on free speech. But after thinking about it for 5 minutes, I think I can imagine a situation in which disorderly conduct charge was justified. If the kid distributed posters in school and was asked to stop, he'd have to follow the order to stop. While on school property, students are not in a public space. Access to that property is restricted and those administering the property are fully within their rights to set rules for access to it. If he refuses to stop the restricted behavior or agrees to stop but later on continues despite having agreed to stop, then this would be bona fide disorderly conduct.
depends on what you mean by "attack". The kind of attack that one can make with speech (a verbal attack) most certainly is protected. Just remember what it means for the speech to be protected in the first place. It means you cannot be arrested for it. The government cannot restrict your from speaking offensively. Your employer and your school, however, can.
False dichotomy. There are moves towards a goal and away from a goal. Laws and the goals they set are there to strive for a civil society. They are not there as philosophical absolutes. If something moves us away from free speech, it's a threat to free speech.
Don't forget public stoning. It's also a way how we kept people "in line." The point of the legal system is to maintain a civil society. If it fails to do that, it's a failure of the legal system. The idea that an emotionally compromised relative should be dolling out some punishment to another kid will just create a society ran by organized mob (with affinity to the stronger crime family defining one's standing in the world). Free speech goes both ways. I am sure the kid who made the posts will want to attend a college at some point. And surely any college he may want to attend will be interested in knowing about past anti-social behavior.
Nor is slander a crime. I can see someone getting sued for slander. But arrested? Arrest itself is a fairly severe punishment given the current state of the penal system. Dolling out this kind of punishment to anyone accused of slander would more than chill free speech. It would stop all speech in its tracks. I am not a lawyer.
He didn't create a new drug. He tested a combination of two drugs which seem to have already been approved (since both of them are in scinet). Combinations don't need separate approval.
One time events (like weather measurements) are not independently testable by definition. You can still do fact finding without a full scientific process. It just needs a different review process. Peer reviewed fact finding only works if you have reproducible results. One-time events have to reviewed through an adversarial review rather than peer review.
But not to worry, any "wrong" conclusions will discarded as a result of "lack of programming skills."
Sadly, there is a very prominent company in which those are the same.
transparency? since sunshine is the best disinfectant?
There may be multiple ways to create scripts which describe mathematical operations. But there is only one math. And in math, the associativity and precedence of operators is strict and unequivocal. This order may not carry over to the said scripts, but that doesn't change how it is set in math.
What is does the pronoun "they" stand for in your statement?
Multiplication and division have the same precedence (in math, anyway). So do addition and subtraction. Whoever taught you in school, should have mentioned that. If they taught you otherwise, they were plainly wrong. Perhaps, they should have punctuated it better, too. For example, "my dear! aunt Sally?" or "my dear, aunt Sally!" would have both conveyed the proper grouping for associativity. And before anyone even dreams of claiming that it is a matter of opinion or custom or tradition, it's not. There are plenty of higher mathematical concepts which are described in a manner which would be inconsistent with plain arithmetic if any other associativity rules were adapted.
The new contraction had only gained wide usage after mid 90's. And, from what I can see, it is reflective of the belief that there are various subjects which go by that name. But mathematics (or math for short) is one subject even though it does have many subdisciplines (each with its own name). The other singular word which gained in popularity, but whose usage has now subsided, was "moneys." As in different types of monetary instruments. It is also wrong.
There is only 1 math. Anyone who calls it maths doesn't get that. I don't trust anyone on the subject they don't get.
i don't trust anyone who claims to know any math and spells it "maths"