That's unethical. You can't treat someone for a disease with a placebo.
Of course you can. How do you think drug trials work? Ethical or not, an untreated control group is the only way to ensure that the treatment is effective, and that any improvement isn't due to environmental/unrelated factors.
Another option is to use standard treatments combined with your new therapy, and then have a control group do standard treatments alone.
This is also a valid option, but what happens when the standard treatements can't be combined with the new treatments?
Previously I couldn't understand why on earth Firefox changed the system, but now after changing back from the new system I find it a little annoying having to trek the mouse across the screen to close every tab.
Ctrl+W is your friend. I can't remember the last time I closed the current window with the mouse.
Actually, the person who pays the bill depends on the scenario. If it's face-to-face, then the issuing bank generally picks up the tab -- unless it's something easily preventable, like the customer signature not matching the one on the card.
Interesting to note that dollar amounts from CC fraud have been steadily declining in recent years, as banks and merchants have gotten better at detection and prevention.
Healthy individuals don't shed nucleated cells into urine; therefore such a ploy wouldn't generally accomplish much beyond making the rape victim smell badly.
I think that depends on the context. Though your example isn't exactly analagous, I'll roll with it. You're right -- if they said, "You can't distribute this", then it would not (and should not) stand as law.
However, if they said, "In order to distribute this, you must first acquire a permit and agree to distribute your pamphlets only to persons over the age of 18", that WOULD stand.
Laws such as this are commonplace -- if you don't believe it, look in any of the many small towns which require permits for parades or even protests. Google for "protest permit", for example.
I am not claiming to understand the legal reasons why these are acceptable (because I don't), but I'm assuming it's because the activity in question is not actually banned. Instead, it's merely limited in a way that's acceptable to the community.
You'll notice that when I responded to your post, I covered all of it. I did not selectively choose the parts which directly supported my case. I did not quote you out of context to try and prove a point. I analyzed and drew reasonable conclusions strictly from what you said.
Is it really too much to ask that you return the courtesy?
When you're willing to do so so -- beginning by responding to what I actually posted instead what you try to convince yourself I've posted -- I will be happy to resume this discussion. If you wish further explanation of why I'm ending the conversation here, please see the "pet peeve" on my profile page. If I hadn't set that a couple of months ago, one could almost believe that it's there in your honor.
Wow -- finally, a law where it belongs. This kind of legislation is what is intended by allowing municipalities the right to create and enforce their own laws. Not at the national or state level, where the opinions of few are forced upon the many, with no alternative. Instead, at the municipal level, which is presumably much more representative of the will of majority of residents than any legislation at the state or national level.
Actually, you're wrong. From wikipedia, a straw man argument can be set up as follows:
Quote an opponent's words "out of context"...
I haven't done this, there's no question.
Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
Nope. haven't done this.
Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
I haven't done this either, there's no question.
Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
Have I done that here? Presumably, this is the one you're referring to. I don't believe that I have done this -- there's a vast difference between making an assumption based upon someone's stated comments, and deliberately making them out to hold a position that they don't.
Further, my assumption was not an unreasonable one. You told GP that he was a part of a larger problem than this one issue, and I quote: "If you are not, you are part of the problem with industry today: the customer doesn't give a shit.".
With this statement, I do not believe it unreasonable to think that you are referring to industry at large; you did not say "the industry" or "the computer industry". Instead you said "industry" - this certainly implies to me that you are no longer referring to the computer/chip industry, but industry as a whole.
Based on your statement, I did assume (apparently wrongly) that you were implying that you were NOT part of the problem with industry today, because you DO give a shit. At least, you do based on the chip performance example you provided.
I said that I am willing to do so. He said that he was not willing to do so. I didn't say that "I exhaustively investigate every company before I do business with them."
Now who's setting up the straw man? I did not say that you claimed that. I did not imply that you claimed that. It is (in my opinion, after rereading both posts) in no way reasonable for you to think that I implied that. That means you are deliberately misinterpreting my position.
Therefore, I will be perfectly clear on my intent with that post. By your own definition, YOU are part of the problem within industry today; by extension, your calling the GP part of the problem is a bit hypocritical.
One of two things that would make me incorrect. 1. You misspoke when you told GP that he was part of the problem with industry, and cited your own example; perhaps you simply meant to say 'the chip industry', or 2. You do perform the diligence that outlined in my original post.
If neither one is true, I still stand by my statements. I am open to further discussion as to anything else that would make my statement above incorrect, in the context of this conversation.
If you want go back to school, learn how the English language works, and then come back and debate me, I will happily entertain your attempt. I pray only that it is less pathetic than this one.
Instead of addressing my valid points which were based on reasonable conclusions drawn from the statement you made, you've sidestepped the issue I raised completely, and even tried to put me on the defensive. In conclusion, you launch an ad hominem attack, apropros of nothing.
Well done.
I am willing to sacrifice a few pecentage points worth of performance in exchange for buying from a [somewhat more] ethical company.
If you are not, you are part of the problem with industry today: the customer doesn't give a shit.
What a ridiculous, overbroad statement. Well - I take that back. If you apply that belief equally, in every facet of your life, then it is neither ridiculous nor overbroad.
That would mean that that you research each and every company you purchase from, for every item you purchase. It also means that you boycott radio and TV stations on the basis of their advertisers -- because surely you research all of the advertisers as well, to avoid consuming product that they are paying for. Likewise, you'd rather run out of gas and walk when the only nearby gas station is a supplier for an "unethical" oil company. Do you download RIAA-produced music? No? Do you purchase it? Either way you're supporting an unethical group of companies -- the only way to avoid it is not to listen to, download, or purchase ANY music from these sources (directly or indirectly).
The list goes on and on. What? You don't do all of these things? Then you must be the type of consumer who is part of the problem with industry today: you don't give a shit.
I advise against make sweeping generalizations based on your narrow frame of reference. Scratch that. I advise against making sweeping generalizations at all.
Then I read the content, and realized I/still/ can't access a PDA-friendly online version of wikipedia.
All I really want is to be able to browse it online from my mobile device (64MB) without it being ugly.
My response when I hear that stuff is being outsourced to India? Bring it on. Sooner or later, doing stuff on the cheap is going to bite people, and they will (and have) paid me good money to fix their stuff
I am not saying that there are no such companies. I am, however, saying that I've never had the privelege of working with one; nor have several coworkers who have experience with other companies. (Since it's second-hand, I'm not going to list names.)
And to be honest, if one of the biggest-name IT resource providers in India produces work that's this bad, I'm not particularly interested in wasting further time and money in shopping around.
Slashdot Mirror
See? Told ya...
OMG ponies!
Mods -- you most likely don't get the joke, so go ahead and mod me offtopic.
Ctrl+W is your friend. I can't remember the last time I closed the current window with the mouse.
Actually, the person who pays the bill depends on the scenario. If it's face-to-face, then the issuing bank generally picks up the tab -- unless it's something easily preventable, like the customer signature not matching the one on the card.
Interesting to note that dollar amounts from CC fraud have been steadily declining in recent years, as banks and merchants have gotten better at detection and prevention.
Absolutely -- I was refering to GP, who posted info about FF memory usage in response to you, but didn't post any actual comparison.
In order to do a comparison benchmark, shouldn't you be... you know, comparing against something?
Healthy individuals don't shed nucleated cells into urine; therefore such a ploy wouldn't generally accomplish much beyond making the rape victim smell badly.
I think that depends on the context. Though your example isn't exactly analagous, I'll roll with it. You're right -- if they said, "You can't distribute this", then it would not (and should not) stand as law.
However, if they said, "In order to distribute this, you must first acquire a permit and agree to distribute your pamphlets only to persons over the age of 18", that WOULD stand.
Laws such as this are commonplace -- if you don't believe it, look in any of the many small towns which require permits for parades or even protests. Google for "protest permit", for example.
I am not claiming to understand the legal reasons why these are acceptable (because I don't), but I'm assuming it's because the activity in question is not actually banned. Instead, it's merely limited in a way that's acceptable to the community.
Side note: what I find worth a chuckle is that two mods failed to see what you were doing, and modded you up for it.
I was making a facetious statement to prove a point. Based on your assumption and GP's in his reply, it seems that this must not have come across.
You'll notice that when I responded to your post, I covered all of it. I did not selectively choose the parts which directly supported my case. I did not quote you out of context to try and prove a point. I analyzed and drew reasonable conclusions strictly from what you said.
Is it really too much to ask that you return the courtesy?
When you're willing to do so so -- beginning by responding to what I actually posted instead what you try to convince yourself I've posted -- I will be happy to resume this discussion. If you wish further explanation of why I'm ending the conversation here, please see the "pet peeve" on my profile page. If I hadn't set that a couple of months ago, one could almost believe that it's there in your honor.
Wow -- finally, a law where it belongs. This kind of legislation is what is intended by allowing municipalities the right to create and enforce their own laws. Not at the national or state level, where the opinions of few are forced upon the many, with no alternative. Instead, at the municipal level, which is presumably much more representative of the will of majority of residents than any legislation at the state or national level.
Actually, you're wrong. From wikipedia, a straw man argument can be set up as follows:
Quote an opponent's words "out of context"...
I haven't done this, there's no question.
Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
Nope. haven't done this.
Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
I haven't done this either, there's no question.
Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
Have I done that here? Presumably, this is the one you're referring to. I don't believe that I have done this -- there's a vast difference between making an assumption based upon someone's stated comments, and deliberately making them out to hold a position that they don't.
Further, my assumption was not an unreasonable one. You told GP that he was a part of a larger problem than this one issue, and I quote: "If you are not, you are part of the problem with industry today: the customer doesn't give a shit.".
With this statement, I do not believe it unreasonable to think that you are referring to industry at large; you did not say "the industry" or "the computer industry". Instead you said "industry" - this certainly implies to me that you are no longer referring to the computer/chip industry, but industry as a whole.
Based on your statement, I did assume (apparently wrongly) that you were implying that you were NOT part of the problem with industry today, because you DO give a shit. At least, you do based on the chip performance example you provided.
I said that I am willing to do so. He said that he was not willing to do so. I didn't say that "I exhaustively investigate every company before I do business with them."
Now who's setting up the straw man? I did not say that you claimed that. I did not imply that you claimed that. It is (in my opinion, after rereading both posts) in no way reasonable for you to think that I implied that. That means you are deliberately misinterpreting my position.
Therefore, I will be perfectly clear on my intent with that post. By your own definition, YOU are part of the problem within industry today; by extension, your calling the GP part of the problem is a bit hypocritical.
One of two things that would make me incorrect. 1. You misspoke when you told GP that he was part of the problem with industry, and cited your own example; perhaps you simply meant to say 'the chip industry', or 2. You do perform the diligence that outlined in my original post.
If neither one is true, I still stand by my statements. I am open to further discussion as to anything else that would make my statement above incorrect, in the context of this conversation.
If you want go back to school, learn how the English language works, and then come back and debate me, I will happily entertain your attempt. I pray only that it is less pathetic than this one.
Instead of addressing my valid points which were based on reasonable conclusions drawn from the statement you made, you've sidestepped the issue I raised completely, and even tried to put me on the defensive. In conclusion, you launch an ad hominem attack, apropros of nothing. Well done.
I am willing to sacrifice a few pecentage points worth of performance in exchange for buying from a [somewhat more] ethical company.
If you are not, you are part of the problem with industry today: the customer doesn't give a shit.
What a ridiculous, overbroad statement. Well - I take that back. If you apply that belief equally, in every facet of your life, then it is neither ridiculous nor overbroad.
That would mean that that you research each and every company you purchase from, for every item you purchase. It also means that you boycott radio and TV stations on the basis of their advertisers -- because surely you research all of the advertisers as well, to avoid consuming product that they are paying for. Likewise, you'd rather run out of gas and walk when the only nearby gas station is a supplier for an "unethical" oil company. Do you download RIAA-produced music? No? Do you purchase it? Either way you're supporting an unethical group of companies -- the only way to avoid it is not to listen to, download, or purchase ANY music from these sources (directly or indirectly).
The list goes on and on. What? You don't do all of these things? Then you must be the type of consumer who is part of the problem with industry today: you don't give a shit.
I advise against make sweeping generalizations based on your narrow frame of reference. Scratch that. I advise against making sweeping generalizations at all.
No, seriously. Mod parent up. That was funny.
Then I read the content, and realized I /still/ can't access a PDA-friendly online version of wikipedia.
All I really want is to be able to browse it online from my mobile device (64MB) without it being ugly.
If I weren't married, I'd propose.
If you buy something good with lots of room for expansion, and take good care of your computer, you shouldn't have to replace it every 2 years.
Let's not deceive ourselves with that "have to". Need has nothing to do with this.Show me a video of my grandmother (deceased: 1982) using this, and I'll buy stock!
My response when I hear that stuff is being outsourced to India? Bring it on. Sooner or later, doing stuff on the cheap is going to bite people, and they will (and have) paid me good money to fix their stuff
My sentiments exactly.I am not saying that there are no such companies. I am, however, saying that I've never had the privelege of working with one; nor have several coworkers who have experience with other companies. (Since it's second-hand, I'm not going to list names.)
And to be honest, if one of the biggest-name IT resource providers in India produces work that's this bad, I'm not particularly interested in wasting further time and money in shopping around.
Can we PLEASE get a "-1 Stupid" mod option?
If I wanted links to blogs pretending to be news articles, I'd be at digg.