Tell them that there is lots of money to be made and it doesn't take a lot of work. Point out the exceptions to that statement and ignore the truth. Once they are hooked on getting an easy life with little work, they will flock to it.
scientists can't get by ignoring the moral/ethical considerations
Actually, if you look into it, that's exactly what J. Robert Oppenheimer actually did. This paper provides some compelling reasoning to back it up: The Gita of J. Robert Oppenheimer.
From the link you gave: He believed that he had a job to do; that he should do it only because it was his job and not because he was intent on obtaining any particular result; and that following these principles would bring a saving measure of serenity into his profoundly discontented existence.
The fact that he had to concoct such a rationalization to complete his work speaks volumes about what he, himself, knew about the moral/ethical implications of that work. The further fact that he was able to dismiss his own concerns, whether easily or not, is why the moral/ethical implications should not be left up to the scientist or team and should at a minimum have a higher review.
Again, with the quote, I'm sure the guards involved with the Holocaust had a similar thought process.
Let's set aside all religious and moral/ethical concerns and look at the practicalities.
I can set aside religious concerns, but are you really proposing setting aside moral/ethical concerns? Would it be okay to create such a creature and have them fight our wars (whether for real or on the field)? One of the reasons people get concerned about technology and unbridled science is that all too often, moral/ethical concerns are left out of the discussion.
For example, the technology to split an atom is, in and of itself, a neutral thing. Using the technology to provide a power source versus creating a weapon of mass destruction is a moral/ethical decision. Just like the Nazis couldn't get by saying "I was only following orders," scientists can't get by ignoring the moral/ethical considerations, either (of course I do realize that statement is a moral/ethical one).
The moral/ethical implications of science and technology should not be left up to the scientist, but to society itself.
Dude... if each unit is being sold at a loss... then selling tons of them at the same loss making price simply loses RIM a lot more money... a lot faster.
When people talk about "making it up on volume", what they are referring to is when each unit is making a small or marginal profit... so, the only way to turn that into a more attractive proposition is to sell a whole lot more of whatever stuff they are selling. Volume does not magically turn a loss making line into a profitable line; however, it can turn a marginal line into a handsomely profitable one (if costs associated with ramping up volume can be contained)
We shouldn't confuse Amazon's and Barnes & Noble’s smart and innovative content driven strategies with RIM's confused and incoherent "copy whatever Apple is doing" strategy.
RIM took the loss last year and before when they ordered the components and built the devices. Now, they are dealing with cash flow. Expensive tablets that nobody buys doesn't generate any cash to pay the bills. Selling them, steeply discounted, generates cash that can be used to pay existing bills or to develop something that the market wants. Any retailer will tell you that merchandise sitting on the shelf is losing them money. That is why things regularly get marked down. RIM is just late in doing it.
I think slasher999 was saying that his capital gains taxes add 3% to his marginal tax rate, figured on his gross revenue. For example, if he earned $100 in 2011, he asserts that he pays $27 in income tax and $3 in capital gains taxes (meaning 15% of a roughly $21 capital gain, e.g.). In other words, he made $100 in income and $21 in capital gains. His marginal tax rate (excluding other taxes for this exercise) is 30%.
Except that taxes aren't calculated off of gross revenue, but instead use AGI. 30% of income going to taxes is a very high amount.
I pay in the neighborhood of 27% of my salary each year in taxes. If I sell a few stocks that I made some money on, add to that the capital gains taxes and I'm closing in on 30%. I think I pay enough in taxes thank you very much.
If you are paying close to 30% of of your income in taxes, assuming state and local, then you are doing something wrong. Taxes are figured off of AGI, not total income. For the rates you are quoting you would be in the upper bracket (28% federal rate). If you are, then, you need a different tax advisor. If you are in the 15% bracket, then something is really wrong that your non-federal taxes are so high. Again, you need a different tax advisor. If you are doing your own tax planning, then again, you need a different tax advisor.
We are going to have to agree to disagree. However, even if what you say is true, exactly how is that a danger to democracy? If the people in those local school districts intentionally vote in candidates to support the anti-science agenda, then isn't that still democracy?
It would seem that democracy is the best approach to keep the anti-science groups from making change as most people are opposed to their agenda. If the US was a dictatorship, a theocracy or some other form of government where only a few have a say, then maybe the anti-science agenda would be established. As it is, it can't really get a solid foothold.
Point me out one country at the same technological level as the United States where evolution is such a political hot potato that school boards seriously propose to remove it from the textbooks and I will concede my point: even though the Christian Right may be a minority, its visibility and political influence is a uniquely US problem.
That isn't what the discussion was about, particularly since most other countries don't have local school boards. But, I would say, that in most countries, the textbooks used are influenced by the cultures involved. I'm pretty sure that in Viet Nam, for instance, their history books look at the 1960s and 1970s somewhat differently than the US history books. Granted, history is not science, but one could argue that since history has already occurred, the actual facts should be much more readily available. So, if your complaint is about inaccuracy do to cultural bias, which is what religion is, then it is rampant and goes both ways. Look at the rewriting of European history to leave out the contributions of the catholic church there.
Even with evolution, though, while accepted, there are still some 26 active theories on it. Most people are familiar with Darwinism and the survival of the fittest, but those aren't the leading contenders any more. Just as in physics, there was the atom, various theories came and went until today's quantum mechanics and string theory prevail. The same with evolution. Even zoology has changed dramatically since we now have DNA to compare among species instead of similar characteristics.
So, the Evangelical Right proposed their own theory of evolution called Intelligent Design. The scientific community shot it down. Isn't that how the system is supposed to work?
Do the MMSE results depend on the order (logic) the questions were given or can a random order be interpreted to give the same results (I'm asking, I do not know). However, if the there is a specific sequencing to the questions, then one can argue that it is protected along with the questions them self. Only the medical community that used those tests can really make that determination.
Probably not related to MMSE, but if question 2 builds on question 1 and 3 builds on 2, then logic is inherent in the questions. While you cannot copyright facts or logic, you can certainly copyright the expression of those facts and logic (just look at any textbook).
I have not seen the "new" test that was supposedly a violation of the copyright, but many companies copyright their testing materials and those copyrights have held up in court.
My point would be that accessing the features that other people own is a dangerous thing, because they are not _your_ features, they are someone else's.
I would agree with that statement. My point was that when you must access those features from a third party, an API is a safer way than having access to the source code.
There is a cost/benefit trade off. For a large company, with many resources, it may make sense to develop your own (as Google did with Google Maps vs Mapquest). For many, though, that is cost prohibitive and the only viable option is to access the third party through their APIs.
APIs change far less frequently than does the underlying source code. How would having access to the underlying source code mitigate the risk you are talking about? Surely, facebook and google don't just change the API while leaving the source code intact!
I don't care if I make my money back or not. I don't want to wake up one morning and find my work broken. Most customers wouldn't look favourably towards paying for something that just dies without warning.
So having the source code to FB would solve that how? APIs change far less frequently than the underlying source code.
According to the article, an alternative test called Sweet 16 was produced and was subsequently killed by the MMSE copyright owners' legal action. It sounded like the Sweet 16 used completely new copy but similar logic. Can you copyright logic if all the words are completely different? I'd love to see a comparison of those two tests.
On a side note, I hope no one owns the copyright on the eye chart. I like getting my eyes checked every year or two.
If the logic is germane to the item in question, yes you can copyright logic. Think of it as music and the logic is the step changes from note to note. Changing all the notes to a different key isn't unique enough to say it is a different work.
Even in the US, the Christian Right (CR) is a minority. In addition, they are not one group, but many groups (much like the tea party). The problem is that they are very vocal and the media loves to give them air time. However, every time one of these groups tries to do something, like teaching intelligent design or creationism, the vast majority of the mainstream Christian groups speak up against it, but don't get the same air time.
Offset the minority CR with the catholics, who are the majority Christian group and you will find them involved in all types of scientific research. Even their pope said that evolution is not contrary to the Bible. The catholics are against embryonic stem cell research, but they do support, heavily, adult stem cell research. At least their position is based on their moral view and not an ignorance of science overall.
Focusing on just the CR creates a problem where one does not actually exist. Solving that non-existent problem will then be the wrong solution no matter what.
Science in the US is not at threat because of the CR. It is, though, because for the most part science is hard and in the US people want the fruits of hard work without having to actually do the work.
Now before I go further, note that some payment options cost more for Verizon than others. Mostly it's due to credit card interchange fees, and not personnel and infrastructure as most people think
While it is true that Verizon has to pay credit card fees, they are far cheaper than paying people to open the mail and deposit checks. Even if they use a dropbox as many large corporations do, it is still costly, which is why everyone encourages payment online
Problem is that most apps aren't worth $1.00 or even the $0.15 mentioned in the summary. People are willing to pay for something that is useful and adds real value.
So, if I am overweight and skip a meal, do I get paid overtime? Shouldn't wages be tied to work done, not what you eat outside of work? If IBM or some other corporation's cafeteria or vending machines have non-healthy foods (who determines that, anyway?), can I sue for harassment? Finally, this applies to all employees, from the mailroom to the boardroom, right? So, I assume no more will the executives get their high fat meals and alcoholic beverages, or they, too, will be docked pay, right?
Where is the proof in the change from science in the US? Granted, every now and then there is a news story about some school board or some group wanting to push creationism, but almost always, those efforts fail and they are by far in the minority. I am not aware of any major university that doesn't teach science or any state that doesn't include science in their high school curriculum.
So, where is the data to show the turn from science, let alone how it is a danger for democracy?
Slashdot Mirror
Tell them that there is lots of money to be made and it doesn't take a lot of work. Point out the exceptions to that statement and ignore the truth. Once they are hooked on getting an easy life with little work, they will flock to it.
scientists can't get by ignoring the moral/ethical considerations
Actually, if you look into it, that's exactly what J. Robert Oppenheimer actually did. This paper provides some compelling reasoning to back it up: The Gita of J. Robert Oppenheimer.
From the link you gave:
He believed that he had a job to do; that he should do it only because it was his job and not because he was intent on obtaining any particular result; and that following these principles would bring a saving measure of serenity into his profoundly discontented existence.
The fact that he had to concoct such a rationalization to complete his work speaks volumes about what he, himself, knew about the moral/ethical implications of that work. The further fact that he was able to dismiss his own concerns, whether easily or not, is why the moral/ethical implications should not be left up to the scientist or team and should at a minimum have a higher review.
Again, with the quote, I'm sure the guards involved with the Holocaust had a similar thought process.
Let's set aside all religious and moral/ethical concerns and look at the practicalities.
I can set aside religious concerns, but are you really proposing setting aside moral/ethical concerns? Would it be okay to create such a creature and have them fight our wars (whether for real or on the field)? One of the reasons people get concerned about technology and unbridled science is that all too often, moral/ethical concerns are left out of the discussion.
For example, the technology to split an atom is, in and of itself, a neutral thing. Using the technology to provide a power source versus creating a weapon of mass destruction is a moral/ethical decision. Just like the Nazis couldn't get by saying "I was only following orders," scientists can't get by ignoring the moral/ethical considerations, either (of course I do realize that statement is a moral/ethical one).
The moral/ethical implications of science and technology should not be left up to the scientist, but to society itself.
Rodents (mice) are already prolific reproducers. We should be working on ways to decrease their fertility, not help the infertile ones!
Dude... if each unit is being sold at a loss... then selling tons of them at the same loss making price simply loses RIM a lot more money... a lot faster.
When people talk about "making it up on volume", what they are referring to is when each unit is making a small or marginal profit... so, the only way to turn that into a more attractive proposition is to sell a whole lot more of whatever stuff they are selling. Volume does not magically turn a loss making line into a profitable line; however, it can turn a marginal line into a handsomely profitable one (if costs associated with ramping up volume can be contained)
We shouldn't confuse Amazon's and Barnes & Noble’s smart and innovative content driven strategies with RIM's confused and incoherent "copy whatever Apple is doing" strategy.
RIM took the loss last year and before when they ordered the components and built the devices. Now, they are dealing with cash flow. Expensive tablets that nobody buys doesn't generate any cash to pay the bills. Selling them, steeply discounted, generates cash that can be used to pay existing bills or to develop something that the market wants. Any retailer will tell you that merchandise sitting on the shelf is losing them money. That is why things regularly get marked down. RIM is just late in doing it.
I think slasher999 was saying that his capital gains taxes add 3% to his marginal tax rate, figured on his gross revenue. For example, if he earned $100 in 2011, he asserts that he pays $27 in income tax and $3 in capital gains taxes (meaning 15% of a roughly $21 capital gain, e.g.). In other words, he made $100 in income and $21 in capital gains. His marginal tax rate (excluding other taxes for this exercise) is 30%.
Except that taxes aren't calculated off of gross revenue, but instead use AGI. 30% of income going to taxes is a very high amount.
27% ??? That's nothing compared to what you have to pay in Europe. Consider yourself lucky.
Of course, in Europe, you also get your health care included in those taxes.
I pay in the neighborhood of 27% of my salary each year in taxes. If I sell a few stocks that I made some money on, add to that the capital gains taxes and I'm closing in on 30%. I think I pay enough in taxes thank you very much.
If you are paying close to 30% of of your income in taxes, assuming state and local, then you are doing something wrong. Taxes are figured off of AGI, not total income. For the rates you are quoting you would be in the upper bracket (28% federal rate). If you are, then, you need a different tax advisor. If you are in the 15% bracket, then something is really wrong that your non-federal taxes are so high. Again, you need a different tax advisor. If you are doing your own tax planning, then again, you need a different tax advisor.
We are going to have to agree to disagree. However, even if what you say is true, exactly how is that a danger to democracy? If the people in those local school districts intentionally vote in candidates to support the anti-science agenda, then isn't that still democracy?
It would seem that democracy is the best approach to keep the anti-science groups from making change as most people are opposed to their agenda. If the US was a dictatorship, a theocracy or some other form of government where only a few have a say, then maybe the anti-science agenda would be established. As it is, it can't really get a solid foothold.
Point me out one country at the same technological level as the United States where evolution is such a political hot potato that school boards seriously propose to remove it from the textbooks and I will concede my point: even though the Christian Right may be a minority, its visibility and political influence is a uniquely US problem.
That isn't what the discussion was about, particularly since most other countries don't have local school boards. But, I would say, that in most countries, the textbooks used are influenced by the cultures involved. I'm pretty sure that in Viet Nam, for instance, their history books look at the 1960s and 1970s somewhat differently than the US history books. Granted, history is not science, but one could argue that since history has already occurred, the actual facts should be much more readily available. So, if your complaint is about inaccuracy do to cultural bias, which is what religion is, then it is rampant and goes both ways. Look at the rewriting of European history to leave out the contributions of the catholic church there.
Even with evolution, though, while accepted, there are still some 26 active theories on it. Most people are familiar with Darwinism and the survival of the fittest, but those aren't the leading contenders any more. Just as in physics, there was the atom, various theories came and went until today's quantum mechanics and string theory prevail. The same with evolution. Even zoology has changed dramatically since we now have DNA to compare among species instead of similar characteristics.
So, the Evangelical Right proposed their own theory of evolution called Intelligent Design. The scientific community shot it down. Isn't that how the system is supposed to work?
Do the MMSE results depend on the order (logic) the questions were given or can a random order be interpreted to give the same results (I'm asking, I do not know). However, if the there is a specific sequencing to the questions, then one can argue that it is protected along with the questions them self. Only the medical community that used those tests can really make that determination.
Probably not related to MMSE, but if question 2 builds on question 1 and 3 builds on 2, then logic is inherent in the questions. While you cannot copyright facts or logic, you can certainly copyright the expression of those facts and logic (just look at any textbook).
I have not seen the "new" test that was supposedly a violation of the copyright, but many companies copyright their testing materials and those copyrights have held up in court.
My point would be that accessing the features that other people own is a dangerous thing, because they are not _your_ features, they are someone else's.
I would agree with that statement. My point was that when you must access those features from a third party, an API is a safer way than having access to the source code.
There is a cost/benefit trade off. For a large company, with many resources, it may make sense to develop your own (as Google did with Google Maps vs Mapquest). For many, though, that is cost prohibitive and the only viable option is to access the third party through their APIs.
No you can't copyright logic.
I'm pretty sure my Philosophy 101 book was copyrighted. It was full of logic. :)
Only two ways to access a feature - APIs or direct to the source code.
"Published APIs" would probably be a better description for what I think they're trying to say.
If I hadn't of already commented, I would mod you up.
APIs change far less frequently than does the underlying source code. How would having access to the underlying source code mitigate the risk you are talking about? Surely, facebook and google don't just change the API while leaving the source code intact!
I don't care if I make my money back or not. I don't want to wake up one morning and find my work broken. Most customers wouldn't look favourably towards paying for something that just dies without warning.
So having the source code to FB would solve that how? APIs change far less frequently than the underlying source code.
According to the article, an alternative test called Sweet 16 was produced and was subsequently killed by the MMSE copyright owners' legal action. It sounded like the Sweet 16 used completely new copy but similar logic. Can you copyright logic if all the words are completely different? I'd love to see a comparison of those two tests.
On a side note, I hope no one owns the copyright on the eye chart. I like getting my eyes checked every year or two.
If the logic is germane to the item in question, yes you can copyright logic. Think of it as music and the logic is the step changes from note to note. Changing all the notes to a different key isn't unique enough to say it is a different work.
Even in the US, the Christian Right (CR) is a minority. In addition, they are not one group, but many groups (much like the tea party). The problem is that they are very vocal and the media loves to give them air time. However, every time one of these groups tries to do something, like teaching intelligent design or creationism, the vast majority of the mainstream Christian groups speak up against it, but don't get the same air time.
Offset the minority CR with the catholics, who are the majority Christian group and you will find them involved in all types of scientific research. Even their pope said that evolution is not contrary to the Bible. The catholics are against embryonic stem cell research, but they do support, heavily, adult stem cell research. At least their position is based on their moral view and not an ignorance of science overall.
Focusing on just the CR creates a problem where one does not actually exist. Solving that non-existent problem will then be the wrong solution no matter what.
Science in the US is not at threat because of the CR. It is, though, because for the most part science is hard and in the US people want the fruits of hard work without having to actually do the work.
Now before I go further, note that some payment options cost more for Verizon than others. Mostly it's due to credit card interchange fees, and not personnel and infrastructure as most people think
While it is true that Verizon has to pay credit card fees, they are far cheaper than paying people to open the mail and deposit checks. Even if they use a dropbox as many large corporations do, it is still costly, which is why everyone encourages payment online
Maybe they'll charge $3 to pay with a check. That way, the $2 is a bargain.
You mean the US, Middle East, South East Asia, right? Or, are we only concerned with a small subset of Christianity versus religion as a whole?
Problem is that most apps aren't worth $1.00 or even the $0.15 mentioned in the summary. People are willing to pay for something that is useful and adds real value.
So, if I am overweight and skip a meal, do I get paid overtime? Shouldn't wages be tied to work done, not what you eat outside of work? If IBM or some other corporation's cafeteria or vending machines have non-healthy foods (who determines that, anyway?), can I sue for harassment? Finally, this applies to all employees, from the mailroom to the boardroom, right? So, I assume no more will the executives get their high fat meals and alcoholic beverages, or they, too, will be docked pay, right?
Where is the proof in the change from science in the US? Granted, every now and then there is a news story about some school board or some group wanting to push creationism, but almost always, those efforts fail and they are by far in the minority. I am not aware of any major university that doesn't teach science or any state that doesn't include science in their high school curriculum.
So, where is the data to show the turn from science, let alone how it is a danger for democracy?