The difference is positive bias on Slashdot, as in the Avengers movie doesn't really have much impact on the world. Positive bias on the cancer trials mentioned in the article has serious ramifications. So while it may happen everywhere, some places are more critical and some occupations should be held to a higher standard.
The problem isn't the science. It is the publish or perish mentality. The science is just as valid if result "a" happens or not. However, it's a lot harder to get funding for research if your research keeps coming up negative. 75 years ago, research occurred for the sake of research -- to expand knowledge. Today, research is for the purpose of developing something that can be monetized. 75 years ago, a research paper that showed that x didn't happen under y circumstance was still considered valid.
Today, it is not. Look at the wording on many grants to day: To develop a...... whereas yesterday it was: To determine the effects of...... As more and more research got funding by the private sector, colleges and universities shifted their focus to apply research in areas that could be profitable as that is what the buyer (the one paying the grant) wanted. Put differently, as the private sector shifted more and more of its R&D to colleges and universities, the positive bias was introduced because you get what you pay for.
Why can't I pay off expenses before taxes are levied? I want to pay my rent, student loans, food, electricity, etc with pre-tax money. Regardless of what Apple pays, it still feels unfair (even if there are good reasons for it being the way it is, it FEELS unfair).
Because you can't buy enough of congress to get that put in place.
Cause you're stupid and don't know how to shelter money (and refuse to learn). Apple - not so much!!!
When I say Apple, I mean ANY corporation and when I say you, I mean ANY of the unwashed masses that just wanna drink beer, eat cheetos, watch porn and then wonder why their wang is orange.
Yeah, the person named Apple has billions in cash, teams of accountants and lawyers. Other "people", not so much. And btw, I can tell from your post that you're part of the "unwashed masses". Self hate much?
I am not part of the "unwashed masses" however, if the supreme court wants to rule that corporations are people and have the same rights, then why not tax them like people? People can deduct interest paid on their primary residence from taxes. Why not only allow corporations to deduct interest on their primary headquarters? People are limited on most deductions to a percentage of AGI. Why not the same thing for corporations?
If I am a small business, employing 150 people, why should I pay more in income tax as a sole proprietor or a partnership, where business income flows through and is taxed as personal income, than if I run the same business but structure it as a corporation? (I know all the reasons to form a corporation, so please don't respond in that way).
Corporations in America get far more state and federal "welfare" than people get. We just don't call it that. Maybe it's about time they pay their fare share, too.
Of course. Ban something because someone might get offended by it/take it seriously. I honestly don't want to ban/censor something just because it might make a minuscule portion of the population want to do something harmful.
Anorexia is more than a minuscule portion of the population. But, I would be okay with the ads if they had a warning box like cigarettes that said: "Warning! The models portrayed in this advertisement are at an unhealthy, non-life sustaining weight. The company selling the product chose to use unhealthy models to try and manipulate you into thinking you must be unhealthy to be acceptable, too. The World Health Organization believes that people should strive to maintain a healthy weight for their height and encourages companies to market products that reflect a healthy lifestyle."
That way, the company is free to advertise how it see's fit and the disclaimer is only pointing out that what is being displayed is not healthy.
'In the US, it would be hard to justify this type of law on either legal or normative policy grounds,' says Downs. 'The Israeli law is paternalistic in that it prohibits something because of the effect it might have on others in the longer term.'"
Whereas in the US laws are passed on the effect they may have on contributors to those who are passing them.
When the state had both fear and religion, it used religion -- always better to blame god than the leaders, who could be killed. With religion, the fear was eternal damnation. Without religion, the state has to step up its fear-mongering, but still doesn't want the blame, so we still have an unidentifiable outside force that we, the populace have no control over. The war on terror is everywhere! Just like the devil Sure, I'll give up personal freedoms to let the government protect me from the unknown monster (versus letting the church protect me from the unknown evil).
In the end, people in power, whether the state or the church or the church-state, want to control the populace so they may stay in power. Without religion, though, there is no god to fear, so the state has to step up and create fear where it doesn't really exist. Why? Because, people who are afraid are willing to do just about anything, even if it isn't in their best interest.
That's the problem with separation of church and state. The government cannot use religion to inflict fear to get people to conform, so they have to resort to other tactics such as the war on terror. When people in power keep people in fear, the people in power can pretty much do whatever they want, whether church or state.
I think everybody agrees that some kind of probing is needed. I prefer to show at once that I am not carrying nothing dangerous to other passengers rather then having to take out my shoes or the belt that hold my trousers (and then incurring the risk of having to show my actual body to the authorities).
Besides, I still don't see reason in your argument. You don't say, for instance, what actual harm such imaginary pervert can do to you or your kids. I think what makes people feel uncomfortable is the idea that there could be someone enjoying the images on the other side of the machine. But the fact is that: (a) this is quite improbable, given the security measures on these agents; and (b) it is not much different from anywhere else (how difficult is to smuggle a microcamera inside the changing room of a children clothing shop?).
No, not everybody agrees some kind of probing is needed. People really do have certain inalienable rights. Likewise, just because some people might have a pot farm in their basement or a meth lab doesn't mean the "authorities" should be able to enter anybody's house without cause.
It is a serious thing to surrender one's rights and it should only happen for serious reasons. Remember that not one thing the TSA does would have prevented 9/11. TSA is a knee-jerk reaction that costs a lot of money but in the end add very little additional security.
Given that I've spent the majority of my life working with computers, I've come to accept reality as just another theory. Does the OS know it's inside a virtual machine ? (without the hypervisor intentionally making itself known) How can any person know, with absolute certainty, that they're not a brain in a jar, being fed simulated input ? How can we even know we're a brain at all ? For all I know, my entire existence could be a work of fiction, the Internet could be a fabrication of my mind, along with all its inhabitants.
The only thing we can reasonably assume, is that thought exists.
(and yes, I think the best psych/philosophy profs were the ones who dropped acid on a regular basis:)
If you really think the OS or any other program knows anything about itself, you need help. The OS and programs are just electrons 0s and 1s. There is no sentience.
You can be reasonable sure that you exist if you can think (I think, therefore I am), because for thought to exist, some "thing" has to have the thought.
It would be easy to distinguish the real you. It is the one that would actually exist, since the entire premise of somehow scanning your brain and DNA into a computer is not possible. This scenario is like the question of "If God is all powerful, can he make a rock so heavy that he can't pick it up."
It was just a couple of weeks ago that a/. article talked about how the more analytical one was, the less religious one was, with the general consensus being that the more analytical one was, the more rational one was. Well, the study of quantum particles seems to be about as analytical as one can get. So an emotional debate seems to be about as rational as religious belief (at least according to the prior article).
How will this work with insurance, or is that point? Once these are available without prescription, insurance plans don't need to pay for them and the patient pays 100% of the cost?
Does this mean we can pinpoint the time and place of Eden, when Adam and Eve bit the apple that led to this cell division?
Well, using mitochondrial DNA, they have already found that all humans have a common mother some 200,000 years ago. As for the place, most scientist believe it was the eastern part of Africa. Probably not the answer you were looking for, though.
Where I live (Pennsylvania, USA) using a phone for anything except a GPS while driving is illegal. If course it's impossible for a police officer to prove you were doing something else so the law is generally unenforceable, but it made some people somewhere feel good. Apparently there's still no law against being a complete idiot while driving, but that seems to be everywhere.
Actually, in PA, the police just need to see you holding the phone in your hand while driving. At that point, it is up to you explain why the gps requires the phone to be next to your ear.
So what happens when federal and/or state lawmakers ban using cell phones for talking and texting all together while driving. Will these embeded smartphone type of displays need to be disabled by the manufacturer?
It just proves that in America, you can sue anybody for anything.
Nokia's defense would obviously be that market conditions changed, they could not possibly know the future, and all business decisions are inherently risky.
Also, given that Microsoft invested hundreds of millions of dollars into Nokia, their decision to go with Windows phone OS can hardly be regarded as the riskiest of choices. When one of the world's largest corporations invests in you, you are not going to go out of business the next day, or the next year.
That said, I believe Nokia would be better off turning their engineering expertise to producing some Android phones, to take advantage of the enormous app market. They are capable of making a great phone, but their operating systems have been marginalized by the success of Apple and Android. So why not go with one of the winners?
Plus I can say from personal experience that their support for developers has been shaky, what with all but dropping support for Java, then releasing the N7 and N9, then dropping them in favor of Windows Mobile. What are they going to surprise us with next month? It's safer to stick to an established and relatively stable market such as Android or IOS.
The actual case has nothing to do with market conditions. It is very specific on press releases and shareholder information that was released by Nokia Management that appears to have been much more positive than what was actually going on until the new phones were then released. It appears that Nokia did not want investors to start bailing even though they new there were problems with the phones. As soon as they release period was over, Nokia immediately announced that they would not make their projections.
None of this has anything to do with "promises" or Microsoft or the technology used. It has everything to do with whether or not Nokia executives intentionally misled investors and manipulated the market. If found guilty of the class action suit, the next expectation would be a Justice Department investigation, if one has not already been started.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is positive bias on Slashdot, as in the Avengers movie doesn't really have much impact on the world. Positive bias on the cancer trials mentioned in the article has serious ramifications. So while it may happen everywhere, some places are more critical and some occupations should be held to a higher standard.
The problem isn't the science. It is the publish or perish mentality. The science is just as valid if result "a" happens or not. However, it's a lot harder to get funding for research if your research keeps coming up negative. 75 years ago, research occurred for the sake of research -- to expand knowledge. Today, research is for the purpose of developing something that can be monetized. 75 years ago, a research paper that showed that x didn't happen under y circumstance was still considered valid.
Today, it is not. Look at the wording on many grants to day: To develop a ...... whereas yesterday it was: To determine the effects of ...... As more and more research got funding by the private sector, colleges and universities shifted their focus to apply research in areas that could be profitable as that is what the buyer (the one paying the grant) wanted. Put differently, as the private sector shifted more and more of its R&D to colleges and universities, the positive bias was introduced because you get what you pay for.
Why can't I pay off expenses before taxes are levied? I want to pay my rent, student loans, food, electricity, etc with pre-tax money. Regardless of what Apple pays, it still feels unfair (even if there are good reasons for it being the way it is, it FEELS unfair).
Because you can't buy enough of congress to get that put in place.
Cause you're stupid and don't know how to shelter money (and refuse to learn). Apple - not so much!!!
When I say Apple, I mean ANY corporation and when I say you, I mean ANY of the unwashed masses that just wanna drink beer, eat cheetos, watch porn and then wonder why their wang is orange.
Yeah, the person named Apple has billions in cash, teams of accountants and lawyers. Other "people", not so much. And btw, I can tell from your post that you're part of the "unwashed masses". Self hate much?
I am not part of the "unwashed masses" however, if the supreme court wants to rule that corporations are people and have the same rights, then why not tax them like people? People can deduct interest paid on their primary residence from taxes. Why not only allow corporations to deduct interest on their primary headquarters? People are limited on most deductions to a percentage of AGI. Why not the same thing for corporations?
If I am a small business, employing 150 people, why should I pay more in income tax as a sole proprietor or a partnership, where business income flows through and is taxed as personal income, than if I run the same business but structure it as a corporation? (I know all the reasons to form a corporation, so please don't respond in that way).
Corporations in America get far more state and federal "welfare" than people get. We just don't call it that. Maybe it's about time they pay their fare share, too.
KDE4, Gnome3, Windows8, Vista... Sometimes change is just change, not improvement.
I don't know, KDE 4.8.3 is pretty darn good.
Of course. Ban something because someone might get offended by it/take it seriously. I honestly don't want to ban/censor something just because it might make a minuscule portion of the population want to do something harmful.
Anorexia is more than a minuscule portion of the population. But, I would be okay with the ads if they had a warning box like cigarettes that said: "Warning! The models portrayed in this advertisement are at an unhealthy, non-life sustaining weight. The company selling the product chose to use unhealthy models to try and manipulate you into thinking you must be unhealthy to be acceptable, too. The World Health Organization believes that people should strive to maintain a healthy weight for their height and encourages companies to market products that reflect a healthy lifestyle."
That way, the company is free to advertise how it see's fit and the disclaimer is only pointing out that what is being displayed is not healthy.
'In the US, it would be hard to justify this type of law on either legal or normative policy grounds,' says Downs. 'The Israeli law is paternalistic in that it prohibits something because of the effect it might have on others in the longer term.'"
Whereas in the US laws are passed on the effect they may have on contributors to those who are passing them.
When the state had both fear and religion, it used religion -- always better to blame god than the leaders, who could be killed. With religion, the fear was eternal damnation. Without religion, the state has to step up its fear-mongering, but still doesn't want the blame, so we still have an unidentifiable outside force that we, the populace have no control over. The war on terror is everywhere! Just like the devil Sure, I'll give up personal freedoms to let the government protect me from the unknown monster (versus letting the church protect me from the unknown evil).
In the end, people in power, whether the state or the church or the church-state, want to control the populace so they may stay in power. Without religion, though, there is no god to fear, so the state has to step up and create fear where it doesn't really exist. Why? Because, people who are afraid are willing to do just about anything, even if it isn't in their best interest.
I don't see the separation of church and state as a problem.
If you want religion in your state, be prepared for the state being in your religion.
Be careful what you wish for.
--
BMO
You miss my point. WIthout religion to control the masses, the state must resort to fear.
The scientific community has it's own form of burning at the stake. Today, it's done by cutting off funding.
That's the problem with separation of church and state. The government cannot use religion to inflict fear to get people to conform, so they have to resort to other tactics such as the war on terror. When people in power keep people in fear, the people in power can pretty much do whatever they want, whether church or state.
I think everybody agrees that some kind of probing is needed. I prefer to show at once that I am not carrying nothing dangerous to other passengers rather then having to take out my shoes or the belt that hold my trousers (and then incurring the risk of having to show my actual body to the authorities).
Besides, I still don't see reason in your argument. You don't say, for instance, what actual harm such imaginary pervert can do to you or your kids. I think what makes people feel uncomfortable is the idea that there could be someone enjoying the images on the other side of the machine. But the fact is that: (a) this is quite improbable, given the security measures on these agents; and (b) it is not much different from anywhere else (how difficult is to smuggle a microcamera inside the changing room of a children clothing shop?).
No, not everybody agrees some kind of probing is needed. People really do have certain inalienable rights. Likewise, just because some people might have a pot farm in their basement or a meth lab doesn't mean the "authorities" should be able to enter anybody's house without cause.
It is a serious thing to surrender one's rights and it should only happen for serious reasons. Remember that not one thing the TSA does would have prevented 9/11. TSA is a knee-jerk reaction that costs a lot of money but in the end add very little additional security.
When the imperfection means you can casually walk onto a plane with a pocketful of 12 inch blades, then it's worth taking a bit of notice.
But at least they protect the other passengers from your dangerous insulin pump.
Given that I've spent the majority of my life working with computers, I've come to accept reality as just another theory. Does the OS know it's inside a virtual machine ? (without the hypervisor intentionally making itself known) How can any person know, with absolute certainty, that they're not a brain in a jar, being fed simulated input ? How can we even know we're a brain at all ? For all I know, my entire existence could be a work of fiction, the Internet could be a fabrication of my mind, along with all its inhabitants.
The only thing we can reasonably assume, is that thought exists.
(and yes, I think the best psych/philosophy profs were the ones who dropped acid on a regular basis :)
If you really think the OS or any other program knows anything about itself, you need help. The OS and programs are just electrons 0s and 1s. There is no sentience.
You can be reasonable sure that you exist if you can think (I think, therefore I am), because for thought to exist, some "thing" has to have the thought.
It would be easy to distinguish the real you. It is the one that would actually exist, since the entire premise of somehow scanning your brain and DNA into a computer is not possible. This scenario is like the question of "If God is all powerful, can he make a rock so heavy that he can't pick it up."
I've never understood how some people can be so dogmatically sure about the existence of an objective reality.
Because not all religion requires a deity.
The cat isn't really both alive and dead. It's either still alive or it died. It certainly knows.
>
That's assuming there is a cat in the box to start with.
It was just a couple of weeks ago that a /. article talked about how the more analytical one was, the less religious one was, with the general consensus being that the more analytical one was, the more rational one was. Well, the study of quantum particles seems to be about as analytical as one can get. So an emotional debate seems to be about as rational as religious belief (at least according to the prior article).
How will this work with insurance, or is that point? Once these are available without prescription, insurance plans don't need to pay for them and the patient pays 100% of the cost?
What about birth control? If 90% of women are using it, why can't we just get it over the counter without having to pay for a doctor's visit first?
Does this mean we can pinpoint the time and place of Eden, when Adam and Eve bit the apple that led to this cell division?
Well, using mitochondrial DNA, they have already found that all humans have a common mother some 200,000 years ago. As for the place, most scientist believe it was the eastern part of Africa. Probably not the answer you were looking for, though.
Where I live (Pennsylvania, USA) using a phone for anything except a GPS while driving is illegal. If course it's impossible for a police officer to prove you were doing something else so the law is generally unenforceable, but it made some people somewhere feel good. Apparently there's still no law against being a complete idiot while driving, but that seems to be everywhere.
Actually, in PA, the police just need to see you holding the phone in your hand while driving. At that point, it is up to you explain why the gps requires the phone to be next to your ear.
So what happens when federal and/or state lawmakers ban using cell phones for talking and texting all together while driving. Will these embeded smartphone type of displays need to be disabled by the manufacturer?
No. It was a matter of social engineering. the delivery platform had no significant role in the delivery of the attack.
Then why mention Skype? Technically, the product used is Microsoft Skype, I stand by the title I proposed.
It just proves that in America, you can sue anybody for anything.
Nokia's defense would obviously be that market conditions changed, they could not possibly know the future, and all business decisions are inherently risky.
Also, given that Microsoft invested hundreds of millions of dollars into Nokia, their decision to go with Windows phone OS can hardly be regarded as the riskiest of choices. When one of the world's largest corporations invests in you, you are not going to go out of business the next day, or the next year.
That said, I believe Nokia would be better off turning their engineering expertise to producing some Android phones, to take advantage of the enormous app market. They are capable of making a great phone, but their operating systems have been marginalized by the success of Apple and Android. So why not go with one of the winners?
Plus I can say from personal experience that their support for developers has been shaky, what with all but dropping support for Java, then releasing the N7 and N9, then dropping them in favor of Windows Mobile. What are they going to surprise us with next month? It's safer to stick to an established and relatively stable market such as Android or IOS.
The actual case has nothing to do with market conditions. It is very specific on press releases and shareholder information that was released by Nokia Management that appears to have been much more positive than what was actually going on until the new phones were then released. It appears that Nokia did not want investors to start bailing even though they new there were problems with the phones. As soon as they release period was over, Nokia immediately announced that they would not make their projections.
None of this has anything to do with "promises" or Microsoft or the technology used. It has everything to do with whether or not Nokia executives intentionally misled investors and manipulated the market. If found guilty of the class action suit, the next expectation would be a Justice Department investigation, if one has not already been started.