The problem with sodium is that if it ever cools, it solidifies. If you ever go offline, you need to continuously heat and pump your sodium coolant to keep it from freezing. Maintenance on the system is tricky, at best. So I hear.
There's a good point here. In many (most?) states, knowingly possessing stolen property above a certain value is a crime, regardless of who stole it. If the cops aren't interested, a state DA's office might be.
Are you talking about the police in your municipality, or where your laptop is? I'd contact the latter. They will be the ones who can physically recover your property. Also, many states have their own law enforcement branches. You might contact your neighboring state directly.
If your laptop is expensive enough, or you really don't feel like letting them get away, then hire a lawyer and file a john-joe civil case.
I'm not trying to dissociate her from the tea party movement because I'm a lefty who believes she has "killed [and] eaten... babies [and] loved ones". Rather, I'm a republican* who wishes to avoid the tarnish her ilk bring to the party. A "vacuous" political figure isn't harmless, but is a puppet (at best). Her seemingly desirable qualities do not include the abilities to lead nor to be taken seriously.
*(only because it is the least bad choice available to me)
So your argument is: fiat currency bad; non-fiat currency better?
That's a harder position to attack, and a harder position to defend.
I don't believe I've committed the so-called Nirvana Fallacy here yet, though it is reasonable to bring it up preemptively.
Gold is certainly not perfect, but it is measurably better than fiat currencies.
I want to know how you've "measured". Fiat currency is tied to monetary policy. Are you merely assuming that incompetent politicians and bureaucrats will eventually be in charge? That's the only argument I can find in your favor.
Personally, I don't believe deflation should be a big deal. It is seen as a big deal, and that exacerbates the problems when it does happen.
You are onto part of the scam. Inflation in the US is intentional, and is an invisible form of taxation. It also happens to make investing more appealing, so the financial sector (read:economists) have a vested interest in continuing the practice.
Gold as currency isn't as sound as you want to believe. Because it is a speculative material, its value fluctuates, generally up but with occasional bubbles and crashes. If more currency worldwide was backed by gold, then it would merely move to the forex market. Besides, the gold standard encourages other fiscally irresponsible (and unreasonable) behavior (when the US outlawed private ownership of gold, for example).
(fair warning, posting while tired. mistakes imminent)
Okay. Now I'm really confused. What does Sarah Palin have to do with SCO???
An even better question would be: What does Sarah Palin really have to do with the "tea party" movement?
(Besides the fact that she wants as much air time as possible, I mean...) ("Tea Party Express" sort-of has something to do with the "tea party" movement, but not strongly. Largely, it's a degenerate Republican cheer squad. The rest of the movement embraces fiscal responsibility, not blind adherence to a political party.)
Voting has historically been, and is now, the ability to choose between two bad choices. It is the natural result of strategic voting in a first-past-the-post system. It will continue to be like this until we change our voting method. I personally favor Condorcet, though I'd vote to try almost anything else.
You've set up a strawman argument. I don't know about the Irish or Basque, but the Palestinians and Tamil Tigers (and Chechyns unless I'm mistaken) have used suicide bombers against unarmed civilians. That's not fighting for freedom. That's fighting to terrorize, for various reasons. (hate, false-martyrdom, sparking violence, not freedom)
Any maximum ranking is artificial. If the maximum was +6, you'd be calling for that to be raised in this one "exception". If the maximum was +7 you'd want that raised...
That's the point. They DON'T NEED PERMISSION. By default they have permission to film anything they want in public. Police, Rail stations, Nuclear power plants, etc...
IANAL, but I think this is one of the rare exceptions. (depending on state and local law)
AC, lacking explanation, lacking examples, lacking logic, and most importantly: lacking insight.
Parent may be right, but the post clearly doesn't deserve the rating of "Insightful".
Re:Plagiarism? or Ghost writing? Outsourcing?
on
Plagiarism Inc.
·
· Score: 1
Look again. I started my statement by agreeing with your posture that it was indeed an ethical violation. Hence, when I said "ethical", I meant it. I then proceeded to quibble about morality and used "moral" from that point onwards. I see no typo.
At any rate, no harm done.
Re:Plagiarism? or Ghost writing? Outsourcing?
on
Plagiarism Inc.
·
· Score: 1
Yeah? I'm pretty sure it isn't. You wrote that there was no moral violation, except in rare cases (such as disbelief in contract, rare indeed). I wrote that it would normally be a moral violation, especially for those with religious inclinations.
Whatever. I guess it's really not worth arguing over. I'm just voicing disagreement.
Re:Plagiarism? or Ghost writing? Outsourcing?
on
Plagiarism Inc.
·
· Score: 1
Absolutely nothing moral involved. It's an ethical violation only...
I beg to differ. It is certainly an ethical violation. It is a moral violation depending on the code of morality that a person chooses to live by. Most religious moral codes would definitely consider this a violation.
I suggest the following metric: "Does / would X make me feel guilty?" "Should X make me feel guilty?" "Why? / Why not?"
Re:Plagiarism? or Ghost writing? Outsourcing?
on
Plagiarism Inc.
·
· Score: 1
All unattributed writing counts as "plagiarism,"...
To be clear, it is plagiarism according to the current academic standard. It isn't plagiarism according to traditional definition. I'm siding with you on this one, but we do need to be clear that we're picking and choosing our definitions based on context.
... even if you are reusing something you wrote.
No, no, no, no, no. Plagiarism is taking someone else's work, and claiming it as your own (without citation). In fact, you can commit plagiarism without using a direct quote. If you convey a thought or idea (beyond common knowledge) without proper attribution, it may be considered plagiarism.
Reusing your own words is not plagiarism. It might make your teacher very unhappy with you. It could conceivably cause you to receive a failing grade. (Teachers can be touchy that they're making students grow through giving them work to do. They can get quite upset when you try to circumvent that.) The fact remains that the words and thoughts are yours, and therefore, not plagiarized.
Could you imagine, in a professional capacity, needing to remember the very first time your words and ideas were published? There is no reason you cannot cite yourself, but neither is there a need. (In general cases. Exceptions might include when you are paid for a work, or participated in a group, etc.)
Re:Plagiarism? or Ghost writing? Outsourcing?
on
Plagiarism Inc.
·
· Score: 1
Academic fraud perhaps. But this isn't plagiarism by a long shot.
That depends on how you define plagiarism. Most academic institutions use a modified definition. Any of my professors would have called this plagiarism even though it doesn't conform to the traditional literary standard.
It can't mean instant infringing, because that would be an ex post facto law and would give constitutional grounds to fight it in court. It will mean immediate discontinuing of business practices and loss of investments, though. I don't know what it will mean to merchandise already produced. It's highly unethical, any way you look at it.
Emergencies where there is literally no time for mistakes do require the best doctors, however that's a tiny fraction of the scope of health care.
Sorry for skipping over this. You're entirely right here, to a certain extent. There are many different skill sets in the practice of medicine. Among the best doctors there are a few who can think rationally very quickly and handle the stress of eminent life-or-death decisions. They are the cream of the crop, and belong in ORs and ERs everywhere.
There are other doctors, though, who don't have these skills, but are otherwise phenomenal. Practicing medicine is about knowledge, understanding, wisdom, and genuine care.
And so it depends on what you mean by "the best doctors". Most of those I would consider "the best doctors" are actively involved in diagnosis in some capacity. (and not what I think you mean by "Emergencies where there is literally no time for mistakes...")
Yes, but there's always time for changing the diagnosis and/or the treatment, so it's reasonable for lesser doctors to get a crack at it first based on likelihood, and refer to great doctors only after a real misdiagnosis is actually discovered...
But there isn't always time to change the diagnosis before permanent damage. "[O]nly after a real misdiagnosis is actually discovered"??? What about a misdiagnosis that lasts for years? (or one that is never caught) What about the years of misery that could have been prevented? (not to mention loss of life and disability) What if the misdiagnosis called for surgery? "Sorry for opening you up. We know it was risky. We didn't find anything, though."
I brought up Cushing's for a reason. The symptoms include stunted growth (if during adolescence), weight gain, and depression. The percent of overweight depressed people with Cushing's is low. On the other hand, the average length of misdiagnosis for Cushing's is about a decade. (more or less, can't find the reference in short order). Even competent doctors miss this one. The treatment is often (usually?) a single surgery. This means that it is (relatively) easy to treat once it is eventually discovered. Imagine being told "So sorry. We could have cured your depression and your weight problem a decade ago. If only we'd been better doctors..."
Now increase the number of marginally competent doctors, and the number of illnesses that are "easy" to misdiagnose shoots through the roof.
That's an appealing theory. The problem is that there are serious conditions which masquerade as common ailments, and require a great doctor to catch (such as Cushing's). The more mediocre doctors we have, the more misdiagnosis we will have. You seem to suggest better doctors closely oversee lesser doctors, but that will either become an exercise in rubber stamping or a horrible bureaucracy (the former tends to fail and become regulated into the latter). How do you suggest dealing with misdiagnosis?
I agree, though, that we need more doctors and that the AMA has a vested interest in maintaining irrational wages.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with sodium is that if it ever cools, it solidifies. If you ever go offline, you need to continuously heat and pump your sodium coolant to keep it from freezing. Maintenance on the system is tricky, at best. So I hear.
There's a good point here. In many (most?) states, knowingly possessing stolen property above a certain value is a crime, regardless of who stole it. If the cops aren't interested, a state DA's office might be.
Are you talking about the police in your municipality, or where your laptop is? I'd contact the latter. They will be the ones who can physically recover your property. Also, many states have their own law enforcement branches. You might contact your neighboring state directly.
If your laptop is expensive enough, or you really don't feel like letting them get away, then hire a lawyer and file a john-joe civil case.
I'm not trying to dissociate her from the tea party movement because I'm a lefty who believes she has "killed [and] eaten... babies [and] loved ones". Rather, I'm a republican* who wishes to avoid the tarnish her ilk bring to the party. A "vacuous" political figure isn't harmless, but is a puppet (at best). Her seemingly desirable qualities do not include the abilities to lead nor to be taken seriously.
*(only because it is the least bad choice available to me)
Wait, wait, wait. You're missing the obvious.
UK has more serial killers than it's former prison colony? In a discussion about the mythical serial killer gene?
So your argument is: fiat currency bad; non-fiat currency better?
That's a harder position to attack, and a harder position to defend.
I don't believe I've committed the so-called Nirvana Fallacy here yet, though it is reasonable to bring it up preemptively.
Gold is certainly not perfect, but it is measurably better than fiat currencies.
I want to know how you've "measured". Fiat currency is tied to monetary policy. Are you merely assuming that incompetent politicians and bureaucrats will eventually be in charge? That's the only argument I can find in your favor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation#Deflationary_spiral
Personally, I don't believe deflation should be a big deal. It is seen as a big deal, and that exacerbates the problems when it does happen.
You are onto part of the scam. Inflation in the US is intentional, and is an invisible form of taxation. It also happens to make investing more appealing, so the financial sector (read:economists) have a vested interest in continuing the practice.
Gold as currency isn't as sound as you want to believe. Because it is a speculative material, its value fluctuates, generally up but with occasional bubbles and crashes. If more currency worldwide was backed by gold, then it would merely move to the forex market. Besides, the gold standard encourages other fiscally irresponsible (and unreasonable) behavior (when the US outlawed private ownership of gold, for example).
(fair warning, posting while tired. mistakes imminent)
Okay. Now I'm really confused. What does Sarah Palin have to do with SCO???
An even better question would be: What does Sarah Palin really have to do with the "tea party" movement?
(Besides the fact that she wants as much air time as possible, I mean...)
("Tea Party Express" sort-of has something to do with the "tea party" movement, but not strongly. Largely, it's a degenerate Republican cheer squad. The rest of the movement embraces fiscal responsibility, not blind adherence to a political party.)
Forget it. +5, 100% Funny. You don't get karma for funny.
Close.
Voting has historically been, and is now, the ability to choose between two bad choices. It is the natural result of strategic voting in a first-past-the-post system. It will continue to be like this until we change our voting method. I personally favor Condorcet, though I'd vote to try almost anything else.
You've set up a strawman argument. I don't know about the Irish or Basque, but the Palestinians and Tamil Tigers (and Chechyns unless I'm mistaken) have used suicide bombers against unarmed civilians. That's not fighting for freedom. That's fighting to terrorize, for various reasons. (hate, false-martyrdom, sparking violence, not freedom)
Why?
Any maximum ranking is artificial. If the maximum was +6, you'd be calling for that to be raised in this one "exception". If the maximum was +7 you'd want that raised...
That's the point. They DON'T NEED PERMISSION. By default they have permission to film anything they want in public. Police, Rail stations, Nuclear power plants, etc...
IANAL, but I think this is one of the rare exceptions. (depending on state and local law)
AC, lacking explanation, lacking examples, lacking logic, and most importantly: lacking insight.
Parent may be right, but the post clearly doesn't deserve the rating of "Insightful".
Look again. I started my statement by agreeing with your posture that it was indeed an ethical violation. Hence, when I said "ethical", I meant it. I then proceeded to quibble about morality and used "moral" from that point onwards. I see no typo.
At any rate, no harm done.
Yeah? I'm pretty sure it isn't. You wrote that there was no moral violation, except in rare cases (such as disbelief in contract, rare indeed). I wrote that it would normally be a moral violation, especially for those with religious inclinations.
Whatever. I guess it's really not worth arguing over. I'm just voicing disagreement.
Absolutely nothing moral involved. It's an ethical violation only...
I beg to differ. It is certainly an ethical violation. It is a moral violation depending on the code of morality that a person chooses to live by. Most religious moral codes would definitely consider this a violation.
I suggest the following metric: "Does / would X make me feel guilty?" "Should X make me feel guilty?" "Why? / Why not?"
All unattributed writing counts as "plagiarism," ...
To be clear, it is plagiarism according to the current academic standard. It isn't plagiarism according to traditional definition. I'm siding with you on this one, but we do need to be clear that we're picking and choosing our definitions based on context.
... even if you are reusing something you wrote.
No, no, no, no, no. Plagiarism is taking someone else's work, and claiming it as your own (without citation). In fact, you can commit plagiarism without using a direct quote. If you convey a thought or idea (beyond common knowledge) without proper attribution, it may be considered plagiarism.
Reusing your own words is not plagiarism. It might make your teacher very unhappy with you. It could conceivably cause you to receive a failing grade. (Teachers can be touchy that they're making students grow through giving them work to do. They can get quite upset when you try to circumvent that.) The fact remains that the words and thoughts are yours, and therefore, not plagiarized.
Could you imagine, in a professional capacity, needing to remember the very first time your words and ideas were published? There is no reason you cannot cite yourself, but neither is there a need. (In general cases. Exceptions might include when you are paid for a work, or participated in a group, etc.)
Academic fraud perhaps. But this isn't plagiarism by a long shot.
That depends on how you define plagiarism. Most academic institutions use a modified definition. Any of my professors would have called this plagiarism even though it doesn't conform to the traditional literary standard.
It can't mean instant infringing, because that would be an ex post facto law and would give constitutional grounds to fight it in court. It will mean immediate discontinuing of business practices and loss of investments, though. I don't know what it will mean to merchandise already produced. It's highly unethical, any way you look at it.
Emergencies where there is literally no time for mistakes do require the best doctors, however that's a tiny fraction of the scope of health care.
Sorry for skipping over this. You're entirely right here, to a certain extent. There are many different skill sets in the practice of medicine. Among the best doctors there are a few who can think rationally very quickly and handle the stress of eminent life-or-death decisions. They are the cream of the crop, and belong in ORs and ERs everywhere.
There are other doctors, though, who don't have these skills, but are otherwise phenomenal. Practicing medicine is about knowledge, understanding, wisdom, and genuine care.
And so it depends on what you mean by "the best doctors". Most of those I would consider "the best doctors" are actively involved in diagnosis in some capacity. (and not what I think you mean by "Emergencies where there is literally no time for mistakes...")
Yes, but there's always time for changing the diagnosis and/or the treatment, so it's reasonable for lesser doctors to get a crack at it first based on likelihood, and refer to great doctors only after a real misdiagnosis is actually discovered...
But there isn't always time to change the diagnosis before permanent damage. "[O]nly after a real misdiagnosis is actually discovered"??? What about a misdiagnosis that lasts for years? (or one that is never caught) What about the years of misery that could have been prevented? (not to mention loss of life and disability) What if the misdiagnosis called for surgery? "Sorry for opening you up. We know it was risky. We didn't find anything, though."
I brought up Cushing's for a reason. The symptoms include stunted growth (if during adolescence), weight gain, and depression. The percent of overweight depressed people with Cushing's is low. On the other hand, the average length of misdiagnosis for Cushing's is about a decade. (more or less, can't find the reference in short order). Even competent doctors miss this one. The treatment is often (usually?) a single surgery. This means that it is (relatively) easy to treat once it is eventually discovered. Imagine being told "So sorry. We could have cured your depression and your weight problem a decade ago. If only we'd been better doctors..."
Now increase the number of marginally competent doctors, and the number of illnesses that are "easy" to misdiagnose shoots through the roof.
That's an appealing theory. The problem is that there are serious conditions which masquerade as common ailments, and require a great doctor to catch (such as Cushing's). The more mediocre doctors we have, the more misdiagnosis we will have. You seem to suggest better doctors closely oversee lesser doctors, but that will either become an exercise in rubber stamping or a horrible bureaucracy (the former tends to fail and become regulated into the latter). How do you suggest dealing with misdiagnosis?
I agree, though, that we need more doctors and that the AMA has a vested interest in maintaining irrational wages.
For a specific example:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/153113/worlds-toughest-fixes-giant-telescope
Most will find it fairly boring, and a little superficial, but it is a specific video example of the process you described.
What part of "Microsoft is not a military organisation; they do not have faraday cages around their offices," Are you unable to read???
I don't think non-trivial means what you think it means.