Amen to that. I've peer reviewed papers, and for most part you end up
trusting the authors. It's not like the reviewer can rerun the experiments
or inspect the raw data.
Much of peer review involves checking the form, rather than the substance,
of the paper. Does the paper follow proper protocal? Is it clearly written? Are the
references complete and correct? Should it be shortened or added to?
The substance of the paper also comes into it, of course, but the reviewer is very
limited as to what he or she can do when it comes to checking the validity of the claims.
Canada is not selling to the Americans out of friendship. They are selling to the Americans for profit. Little or no altruism is involved here.
But for Canada to stop shipping oil because the Taliban said some things over the radio
would be dumb indeed. Canadian soldiers are killing Taliban by the hundreds in Afghanistan - you expected Canada to be on the Taliban's Christmas list?
Do we refer to African-Americans as "negroes"? Or Microsoft as "scum-sucking patent-hoarding competition-crushing market-manipulating idea-stealing monopolistic capitalistic bastard offspring of leprous apes"?
So they want Bush to blacklist Canada, their biggest trading partner (last I heard), their NATO ally, whose troops are now fighting in Afghanistan against the Taliban, possessor of the second largest petroleum reserves in the world, and whose government is one of the very few who are not overtly hostile to the Bush administration?
I am well aware of the differences. I was responding to a post that said:
There was a lawsuit alleging TRADEMARK violations
So far as I know, there is nothing stopping someone from registering
the image of a building as a trademark. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
may have done just that.
If the image of the building is a registered trademark, then perhaps there
might be a problem. But I can't imagine there are too many buildings
(much less private homes) having their images as registered trademarks.
Actually, there is a good reason academics might go out of their way
to make their work as public as possible.
Reputation. Researchers love it, they glorify in it, they consider it the ultimate reward.
And researchers get a real kick out of someone using or expanding on their work.
I know this because I do research (sporadically) myself.
One of the measures by which a researcher's effectiveness is measured is by how often
his or her papers are cited in other papers.
And the more exposure their papers have, the more chances for citation.
I'm very glad to hear of this, actually. Right now I use
CiteSeer for finding online papers. It's pretty good,
but I would like to see it expanded and improved on.
OK, then disallow them until they have rigorously been established as not being dangerous.
We'll grant you your metaphysical wiggling and make it nice and obfuscated (but logically and epistomoligically correct).
It's not "metaphysical wiggling". It goes right to the heart of
how we make decisions as a society. We ignore a deep
understanding of the nature of risk at our peril. And this peril takes at least two
forms: (1) avoiding beneficial practices because we mistakenly assume them
to be too risky, and (2) continuing harmful practices because we mistakenly
assume them to be safe. Both mistakes are damaging.
And we can never rigorously establish anything as not being dangerous.
The best we can do is show that the odds of suffering specific types
of injury are probably small. Not very satisfactory, but the best we can do.
Fine, we can never prove that something doesn't pose a risk -- but, deciding to not even try to see if it does pose a risk is assinine. Let's assume it's perfectly safe, and once people start dropping like flies, then we'll check and see if there aren't issues.
Who said we shouldn't test things? Who are you arguing with?
Unfortunately that collection of data would have to
part of the data itself, since it's part of the universe. And the part of the
collection of data that represented the thing that collected data would
have to be part of both the original collection, and part of the collection
that represented the collection of data. And so on.
Enough to give Bertrand Russell a splitting headache, who's memory would
also be part of the collection.
I don't think it's whining. The public's confusion about science
surely stems in part from sloppy reporting.
How often have we heard someone claim that we shouldn't allow something
because it has never been proven to be safe? Such comments show serious
misunderstanding about the nature of knowledge.
Not sure that's true at all. Some of the worst offenders for being intolerant
of diversity are in universities - particularly the humanities departments.
They have many subtle - and not so subtle - ways of enforcing correctness.
And as the saying goes...
The battles are so vicious because the stakes are so small.
I always thought that the most intolerant of diversity are those who are unsure
of the legitimacy of their positions.
Yeah, um, really, really sorry about that. We figured there's no way you wouldn't get the joke when we sent down "Prime Minister Bush", but then everybody down there took him real seriously and the whole thing just got out of hand.
Ahem. The U.S. is the 11'th through 60'th province.
We haven't figured out what to do with D.C. yet. Maybe give it back to the Indians, since it isn't good for anything anymore.
Then they can rename that damn football team.
That conclusion is unwarranted. You should not put words in people's mouths.
As you well know, there are many factors that go into making a news media
popular.
I will say this, however. A news show which does a lousy job of reporting
the news is soon out of business. Even Fox does a good job of reporting the news.
Where they annoy some people is the way they editorialize it.
In general, the news media in the U.S. is excellent. I don't think people
appreciate how good it is.
... how is the public going to know what they aren't being told?
How? By getting its news from many different sources, that's how.
If one news source is doing a poor job of reporting a story and
another one is doing a better job, audiences are quick to detect it
and ask why the first source is dropping the ball.
News sources are well aware that competition is fierce, and
that the audience is constantly comparison shopping. Thus
they have a strong incentive to do a professional job reporting
the news.
You're claims are complete junk. Modern economic theory says precisely the opposite.
Trade barriers benefit the few (the owners and employees of the industry being protected)
at the expense of the many. Indeed, there are reasonable grounds to believe that trade
barriers worsened and extended the depression of the 1930's.
Judging from the comments so far, it appears that very few/.'s have taken courses in
economics, or if they have, they didn't absorb much. One of the principle discoveries by economists
is that trade restrictions are generally bad thing for almost everyone.
Of course, the logic can be difficult to explain to someone who has just lost their job.
I admire you for trying to inject some basic economics into the discussion though.
Economies obey the Law of Unintended Consequences.
This is a good case in point, in that attempting to protect jobs in the U.S.
by preventing outsourcing could very well end up doing the opposite -
that is, lose jobs in the U.S.
Suppose some software can most efficiently be written in India,
but we prevent (either through law or just bad publicity)
a U.S.-based company to outsource the task there.
This immediately gives a competitive advantage to companies
outside of America to have the software written in India, and
then sell it in the U.S. and keep the profits.
There's really no getting around it - if India has a relative advantage
in software development, then that's where the software should be developed,
and attempting to prevent it can easily cause more, not less, grief.
Whether or not I have any knowledge or qualifications for the job,
I do have to understand, propose, and keep to budgets. That gives me expertise
about the cost of things not found with most employees.
The French / English thingy was my point. I just picked cereal boxes cause
that's the traditional thing to use when talking about it. Don't ask me why.
The thing I hate about the mixed languages is that it forces packagers
to print everything really, really, small, so as my eyes get older
it all looks like the following:
DANGER! Bki gdsldw7y 23;oid p1a% m Si idjaklw8 !!!
Slashdot Mirror
Amen to that. I've peer reviewed papers, and for most part you end up trusting the authors. It's not like the reviewer can rerun the experiments or inspect the raw data.
Much of peer review involves checking the form, rather than the substance, of the paper. Does the paper follow proper protocal? Is it clearly written? Are the references complete and correct? Should it be shortened or added to?
The substance of the paper also comes into it, of course, but the reviewer is very limited as to what he or she can do when it comes to checking the validity of the claims.
Canada is not selling to the Americans out of friendship. They are selling to the Americans for profit. Little or no altruism is involved here.
... whatever.
But for Canada to stop shipping oil because the Taliban said some things over the radio would be dumb indeed. Canadian soldiers are killing Taliban by the hundreds in Afghanistan - you expected Canada to be on the Taliban's Christmas list?
Okay, Ramadan list
Inuit, not eskimos, you insensitive clod.
Do we refer to African-Americans as "negroes"? Or Microsoft as "scum-sucking patent-hoarding competition-crushing market-manipulating idea-stealing monopolistic capitalistic bastard offspring of leprous apes"?
Okay, bad example.
Over video games?
Cool.
If the image of the building is a registered trademark, then perhaps there might be a problem. But I can't imagine there are too many buildings (much less private homes) having their images as registered trademarks.
One of the measures by which a researcher's effectiveness is measured is by how often his or her papers are cited in other papers. And the more exposure their papers have, the more chances for citation.
I'm very glad to hear of this, actually. Right now I use CiteSeer for finding online papers. It's pretty good, but I would like to see it expanded and improved on.
Who said we shouldn't test things? Who are you arguing with?And we can never rigorously establish anything as not being dangerous. The best we can do is show that the odds of suffering specific types of injury are probably small. Not very satisfactory, but the best we can do.
Enough to give Bertrand Russell a splitting headache, who's memory would also be part of the collection.
I don't think it's whining. The public's confusion about science surely stems in part from sloppy reporting.
How often have we heard someone claim that we shouldn't allow something because it has never been proven to be safe? Such comments show serious misunderstanding about the nature of knowledge.
I always thought that the most intolerant of diversity are those who are unsure of the legitimacy of their positions.
We'll have back driving the Zamboni right away.
Ahem. The U.S. is the 11'th through 60'th province.
We haven't figured out what to do with D.C. yet. Maybe give it back to the Indians, since it isn't good for anything anymore. Then they can rename that damn football team.
That conclusion is unwarranted. You should not put words in people's mouths. As you well know, there are many factors that go into making a news media popular.
I will say this, however. A news show which does a lousy job of reporting the news is soon out of business. Even Fox does a good job of reporting the news. Where they annoy some people is the way they editorialize it.
In general, the news media in the U.S. is excellent. I don't think people appreciate how good it is.
If one news source is doing a poor job of reporting a story and another one is doing a better job, audiences are quick to detect it and ask why the first source is dropping the ball.
News sources are well aware that competition is fierce, and that the audience is constantly comparison shopping. Thus they have a strong incentive to do a professional job reporting the news.
Might I suggest that it is the job of the audience to let a media company know when it is pumping out sewage.
Now, who's gonna monitor the audience? This is getting really complicated.
Trade barriers benefit the few (the owners and employees of the industry being protected) at the expense of the many. Indeed, there are reasonable grounds to believe that trade barriers worsened and extended the depression of the 1930's.
Where did you take your economics, Karl Marx U?
Of course, the logic can be difficult to explain to someone who has just lost their job.
I admire you for trying to inject some basic economics into the discussion though.
Suppose some software can most efficiently be written in India, but we prevent (either through law or just bad publicity) a U.S.-based company to outsource the task there. This immediately gives a competitive advantage to companies outside of America to have the software written in India, and then sell it in the U.S. and keep the profits.
There's really no getting around it - if India has a relative advantage in software development, then that's where the software should be developed, and attempting to prevent it can easily cause more, not less, grief.
The lesser reason is that they deserve some help in their job seeking, given that they have gone to the trouble of attending the interview.
But reason #1: I want to see how they respond to friendly advice. I don't want to hire people who can't take advice.
Whether or not I have any knowledge or qualifications for the job, I do have to understand, propose, and keep to budgets. That gives me expertise about the cost of things not found with most employees.
The thing I hate about the mixed languages is that it forces packagers to print everything really, really, small, so as my eyes get older it all looks like the following: