If you file a criminal complaint, the phone company will cough up Providian's phone records on police request. If, over the course of a month, there are daily calls of 1 minute 8 times a day along with calls to your mother, etc. somebody's getting arrested.
Just because caller ID won't give you their number doesn't mean that it's irretrievable. It just means that you have to file the right paperwork. Go get a free consultation with a lawyer and confirm the details for your jurisdiction.
I would expect that the speed at which crond etc. are actually replaced instead of deprecated is dependent on the UNIX sysadmin pickup of launchd. If a majority of UNIX systems and their workalikes incorporate launchd, Apple isn't moving further away from standards, it's advancing the standards.
Well, RTFM the XML manual and move on. The benefit to having launchd is that you RTFM once instead of multiple times. Every year, a new crop of computer users/operators/programmers learns *nix. With launchd the exact same amount of RTFM leaves them more educated about their system because they've read the launchd manual and 3 or 4 other manuals while their classic *nix compatriots are still stuck on launching and stopping daemons.
The killer app actually is that if you want to inform, you don't have to go to a camp, wait in line, and talk to your MI agent at the camp gates where you can be observed like iraqi informers had to do. There's a reason the Iraqi insurgency kept bombing the gates of US camps. Much of the rest, while useful, could be done without modern communications.
I'm guessing that if the HR system goes down, you don't meet payroll and not only are you fired but the company will lose most of its high performing talent. How many people are going to be willing to work with the 0.0.1 version of an OSS system? HR is mission critical stuff, if many times very prosaic. Its nonexistence might be because it's so risky to get wrong, even once.
The unsavory elements of the center-right coalition can be matched by unsavory elements of the center-left coalition. If you're really morally comfortable with International ANSWER, you either don't know their (literally) stalinist ideology and history (they were pro-soviet on the invasion of Czechoslovakia) or you're morality is just reprehensible. Yet the broader center-left coalition allowed them to remain front and center of the anti-Iraq invasion protest movement.
I was making a mechanics argument that applies equally to both political coalitions. If you want to assert the moral superiority of the left, you're going to have to get past an awful lot of bodies that the left is responsible for, like 100 million dead from communism. Cry me a river about the immoral right. They've got nothing on the immoral left.
I really can't comment on the reliability of unnamed authors with unnamed publications providing similar results that I can't check. You may very well be right but without any documentation, your comment is worthless in a scientific debate on reliability.
I can't check to see whether the "completely different methods" are in fact completely different or they rely on something common that may provide one or a small number of sources of error that are propagating throughout this body of work showing hockey stick like figures.
The whole point of the MM03 issue is that it took 6 years before the underlying errors (substantive or cosmetic doesn't matter for this problem) were uncovered. No matter whether MM03 is right or wrong in its larger conclusions, it's clear that nobody replicated MBH98 properly for six years all the while it was being used in the political realm to make huge changes in economic/environmental policy.
The proper lesson for policy makers is that scientists are unreliable in their claims that they are capable of self-policing because important studies are replicated and verified. In the global warming research field, that is clearly not the case.
I'm not comfortable with any field of scientific endeavor that encourages policy experts to increase their distrust of scientists by not rigorously checking their own work. Are you?
Oh, so you're claiming that Nature magazine, a highly reputable journal, violated its corrigendum publishing guidelines by requiring a corrigendum for MBH98. That's a tenable position but that only means that the problem shifts from MBH98 to Nature itself. Why did Nature violate its guidelines if the MM03 results do not raise any real reliability questions for MBH98?
This puzzling result of your construction is that the same journal that provides credibility to MBH98 by publishing the paper also is not credible now that it has issued a challenge to it. It seems to me that Occam's Razor would provide a different solution, that absent any evidence (and you've provided none) Nature's credibility has not changed and MBH98's corrigendum is as reputable as the original publication of MBH98 itself.
We're talking about an embedded platform, right. In that case, the applications that will be run will likely not be the same as you would run on a desktop machine. Embedded applications run their own stuff, designed for that particular embedded application. In that case, only finder independence of modifier keys really matters. Everything else is going to be independently developed and created with the unusual input device environment in mind.
The fact that Photoshop or Maya, or Quark may be dependent on modifier keys means nothing for embedded developers if they're not going to run any of those applications but rather just build their own custom apps on top of the Finder.
A 3rd world farmer needs this so he *isn't* a subsistance farmer but rather can shift to farming for cash because the simputer would get him sufficient access to markets so that he could risk growing for cash. The word processor might not be useful but that doesn't mean there aren't killer apps for that demographic.
These things would be quite good for the US army. Imagine if they had handed those out in Iraq and put job board style info, curfew/occupation rules, and political education into those things. That, and a how to turn in your local insurgent application would have improved things immesurably. Instead, they ended up waiting for cell phones for the "turn in the insurgent safely" application and they still don't have half that other stuff available.
The "embarrassed" argument works for me until the publication of the Corrigendum. It's like Nixon's plumbers. The first 24 hours of coverup can be written off to the same embarrassed impulse that is all too human but at a certain point it flipped over to "that's just not right" and Nixon had to go. For me, that's the point when the Corrigendum was published. What's your tipping point? Remember, the original MM paper was published in '03 with a followup in '04. Your theory says that for going on two years the authors are stuck in a state of psychological denial that materially is affecting their scientific judgment. That's just not right. They've exceeded their portion of normal human frailty.
In your example, there would have been no Corrigendum published by Nature. It would have been a typo and remained uncorrected by the journal. You can't get around the fact that the guys running Nature have a policy that they don't do Corrigendum for non-material error and they authorized the publication of a Corrigendum, required it in fact. It's not MM's judgment that is the most damning, but Nature's. Your scenario is that both MM and Nature are being biased. If Nature is that unreliable, it calls into question everything else that they publish.
You've got to be kidding if you think that social conservatives really care about corporate dividend taxation. They don't but they need the economic conservatives badly enough that they sign on for it. Party discipline is what picks up the stragglers *after* the coalition has been built.
I think you might find that he'd have more of a problem if you replaced the OS and *didn't* rebrand the machines. Since the HP and motorola deals have demonstrated that he's willing to make a deal if you're not actually competing with him. Creating sales for him in a market space he's not operating in is exactly how he's talked about desirable partners in the past.
In the Finder the contextual menu is available via the "action" button for those who stick with one button ever since 10.3. I'm not quite sure what requires multiple buttons/modifier keys anymore. Since UI scripting became available as an OS function (10.2.3) I've had access for assistive devices on so that might be making more things than normal accessible.
In short, the list of things you can't do without a modifier key or a second button has dropped to either zero or near zero in the recent past, at least at the OS level.
I don't know, an independent rate of $500 an hour with a 20% discount seems fair...
Explain to him that being the only developer, underpaid, at a startup was an abuse of the investors' money and that you're willing to keep quiet about that if he's willing to cut the crap. Indentured servitude went out with the 14th amendment and you already have your next job.
I've been threatened by a boss before when I left. The threat caused me to stop work right then and there and leave to start the next job I had already landed. Nothing ever happened in retaliation. Somebody was hired to replace me and finish up the work I left dangling and that's that. Unless you have children to feed and no other way of earning money, don't ever work under threat.
Parties are not monolithic creatures but a writhing pile of humanity all seeking individual and factional power within the party and in the nation as a whole. If your hobby horse is tax cuts or multiculturalism, will you push for openness if doing so gets you elected? You bet you will. Some factions are going to tend to be more pro-secrecy than others. The trick is to play one off against the other and stitch together your own majority across both parties.
Well, lawyers were effectively barred from using Microsoft Word for their work for some time (not sure if this is still true with the current version) because judges started throwing out MS Word documents for length rule violations because MS made an error in how they calculated word counts.
The point is that if they used some sort of pre-packaged software, they should say what it is. If they made custom code, they have an obligation to release it once it gets to the point where people are finding error in their work in order to help sort out the truth. Science is supposed to be about finding out truth, not stonewalling to preserve your political position or your academic reputation.
Here's the problem, MBH 98 was published in 1998. MM 03 was published in 2003. That's a six year difference. Nature published a Corrigendum in 2004 of MBH 98 because MBH 98 had errors in it. Corrigendums are not published for trivial errors or for mere typographical ones. If anybody had actually gone back and checked MBH 98 prior to MM 03, they would have found the same errors. For approximately 6 years nobody checked.
Is it still science if it's just uncritically accepted and never replicated?
In this case it's a little trickier because you've got trillions of dollars at stake, a major international convention that has caused a worldwide diplomatic kerfuffle (Kyoto) and an awful lot of politicians with egg on their face if MBH 98 turns out to be purposefully wrong and nobody checked for 6 years until a pair of nonspecialists did it and discovered the truth. Just "ignoring" the guys who can't be replicated is insufficient. Scalps would be collected, reputations would be aggressively ruined, prosecutors would check the statute books.
It's not peer review that is in peril here but replicability. It can still be science if your study is not peer reviewed. It's not science if it can't be replicated by others. That's why creationism isn't science even though it might be right. You can't replicate unique events done by an independent moral actor not under control.
MM are getting different results than MBH using the data and methods published. When that happens, it's reasonable to ask for the analysis package used before you start throwing around accusations of academic fraud that will destroy careers and tarnish institutions. If you redo somebody's math and find out that they're essentially saying 2 + 2 = 5 and if 2 + 2 = 4 their conclusions do not hold, the question ultimately is whether the error is purposeful (fraud) or an honest mistake. MBH is stonewalling the question which leads to the reasonable conclusion that they'd like to keep their careers for as long as possible until the fraud is uncovered.
Thus we have the nonsense of Nature publishing a Corrigendum on MBH 98 and Mann saying that it doesn't materially affect the paper when Nature's policy is that Corrigendums are only published when they *do* materially affect the conclusions of the paper.
Something is seriously wrong with MBH 98 and it's a foundational study in an important field that is causing public policy to move in ways that could really hurt a lot of people.
Actually, they don't last forever. They just last a lot longer than the military benefits. The historians eventually get the truth out because politicians can win votes based on promises to fire those who stand for excessive secrecy in government. That's the real crowbar that pries old secrets out of the vaults. If you want quicker secret revelation you should vote on that basis and convince others to vote on that basis, at least in part. This sort of stuff gets analyzed and politicians of both parties will try to get votes on this basis.
Personally, I'd love to see what sort of promises the US made to the Romanian resistance after WW II and how they were betrayed. Everybody has their pet causes. The question is what does historical revelation do to our present interests? How much stress is quick revelation worth? This is no black or white question and a blanket rule is likely to be less than optimal for the nation. In the end, I think we're going to go on fighting ad-hoc battles on this stuff forever.
Actually, you generally do. We have a democratic republic so we do that through our appointees but there's a formulary for what Medicare will pay for and you can see what that is and pass on instructions to modify it to your liking. Of course, since everybody else has the same right, what actually changes is a sort of complicated melange of all such requests both formal and informal passed through the strainer of our elected representatives.
Slashdot Mirror
If you file a criminal complaint, the phone company will cough up Providian's phone records on police request. If, over the course of a month, there are daily calls of 1 minute 8 times a day along with calls to your mother, etc. somebody's getting arrested.
Just because caller ID won't give you their number doesn't mean that it's irretrievable. It just means that you have to file the right paperwork. Go get a free consultation with a lawyer and confirm the details for your jurisdiction.
I would expect that the speed at which crond etc. are actually replaced instead of deprecated is dependent on the UNIX sysadmin pickup of launchd. If a majority of UNIX systems and their workalikes incorporate launchd, Apple isn't moving further away from standards, it's advancing the standards.
The program called the BIOS is, in this case, Open Firmware or IEEE 1275.
Well, RTFM the XML manual and move on. The benefit to having launchd is that you RTFM once instead of multiple times. Every year, a new crop of computer users/operators/programmers learns *nix. With launchd the exact same amount of RTFM leaves them more educated about their system because they've read the launchd manual and 3 or 4 other manuals while their classic *nix compatriots are still stuck on launching and stopping daemons.
The killer app actually is that if you want to inform, you don't have to go to a camp, wait in line, and talk to your MI agent at the camp gates where you can be observed like iraqi informers had to do. There's a reason the Iraqi insurgency kept bombing the gates of US camps. Much of the rest, while useful, could be done without modern communications.
I'm guessing that if the HR system goes down, you don't meet payroll and not only are you fired but the company will lose most of its high performing talent. How many people are going to be willing to work with the 0.0.1 version of an OSS system? HR is mission critical stuff, if many times very prosaic. Its nonexistence might be because it's so risky to get wrong, even once.
The unsavory elements of the center-right coalition can be matched by unsavory elements of the center-left coalition. If you're really morally comfortable with International ANSWER, you either don't know their (literally) stalinist ideology and history (they were pro-soviet on the invasion of Czechoslovakia) or you're morality is just reprehensible. Yet the broader center-left coalition allowed them to remain front and center of the anti-Iraq invasion protest movement.
I was making a mechanics argument that applies equally to both political coalitions. If you want to assert the moral superiority of the left, you're going to have to get past an awful lot of bodies that the left is responsible for, like 100 million dead from communism. Cry me a river about the immoral right. They've got nothing on the immoral left.
I really can't comment on the reliability of unnamed authors with unnamed publications providing similar results that I can't check. You may very well be right but without any documentation, your comment is worthless in a scientific debate on reliability.
I can't check to see whether the "completely different methods" are in fact completely different or they rely on something common that may provide one or a small number of sources of error that are propagating throughout this body of work showing hockey stick like figures.
The whole point of the MM03 issue is that it took 6 years before the underlying errors (substantive or cosmetic doesn't matter for this problem) were uncovered. No matter whether MM03 is right or wrong in its larger conclusions, it's clear that nobody replicated MBH98 properly for six years all the while it was being used in the political realm to make huge changes in economic/environmental policy.
The proper lesson for policy makers is that scientists are unreliable in their claims that they are capable of self-policing because important studies are replicated and verified. In the global warming research field, that is clearly not the case.
I'm not comfortable with any field of scientific endeavor that encourages policy experts to increase their distrust of scientists by not rigorously checking their own work. Are you?
Oh, so you're claiming that Nature magazine, a highly reputable journal, violated its corrigendum publishing guidelines by requiring a corrigendum for MBH98. That's a tenable position but that only means that the problem shifts from MBH98 to Nature itself. Why did Nature violate its guidelines if the MM03 results do not raise any real reliability questions for MBH98?
This puzzling result of your construction is that the same journal that provides credibility to MBH98 by publishing the paper also is not credible now that it has issued a challenge to it. It seems to me that Occam's Razor would provide a different solution, that absent any evidence (and you've provided none) Nature's credibility has not changed and MBH98's corrigendum is as reputable as the original publication of MBH98 itself.
We're talking about an embedded platform, right. In that case, the applications that will be run will likely not be the same as you would run on a desktop machine. Embedded applications run their own stuff, designed for that particular embedded application. In that case, only finder independence of modifier keys really matters. Everything else is going to be independently developed and created with the unusual input device environment in mind.
The fact that Photoshop or Maya, or Quark may be dependent on modifier keys means nothing for embedded developers if they're not going to run any of those applications but rather just build their own custom apps on top of the Finder.
A 3rd world farmer needs this so he *isn't* a subsistance farmer but rather can shift to farming for cash because the simputer would get him sufficient access to markets so that he could risk growing for cash. The word processor might not be useful but that doesn't mean there aren't killer apps for that demographic.
These things would be quite good for the US army. Imagine if they had handed those out in Iraq and put job board style info, curfew/occupation rules, and political education into those things. That, and a how to turn in your local insurgent application would have improved things immesurably. Instead, they ended up waiting for cell phones for the "turn in the insurgent safely" application and they still don't have half that other stuff available.
The "embarrassed" argument works for me until the publication of the Corrigendum. It's like Nixon's plumbers. The first 24 hours of coverup can be written off to the same embarrassed impulse that is all too human but at a certain point it flipped over to "that's just not right" and Nixon had to go. For me, that's the point when the Corrigendum was published. What's your tipping point? Remember, the original MM paper was published in '03 with a followup in '04. Your theory says that for going on two years the authors are stuck in a state of psychological denial that materially is affecting their scientific judgment. That's just not right. They've exceeded their portion of normal human frailty.
In your example, there would have been no Corrigendum published by Nature. It would have been a typo and remained uncorrected by the journal. You can't get around the fact that the guys running Nature have a policy that they don't do Corrigendum for non-material error and they authorized the publication of a Corrigendum, required it in fact. It's not MM's judgment that is the most damning, but Nature's. Your scenario is that both MM and Nature are being biased. If Nature is that unreliable, it calls into question everything else that they publish.
You've got to be kidding if you think that social conservatives really care about corporate dividend taxation. They don't but they need the economic conservatives badly enough that they sign on for it. Party discipline is what picks up the stragglers *after* the coalition has been built.
I think you might find that he'd have more of a problem if you replaced the OS and *didn't* rebrand the machines. Since the HP and motorola deals have demonstrated that he's willing to make a deal if you're not actually competing with him. Creating sales for him in a market space he's not operating in is exactly how he's talked about desirable partners in the past.
In the Finder the contextual menu is available via the "action" button for those who stick with one button ever since 10.3. I'm not quite sure what requires multiple buttons/modifier keys anymore. Since UI scripting became available as an OS function (10.2.3) I've had access for assistive devices on so that might be making more things than normal accessible.
In short, the list of things you can't do without a modifier key or a second button has dropped to either zero or near zero in the recent past, at least at the OS level.
I don't know, an independent rate of $500 an hour with a 20% discount seems fair...
Explain to him that being the only developer, underpaid, at a startup was an abuse of the investors' money and that you're willing to keep quiet about that if he's willing to cut the crap. Indentured servitude went out with the 14th amendment and you already have your next job.
I've been threatened by a boss before when I left. The threat caused me to stop work right then and there and leave to start the next job I had already landed. Nothing ever happened in retaliation. Somebody was hired to replace me and finish up the work I left dangling and that's that. Unless you have children to feed and no other way of earning money, don't ever work under threat.
Parties are not monolithic creatures but a writhing pile of humanity all seeking individual and factional power within the party and in the nation as a whole. If your hobby horse is tax cuts or multiculturalism, will you push for openness if doing so gets you elected? You bet you will. Some factions are going to tend to be more pro-secrecy than others. The trick is to play one off against the other and stitch together your own majority across both parties.
Well, lawyers were effectively barred from using Microsoft Word for their work for some time (not sure if this is still true with the current version) because judges started throwing out MS Word documents for length rule violations because MS made an error in how they calculated word counts.
The point is that if they used some sort of pre-packaged software, they should say what it is. If they made custom code, they have an obligation to release it once it gets to the point where people are finding error in their work in order to help sort out the truth. Science is supposed to be about finding out truth, not stonewalling to preserve your political position or your academic reputation.
Here's the problem, MBH 98 was published in 1998. MM 03 was published in 2003. That's a six year difference. Nature published a Corrigendum in 2004 of MBH 98 because MBH 98 had errors in it. Corrigendums are not published for trivial errors or for mere typographical ones. If anybody had actually gone back and checked MBH 98 prior to MM 03, they would have found the same errors. For approximately 6 years nobody checked.
Is it still science if it's just uncritically accepted and never replicated?
In this case it's a little trickier because you've got trillions of dollars at stake, a major international convention that has caused a worldwide diplomatic kerfuffle (Kyoto) and an awful lot of politicians with egg on their face if MBH 98 turns out to be purposefully wrong and nobody checked for 6 years until a pair of nonspecialists did it and discovered the truth. Just "ignoring" the guys who can't be replicated is insufficient. Scalps would be collected, reputations would be aggressively ruined, prosecutors would check the statute books.
In short, the stakes are very high.
It's not peer review that is in peril here but replicability. It can still be science if your study is not peer reviewed. It's not science if it can't be replicated by others. That's why creationism isn't science even though it might be right. You can't replicate unique events done by an independent moral actor not under control.
MM are getting different results than MBH using the data and methods published. When that happens, it's reasonable to ask for the analysis package used before you start throwing around accusations of academic fraud that will destroy careers and tarnish institutions. If you redo somebody's math and find out that they're essentially saying 2 + 2 = 5 and if 2 + 2 = 4 their conclusions do not hold, the question ultimately is whether the error is purposeful (fraud) or an honest mistake. MBH is stonewalling the question which leads to the reasonable conclusion that they'd like to keep their careers for as long as possible until the fraud is uncovered.
Thus we have the nonsense of Nature publishing a Corrigendum on MBH 98 and Mann saying that it doesn't materially affect the paper when Nature's policy is that Corrigendums are only published when they *do* materially affect the conclusions of the paper.
Something is seriously wrong with MBH 98 and it's a foundational study in an important field that is causing public policy to move in ways that could really hurt a lot of people.
Actually, they don't last forever. They just last a lot longer than the military benefits. The historians eventually get the truth out because politicians can win votes based on promises to fire those who stand for excessive secrecy in government. That's the real crowbar that pries old secrets out of the vaults. If you want quicker secret revelation you should vote on that basis and convince others to vote on that basis, at least in part. This sort of stuff gets analyzed and politicians of both parties will try to get votes on this basis.
Personally, I'd love to see what sort of promises the US made to the Romanian resistance after WW II and how they were betrayed. Everybody has their pet causes. The question is what does historical revelation do to our present interests? How much stress is quick revelation worth? This is no black or white question and a blanket rule is likely to be less than optimal for the nation. In the end, I think we're going to go on fighting ad-hoc battles on this stuff forever.
Actually, you generally do. We have a democratic republic so we do that through our appointees but there's a formulary for what Medicare will pay for and you can see what that is and pass on instructions to modify it to your liking. Of course, since everybody else has the same right, what actually changes is a sort of complicated melange of all such requests both formal and informal passed through the strainer of our elected representatives.