Money is power. Power corrupts. Ethical behavior is incompatible with the pursuit of profit.
I'll give you two out of three.... which ain't bad.
All corruption begins with nepotism. No one can deny loved ones...it's part of what makes them their loves ones. Any behavior which is not done for profit is not ethical. Yep, I know you think it's sociopathic to think that way. I even realize that you think less of me because I know what you think and still disagree. The link breaks at the 2nd sentence though. Power attained through means other than profits is what corrupts. Political power, military power, power attained through love. All of these are powers which corrupt because they are attained without pursuit of profit. Ultimately, power comes through exploitation or through enabling. Power attained through enabling brings profits. Power attained through exploitation strip mines people around you and all strip mining does not last. Don't bring up the example of teachers as people enable without profits. They also enable without attaining power. The only ethical power comes from the pursuit of profit.
Yeah, pretty sure when people talk about cooperation, love, honor, etc IN THE WORKPLACE, they are not asking you accept the products of their work for free. They are asking you to work for free. $1500 for a prototype FOR DEVELOPERS. That is for people who will actually add value to the product. I am sorry, did I see Google release an IDE? There is a new C++ out is badly in need of an IDE. Did Google release that? Sure, they set up google code to give away other people's work. They enable a lot of business. They just don't enable a lot programming business -- only the programming business whose products they can have for free. They are in no position to ask for free code.
There is only two types of people who would know this for sure: people working for this endeavor and people making money by supplying this endeavor. Neither one of those would be posting details on the Internet. This is my educated guess and I am sticking with it until proven otherwise. Some obvious questions: how do you know it's a data collection center rather than a data processing center? Processing requires more computational power than collection. The only way to answer the question of which one it is to know exactly what types of systems were deployed there. Building a data collection center is not mundane by today's standards. Just scroll up... you'll probably see an ad from some cloud operator at top of the page. Building a massive computing center is more likely done to build a unique capability (large processing capacity) rather than duplicate a commoditized capability (large storage facility).
Except that no wiretapping occurred.Records of calls to and from AP were obtained.
This rises to the level of wiretapping. This information was enough to figure out who the reporters' sources were. Which is the only type of information which otherwise stays secret as a result of such a phone call. All news-worthy information contained in such phone calls gets published. Only the sources stay secret. So the content of the call actually is less secret than identities of the individuals making the call.
I had no love for Bush, but I think it's quite a smear to compare him to Obama. Bush's administration wiretapped suspected terrorists. They never sank so low as to wiretap reporters. And you'd have to reach back to Nixon to find an administration using IRS to target political opponents. I also don't recall Bush starting any wars without Congressional approval (albeit approval obtained under very, very questionable auspices).
Obama administration knows that they'll be branded fascist after the last week's revelations. Guess they figured they might as well own it and spank the technology they don't like. They got nothing to lose reputation-wise at this point.
First, I pointed out that Dyson has no scientific training in the highly technical subject matter from which he dramatically differs from consensus scientific view.
I didn't even realize you made a claim so absurd. But ok. That's absurd. His "training" is irrelevant. The matter at hand is the area of his expertise. In active research area of expertise is usually significantly different from ones training. Training is learning of the basics. It is the learning of what is already known. Area of expertise is generally what one knows that few others (if any) know as well. It's why it's called "expertise."
Now that we have addressed the absurdity, let's go for content residing inside the context of the absurdity. Dyson generally takes an issue with the rigor of the methodologies used by "climate scientists." Here's the problem though: series analysis is series analysis whether you are analyzing climate, astrology, or pork barrel futures prices. If an expert in series analysis says your methodology for data collection is flawed, it doesn't matter from which domain of knowledge your are collecting your data. Nor does it matter that all the colleagues who shouldered with you the burden of collecting the data are in consensus with you. All inquiry goes through data collection, processing and then deduction. If a person who has demonstrated superior ability to analyze and deduce says that the data you've collected is too vague, it simply doesn't matter from which domain of knowledge the data came. It's weak.
Then you claimed my rejection of Dyson's opinions and embrace of mainstream scientific opinion represented an argument from authority. You then proffered one of his more fanciful notions of how to mitigate carbon pollution, if that turned out to be necessary , something Dyson counts as unlikely.
Yes, yes, he is a witch. Burn him. You are nothing but a mouth for an inquisition. You are smearing a perfectly valid scientific work product.
You live in a fantasy world based on the notion of self gratification where whoever tells you what you want to hear is right and everyone else is wrong, and a part of a conspiracy. Dyson lives there with you, and both of you have more in common with Joseph Stalin than anyone else.
Ok, so if I knew you in real life, I'd hope that you got your medication on time. As it is, I don't care.
a quote from Dyson in which he himself admitted he lacked the knowledge
Oh, how foolish you are. That is sooo far from what he actually said. He said that he doesn't have a PhD in this particular subject. That is not to say he is not an expert. No one (with possible exception of trully vain people) gets multiple PhD. Once you have it, you just do research and publish. PhD is just a proof that you meet the cut as a researcher -- it's not a stamp of expertise. He is, in fact, mocking the notion that he is not considered an expert in that quote. Expertise comes from insight -- not from authority. He also mentions that because his livelihood does not depend on agreeing with consensus, he is actually free to conduct his research on the matter uninhibited. This is not true of the "official" climate scientists because they are subject not only to the funding restrictions, but also to the pitch-fork mob such as yourself.
because you don't trust "that thar libral webpage. "
Political is what I said -- not liberal. You are trying to bring political opinions to attack a scientist. That's vile.
So what do we have?
A mob, I guess.
We have in your posts a perfect example of what conservatives are and what they do.
In hiding? from lunatics who are running the asylum?
They reject the processes and conclusions of legitimate science
I don't care what think progress has to say. Their credibility in science (any science) is zilch. I know Dyson's solution for carbon sequestering and it is the best solution I have seen. It is scientifically sound. It does NOT involve dystopian destruction of society. It is even profitable for those who'd chose to implement it. He also has studied large-scale heat flow models and he does know a great deal about how to evaluate a scientific experiment for when it is sound and when it isn't. Think Progress is simply poo-pooing him because he offended their favorite religion (environmentalism). He is not the 1st scientist to be smeared by religious nuts. Do not, for a second, think that you are on the side of reason. You are not! You are an unwitting fool on the side of con men trying to sooth speak their way into public consciousness. The whole environmental movement has already done a great deal of harm to the public understanding of the scientific method. The shills like you are just another proof of it. You are trying to bring arguments from a political organization to discredit argument of a polymath who speaks about one of his areas of expertise. And your whole argument is that he is not talking about his other area of expertise.
Dyson' play is a pure "argument from authority" play. As I said in the original post, he is not doing science, he's attempting to leverage his authority in one domain into authority in another.
Except, it's not true. He proposed a long scientifically-sound solution to carbon fixing if it is needed And he spent years developing methods to measure heat in-flow and heat out-flow of forests to study effects of deforestation. His arguments are within his area of expertise. He is NOT a blowhard.
Your assertion amounts to saying the President is the secret instigator of every misdeed or misstep of everyone in every department.
No, it amounts to saying that the guy in charge is responsible for everything that is done under his command. He is the boss. Unless, of course, you also want to argue that BP was not responsible for the oil spill? It was after all, not the BP corporate that made the decisions which led to it. It was mishaps of some of the lower level guys. Sorry, but if you want the glory of being the top guy in charge, then it is your job to get the right people in the right positions to make sure everything that needs to be done is done. That means the mess in Benghazi is Obama's fault and the IRS targeting political opponents of the Democratic Party is Obama's fault; and the Justice Department listening in on reporters is Obama's fault; and terrorists falling through the cracks are Obama's fault. If he wasn't able to get the right people into the right key positions to get the job done right, it's on him. The buck stops with the President. The standard of responsibility is very high for a high position. If he had the power to prevent it, then not preventing is on him. That's what's called "failing to do you job". The only reason any of Obama's subordinates got a chance to fail on his behalf is that he authorized them to act on his behalf. This goes for every low level employee of the executive branch down to every cleaning lady of every federal building.
The fact are, as I said, that the IRS was scanning for scammers using the keywords the scammers themselves
You did say it. You were factually wrong (as I already explained in gp post).
They are. They are part of the Treasury Department.
So your real motives are laid bare- this is going to be ginned up for the conservative base as an Obama scandal.
aha
Your lobbying organization is NOT a form of non-profit.
No, they are not. Non-profits are 501(c)3. Lobbying organizations are 501(c)4. So we agree! Congratulations! You said something valid albeit by mistake.
They were profiling applications for the bullshitters. Nothing wrong with that AT ALL
No, there WOULD be nothing wrong IF that were what they were doing. They cast the net too wide. They were profiling essentially by political affiliation. And that is an infringement. Holding a political view that taxes are too high does not suggest that one is more likely to cheat on taxes. Unless, of course, you believe that anyone who is a leftie should not be given a bank loan because they think that stealing from banks evens things out. You don't think that, do you? I mean, banks have an obligation to make the best estimate of who is not likely to pay the loan. They have a legal obligation to make that estimate. So, if you really do believe in this ridiculous extrapolation argument, then you have to accept the flip coin of this argument. And then you have to say that banks MUST charge anyone with a leftist political view a higher interest rate. Well, you only have to do it if you plan on being honest. So, I guess you don't.
that the guy is not in charge. could be worse. he could be a manager because of his seniority and be resentful of any new techniques of solving old problems.
You arguing with a point which hasn't been made. The gp said double digit percentage of offices. It did not say double digit percentage of ACORN employees. The rest of defense doesn't hold up for other reasons, but I will not argue about ACORN. They are not the subject of the conversation. They were, once again, AN EXAMPLE OF A LARGER POINT. If you insist of trying to argue about ACORN in order to deflect attention from the current scandals of the Obama administration, have at it. I'll do my best not to fall for the distraction.
You got the order reversed. Now that America has fallen to those commie-liberal-bastards, we can't have huge sodas or blow away intruders trying to rape our wives.
Except that any organization is as good as most of its member -- not as good the top of its member nor as good as the best of its members. FOR EXAMPLE, (not strawman... EXAMPLE...) you get occasional bad cops, but they don't give a bad name to the police because they are rare. But the double digit percentage of ACORN offices had no second thoughts about advising someone on how to best commit crimes, that's a systemic failure. When organization performs poorly, it doesn't have to be the result of deliberate effort by the individuals at the top. The head bears responsibility even if it simply fails to make the organization better. That's the difference between responsibility and culpability.
Your right to throw a punch stops at my nose. If a private business already provides a service, the government should not be providing it (and using tax dollars to compete with a private business). If a government employee can legally obtain information without identifying himself as a government employee, then he shouldn't need a warrant for it.
No, using 3rd party's equipment argument has already been thrown out. This is why police needs a warrant to listen in on a phone conversation even though it is transmitted over 3rd party's wires.
This is nothing new. The meaning of the wording of the Constitution is already subject to the SCOTUS' interpretation. So any court member who believes in a "living document" doctrine pretty much claims for himself an imperial power to "interpret" (ie deem) the Constitution to mean whatever he (or she) deems appropriate. This is how a right to a speedy trial became a right to a trial whenever the judge gets to it (ie, your case will be heard at the court's leisure).
Lambdas are indeed "tricks" that IMO are syntax candy
All programming languages are "syntax candy". Here's the problem: using one language over another can only speed up or slow down your performance by a constant factor. But using a language who syntax encourages better algorithms will often present opportunities for O(n^k) improvements in the code (where k>1). So your "syntax sugar" is often worth it even if it means using managed environments or bytecode sand boxes (because the constant factor slow down will be insignificant to oft-present algorithmic speed up). That is not to say that bad coders won't code badly in all languages. But programming is largely an exercise in attention span management. Anything which facilitates that (aka syntactic sugar) will present opportunities to good coders to be good. Oh, and in case, you are getting ready to get on a high horse, of course, I know what lambdas are.
I feel this way about C++ in its entirety lately.
You are not a programmer. You are a code monkey. The most value of the code comes from how quickly it can be understood by a human. You've heard that before. You laughed it off. It's not because they were wrong. It' because you didn't get it.
Slashdot Mirror
Money is power. Power corrupts. Ethical behavior is incompatible with the pursuit of profit.
I'll give you two out of three.... which ain't bad.
All corruption begins with nepotism. No one can deny loved ones...it's part of what makes them their loves ones. Any behavior which is not done for profit is not ethical. Yep, I know you think it's sociopathic to think that way. I even realize that you think less of me because I know what you think and still disagree. The link breaks at the 2nd sentence though. Power attained through means other than profits is what corrupts. Political power, military power, power attained through love. All of these are powers which corrupt because they are attained without pursuit of profit. Ultimately, power comes through exploitation or through enabling. Power attained through enabling brings profits. Power attained through exploitation strip mines people around you and all strip mining does not last. Don't bring up the example of teachers as people enable without profits. They also enable without attaining power. The only ethical power comes from the pursuit of profit.
Yeah, pretty sure when people talk about cooperation, love, honor, etc IN THE WORKPLACE, they are not asking you accept the products of their work for free. They are asking you to work for free. $1500 for a prototype FOR DEVELOPERS. That is for people who will actually add value to the product. I am sorry, did I see Google release an IDE? There is a new C++ out is badly in need of an IDE. Did Google release that? Sure, they set up google code to give away other people's work. They enable a lot of business. They just don't enable a lot programming business -- only the programming business whose products they can have for free. They are in no position to ask for free code.
Bush expanded the powers of the state. Obama allowed the power of the state (entrusted in his hands) to be used to target his political enemies.
There is only two types of people who would know this for sure: people working for this endeavor and people making money by supplying this endeavor. Neither one of those would be posting details on the Internet. This is my educated guess and I am sticking with it until proven otherwise. Some obvious questions: how do you know it's a data collection center rather than a data processing center? Processing requires more computational power than collection. The only way to answer the question of which one it is to know exactly what types of systems were deployed there. Building a data collection center is not mundane by today's standards. Just scroll up... you'll probably see an ad from some cloud operator at top of the page. Building a massive computing center is more likely done to build a unique capability (large processing capacity) rather than duplicate a commoditized capability (large storage facility).
Except that no wiretapping occurred.Records of calls to and from AP were obtained.
This rises to the level of wiretapping. This information was enough to figure out who the reporters' sources were. Which is the only type of information which otherwise stays secret as a result of such a phone call. All news-worthy information contained in such phone calls gets published. Only the sources stay secret. So the content of the call actually is less secret than identities of the individuals making the call.
I had no love for Bush, but I think it's quite a smear to compare him to Obama. Bush's administration wiretapped suspected terrorists. They never sank so low as to wiretap reporters. And you'd have to reach back to Nixon to find an administration using IRS to target political opponents. I also don't recall Bush starting any wars without Congressional approval (albeit approval obtained under very, very questionable auspices).
Using midwestern accents to suggest that mistrust of the government is only common among the ignorant is soooo.... last week.
Nope, that's not it. MtGox has daily withdrawl limits for this very reason.
Obama administration knows that they'll be branded fascist after the last week's revelations. Guess they figured they might as well own it and spank the technology they don't like. They got nothing to lose reputation-wise at this point.
First, I pointed out that Dyson has no scientific training in the highly technical subject matter from which he dramatically differs from consensus scientific view.
I didn't even realize you made a claim so absurd. But ok. That's absurd. His "training" is irrelevant. The matter at hand is the area of his expertise. In active research area of expertise is usually significantly different from ones training. Training is learning of the basics. It is the learning of what is already known. Area of expertise is generally what one knows that few others (if any) know as well. It's why it's called "expertise."
Now that we have addressed the absurdity, let's go for content residing inside the context of the absurdity. Dyson generally takes an issue with the rigor of the methodologies used by "climate scientists." Here's the problem though: series analysis is series analysis whether you are analyzing climate, astrology, or pork barrel futures prices. If an expert in series analysis says your methodology for data collection is flawed, it doesn't matter from which domain of knowledge your are collecting your data. Nor does it matter that all the colleagues who shouldered with you the burden of collecting the data are in consensus with you. All inquiry goes through data collection, processing and then deduction. If a person who has demonstrated superior ability to analyze and deduce says that the data you've collected is too vague, it simply doesn't matter from which domain of knowledge the data came. It's weak.
Then you claimed my rejection of Dyson's opinions and embrace of mainstream scientific opinion represented an argument from authority. You then proffered one of his more fanciful notions of how to mitigate carbon pollution, if that turned out to be necessary , something Dyson counts as unlikely.
Yes, yes, he is a witch. Burn him. You are nothing but a mouth for an inquisition. You are smearing a perfectly valid scientific work product.
You live in a fantasy world based on the notion of self gratification where whoever tells you what you want to hear is right and everyone else is wrong, and a part of a conspiracy. Dyson lives there with you, and both of you have more in common with Joseph Stalin than anyone else.
Ok, so if I knew you in real life, I'd hope that you got your medication on time. As it is, I don't care.
a quote from Dyson in which he himself admitted he lacked the knowledge
Oh, how foolish you are. That is sooo far from what he actually said. He said that he doesn't have a PhD in this particular subject. That is not to say he is not an expert. No one (with possible exception of trully vain people) gets multiple PhD. Once you have it, you just do research and publish. PhD is just a proof that you meet the cut as a researcher -- it's not a stamp of expertise. He is, in fact, mocking the notion that he is not considered an expert in that quote. Expertise comes from insight -- not from authority. He also mentions that because his livelihood does not depend on agreeing with consensus, he is actually free to conduct his research on the matter uninhibited. This is not true of the "official" climate scientists because they are subject not only to the funding restrictions, but also to the pitch-fork mob such as yourself.
because you don't trust "that thar libral webpage. "
Political is what I said -- not liberal. You are trying to bring political opinions to attack a scientist. That's vile.
So what do we have?
A mob, I guess.
We have in your posts a perfect example of what conservatives are and what they do.
In hiding? from lunatics who are running the asylum?
They reject the processes and conclusions of legitimate science
Nah, ah. That you D
I don't care what think progress has to say. Their credibility in science (any science) is zilch. I know Dyson's solution for carbon sequestering and it is the best solution I have seen. It is scientifically sound. It does NOT involve dystopian destruction of society. It is even profitable for those who'd chose to implement it. He also has studied large-scale heat flow models and he does know a great deal about how to evaluate a scientific experiment for when it is sound and when it isn't. Think Progress is simply poo-pooing him because he offended their favorite religion (environmentalism). He is not the 1st scientist to be smeared by religious nuts. Do not, for a second, think that you are on the side of reason. You are not! You are an unwitting fool on the side of con men trying to sooth speak their way into public consciousness. The whole environmental movement has already done a great deal of harm to the public understanding of the scientific method. The shills like you are just another proof of it. You are trying to bring arguments from a political organization to discredit argument of a polymath who speaks about one of his areas of expertise. And your whole argument is that he is not talking about his other area of expertise.
Dyson' play is a pure "argument from authority" play. As I said in the original post, he is not doing science, he's attempting to leverage his authority in one domain into authority in another.
Except, it's not true. He proposed a long scientifically-sound solution to carbon fixing if it is needed And he spent years developing methods to measure heat in-flow and heat out-flow of forests to study effects of deforestation. His arguments are within his area of expertise. He is NOT a blowhard.
Your assertion amounts to saying the President is the secret instigator of every misdeed or misstep of everyone in every department.
No, it amounts to saying that the guy in charge is responsible for everything that is done under his command. He is the boss. Unless, of course, you also want to argue that BP was not responsible for the oil spill? It was after all, not the BP corporate that made the decisions which led to it. It was mishaps of some of the lower level guys. Sorry, but if you want the glory of being the top guy in charge, then it is your job to get the right people in the right positions to make sure everything that needs to be done is done. That means the mess in Benghazi is Obama's fault and the IRS targeting political opponents of the Democratic Party is Obama's fault; and the Justice Department listening in on reporters is Obama's fault; and terrorists falling through the cracks are Obama's fault. If he wasn't able to get the right people into the right key positions to get the job done right, it's on him. The buck stops with the President. The standard of responsibility is very high for a high position. If he had the power to prevent it, then not preventing is on him. That's what's called "failing to do you job". The only reason any of Obama's subordinates got a chance to fail on his behalf is that he authorized them to act on his behalf. This goes for every low level employee of the executive branch down to every cleaning lady of every federal building.
The fact are, as I said, that the IRS was scanning for scammers using the keywords the scammers themselves
You did say it. You were factually wrong (as I already explained in gp post).
The IRS is not part of the Obama administration.
They are. They are part of the Treasury Department.
So your real motives are laid bare- this is going to be ginned up for the conservative base as an Obama scandal.
aha
Your lobbying organization is NOT a form of non-profit.
No, they are not. Non-profits are 501(c)3. Lobbying organizations are 501(c)4. So we agree! Congratulations! You said something valid albeit by mistake.
They were profiling applications for the bullshitters. Nothing wrong with that AT ALL
No, there WOULD be nothing wrong IF that were what they were doing. They cast the net too wide. They were profiling essentially by political affiliation. And that is an infringement. Holding a political view that taxes are too high does not suggest that one is more likely to cheat on taxes. Unless, of course, you believe that anyone who is a leftie should not be given a bank loan because they think that stealing from banks evens things out. You don't think that, do you? I mean, banks have an obligation to make the best estimate of who is not likely to pay the loan. They have a legal obligation to make that estimate. So, if you really do believe in this ridiculous extrapolation argument, then you have to accept the flip coin of this argument. And then you have to say that banks MUST charge anyone with a leftist political view a higher interest rate. Well, you only have to do it if you plan on being honest. So, I guess you don't.
where should i send the money?
that the guy is not in charge. could be worse. he could be a manager because of his seniority and be resentful of any new techniques of solving old problems.
You arguing with a point which hasn't been made. The gp said double digit percentage of offices. It did not say double digit percentage of ACORN employees. The rest of defense doesn't hold up for other reasons, but I will not argue about ACORN. They are not the subject of the conversation. They were, once again, AN EXAMPLE OF A LARGER POINT. If you insist of trying to argue about ACORN in order to deflect attention from the current scandals of the Obama administration, have at it. I'll do my best not to fall for the distraction.
You got the order reversed. Now that America has fallen to those commie-liberal-bastards, we can't have huge sodas or blow away intruders trying to rape our wives.
I would love to see how Google, after making everyone else's content available for free, is going to try to argue for protecting their own content.
Except that any organization is as good as most of its member -- not as good the top of its member nor as good as the best of its members. FOR EXAMPLE, (not strawman... EXAMPLE...) you get occasional bad cops, but they don't give a bad name to the police because they are rare. But the double digit percentage of ACORN offices had no second thoughts about advising someone on how to best commit crimes, that's a systemic failure. When organization performs poorly, it doesn't have to be the result of deliberate effort by the individuals at the top. The head bears responsibility even if it simply fails to make the organization better. That's the difference between responsibility and culpability.
Clinton's recipe for ending a political scandal: start another scandal. Shut up about Benghazi! Look, we set IRS on the Tea Party! Talk about that.
Your right to throw a punch stops at my nose. If a private business already provides a service, the government should not be providing it (and using tax dollars to compete with a private business). If a government employee can legally obtain information without identifying himself as a government employee, then he shouldn't need a warrant for it.
No, using 3rd party's equipment argument has already been thrown out. This is why police needs a warrant to listen in on a phone conversation even though it is transmitted over 3rd party's wires.
This is nothing new. The meaning of the wording of the Constitution is already subject to the SCOTUS' interpretation. So any court member who believes in a "living document" doctrine pretty much claims for himself an imperial power to "interpret" (ie deem) the Constitution to mean whatever he (or she) deems appropriate. This is how a right to a speedy trial became a right to a trial whenever the judge gets to it (ie, your case will be heard at the court's leisure).
Lambdas are indeed "tricks" that IMO are syntax candy
All programming languages are "syntax candy". Here's the problem: using one language over another can only speed up or slow down your performance by a constant factor. But using a language who syntax encourages better algorithms will often present opportunities for O(n^k) improvements in the code (where k>1). So your "syntax sugar" is often worth it even if it means using managed environments or bytecode sand boxes (because the constant factor slow down will be insignificant to oft-present algorithmic speed up). That is not to say that bad coders won't code badly in all languages. But programming is largely an exercise in attention span management. Anything which facilitates that (aka syntactic sugar) will present opportunities to good coders to be good. Oh, and in case, you are getting ready to get on a high horse, of course, I know what lambdas are.
I feel this way about C++ in its entirety lately.
You are not a programmer. You are a code monkey. The most value of the code comes from how quickly it can be understood by a human. You've heard that before. You laughed it off. It's not because they were wrong. It' because you didn't get it.