Charging vandals for the cost of replacing windows is bogus, because the restaurant owner should have installed shatter proof glass in the first place to prevent themselves from being open to attack.
Seems you don't understand criminal behavior as bad.
The fact is, someone who has made significant contributions to their field deserves some job security.
That's an opinion, not a fact.
They don't want anyone to have such protections, because then scientists... can be easily silenced by politically or corporate-backed powers.
Not true. And, by the way, academic powers do most of the professorial suppression, typically against those who do not share their world view..
And the fact is, the attack on professors, tenure, and the scientific elites in general is mostly coming from the corners that are trying to tear down science as an edifice in general.
Again not true, as many academics are amongst those advocating the demise of tenure.
How fucking condescending of you. You, never having seen the particulars of his/her insurance are so very sure that you understand s/he didn't comprehend what s/he was signing.
No it didn't and I would bet money you know it didn't. It came in through the bathhouse circuit, which helped sustain it, but took off with shared needles. I had friends die during that and they argued tooth and nail for their "culture", which fostered it. A simple thing like 'don't fuck strangers in bathhouses' and 'don't shoot up after someone else' would have saved the bulk of them.
A conclusion drawn from the results of an experiment with too few test subjects to be statistically solid and whose subjects' very genome is likely to introduce bias into said results isn't shaky?
I find no mention of this "very real" industry you speak of on any of the world's stock exchanges.
Pedantry isn't nearly as funny as some people think it is. He's referring to the fact that there is an entire portion of literature which is scare industry. This scare industry ranges through TV news, print news, science journals, and other areas. To pretend it doesn't exist is disingenuous.
Faux problems promoted: global cooling, the population bomb, AGW, GM foods, various food additives like red dye, fracking, cholesterol, saturated/unsaturated fats, sugar, salt, eggs, beef, etc, etc, etc.
Do you think there's more money to be had making up science for Monsanto or for nongmoproject.org?
The size of each side's bad or false research base or the amount of money they make is not relevant to whether it's an unethical practice that should be expunged.
Facts about productivity and remote workers dispute you"
Your little story is no more valid than you claim his little story is until you provide those "facts" you claim exist.
If you're going to act snarky, don't be shallow simultaneously.
For example, what does it mean for an experiment to be "not reproducible"?
It means that, as a scientist, you have failed to produce a worthwhile experiment. Hypothesis is first. A road map for reproducibility is next. If said map does not function, you have failed.
Well, oh AC living in his mom's basement in his underwear, science doesn't call things theories that are still hotly debated - those are called hypotheses. It also requires full disclosure of your data and how one can go about proving/disproving the hypothesis. AGW proponents provide neither.
You sir, do not understand the word paraphrase. He very plainly pointed out AGW proponents using the same ploy as opponents and made a presumption as to their underlying reasons.
I've given them too. University lectures can be about any damned thing at all and with any (university approved) message at all. Referring to a "university lecture" as some form or authority is absurd.
Then what you want is for people to drive used cars until they fall apart. Commonly neglected in the whole "I'm for clean air" espousings is the pollution caused by manufacturing *a new car*. Also, electric car batteries are not going to last forever. Replacement costs are rarely mentioned.
Slashdot Mirror
Deprivation of business. Or were you under the childish assumption that all damage was physical?
And what makes you think that anyone else found guilty in this same DOS won't be sentences just as hard?
Fine.
Charging vandals for the cost of replacing windows is bogus, because the restaurant owner should have installed shatter proof glass in the first place to prevent themselves from being open to attack.
Seems you don't understand criminal behavior as bad.
Could you give any reference whatsoever to bolster your claim, or are we simply supposed to take your legal thoughts as fact?
The fact is, someone who has made significant contributions to their field deserves some job security.
That's an opinion, not a fact.
They don't want anyone to have such protections, because then scientists ... can be easily silenced by politically or corporate-backed powers.
Not true. And, by the way, academic powers do most of the professorial suppression, typically against those who do not share their world view. .
And the fact is, the attack on professors, tenure, and the scientific elites in general is mostly coming from the corners that are trying to tear down science as an edifice in general.
Again not true, as many academics are amongst those advocating the demise of tenure.
Nice political screed though.
"You probably think you had better insurance."
How fucking condescending of you. You, never having seen the particulars of his/her insurance are so very sure that you understand s/he didn't comprehend what s/he was signing.
And the same attitude led to an AIDS pandemic.
No it didn't and I would bet money you know it didn't. It came in through the bathhouse circuit, which helped sustain it, but took off with shared needles. I had friends die during that and they argued tooth and nail for their "culture", which fostered it. A simple thing like 'don't fuck strangers in bathhouses' and 'don't shoot up after someone else' would have saved the bulk of them.
But far outstrip them in volunteer work and charity. I'll take our methodology.
A conclusion drawn from the results of an experiment with too few test subjects to be statistically solid and whose subjects' very genome is likely to introduce bias into said results isn't shaky?
I find no mention of this "very real" industry you speak of on any of the world's stock exchanges.
Pedantry isn't nearly as funny as some people think it is. He's referring to the fact that there is an entire portion of literature which is scare industry. This scare industry ranges through TV news, print news, science journals, and other areas. To pretend it doesn't exist is disingenuous.
Faux problems promoted: global cooling, the population bomb, AGW, GM foods, various food additives like red dye, fracking, cholesterol, saturated/unsaturated fats, sugar, salt, eggs, beef, etc, etc, etc.
Do you think there's more money to be had making up science for Monsanto or for nongmoproject.org?
The size of each side's bad or false research base or the amount of money they make is not relevant to whether it's an unethical practice that should be expunged.
The more the user utilizes the program and uses the responses, the more the bot can narrow down the types of responses you make.'
But until that point, you look like a friggin' idiot.
Facts about productivity and remote workers dispute you" Your little story is no more valid than you claim his little story is until you provide those "facts" you claim exist.
If you're going to act snarky, don't be shallow simultaneously.
For example, what does it mean for an experiment to be "not reproducible"?
It means that, as a scientist, you have failed to produce a worthwhile experiment. Hypothesis is first. A road map for reproducibility is next. If said map does not function, you have failed.
The whole point of karking on a single misplaced apostrophe is to elevate yourself with pomposity.
You know, I get really fucking tired of seeing people yank Creationists (a distinct minority) into the argument as if that were an intellectual feat.
Well, oh AC living in his mom's basement in his underwear, science doesn't call things theories that are still hotly debated - those are called hypotheses. It also requires full disclosure of your data and how one can go about proving/disproving the hypothesis. AGW proponents provide neither.
Your understanding of the predictions made by climate models is completely off the wall insane, and laughably wrong.
Perhaps you could at least link to some predictions that have actually come about? Or, in SlashDotese... cite please.
You sir, do not understand the word paraphrase. He very plainly pointed out AGW proponents using the same ploy as opponents and made a presumption as to their underlying reasons.
I've given them too. University lectures can be about any damned thing at all and with any (university approved) message at all. Referring to a "university lecture" as some form or authority is absurd.
Wikipedia is not research. This is especially true on politically hot topics. Freeform editing and all.
and simply ask over and over "How did you get this number?" Never a deviation, and after a bit they quit.
Then what you want is for people to drive used cars until they fall apart. Commonly neglected in the whole "I'm for clean air" espousings is the pollution caused by manufacturing *a new car*. Also, electric car batteries are not going to last forever. Replacement costs are rarely mentioned.
Uhhh..... Fuck No. The government should *not* subsidize the feel-good needs of the guilt-ridden affluent.
How sad it must be for you to view the world in terms of dick sizes.
Don't fool yourself, so's Eve.