OK, looks like I underestimated the effect of gravitational dilation (general relativity, if you like) versus ordinary old velocity dilation (special relativity). Gravitational dilation would certainly play a part. Although, I'm not convinced most of the 22 nanoseconds was due to it.
In the famous clocks-in-jetplanes example, velocity accounted for about 10% of the dilation. But in this case we have 3 hours at 30m/s, versus 48 hours at 4000m. Anyone want to take a guess at the relative (heh) effects of each?
There is, shall we say, a gap in your reasoning. [...] I'd much rather have a fiat currency with sound political and economic policies behind it than a gold-backed currency without.
Speaking of deficient reasoning, I do believe that's a false dilemma. That is, you've given no reason we can't have both a gold-backed currency as well as sound political and economic decisions. You have to speak to the likelihood of one preventing the other before you can say you're giving a reason against the adoption of a gold-backed currency. Alternatively, if you want to claim that you didn't intend it as a dilemma - that you just wanted to say you'd prefer the one case over the other - then you're just engaging in empty rhetoric: why should we care what you prefer.
So, please, give us some facts about whether having a gold-back currency leads to bad political and economic decisions (I don't have any; not to say they don't exist - I'm just criticising your argument). Or, shut up.
Mr Biffle alleges that Asus also appears to have attempted to hide what it was doing by removing all references to asus-apc.
GPL violation or not, that's a bizarre claim and one Cliff doesn't actually make. The "asus-acpi stripping" he mentioned was, rather, stripping the source from the source package that Asus offers for download. I mean, does this look like "removing all references" to you?:
dominic@eeepc:~$ apt-cache search asus-acpi
asus-acpi - Scripts to handle ACPI events on the Asus eeePC.
Yeah, that's not the source they're looking for. Read the link to the original blog post (Cliff Hacks Things) from TFA - he says he did poke through the 1.8GB source archive.
You, sir, deserve a medal. I wish more people would study critical thinking, or, how to make a cogent argument - and that's as opposed to just memorising a list of fallacies and debating which one an argument is. Proper analysis of arguments isn't hard, and it's very, very useful in everyday life.
I have thought about it. So has the person you're replying to. I've come to the conclusion that you're using censorship as a bogeyman.
Censorship is not immediately implied by a divestment of US control, nor is it likely, nor is it absent as things are now. It has no bearing on the matter; aversion to censorship is not an excuse for aversion to internationalisation. Leave the scaremongering to those waging the War on Terror, please.
Interesting. But doesn't this process of breaking down beliefs depend upon beliefs being analytic and compositional, or at least, that reductionism can be applied to beliefs? That is, I think it'd be quite consistent to argue that no set of sub-beliefs can adequately capture a particular belief, but also argue that beliefs are still objectively meaningful (able to be evaluated, bivalent, true-or-false, and rigorously logical). For, if beliefs are synthetic, there's no reason to think we should be able to come up with a consistent set of basic axiomatic beliefs (because belief compositionality fails).
I already see this sort of parking-as-incentive thing where I live (Auckland). The council-owned parking buildings have green-painted spaces, closer to the exit, set aside for drivers of small cars (by weight, I think) and hybrids.
I have to agree that it doesn't work perfectly. I mean, I understand why things are as they are: requiring original research and publication is supposed to ensure (as I said in another thread) an academic is up with the latest developments in the field, and has the intellectual ability to not only stay abreast of such developments, but participate in them. But whether the current system is very good at that role and whether there's a better way we could do things are questions that it's good to ask. Certainly, I think an argument could be made that there's too many undesirable consequences of the pressure to publish - reputation building, ego games, as you mention.
But really, the point I was trying to make doesn't depend on the current system being perfect, or even very good. The analogy between what an academic has to do in their work, and what these students will have to do for their project, still holds. I don't think it's fair to call a professor arrogant or incompetent for setting an assignment that, hopefully, will help give students some insight into the peer-review process that is so vital to academia (keeping in mind: it is "only" Wikipedia).
Total misunderstanding of what a fallacy is. No, disagreement about a premise does not make an argument a fallacy. No, stating the definition of a word doesn't mean it applies.
An appeal to authority that doesn't have any - you were a student for six years, congratulations.
Anecdotes, anecdotes, anecdotes.
Two irrelevant sources about high school cheating.
One Slashdot article of a Reuters story that no longer exists.
A wonderful ad hominem.
And, most tellingly:
A complete refusal to actually address my point.
For example, you claim there's a difference between being "under pressure to do research and publish papers" and "hav[ing] to do research and publish papers", and that I somehow misinterpreted your argument by stating the latter. But that's completely skirting the fact that academics do actually have to do research and publish papers - they're not just under pressure to do so, rather, having to do so is what makes them academics.
Not a single thing you've said explains why the professor who set the assignment is "arrogant and incompetent". Not a single thing you've said explains why this is bad for Wikipedia, or for the students, or why it will increase the chances that they'll cheat, plagiarise or lie. And you've not given a single shred of evidence or cogent argument that academics do research to "satisfy a corporate agenda", or that such research is well received.
As I see it, paragraphs 1 and 3 of the OP dealt with the appropriateness of the assignment for the students. Paragraph 1 particularly, which criticises the teacher [sic; professor] for "arrogance and incompetence".
The other paragraphs do deal with the appropriateness of the assignment for Wikipedia, sure, and you're quite right that I don't deal with that part of the OP. But then, it wasn't my intention to; the two arguments made stand or fall independently. Or, to be more specific, whether the assignment is any good for Wikipedia has nothing to do with whether it's any good for the students. But I guess that's subsumed in your point.
My point was that students aren't dilettantes either - they are aspiring academics. And if they're not, they'd still do well to undertake the exercise of writing and expressing ideas like an academic. If you're studying at tertiary level, you should be getting the background knowledge of your field, and you should have an interest in your chosen field - the exact properties you attribute to academics alone. So, I'm not sure how what you're saying, in any way, refutes (or even deals with) my point; that students can benefit from this exercise.
Furthermore, I'm intrigued (/amused) by your idea that academics shouldn't have to do research and publish papers. How else is their work to be peer-reviewed? How else could we know they're actually doing any work at all? Original research is, of course, only part of an academic's job (the other part deals with teaching), but it's vital - its what ensures an academic is up with the latest developments in the field, and has the intellectual ability to not only stay abreast of such developments, but participate in them.
That's what I call an ideal. Perhaps yours aren't greater than mine after all.
Guess what? Academics are often "MANDATED" to "(not just submit, but) actually publish articles" in peer-reviewed journals, or at least publish their findings in other area-specific literature (perhaps books, etc.). Is that an "indication of arrogance and incompetence" on the part of the university/college that employs them? Hell no - it's a condition of their employment that they produce a quantity of quality writing and original research. Or, to look at it another way, it's what academics do.
Such writing is often under time pressure - that doesn't mean it ends up being plagiarized, or a pack of lies, or 'just' journalism as you imply.
One reason this project works - one reason it's a good exercise to put students through - is that it forces them to synthesize their knowledge on a subject and practice writing in a vigorous, academic style, with the benefits of peer-review, but without the pressure of formal publication.
Rubbish. That's store policy that has nothing to do with copyright law. Really. Go read the Copyright Act.
Your rights are protected under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, meaning you are entitled to a refund, replacement or repair if the product is defective, not fit for the intended purpose, or not in merchantable condition. It doesn't have to be a physical problem with the disk, it doesn't matter if you've used the product, and it doesn't matter if the store has a policy saying otherwise (your right to a remedy is inalienable). Copyright just doesn't enter into the equation, despite those signs you see around the place.
It's a shame more New Zealanders aren't aware of their rights under the CGA; it's one of the best pieces of legislation we have.
Check out the updated title on the main page of inrainbows.com:
"RADIOHEAD: 'EXPERTS' IN THE FIELD OF HYPERTEXT"
Hindsight is a bitch! The author link says the site was by "Stanley Donwood, Dr. Tchock, Phil Allsopp, Max Kolumbus, Karolina Wihed". So, an artist, a musician (Dr Tchock is code for Thom Yorke), a video game designer who now works on "highly scalable e-commerce solutions" and two others.
You might use the term inalienable rights, but that would be to put emphasis on the fact that they are inalienable! If you want to talk about the source of such rights, it's probably more lucid to talk about the subsets of inalienable rights, the members of which form a complete enumeration: { natural rights, human rights }. Such terminology also avoids curbing your discussion within the language of the constitution of the USA - believe it or not, it's not universal.
A right is something granted to you by some entity
If you'll split hairs, I'll split them further.
A legal right certainly is something granted by some entity - usually a government. But there are, in my and many others' opinions, other types of right, such as natural rights. A natural right is your right regardless of anyone else's say-so. An example might be self-determination, or perhaps freedom of thought.
You're might be correct in saying the right to nullify unjust laws isn't a legal one. But that doesn't mean it's not a right. To say that, you'd actually have to examine arguments for or against its...uh...righthood, not simply say "it's not established through law, so it doesn't exist".
I'm not arguing for or against jury nullification. I'm just saying your objection doesn't work.
Configuring NTP doesn't make an ounce of difference, because NTP uses UTC. The timezone (including DST) is applied later. In fact, on most Linux/Unix systems, irrespective of NTP, even the hardware clock is UTC, not local time (the exception is usually for dual booting with Windows).
Either you don't know much about Linux timekeeping, or you live in a +0000 timezone with no DST.
What rubbish. New Zealand's technology industry is more significant to its citizens than the US technology industry is to Americans. As a small country, New Zealand's economy relies more on technological innovation than big countries do, with their natural resources and primary production. I'm not just talking about the famous examples (the electric fence, Rakon) either, but a constant push for more efficient and more valuable secondary production.
Or by significant did you mean significant to you and you alone? Who made you Captain of Industry?
Your guess about the few dozen people is also wrong. I, personally, just me, know a few dozen Kiwi Debian users, and I wouldn't say that's even close to the number that live in my suburb. Free software adoption is alive and well down under - it goes well with the 'number 8 wire' tinkering mentality that is a well-established part of New Zealand culture (Burt Munro and all that).
None of that is to say Debian should break policy - I agree that volatile is where these updates belong. But the arguments you give in favour of the status quo are bullshit.
Indeed. And the idea was so successful they've decided to do another Doctor-lite ("I can't believe it's not The Doctor") episode this season: "Blink" - next week's episode.
Slashdot Mirror
Bad speling, grammar's poor; not affecting of transmittence of inf0m4t10n. Pragmatics: thing wunderful.
OK, looks like I underestimated the effect of gravitational dilation (general relativity, if you like) versus ordinary old velocity dilation (special relativity). Gravitational dilation would certainly play a part. Although, I'm not convinced most of the 22 nanoseconds was due to it.
In the famous clocks-in-jetplanes example, velocity accounted for about 10% of the dilation. But in this case we have 3 hours at 30m/s, versus 48 hours at 4000m. Anyone want to take a guess at the relative (heh) effects of each?
Uh, gravity? I think you mean velocity.
Speaking of deficient reasoning, I do believe that's a false dilemma. That is, you've given no reason we can't have both a gold-backed currency as well as sound political and economic decisions. You have to speak to the likelihood of one preventing the other before you can say you're giving a reason against the adoption of a gold-backed currency. Alternatively, if you want to claim that you didn't intend it as a dilemma - that you just wanted to say you'd prefer the one case over the other - then you're just engaging in empty rhetoric: why should we care what you prefer.
So, please, give us some facts about whether having a gold-back currency leads to bad political and economic decisions (I don't have any; not to say they don't exist - I'm just criticising your argument). Or, shut up.
GPL violation or not, that's a bizarre claim and one Cliff doesn't actually make. The "asus-acpi stripping" he mentioned was, rather, stripping the source from the source package that Asus offers for download. I mean, does this look like "removing all references" to you?:
dominic@eeepc:~$ apt-cache search asus-acpiasus-acpi - Scripts to handle ACPI events on the Asus eeePC.
Yeah, that's not the source they're looking for. Read the link to the original blog post (Cliff Hacks Things) from TFA - he says he did poke through the 1.8GB source archive.
You, sir, deserve a medal. I wish more people would study critical thinking, or, how to make a cogent argument - and that's as opposed to just memorising a list of fallacies and debating which one an argument is. Proper analysis of arguments isn't hard, and it's very, very useful in everyday life.
I have thought about it. So has the person you're replying to. I've come to the conclusion that you're using censorship as a bogeyman.
Censorship is not immediately implied by a divestment of US control, nor is it likely, nor is it absent as things are now. It has no bearing on the matter; aversion to censorship is not an excuse for aversion to internationalisation. Leave the scaremongering to those waging the War on Terror, please.
Interesting. But doesn't this process of breaking down beliefs depend upon beliefs being analytic and compositional, or at least, that reductionism can be applied to beliefs? That is, I think it'd be quite consistent to argue that no set of sub-beliefs can adequately capture a particular belief, but also argue that beliefs are still objectively meaningful (able to be evaluated, bivalent, true-or-false, and rigorously logical). For, if beliefs are synthetic, there's no reason to think we should be able to come up with a consistent set of basic axiomatic beliefs (because belief compositionality fails).
I already see this sort of parking-as-incentive thing where I live (Auckland). The council-owned parking buildings have green-painted spaces, closer to the exit, set aside for drivers of small cars (by weight, I think) and hybrids.
Good point.
I have to agree that it doesn't work perfectly. I mean, I understand why things are as they are: requiring original research and publication is supposed to ensure (as I said in another thread) an academic is up with the latest developments in the field, and has the intellectual ability to not only stay abreast of such developments, but participate in them. But whether the current system is very good at that role and whether there's a better way we could do things are questions that it's good to ask. Certainly, I think an argument could be made that there's too many undesirable consequences of the pressure to publish - reputation building, ego games, as you mention.
But really, the point I was trying to make doesn't depend on the current system being perfect, or even very good. The analogy between what an academic has to do in their work, and what these students will have to do for their project, still holds. I don't think it's fair to call a professor arrogant or incompetent for setting an assignment that, hopefully, will help give students some insight into the peer-review process that is so vital to academia (keeping in mind: it is "only" Wikipedia).
Let's see here. We've got:
And, most tellingly:
For example, you claim there's a difference between being "under pressure to do research and publish papers" and "hav[ing] to do research and publish papers", and that I somehow misinterpreted your argument by stating the latter. But that's completely skirting the fact that academics do actually have to do research and publish papers - they're not just under pressure to do so, rather, having to do so is what makes them academics.
Not a single thing you've said explains why the professor who set the assignment is "arrogant and incompetent". Not a single thing you've said explains why this is bad for Wikipedia, or for the students, or why it will increase the chances that they'll cheat, plagiarise or lie. And you've not given a single shred of evidence or cogent argument that academics do research to "satisfy a corporate agenda", or that such research is well received.
You're talking rubbish.
As I see it, paragraphs 1 and 3 of the OP dealt with the appropriateness of the assignment for the students. Paragraph 1 particularly, which criticises the teacher [sic; professor] for "arrogance and incompetence".
The other paragraphs do deal with the appropriateness of the assignment for Wikipedia, sure, and you're quite right that I don't deal with that part of the OP. But then, it wasn't my intention to; the two arguments made stand or fall independently. Or, to be more specific, whether the assignment is any good for Wikipedia has nothing to do with whether it's any good for the students. But I guess that's subsumed in your point.
My point was that students aren't dilettantes either - they are aspiring academics. And if they're not, they'd still do well to undertake the exercise of writing and expressing ideas like an academic. If you're studying at tertiary level, you should be getting the background knowledge of your field, and you should have an interest in your chosen field - the exact properties you attribute to academics alone. So, I'm not sure how what you're saying, in any way, refutes (or even deals with) my point; that students can benefit from this exercise.
Furthermore, I'm intrigued (/amused) by your idea that academics shouldn't have to do research and publish papers. How else is their work to be peer-reviewed? How else could we know they're actually doing any work at all? Original research is, of course, only part of an academic's job (the other part deals with teaching), but it's vital - its what ensures an academic is up with the latest developments in the field, and has the intellectual ability to not only stay abreast of such developments, but participate in them.
That's what I call an ideal. Perhaps yours aren't greater than mine after all.
Guess what? Academics are often "MANDATED" to "(not just submit, but) actually publish articles" in peer-reviewed journals, or at least publish their findings in other area-specific literature (perhaps books, etc.). Is that an "indication of arrogance and incompetence" on the part of the university/college that employs them? Hell no - it's a condition of their employment that they produce a quantity of quality writing and original research. Or, to look at it another way, it's what academics do.
Such writing is often under time pressure - that doesn't mean it ends up being plagiarized, or a pack of lies, or 'just' journalism as you imply.
One reason this project works - one reason it's a good exercise to put students through - is that it forces them to synthesize their knowledge on a subject and practice writing in a vigorous, academic style, with the benefits of peer-review, but without the pressure of formal publication.
I'm guessing they used the magic of "Reply-to:", along with a centralized mailbox (IMAP) to draw issues from.
Rubbish. That's store policy that has nothing to do with copyright law. Really. Go read the Copyright Act.
Your rights are protected under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, meaning you are entitled to a refund, replacement or repair if the product is defective, not fit for the intended purpose, or not in merchantable condition. It doesn't have to be a physical problem with the disk, it doesn't matter if you've used the product, and it doesn't matter if the store has a policy saying otherwise (your right to a remedy is inalienable). Copyright just doesn't enter into the equation, despite those signs you see around the place.
It's a shame more New Zealanders aren't aware of their rights under the CGA; it's one of the best pieces of legislation we have.
Check out the updated title on the main page of inrainbows.com:
"RADIOHEAD: 'EXPERTS' IN THE FIELD OF HYPERTEXT"
Hindsight is a bitch! The author link says the site was by "Stanley Donwood, Dr. Tchock, Phil Allsopp, Max Kolumbus, Karolina Wihed". So, an artist, a musician (Dr Tchock is code for Thom Yorke), a video game designer who now works on "highly scalable e-commerce solutions" and two others.
You might use the term inalienable rights, but that would be to put emphasis on the fact that they are inalienable! If you want to talk about the source of such rights, it's probably more lucid to talk about the subsets of inalienable rights, the members of which form a complete enumeration: { natural rights, human rights }. Such terminology also avoids curbing your discussion within the language of the constitution of the USA - believe it or not, it's not universal.
If you'll split hairs, I'll split them further.
A legal right certainly is something granted by some entity - usually a government. But there are, in my and many others' opinions, other types of right, such as natural rights. A natural right is your right regardless of anyone else's say-so. An example might be self-determination, or perhaps freedom of thought.
You're might be correct in saying the right to nullify unjust laws isn't a legal one. But that doesn't mean it's not a right. To say that, you'd actually have to examine arguments for or against its...uh...righthood, not simply say "it's not established through law, so it doesn't exist".
I'm not arguing for or against jury nullification. I'm just saying your objection doesn't work.
Configuring NTP doesn't make an ounce of difference, because NTP uses UTC. The timezone (including DST) is applied later. In fact, on most Linux/Unix systems, irrespective of NTP, even the hardware clock is UTC, not local time (the exception is usually for dual booting with Windows).
Either you don't know much about Linux timekeeping, or you live in a +0000 timezone with no DST.
What rubbish. New Zealand's technology industry is more significant to its citizens than the US technology industry is to Americans. As a small country, New Zealand's economy relies more on technological innovation than big countries do, with their natural resources and primary production. I'm not just talking about the famous examples (the electric fence, Rakon) either, but a constant push for more efficient and more valuable secondary production.
Or by significant did you mean significant to you and you alone? Who made you Captain of Industry?
Your guess about the few dozen people is also wrong. I, personally, just me, know a few dozen Kiwi Debian users, and I wouldn't say that's even close to the number that live in my suburb. Free software adoption is alive and well down under - it goes well with the 'number 8 wire' tinkering mentality that is a well-established part of New Zealand culture (Burt Munro and all that).
None of that is to say Debian should break policy - I agree that volatile is where these updates belong. But the arguments you give in favour of the status quo are bullshit.
A nitpick: we have 120 seats in a non-overhang House of Representatives, not 121.
What's with the capitalization of the title? It's not like "WETA" stands for anything.
Indeed. And the idea was so successful they've decided to do another Doctor-lite ("I can't believe it's not The Doctor") episode this season: "Blink" - next week's episode.