I believe the grandparent made an assumption that immigrants == low skill. That may not be always true, but it certainly is true some of the time. Those illegal workers are often paid beneath the minimum wage. That supports the grandparent's point that there are jobs available for people willing to accept less than minimum wage.
It is worth noting (IMHO) that there is nothing wrong with the business being selfish. Workers are selfish. I come to work to get paid, not to do a good deed.
You are pretty misguided about AA, at least AA as described in the book, Alcoholics Anonymous. AA is not about self control. AA is for people whose self control and own will power has failed them, usually in spectacular fashion. Nothing in AA suggests that others or God be blamed for someone's actions. AA is not about ducking responsibility. In fact, just the opposite is true. Rigorous honesty is what the program requires and prescribes.
Instead of critically analyzing AA, why not look at the fruit of the program. Many miserable drunks who couldn't keep jobs, locked up in institutions and were not far off from drinking themselves to death have experienced recoveries that are truly miracles. Those results speak for themselves.
The word prove in the previous post is a joke, probably only appreciated by ex-Metallica fans. My apologies for a poor joke.
As far as not having anything to do with trademark law, maybe not directly. However, fair use as an idea transcends any particular law (copyright, trademark or otherwise). How this case will be ruled according to law, I have no idea. How it should be ruled is this:
Any law which restricts freedom of speech should be subject to the provisions of fair use, where applicable.
Besides, they definitely aren't satirizing the seal itself. If they were, they'd probably be okay. But they're using the real seal.
It's difficult to quantify something like this, but I believe that most parodies usually include the trademark or name of the intended victim. One example that comes to mind is the flash cartoons that poked fun at Metallica when they were lawsuit happy. They used the trademarked name Metallica.
Metallica never sued the cartoon makers, proving that trademarks can be used in satires and parodies.
To avoid further accusations of crystal ball gazing, environmentalists and scientists now need to find further ways of improving the accuracy of models to provide more meaningful inputs into environmental policy making. "If we don't improve our forecasting soon then not only will the climate skeptics find it easy to criticize climate change research, but we will be left making decisions about the future of the planet based on guesswork" says Dr Ladle.
Again, if you are trying to convince people that these models are accurate, try an article that supports your point.
Unlike previous studies that have provided untestable forecasts of range changes in response to future climate change, the Oxford study was able to directly compare the predicted range changes with what actually occurred. Surprisingly, the ability of any single model to accurately predict the 1991 distribution was very poor.
Is this supposed to support the greatness of the current models?
Your phrase: "belief in science" is a perfect description of how many people think today. Science is the new religion. The scientists are the high priests. Sorry that isn't how I think. I do have an open mind, but I am also a skeptic. If you or anyone else wants me to believe something, convince me, don't hide behind an expert designation (I'm referring to scientists, not you) and expect me to just accept it.
I would also recommend using sources that back up your premise as well.
Oh, and while we're retaining our objective scientific tone, I'll add that manmade climate change is the most reliable model we have, with which we successfully make predictions about further climate change.
I doubt there is just one model, but I'll ignore that for now. Please give me a prediction that this model has made, the time it was made, and when it came true. If you'd really like to convince me, list multiple predictions that have come true.
That's what science is: making hypotheses(sp?) and testing them. Without the test part, models mean nothing to me.
It seems to me that maybe the "hatred towards smart people" might actually be "hatred of smart people who try to tell me what to think and get pissed when I don't automatically believe them."
When I see, read, or hear about smart people who actually do cool things, I never hear about people hating them. People love Albert Einstein. People love guys like Henry Ford. I bet most people think highly of the engineers and scientists at Motorola, Intel, IBM and Google. People like and respect smart people who do smart people things. At least that has been my experience.
And I'm not talking about school either. School is often insidious torture for smart people. But that isn't society's fault, that is the school's fault.
It isn't just science education. It's the math education, too. Math education in this country sucks. Really sucks.
All the math classes I have seen or heard of in the US are all about learning the "designated correct" way of doing things. If you came to the right answer using sound mathematical principles that differ from the procedural manner taught, you are marked wrong. It's as if learning about mathematics and learning how to do well in math class are two entirely different subjects.
The current system teaches following directions at the expense of critical thinking. Learning to follow directions is certainly useful, but it shouldn't be the entire point of math classes and the educational system as a whole.
What we have is a system that turns out automatons, not intelligent people capable of *using* math (and other education) as a tool. Here is an inside opinion on what our school system really teaches, from the state of NY's Teacher of the Year:
This is offtopic, but it is also worth noting that the debate itself is controlled by the Democrats and Republicans.
"In 1987 the bi-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was formed - a private entity run by former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties."
Only one thing should determine if someone is a programmer, journalist, cook, landscaper, etc. Whether the person in question can perform the job. Past experience is a far better indicator than any licensing or crap like that.
Think of it this way: What makes Linus Torvalds (or whoever) a programmer? His credentials? His schooling/training? Or his work?
That is the beauty of freedom in the marketplace or otherwise. Those that can, simply do.
Why should "professional" journalists receive special government protection of any kind? The law should protect amateurs and professionals alike. The government has no place deciding which journalists are designated to receive protection under shield laws.
"Privatization strikes again. You put the infrastructure into the hands of a few powerful people and this is what you will get."
Are you arguing that government control moves power from the few to the many? That is backwards to my way of thinking. The quickest way I can think of to concentrate power is to put the government in charge of it.
"Privatization strikes again. You put the infrastructure into the hands of a few powerful people and this is what you will get."
Are you arguing that government control moves power from the few to the many? That is backwards to my way of thinking. The quickest way I can think of to concentrate power is to put the government in charge of it.
I didn't know that they awarded the Nobel Prize for being smart. My uninformed guess would be that he got the Nobel Prize because he discovered and delivered some very useful information to the world.
Markets work when we let them work. I believe that (even) well-intentioned regulations can backfire by raising the cost for a competitor to enter a given market. Competition is what makes markets work.
Just a computer guy thinking about economics. Beware.
"I am not sure either how this thought process became so prevalent in the US."
Great question. I hate to sound cynical, but I believe we (in the US) are too dominated by fear of risk. We have become really, really risk averse. We want insurance around every corner, for every thing. I believe this mentality also exists in excessive certification-itis. We always want to check the credentials. And I do it too. I guess this is probably because a) the world is complex today, we rely on lots of different people to do and know about things we don't know. b) we are lazy. c) the damn media.
Isn't the point of the scientific method to remove subjective human opinion? Perhaps I am overly cynical, but I do not automatically trust anything run or funded by the government to be unbiased and altruistic. Maybe it is sometimes, but I'm not willing to make the assumption that it always is.
I think the best approach is to encourage everyone to publish scientific papers and let others see it and criticize it. This seems similar to much of open source development. We don't worry that coder X writing bad code will screw everything up for the rest of us. The "system" or whatever you want to call it, naturally promotes the good stuff and loses the bad stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Dada21 isn't the only one. The current public education system sucks. Here is a critique of the public school system from an insider:
http://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html
I believe the grandparent made an assumption that immigrants == low skill. That may not be always true, but it certainly is true some of the time. Those illegal workers are often paid beneath the minimum wage. That supports the grandparent's point that there are jobs available for people willing to accept less than minimum wage.
It is worth noting (IMHO) that there is nothing wrong with the business being selfish. Workers are selfish. I come to work to get paid, not to do a good deed.
You are pretty misguided about AA, at least AA as described in the book, Alcoholics Anonymous. AA is not about self control. AA is for people whose self control and own will power has failed them, usually in spectacular fashion. Nothing in AA suggests that others or God be blamed for someone's actions. AA is not about ducking responsibility. In fact, just the opposite is true. Rigorous honesty is what the program requires and prescribes.
Instead of critically analyzing AA, why not look at the fruit of the program. Many miserable drunks who couldn't keep jobs, locked up in institutions and were not far off from drinking themselves to death have experienced recoveries that are truly miracles. Those results speak for themselves.
There haven't been any new coal generating power plants built in the US in over 20 years.
One would think that as electricity demand goes up, coal consumption would also increase. Conservation of Energy and all that good stuff.
I have an iAudio M3. It works exactly as you want. I plug it into my Linux box, copy files over and they play.
The word prove in the previous post is a joke, probably only appreciated by ex-Metallica fans. My apologies for a poor joke.
As far as not having anything to do with trademark law, maybe not directly. However, fair use as an idea transcends any particular law (copyright, trademark or otherwise). How this case will be ruled according to law, I have no idea. How it should be ruled is this:
Any law which restricts freedom of speech should be subject to the provisions of fair use, where applicable.
Besides, they definitely aren't satirizing the seal itself. If they were, they'd probably be okay. But they're using the real seal.
It's difficult to quantify something like this, but I believe that most parodies usually include the trademark or name of the intended victim. One example that comes to mind is the flash cartoons that poked fun at Metallica when they were lawsuit happy. They used the trademarked name Metallica.
Metallica never sued the cartoon makers, proving that trademarks can be used in satires and parodies.
Suing for a share of the company's profits? That is just scary. Why should Apple be liable for one cent more than the price of the nano?
Here is the conclusion of that article:
To avoid further accusations of crystal ball gazing, environmentalists and scientists now need to find further ways of improving the accuracy of models to provide more meaningful inputs into environmental policy making. "If we don't improve our forecasting soon then not only will the climate skeptics find it easy to criticize climate change research, but we will be left making decisions about the future of the planet based on guesswork" says Dr Ladle.
Again, if you are trying to convince people that these models are accurate, try an article that supports your point.
Unlike previous studies that have provided untestable forecasts of range changes in response to future climate change, the Oxford study was able to directly compare the predicted range changes with what actually occurred. Surprisingly, the ability of any single model to accurately predict the 1991 distribution was very poor.
Is this supposed to support the greatness of the current models?
Your phrase: "belief in science" is a perfect description of how many people think today. Science is the new religion. The scientists are the high priests. Sorry that isn't how I think. I do have an open mind, but I am also a skeptic. If you or anyone else wants me to believe something, convince me, don't hide behind an expert designation (I'm referring to scientists, not you) and expect me to just accept it.
I would also recommend using sources that back up your premise as well.
Oh, and while we're retaining our objective scientific tone, I'll add that manmade climate change is the most reliable model we have, with which we successfully make predictions about further climate change.
I doubt there is just one model, but I'll ignore that for now. Please give me a prediction that this model has made, the time it was made, and when it came true. If you'd really like to convince me, list multiple predictions that have come true.
That's what science is: making hypotheses(sp?) and testing them. Without the test part, models mean nothing to me.
It seems to me that maybe the "hatred towards smart people" might actually be "hatred of smart people who try to tell me what to think and get pissed when I don't automatically believe them."
When I see, read, or hear about smart people who actually do cool things, I never hear about people hating them. People love Albert Einstein. People love guys like Henry Ford. I bet most people think highly of the engineers and scientists at Motorola, Intel, IBM and Google. People like and respect smart people who do smart people things. At least that has been my experience.
And I'm not talking about school either. School is often insidious torture for smart people. But that isn't society's fault, that is the school's fault.
It isn't just science education. It's the math education, too. Math education in this country sucks. Really sucks.
All the math classes I have seen or heard of in the US are all about learning the "designated correct" way of doing things. If you came to the right answer using sound mathematical principles that differ from the procedural manner taught, you are marked wrong. It's as if learning about mathematics and learning how to do well in math class are two entirely different subjects.
The current system teaches following directions at the expense of critical thinking. Learning to follow directions is certainly useful, but it shouldn't be the entire point of math classes and the educational system as a whole.
What we have is a system that turns out automatons, not intelligent people capable of *using* math (and other education) as a tool. Here is an inside opinion on what our school system really teaches, from the state of NY's Teacher of the Year:
http://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html
Groklaw should qualify as well.
This is offtopic, but it is also worth noting that the debate itself is controlled by the Democrats and Republicans.
"In 1987 the bi-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was formed - a private entity run by former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties."
http://www.debatethis.org/
Only one thing should determine if someone is a programmer, journalist, cook, landscaper, etc. Whether the person in question can perform the job. Past experience is a far better indicator than any licensing or crap like that.
Think of it this way:
What makes Linus Torvalds (or whoever) a programmer?
His credentials?
His schooling/training?
Or his work?
That is the beauty of freedom in the marketplace or otherwise. Those that can, simply do.
Why should "professional" journalists receive special government protection of any kind? The law should protect amateurs and professionals alike. The government has no place deciding which journalists are designated to receive protection under shield laws.
"Privatization strikes again. You put the infrastructure into the hands of a few powerful people and this is what you will get."
Are you arguing that government control moves power from the few to the many? That is backwards to my way of thinking. The quickest way I can think of to concentrate power is to put the government in charge of it.
"Privatization strikes again. You put the infrastructure into the hands of a few powerful people and this is what you will get." Are you arguing that government control moves power from the few to the many? That is backwards to my way of thinking. The quickest way I can think of to concentrate power is to put the government in charge of it.
I didn't know that they awarded the Nobel Prize for being smart. My uninformed guess would be that he got the Nobel Prize because he discovered and delivered some very useful information to the world.
Great post. I'll throw my 2 cents in:
Markets work when we let them work. I believe that (even) well-intentioned regulations can backfire by raising the cost for a competitor to enter a given market. Competition is what makes markets work.
Just a computer guy thinking about economics. Beware.
"I am not sure either how this thought process became so prevalent in the US."
Great question. I hate to sound cynical, but I believe we (in the US) are too dominated by fear of risk. We have become really, really risk averse. We want insurance around every corner, for every thing. I believe this mentality also exists in excessive certification-itis. We always want to check the credentials. And I do it too. I guess this is probably because a) the world is complex today, we rely on lots of different people to do and know about things we don't know. b) we are lazy. c) the damn media.
Isn't the point of the scientific method to remove subjective human opinion? Perhaps I am overly cynical, but I do not automatically trust anything run or funded by the government to be unbiased and altruistic. Maybe it is sometimes, but I'm not willing to make the assumption that it always is.
I think the best approach is to encourage everyone to publish scientific papers and let others see it and criticize it. This seems similar to much of open source development. We don't worry that coder X writing bad code will screw everything up for the rest of us. The "system" or whatever you want to call it, naturally promotes the good stuff and loses the bad stuff.
The grandparent post's math is fine. Your post doesn't contradict the gp, it supports it.
.001 Amps = 1mA
1000 batteries * 1.5 mW per battery = 1.5 W
check.
1000 batteries * 1.5 V per battery = 1500 V
check.
1.5W / 1500V =
P (watts) = V (volts) * I (amps). Therefore I = P/V.
The grandparent post's calculations are correct.