In the first place, I don't think it's correct that consensus is inherently unscientific. Underlying scietific method is the premise that any rational individual can replicate the experiment, or examine the data, and come to the same conclusion. Consensus is the fall-out of a correct scientific claim.
Now, as you rightly point out, corruption can intefere with this process and needs to be watched for. But among the 3 you mention(Science, Media, and the Public), Science has the better track record. Throw in the Govt, Industry, and Religion, and they still come out on top, IMO. What incident of scientific corruption you put up against what we've seen from the other instiutions in just the last century?
I think the "evil" part of it is that Google is warning media outlets to stop using a perfectly cromulent word or (presumably) face legal action, just because it is, as you point out, inconvenient for them.
Google is a business. If they don't [DO X], they're committing suicide. If the management doesn't, they're going to be sued into oblivion by their shareholders.
Pointing out that a corporation needs to do something to protect it's business is no defense against the claim that the action in question is evil.
1) Isn't the bad part that people are paying the monthly fee and not watching the movies?
2) Even if you don't think it's bad, it certainly points out an interesting facet of economic freedom. Newsflash, once people don't have any external factor causing them to order their priorities, they seem to have a hard time doing it themselves.
My ego? Get a grip - most professors' salaries are pathetic compared to what they could make in industry. You don't go into academia because of ego, you either do it because you love research for the sake of knowledge, or you love teaching. I happen to love both.
You just hate your students.
I don't know what you're teaching, but it sure isnt' logic. How does that fact that your doing it for pennies mean that it's not ego-driven. If anything it proves the point; they can have you at a discount if they give you room full of easily-itimidated 19 year olds.
If he knew what the hell he was doing, he wouldn't need to be in my class in the first place. Amen to that.
From slashdot: "An employee of law firm Jones Day found legal memos showing that their client, Diebold Election Systems, had used uncertified voting systems in Alameda County elections beginning in 2002 - violating California election law."
From the la times: In the memos, a Jones Day attorney opined that using uncertified voting systems violated California election law and that if Diebold had employed an uncertified system, Alameda County could sue the company for breaching its $12.7-million contract.
The documents also revealed that Diebold's attorneys were exploring whether the California secretary of state had the authority to investigate the company for alleged election law violations.
In other words, the documents didn't show that Diebold did anything wrong. Just that their lawyers were discussing the law.
I think this case has probably more to do with a law firm protecting its confidentiality and the security of it's documents, than Diebold protecting itself from exposure.
Why would it be worse for Chinese freedom to have no Google rather than a censored Google? It advances the cause of freedom for them to be able to access information (from Google evidently) about stamp collecting or cigars but not about bird flu or democracy? It seems to me that anything allowed by the government would eventually be provided by someone, so what would they be losing?
The best way to help the Chinese people to liberate themselves from the repressive censorship they face is by helping the government do it better. Reverse psychology! The old switcheroo! Brilliant!!
And anyhow, in the US I'm not free to poop in the street. In China they're not free to criticise the government. So who's to say who's really free and who's not.
The Nazi party never recieved a majority in any election. A coaltion government, headed by Hitler, was elected by a slim majority in 1933, and that was after the Reichstag fire and the laws that effectively outlawed much of the Nazi's political oppostion. In any event, it was in mid 1934 that Hitler became Fuhurer. Thus the "democratic" Nazi government lasted about 1 year, which was how long it took them to dismantle the German constitution.
But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship...
I wouldn't rely on Goering as an authority about what is possible or not in a democracy. It's like when a tobacco executive says "Well there are all sorts of things that can give you cancer. Heck you can get cancer from wheat germ, right?" If it was so simple to get people to simply "go along" in a democracy, the why did the Nazis feel the need to opt out of theirs? Also why wasn't the US at war with Germany in 1940? Had it been left to Roosevelt, he certainly would have just dragged everyone along.
but in the end gives the clear impression that this about a bad implementation, not about an intended design
I don't really understand the relevance of that distinction. I'm a developer and if I break something, nobody cares if I did it through inompetence or because I thought it would be a good idea to do so. And why should they?
1) FDR failed in his attempt to stack the court.
2) For the sake of argument, let's say that the New Deal courts did in fact expand the power of federal government to regulate what had previoulsy been considered a intrastate, or even private, enterprise. (eg. workers rights). That is the point of your citation, but it has nothing to do with the interpretation you put forth, namely that constitution does not grant the federal gov't the right to regulate interstate and international trade.
3)If I understand your last remark correctly you are saying that there is in fact no Supreme Court case that supports this interpretation.
Elastic? You've just stretched it beyond all recognition.
...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
Looks pretty clear to me. "Commerce" did indeed mean all sorts of human interaction INCLUDING economic activity. In other words, the current understanding of the language is more restrictive than you're suggesting.
Is there a single ruling in the history of the Supreme Court that supports your bizarre interpretation?
RTFA please:
EVERYBODY LOSES. IBM also has designed chips at the heart of the competing video-game systems -- the Playstation 3 from Sony and Nintendo's forthcoming Revolution system, both of which are due next year. Crotty expects that Sony's loss on the Playstation 3 may be even wider, as the cell processor that IBM, Toshiba, and Sony designed for the system is more complex.
Why should a younger person trust another when they can't even record a program on their VCR?
Thats an older example, but still relevant. I heard of a study from 12+ years ago, that said that the lower your education the more likely you are to be able to program your VCR. The highschool dropout was the most likely, and the PhD was the least likely.
So why don't we combine your two "insights":
Why should a younger person trust another person, when they've probably got a highschool diploma? Or maybe a PhD?
(Who was it who said: 'Those who don't know UNIX are condemned to recreate it. Badly.' ?)
Everybody else in this thread, maybe?
Re:Cheaper yes, but less skilled?
on
The H-1B Swindle
·
· Score: 1
First, nobody said the were less skilled. The H1B program is meant to bring people who are uniquely qualified such that their skills cannot be found in the local labor pool. The disparity in pay is thus not what one would expect if that was the case and leads the to conclusion that cheap labor is the main driver of the import of H1B workers.
Secondly, what you call "Protectionism" is really just immigration law. Why should it be okay for a software company to go to Pakistan to get a worker, but not okay for a Pakistani worker to come the the US to get a job? That's what free trade in the labor market would mean.
So you're saying that all the protections the workers have fought for and earned could never be rolled back?! There are plenty of places in this world were there are no unions. Where do you think you're better off being a worker? Or simply look at the US during the period when unions did not exist. Do you think you would have been better off being a worker 100 years ago? What exactly has changed in the nature of the labor market such that empolyers are unable to abuse their power?
If your point is that the US is more tolerant than most of the Arab world, then it's hard to disagree. But it always frustrates me that the people who make the most out of this comparison feel it demonstrates the inherent superiority of out Western Christian institutions over those of the rest of the world. In fact, any real tolerance in our political life has been acheived in the face of strong oppostion from those same religious institutions. And those forces of reaction are still alive and well (I'm sure they get plenty of death threats at the South Park offices) The less inherently superior we think we are the more tolerant we become; to use our alleged tolerance as one more sign of our "chosen" status is idiotic.
If your point is that only the government is able to breach your rights (as your examples seems to indicate) it's a bizarre claim. If I hit you over the head and take your wallet I've breached your rights, if I short-change you at the 7-11, I've breached your rights. While governments do abuse their authority regularly, that authority is legitimately used in ensuring your rights. Against corporate entities, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
In the first place, I don't think it's correct that consensus is inherently unscientific. Underlying scietific method is the premise that any rational individual can replicate the experiment, or examine the data, and come to the same conclusion. Consensus is the fall-out of a correct scientific claim.
Now, as you rightly point out, corruption can intefere with this process and needs to be watched for. But among the 3 you mention(Science, Media, and the Public), Science has the better track record. Throw in the Govt, Industry, and Religion, and they still come out on top, IMO. What incident of scientific corruption you put up against what we've seen from the other instiutions in just the last century?
I think the "evil" part of it is that Google is warning media outlets to stop using a perfectly cromulent word or (presumably) face legal action, just because it is, as you point out, inconvenient for them.
Google is a business. If they don't [DO X], they're committing suicide. If the management doesn't, they're going to be sued into oblivion by their shareholders.
Pointing out that a corporation needs to do something to protect it's business is no defense against the claim that the action in question is evil.
1) Isn't the bad part that people are paying the monthly fee and not watching the movies? 2) Even if you don't think it's bad, it certainly points out an interesting facet of economic freedom. Newsflash, once people don't have any external factor causing them to order their priorities, they seem to have a hard time doing it themselves.
My ego? Get a grip - most professors' salaries are pathetic compared to what they could make in industry. You don't go into academia because of ego, you either do it because you love research for the sake of knowledge, or you love teaching. I happen to love both.
You just hate your students.
I don't know what you're teaching, but it sure isnt' logic. How does that fact that your doing it for pennies mean that it's not ego-driven. If anything it proves the point; they can have you at a discount if they give you room full of easily-itimidated 19 year olds.
If he knew what the hell he was doing, he wouldn't need to be in my class in the first place.
Amen to that.
Isn't there a less tinfoily version of this? -- Banks want you to borrow their money because that's how the make money!!!
From slashdot: "An employee of law firm Jones Day found legal memos showing that their client, Diebold Election Systems, had used uncertified voting systems in Alameda County elections beginning in 2002 - violating California election law."
From the la times: In the memos, a Jones Day attorney opined that using uncertified voting systems violated California election law and that if Diebold had employed an uncertified system, Alameda County could sue the company for breaching its $12.7-million contract. The documents also revealed that Diebold's attorneys were exploring whether the California secretary of state had the authority to investigate the company for alleged election law violations.
In other words, the documents didn't show that Diebold did anything wrong. Just that their lawyers were discussing the law.
I think this case has probably more to do with a law firm protecting its confidentiality and the security of it's documents, than Diebold protecting itself from exposure.
Unless you're in China of course.
Why would it be worse for Chinese freedom to have no Google rather than a censored Google? It advances the cause of freedom for them to be able to access information (from Google evidently) about stamp collecting or cigars but not about bird flu or democracy? It seems to me that anything allowed by the government would eventually be provided by someone, so what would they be losing?
The best way to help the Chinese people to liberate themselves from the repressive censorship they face is by helping the government do it better. Reverse psychology! The old switcheroo! Brilliant!!
And anyhow, in the US I'm not free to poop in the street. In China they're not free to criticise the government. So who's to say who's really free and who's not.
The Nazi party never recieved a majority in any election. A coaltion government, headed by Hitler, was elected by a slim majority in 1933, and that was after the Reichstag fire and the laws that effectively outlawed much of the Nazi's political oppostion. In any event, it was in mid 1934 that Hitler became Fuhurer. Thus the "democratic" Nazi government lasted about 1 year, which was how long it took them to dismantle the German constitution.
But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship...
I wouldn't rely on Goering as an authority about what is possible or not in a democracy. It's like when a tobacco executive says "Well there are all sorts of things that can give you cancer. Heck you can get cancer from wheat germ, right?" If it was so simple to get people to simply "go along" in a democracy, the why did the Nazis feel the need to opt out of theirs? Also why wasn't the US at war with Germany in 1940? Had it been left to Roosevelt, he certainly would have just dragged everyone along.
but in the end gives the clear impression that this about a bad implementation, not about an intended design
I don't really understand the relevance of that distinction. I'm a developer and if I break something, nobody cares if I did it through inompetence or because I thought it would be a good idea to do so. And why should they?
1) FDR failed in his attempt to stack the court.
2) For the sake of argument, let's say that the New Deal courts did in fact expand the power of federal government to regulate what had previoulsy been considered a intrastate, or even private, enterprise. (eg. workers rights). That is the point of your citation, but it has nothing to do with the interpretation you put forth, namely that constitution does not grant the federal gov't the right to regulate interstate and international trade.
3)If I understand your last remark correctly you are saying that there is in fact no Supreme Court case that supports this interpretation.
Elastic? You've just stretched it beyond all recognition.
...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
Looks pretty clear to me. "Commerce" did indeed mean all sorts of human interaction INCLUDING economic activity. In other words, the current understanding of the language is more restrictive than you're suggesting.
Is there a single ruling in the history of the Supreme Court that supports your bizarre interpretation?
MOD PARENT UP!
RTFA please:
EVERYBODY LOSES. IBM also has designed chips at the heart of the competing video-game systems -- the Playstation 3 from Sony and Nintendo's forthcoming Revolution system, both of which are due next year. Crotty expects that Sony's loss on the Playstation 3 may be even wider, as the cell processor that IBM, Toshiba, and Sony designed for the system is more complex.
Why should a younger person trust another when they can't even record a program on their VCR?
Thats an older example, but still relevant. I heard of a study from 12+ years ago, that said that the lower your education the more likely you are to be able to program your VCR. The highschool dropout was the most likely, and the PhD was the least likely.
So why don't we combine your two "insights":
Why should a younger person trust another person, when they've probably got a highschool diploma? Or maybe a PhD?
(Who was it who said: 'Those who don't know UNIX are condemned to recreate it. Badly.' ?)
Everybody else in this thread, maybe?
First, nobody said the were less skilled. The H1B program is meant to bring people who are uniquely qualified such that their skills cannot be found in the local labor pool. The disparity in pay is thus not what one would expect if that was the case and leads the to conclusion that cheap labor is the main driver of the import of H1B workers.
Secondly, what you call "Protectionism" is really just immigration law. Why should it be okay for a software company to go to Pakistan to get a worker, but not okay for a Pakistani worker to come the the US to get a job? That's what free trade in the labor market would mean.
So you're saying that all the protections the workers have fought for and earned could never be rolled back?! There are plenty of places in this world were there are no unions. Where do you think you're better off being a worker? Or simply look at the US during the period when unions did not exist. Do you think you would have been better off being a worker 100 years ago? What exactly has changed in the nature of the labor market such that empolyers are unable to abuse their power?
Yeah, they're like fire departments in that way. Once a fire is out, they should be disbanded.
If your point is that the US is more tolerant than most of the Arab world, then it's hard to disagree. But it always frustrates me that the people who make the most out of this comparison feel it demonstrates the inherent superiority of out Western Christian institutions over those of the rest of the world. In fact, any real tolerance in our political life has been acheived in the face of strong oppostion from those same religious institutions. And those forces of reaction are still alive and well (I'm sure they get plenty of death threats at the South Park offices) The less inherently superior we think we are the more tolerant we become; to use our alleged tolerance as one more sign of our "chosen" status is idiotic.
If your point is that only the government is able to breach your rights (as your examples seems to indicate) it's a bizarre claim. If I hit you over the head and take your wallet I've breached your rights, if I short-change you at the 7-11, I've breached your rights. While governments do abuse their authority regularly, that authority is legitimately used in ensuring your rights. Against corporate entities, for example.
You're absolutely right. The good thing about keys is that it's impossible to get locked out.
But E-bay got in at the last second.