The correct way to visualize information is an interesting topic and his investigation of the London underground maps is a classic example of how something can be accurate but not precise, or maybe accurate in one dimension (connection/destination) but not another (direction). That said it's a stretch to say GPS needs to follow that mode. Unlike the underground when you're being informed of where you're going and where to get off and on different trains you're actually being informed of where you are relative to other items with a GPS. It's not just a direction giving system it's also a mapping system and a simplified representation is not enough to help you with that. Additionally, my GPS is extremely helpful in large cities with telling me which lanes I'm going to need to be in to take certain exits. It does this with a simple graphic I can glance at and not voice commands which I might miss. This is very good on a major freeway at rush hour. I love the topic but I think his dislike of the GPS map visualization is off as it does a very good job IMO.
Context, man, context. This post is picking apart a rather lengthy, and as it turns out, spurious argument by one of these non-PhDs. So poor, in fact, that you got to wonder if it was made in good faith.
That is the issue in the "climate debate", not qualifications, but good faith. Get this into your head if you haven't already: there are people out there paid to spread noise. Not to "win" the debate, but spread FUD. Look up, say, Steve Milloy or Marc Morano on sourcewatch, they have impressive credentials! Milloy from tobacco, Morano from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. They can make up plausible-sounding claims way faster than you can shoot them down, especially if you, as Sparkleby said, lack a PhD in a climate-related field. Even if you do, they win, because creating noise and appearance of controversy was what they aimed for in the first place.
Those two are just the top of the iceberg, one can easily be arguing against AGW in bad faith without having a well-documented history as a ruthless shill. So, how do you propose we defend ourselves from them?
My problem is that the article doesn't stick to refuting Eschenbach's flawed analysis. It instead goes on to tell us how we should decide who to listen to and the system it proposes is horrid. It doesn't include self-education but rather claims that's not practical. Additionally, it throws in random bits of data that are just as useless to informed understanding as Eschenbach's failed arguments. There are indeed FUD spewers out there as you point out. I'd go so far as to say that there are FUD spewers on every side of every issue these days and I'd argue that the author of the Economist piece because one when he left the path of rational analysis and started telling me which "high priests" to listen to and spouting random bits of data of Darwin temp data that are as useless in the conversation as Eschenbach's pile of crap..
Should you be completely dismissed because you don't have a Ph.D.?
the problem is : no-one with a PhD. can effectively, on a scientific basis, crack AGW. so, on the one hand we have a lot of scientists claiming it is real, and showing the research backing it up, on the other hand a lot of scientists trying to 'break' AGW, and failing.
So two points.
1. That doesn't have anything to do with my argument. I wasn't writing for or against global warming in my post. In fact I was very careful to avoid that because I think it isn't important to the problem I have with the article.
2. Since I can't keep my mouth shut I'll respond to the tangent you injected;) It tells me that research is going on and that I should look at the data being provided, educate myself, and act accordingly. It does not tell me that I should dismiss positions or analysis because they differ from my beliefs or that I should require a PhD before I consider your opinion. Now when I do that and I find the arguments for global warming to be the more persuasive I have no problem with acting but based on evidence presented not on some anonymous magazine article telling me who to listen to.
I largely agree with the spirit of what you're saying here, but you're conflating two issues. The author of the Economist article claims to not have the expertise to judge all of the scientific claims made in various quoted articles; so from his perspective, the smart thing to do is to believe the peer-reviewed consensus. That's all he's saying. However, this is NOT to say that global climate scientists within the field should do the same (and I think this is your point). They *do* need to listen to people outside their field and keep and open mind. It's their job.
No I was trying to ignore the issue of Eschenbach's credibility so that I can argue the other issue without conflating the two. I have no problem with his counter arguments to Eschenbach. I have a huge problem with his system of what to decide. If he can't educate himself then he needs to not act when there can be consequences, IMO. Anytime someone tells me that I should let someone else decide the validity of any opinion for me I find it very frightening.
You're absolutely correct, but the problem is that Mr Eschenbach *hasn't* shown such manipulation. Actually, the real problem is that Mr Eschenbach *thinks* that he has, but doesn't actually know what he doesn't know. In fact, in Mr Eschenbach's response to the Economist article, he states the following:
The question is, should temperatures more than a thousand km away from Darwin be used to arbitrarily adjust Darwin’s temperature by a huge amount? You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.
This quote demonstrates exactly why someone like Mr Eschenbach should be ignored by most people. First, the "arbitrarily adjust" comment reveals that he didn't even understand the explanations given for how things were adjusted (they weren't arbitrary, and that was wells stated). But second, he simply dismisses out-of-hand the possibility that two datasets separated by 1000 km can't be correlated!!! Uh, whoops.
This pretty much proves that Mr Eschenbach is wasting our time. He hasn't taken his own time to understand the arguments the scientists are making (or even basic statistics) and simply continues to repeat his claims.
So the fact that he isn't "decorated by academia" certainly doesn't mean we should dismiss his claims outright, but it probably does mean we should be a little bit more skeptical of his claims that are so far outside of his knowledge base.
And I think you've made my point here. You went out read the two articles looked at the discrepancy and found a logical fallacy which tells you who to believe. I'm good with that. It's a form of self-education. I'm not good with "don't listen to this guy because he's a voice from the wilderness".
Let me be clear I'm not taking the guy's position but the paragraph I quoted dismisses anyone who doesn't have a doctorate. Read it again. The author is claiming that because this guy is wrong and uninformed that he shouldn't be listened to and he advocates determining who should be listened to by their academic credentials. The whole thrust of the article (beside providing counter points to the guy) is to tell you who to listen to and how to decide who those people are. That is where I have the issue. Not with the counter arguments.
Option 4 is to listen to the "experts" and learn the set of tools you need to uncover their prejudices and axes to grind as you put it. You don't have to be an expert in the field to find problems in logic and data analysis. The article argued that you did have to be an expert in the field and that you had to be accredited to do these things. This is what I have an issue with.
The answer is to go and understand the issue. Look at the data and learn for yourself. The argument that it's so important that I must decide something is nuts. If I'm blind and driving on a road I know ends in a wall I know I'm going to eventually crash if I don't turn at some point. That doesn't mean the correct answer is to turn blindly. The answer is to gain enough information to make the right turn.
So I would argue that alot of the idiots voice problem you describe is a reaction to (or reformation of) the system that was too elitist. Grant you I think it's a bad reaction I still think we're bringing it on ourselves by being exclusionary and accusatory rather than educating people about issues. We focus too much on convincing people of our position than we do on teaching them our knowledge and letting them form a position of their own. In the short term they have the same effect (assuming we're right) but in the long term the persuasion approach is destructive while the education approach is empowering.
That said I want to address your free speech issue. Free speech isn't the issue it's the education of the listeners. The reason free speech is very important as an absolute concept is that it puts the power of deciding into the individual's sphere of responsibility which does bring up some of the problems you mention. However, it's rarely about wealth but more about persuasive ability. A persuasive man will find wealth and influence for his cause a purely wealthy man will not.
If you limit free speech you may take away the wealthy's ability to get their message out but you create another form of wealth which is held by those who control the restrictions of free speech. Now the persuasive must gather those resources instead of the wealthy's and you have the same problem in a different form. The only way I see to solve the issue is to encourage the individuals to be self-educating and to teach them. It's a slow process and it will take generations before it has any effect but it's the only thing that leads to a long term improvement IMO.
My argument would be that your premise is wrong you don't have to know what to believe. If it is important enough then you should spend the time and effort to inform yourself and understand the issues and the data that is available. Just listening to what others tells you is true is a good way to get an erroneous understanding anyway, especially if they don't understand it fully or have an agenda of which you are unaware.
Now to be clear I think that if you don't spend the time to understand it then you should refrain from actions which you know may have consequences based on that lack of understanding (alla voting for someone because they have a certain position on an issue you know you don't really understand).
Unfortunately, my system would in the extreme lead to an oligarchy of the informed so I would hope more people would take it upon themselves to educate themselves but even so I believe an oligarchy of the informed is better than an oligarchy of the persuasive which is what you get with a system that doesn't rely on education, and in my opinion this is much more dangerous.
Ok, I don't really care if he wrote anonymously or not but here is why I have an issue with him.
Well, here's my solution to this problem: this is why we have peer review. Average guys with websites can do a lot of amazing things. One thing they cannot do is reveal statistical manipulation in climate-change studies that require a PhD in a related field to understand. So for the time being, my response to any and all further "smoking gun" claims begins with: show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here. Otherwise, you're a crank and this is not a story.
Should you're words carry more weight because you have been trained in an area you are speaking on?...yep. Should you be completely dismissed because you don't have a PhD?...no and to suggest it is irresponsible and idiotic. To also suggest that someone not so decorated by academia can never show statistical manipulation is stupid as well. This is the modern version of holding mass in latin so that you have to come through the priest to get your religion. Modern "science" and more specifically the elitist academics need to be careful before there is a scientific backlash/reformation and the baby gets thrown out with the bath water. When you act like this and spread these types of attitudes you do more harm that good and eventually no one listens even if you're right.
So I'm not a law talking guy either but I did read the lawsuit and he's suing them under more than just the Lenham act.
First, Under Lahnam he's suing theme for false advertising that damaged TechCrunch
Second, Under California law he's suing them for "breach of fiduciary duty" claiming they violated an implicit partnership which is formed automatically under CA law (according to the lawsuit)
Third (I assume also under the California partnership theory) he's suing for "misappropriate of business ideas" and claiming that Fusion Garage doesn't own the IP but rather that the partnership does.
Forth, he's suing them for fraud under CA law claiming they were basically liars and thieves.
Fifth, he's claiming "unlawful business practices and false advertising" under CA law. (which I assume is similar to the first cause for action but under the CA state laws that are relevant rather than the Lanham Act)
It then goes on to say what should be done to make things right, demand a jury trial, and file some "exhibits". I'm not pro or con one way or the other but it's not as simple as he's filing suit under a trademark law so he doesn't have a chance and again, IANAL.
Part of the problem is what we call science. We regularly equate well known laws of the physical universe with theories at various stages of testing. We regularly seek to prove positive ideas we believe are true but don't have facts for yet sometimes even disregarding negative results. We regularly act as though because we can make a correlation we have shown causation. And all of this we insist on calling science. Just like Christians who choose to throw out the peace and judge not portions of scripture in favor of the "shall nots" or vice-versa and just like democracies that decide when basic freedoms should be valid based on circumstance we do ourselves irreparable harm when we violate scientific protocols and principles because we "know something should be true" or we justify our conclusions with "the consequences are just too high not to go this way". We can't have it both ways and we need to be true to our fundamental principles if we're going to hold science up as a framework for understanding.
I think some of this is applicable to climategate but to be absolutely clear I'm not qualified to make a truly informed opinion on that subject as I haven't studied any global warming data unless you count watching the Al Gore movie. I think this is a much deeper problem that affects various areas of scientific inquiry and how we teach what science is to our next generations of scientists.
Actually I think you do make an excellent point. Even as a Linux user with an interest in computing history I'm completely uninterested in actually owning the computer Linus used and yet the typewriter is somehow more interesting. It's mechanical and somehow more connected to the works written on it. It's stupid and irrational but before I read your comment I would have said that there was no difference but there is something more intrinsically interesting about mechanical machines as far as having them as collectors pieces goes.
If a contractor wants to be paid for being on call he/she should negotiate this up front. I suspect however they will learn the realities of the market take precedence and the job will go to someone who doesn't demand to be paid for being on call.
An employee is paid for being on call...it's called a salary. A contractor on the other hand is paid for work when called in but not for being on call. If a contractor wants to be paid for being on call he/she should negotiate this up front. I suspect however they will learn the realities of the market take precedence and the job will go to someone who doesn't demand to be paid for being on call.
Well I don't think actual servicemen are allowed to rent out. I think that's called misappropriation of funds. As for former servicemen you have the same issues. Even if they get off, something that might be insane tactically given how far territorial waters extend here and there, the ship will still be subject to rules and regulations. You've basically just employed a security force. The fact that they're ex-servicemen is irrelevant.
Actually I think you may both be wrong. There are no authorities as it's international water and if this was the only concern I'd say blow them out of the water. Being boarded by pirates comes under defense of self and others not judgement and legality. Regardless of legality it is a biological and ethical imperative to survive and sometimes that requires lethal defense of oneself.
However, if you're a legit business you have to remain legal in ports you want to trade in so RPGs probably aren't an acceptable answer for cargo ships (but I'm not 100% sure). I would assume this is why non/less lethal defensive measures are important to cargo ships. Not that lethal force would be unethical but if carrying those weapons makes you unable to trade then it defeats the purpose of the enterprise in the first place.
I think blue collar and white collar is a poor analogy in some ways but I'll use these labels as the article has.
It's not a perfect system. There are some wonderful blue collar developers out there and there are some crappy white collar developers. This is like any other situation where you're trying to sift through garbage to find gold, and yes most developers of either type are garbage as it's a young chaotic discipline that is poorly practiced. The task is monumental and you need to take any statistical boost you can to lower your odds of failure. So managers use things like 4 year degrees and certification, and world of mouth and interview and 100 other things into account trying to limit the field. Does that mean they throw away some great candidates or underpay/value others yes but it's the only strategy they believe is available to them given the amount of garbage out there? Sure. I would in fact argue that our selection techniques are so inadequate that most places ensure they're going to have below average IT because it is about limiting risk of failure in most places. Additionally since most developers are crap you're getting below average developers from a pool who's average sucks (even the really smart ones have so many issues such as being arrogant about their ideas, being socially inept with the customer, not wanting to consider time and money as part of technical decisions, believing if they didn't invent it it's useless, etc)
That said, I do think that the GOOD 4 year degree does serve one important function in CS. It teaches how to think at a conceptual level about problems rather than just coding/programming where as training generally just teaches you the mechanics. Hence hiring good developers with a classical style education has it's benefits in that it increases your odds of finding a conceptually talented person who may one day serve as an architect or senior developer. None of this says a person who doesn't have a classical education can't do this just that fewer do.
Our field is not the first to have many of these questions asked and it won't be the last. It's the classical difference between education and training. Education is supposed to teach you how to think while training is supposed to teach you what to do (or think). Our education is broken and has become mostly training instead of education unfortunately which leads to the value of an education being lessened and sometimes nonexistent and hence conversations like this arise. That doesn't mean that there isn't some seeds of education still buried in there and that does give the 4 year graduate a statistical advantage across a large sample of them.
So I guess it comes down to the following. Would I use it as a measuring stick on which person to hire into what job? Probably because I can. In the absence of an exceptional candidate (and by definition exception doesn't mean every slashdot member who thinks they are the heir to Donald Knuth) for a job I think requires conceptual level thinking and problem solving I'll take the statistical boost.
On the other hand I don't think I would use it in any way to manage performance of those I had hired. At that point I believe I have far more relevant data related to actual job performance and an unlettered developer who shows he is much better at the conceptual pieces has a much better chance of filling my next open architect role than a lettered developer who is unproductive, bad at conceptual thinking, or just all together useless as a practical matter and the current state of our educational system will ensure I get my fill of those guys too. I'll also get my fill of "I learned it myself and I'm better than those who didn't" cowboys too and they're usually just as bad as the others. In the end you do your best in job hiring but the real place you have leverage is in performance management, training, and culling of folks after the hire and managers who don't understand this are setting themselves up for failure..
I have AT&T and an iPhone and I wasn't confused they're saying their service is more important than the fact that AT&T carries the iPhone. The fact that they're suing makes me want to drop my iPhone and get a Droid though. It's irritating when companies think litigation is just a business strategy.
I actually love my Kindle but it's about the device itself. I would much prefer one that was actually open. I am currently waiting to lay hands on a nook to see if it's a viable replacement but from everything I've read so far it is lacking in the actual reading experience and battery departments. My hope is that the Nook and competitors actually force Amazon into a more open position but I may be dreaming.
Slashdot Mirror
The correct way to visualize information is an interesting topic and his investigation of the London underground maps is a classic example of how something can be accurate but not precise, or maybe accurate in one dimension (connection/destination) but not another (direction). That said it's a stretch to say GPS needs to follow that mode. Unlike the underground when you're being informed of where you're going and where to get off and on different trains you're actually being informed of where you are relative to other items with a GPS. It's not just a direction giving system it's also a mapping system and a simplified representation is not enough to help you with that. Additionally, my GPS is extremely helpful in large cities with telling me which lanes I'm going to need to be in to take certain exits. It does this with a simple graphic I can glance at and not voice commands which I might miss. This is very good on a major freeway at rush hour. I love the topic but I think his dislike of the GPS map visualization is off as it does a very good job IMO.
Apparently an issue I don't understand is how to log into slashdot...but I did write the response above.
Context, man, context. This post is picking apart a rather lengthy, and as it turns out, spurious argument by one of these non-PhDs. So poor, in fact, that you got to wonder if it was made in good faith.
That is the issue in the "climate debate", not qualifications, but good faith. Get this into your head if you haven't already: there are people out there paid to spread noise. Not to "win" the debate, but spread FUD. Look up, say, Steve Milloy or Marc Morano on sourcewatch, they have impressive credentials! Milloy from tobacco, Morano from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. They can make up plausible-sounding claims way faster than you can shoot them down, especially if you, as Sparkleby said, lack a PhD in a climate-related field. Even if you do, they win, because creating noise and appearance of controversy was what they aimed for in the first place.
Those two are just the top of the iceberg, one can easily be arguing against AGW in bad faith without having a well-documented history as a ruthless shill. So, how do you propose we defend ourselves from them?
My problem is that the article doesn't stick to refuting Eschenbach's flawed analysis. It instead goes on to tell us how we should decide who to listen to and the system it proposes is horrid. It doesn't include self-education but rather claims that's not practical. Additionally, it throws in random bits of data that are just as useless to informed understanding as Eschenbach's failed arguments. There are indeed FUD spewers out there as you point out. I'd go so far as to say that there are FUD spewers on every side of every issue these days and I'd argue that the author of the Economist piece because one when he left the path of rational analysis and started telling me which "high priests" to listen to and spouting random bits of data of Darwin temp data that are as useless in the conversation as Eschenbach's pile of crap..
Should you be completely dismissed because you don't have a Ph.D.?
the problem is : no-one with a PhD. can effectively, on a scientific basis, crack AGW. so, on the one hand we have a lot of scientists claiming it is real, and showing the research backing it up, on the other hand a lot of scientists trying to 'break' AGW, and failing.
So two points.
;) It tells me that research is going on and that I should look at the data being provided, educate myself, and act accordingly. It does not tell me that I should dismiss positions or analysis because they differ from my beliefs or that I should require a PhD before I consider your opinion. Now when I do that and I find the arguments for global warming to be the more persuasive I have no problem with acting but based on evidence presented not on some anonymous magazine article telling me who to listen to.
1. That doesn't have anything to do with my argument. I wasn't writing for or against global warming in my post. In fact I was very careful to avoid that because I think it isn't important to the problem I have with the article.
2. Since I can't keep my mouth shut I'll respond to the tangent you injected
I largely agree with the spirit of what you're saying here, but you're conflating two issues. The author of the Economist article claims to not have the expertise to judge all of the scientific claims made in various quoted articles; so from his perspective, the smart thing to do is to believe the peer-reviewed consensus. That's all he's saying. However, this is NOT to say that global climate scientists within the field should do the same (and I think this is your point). They *do* need to listen to people outside their field and keep and open mind. It's their job.
No I was trying to ignore the issue of Eschenbach's credibility so that I can argue the other issue without conflating the two. I have no problem with his counter arguments to Eschenbach. I have a huge problem with his system of what to decide. If he can't educate himself then he needs to not act when there can be consequences, IMO. Anytime someone tells me that I should let someone else decide the validity of any opinion for me I find it very frightening.
You're absolutely correct, but the problem is that Mr Eschenbach *hasn't* shown such manipulation. Actually, the real problem is that Mr Eschenbach *thinks* that he has, but doesn't actually know what he doesn't know. In fact, in Mr Eschenbach's response to the Economist article, he states the following:
The question is, should temperatures more than a thousand km away from Darwin be used to arbitrarily adjust Darwin’s temperature by a huge amount? You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.
This quote demonstrates exactly why someone like Mr Eschenbach should be ignored by most people. First, the "arbitrarily adjust" comment reveals that he didn't even understand the explanations given for how things were adjusted (they weren't arbitrary, and that was wells stated). But second, he simply dismisses out-of-hand the possibility that two datasets separated by 1000 km can't be correlated!!! Uh, whoops.
This pretty much proves that Mr Eschenbach is wasting our time. He hasn't taken his own time to understand the arguments the scientists are making (or even basic statistics) and simply continues to repeat his claims.
So the fact that he isn't "decorated by academia" certainly doesn't mean we should dismiss his claims outright, but it probably does mean we should be a little bit more skeptical of his claims that are so far outside of his knowledge base.
And I think you've made my point here. You went out read the two articles looked at the discrepancy and found a logical fallacy which tells you who to believe. I'm good with that. It's a form of self-education. I'm not good with "don't listen to this guy because he's a voice from the wilderness".
Let me be clear I'm not taking the guy's position but the paragraph I quoted dismisses anyone who doesn't have a doctorate. Read it again. The author is claiming that because this guy is wrong and uninformed that he shouldn't be listened to and he advocates determining who should be listened to by their academic credentials. The whole thrust of the article (beside providing counter points to the guy) is to tell you who to listen to and how to decide who those people are. That is where I have the issue. Not with the counter arguments.
Option 4 is to listen to the "experts" and learn the set of tools you need to uncover their prejudices and axes to grind as you put it. You don't have to be an expert in the field to find problems in logic and data analysis. The article argued that you did have to be an expert in the field and that you had to be accredited to do these things. This is what I have an issue with.
The answer is to go and understand the issue. Look at the data and learn for yourself. The argument that it's so important that I must decide something is nuts. If I'm blind and driving on a road I know ends in a wall I know I'm going to eventually crash if I don't turn at some point. That doesn't mean the correct answer is to turn blindly. The answer is to gain enough information to make the right turn.
So I would argue that alot of the idiots voice problem you describe is a reaction to (or reformation of) the system that was too elitist. Grant you I think it's a bad reaction I still think we're bringing it on ourselves by being exclusionary and accusatory rather than educating people about issues. We focus too much on convincing people of our position than we do on teaching them our knowledge and letting them form a position of their own. In the short term they have the same effect (assuming we're right) but in the long term the persuasion approach is destructive while the education approach is empowering.
That said I want to address your free speech issue. Free speech isn't the issue it's the education of the listeners. The reason free speech is very important as an absolute concept is that it puts the power of deciding into the individual's sphere of responsibility which does bring up some of the problems you mention. However, it's rarely about wealth but more about persuasive ability. A persuasive man will find wealth and influence for his cause a purely wealthy man will not.
If you limit free speech you may take away the wealthy's ability to get their message out but you create another form of wealth which is held by those who control the restrictions of free speech. Now the persuasive must gather those resources instead of the wealthy's and you have the same problem in a different form. The only way I see to solve the issue is to encourage the individuals to be self-educating and to teach them. It's a slow process and it will take generations before it has any effect but it's the only thing that leads to a long term improvement IMO.
My argument would be that your premise is wrong you don't have to know what to believe. If it is important enough then you should spend the time and effort to inform yourself and understand the issues and the data that is available. Just listening to what others tells you is true is a good way to get an erroneous understanding anyway, especially if they don't understand it fully or have an agenda of which you are unaware.
Now to be clear I think that if you don't spend the time to understand it then you should refrain from actions which you know may have consequences based on that lack of understanding (alla voting for someone because they have a certain position on an issue you know you don't really understand).
Unfortunately, my system would in the extreme lead to an oligarchy of the informed so I would hope more people would take it upon themselves to educate themselves but even so I believe an oligarchy of the informed is better than an oligarchy of the persuasive which is what you get with a system that doesn't rely on education, and in my opinion this is much more dangerous.
Well, here's my solution to this problem: this is why we have peer review. Average guys with websites can do a lot of amazing things. One thing they cannot do is reveal statistical manipulation in climate-change studies that require a PhD in a related field to understand. So for the time being, my response to any and all further "smoking gun" claims begins with: show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here. Otherwise, you're a crank and this is not a story.
Should you're words carry more weight because you have been trained in an area you are speaking on?...yep. Should you be completely dismissed because you don't have a PhD?...no and to suggest it is irresponsible and idiotic. To also suggest that someone not so decorated by academia can never show statistical manipulation is stupid as well. This is the modern version of holding mass in latin so that you have to come through the priest to get your religion. Modern "science" and more specifically the elitist academics need to be careful before there is a scientific backlash/reformation and the baby gets thrown out with the bath water. When you act like this and spread these types of attitudes you do more harm that good and eventually no one listens even if you're right.
So I'm not a law talking guy either but I did read the lawsuit and he's suing them under more than just the Lenham act.
First, Under Lahnam he's suing theme for false advertising that damaged TechCrunch
Second, Under California law he's suing them for "breach of fiduciary duty" claiming they violated an implicit partnership which is formed automatically under CA law (according to the lawsuit)
Third (I assume also under the California partnership theory) he's suing for "misappropriate of business ideas" and claiming that Fusion Garage doesn't own the IP but rather that the partnership does.
Forth, he's suing them for fraud under CA law claiming they were basically liars and thieves.
Fifth, he's claiming "unlawful business practices and false advertising" under CA law. (which I assume is similar to the first cause for action but under the CA state laws that are relevant rather than the Lanham Act)
It then goes on to say what should be done to make things right, demand a jury trial, and file some "exhibits". I'm not pro or con one way or the other but it's not as simple as he's filing suit under a trademark law so he doesn't have a chance and again, IANAL.
Part of the problem is what we call science. We regularly equate well known laws of the physical universe with theories at various stages of testing. We regularly seek to prove positive ideas we believe are true but don't have facts for yet sometimes even disregarding negative results. We regularly act as though because we can make a correlation we have shown causation. And all of this we insist on calling science. Just like Christians who choose to throw out the peace and judge not portions of scripture in favor of the "shall nots" or vice-versa and just like democracies that decide when basic freedoms should be valid based on circumstance we do ourselves irreparable harm when we violate scientific protocols and principles because we "know something should be true" or we justify our conclusions with "the consequences are just too high not to go this way". We can't have it both ways and we need to be true to our fundamental principles if we're going to hold science up as a framework for understanding.
I think some of this is applicable to climategate but to be absolutely clear I'm not qualified to make a truly informed opinion on that subject as I haven't studied any global warming data unless you count watching the Al Gore movie. I think this is a much deeper problem that affects various areas of scientific inquiry and how we teach what science is to our next generations of scientists.
Many American gamblers also tend to believe in numerology a little too much.
Not those of us who are successful...and btw, do me a favor and quit trying to tell the unsuccessful ones what they're doing wrong. ;)
Actually I think you do make an excellent point. Even as a Linux user with an interest in computing history I'm completely uninterested in actually owning the computer Linus used and yet the typewriter is somehow more interesting. It's mechanical and somehow more connected to the works written on it. It's stupid and irrational but before I read your comment I would have said that there was no difference but there is something more intrinsically interesting about mechanical machines as far as having them as collectors pieces goes.
If a contractor wants to be paid for being on call he/she should negotiate this up front. I suspect however they will learn the realities of the market take precedence and the job will go to someone who doesn't demand to be paid for being on call.
An employee is paid for being on call...it's called a salary. A contractor on the other hand is paid for work when called in but not for being on call. If a contractor wants to be paid for being on call he/she should negotiate this up front. I suspect however they will learn the realities of the market take precedence and the job will go to someone who doesn't demand to be paid for being on call.
Well I don't think actual servicemen are allowed to rent out. I think that's called misappropriation of funds. As for former servicemen you have the same issues. Even if they get off, something that might be insane tactically given how far territorial waters extend here and there, the ship will still be subject to rules and regulations. You've basically just employed a security force. The fact that they're ex-servicemen is irrelevant.
Actually I think you may both be wrong. There are no authorities as it's international water and if this was the only concern I'd say blow them out of the water. Being boarded by pirates comes under defense of self and others not judgement and legality. Regardless of legality it is a biological and ethical imperative to survive and sometimes that requires lethal defense of oneself.
However, if you're a legit business you have to remain legal in ports you want to trade in so RPGs probably aren't an acceptable answer for cargo ships (but I'm not 100% sure). I would assume this is why non/less lethal defensive measures are important to cargo ships. Not that lethal force would be unethical but if carrying those weapons makes you unable to trade then it defeats the purpose of the enterprise in the first place.
Anyone know for sure if this is the case?
I think blue collar and white collar is a poor analogy in some ways but I'll use these labels as the article has.
It's not a perfect system. There are some wonderful blue collar developers out there and there are some crappy white collar developers. This is like any other situation where you're trying to sift through garbage to find gold, and yes most developers of either type are garbage as it's a young chaotic discipline that is poorly practiced. The task is monumental and you need to take any statistical boost you can to lower your odds of failure. So managers use things like 4 year degrees and certification, and world of mouth and interview and 100 other things into account trying to limit the field. Does that mean they throw away some great candidates or underpay/value others yes but it's the only strategy they believe is available to them given the amount of garbage out there? Sure. I would in fact argue that our selection techniques are so inadequate that most places ensure they're going to have below average IT because it is about limiting risk of failure in most places. Additionally since most developers are crap you're getting below average developers from a pool who's average sucks (even the really smart ones have so many issues such as being arrogant about their ideas, being socially inept with the customer, not wanting to consider time and money as part of technical decisions, believing if they didn't invent it it's useless, etc)
That said, I do think that the GOOD 4 year degree does serve one important function in CS. It teaches how to think at a conceptual level about problems rather than just coding/programming where as training generally just teaches you the mechanics. Hence hiring good developers with a classical style education has it's benefits in that it increases your odds of finding a conceptually talented person who may one day serve as an architect or senior developer. None of this says a person who doesn't have a classical education can't do this just that fewer do.
Our field is not the first to have many of these questions asked and it won't be the last. It's the classical difference between education and training. Education is supposed to teach you how to think while training is supposed to teach you what to do (or think). Our education is broken and has become mostly training instead of education unfortunately which leads to the value of an education being lessened and sometimes nonexistent and hence conversations like this arise. That doesn't mean that there isn't some seeds of education still buried in there and that does give the 4 year graduate a statistical advantage across a large sample of them.
So I guess it comes down to the following. Would I use it as a measuring stick on which person to hire into what job? Probably because I can. In the absence of an exceptional candidate (and by definition exception doesn't mean every slashdot member who thinks they are the heir to Donald Knuth) for a job I think requires conceptual level thinking and problem solving I'll take the statistical boost.
On the other hand I don't think I would use it in any way to manage performance of those I had hired. At that point I believe I have far more relevant data related to actual job performance and an unlettered developer who shows he is much better at the conceptual pieces has a much better chance of filling my next open architect role than a lettered developer who is unproductive, bad at conceptual thinking, or just all together useless as a practical matter and the current state of our educational system will ensure I get my fill of those guys too. I'll also get my fill of "I learned it myself and I'm better than those who didn't" cowboys too and they're usually just as bad as the others. In the end you do your best in job hiring but the real place you have leverage is in performance management, training, and culling of folks after the hire and managers who don't understand this are setting themselves up for failure..
Which is what is horribly horribly wrong. Unless of course you're a lawyer in which case litigation is and should be a business strategy. =)
I have AT&T and an iPhone and I wasn't confused they're saying their service is more important than the fact that AT&T carries the iPhone. The fact that they're suing makes me want to drop my iPhone and get a Droid though. It's irritating when companies think litigation is just a business strategy.
I'm guessing only 8 out of 10 apps work too.
I actually love my Kindle but it's about the device itself. I would much prefer one that was actually open. I am currently waiting to lay hands on a nook to see if it's a viable replacement but from everything I've read so far it is lacking in the actual reading experience and battery departments. My hope is that the Nook and competitors actually force Amazon into a more open position but I may be dreaming.
No mouse and keyboard option? How am I going to strafe the other drivers? Come on Toyota..think for a change.