An extra $100,000 per year spent on electricity would have been noticed by accounting in a private organization.
According to the district, problems with the software were noted before, which is why he was directed by a previous administrator to remove it. Also, the over $1 million (more specifically, $1.2 to $1.6 million) cost estimate is not the cost of electricity, its the cost to correct the various problems the district claims stem from the various misconduct and neglect of duties he is accused of. TFA sucks, read the more complete article on the story here. (Newspapers may suck in general, but they tend to cover things far more completely than TV news organizations, which is where TFA comes from.)
It certainly sounds like cause for a reverse lawsuit. After all they never told him he CAN'T install SETI@home or CANCER@home or any other background crunching program
Actually, the district claims that he was specifically directed to remove the software by a previous administrator, and that he claimed that he had, in fact, done so. See the last three paragraphs of the East Valley Times article, which is (typically of newspaper vs. TV news articles) far more complete.
So no one noticed a 5000 x ~150 ~= 750 MW of usage? Over 10 years?
Since the district claims (see the last three paragraphs here) that the problem came to the attention of a previous administrator, who ordered Niesluchowski to remove the software and whom Niescluchowski then assured that the software had been removed, the issue is not that no one noticed the problem.
Are the police certain the accused downloaded the pornographic images?
Being sure (at least beyond a reasonable doubt) is what is required for a criminal conviction, not for starting a criminal investigation.
Did some malware download said images unbeknown to the accused considering the well-documented cases involving such contraband piggybacking on otherwise legitimate web sites?
Since part of what he is accused of doing is misusing his position as a technology supervisor in a manner which created unnecessary holes in the district's security arrangements, if that was the reason the porn was downloaded, that wouldn't necessarily stop it from being his fault.
I would not resign. I'd tell them, "Sorry I'll uninstall everything,"
According to the more complete article on the story, "Former administrators, including former superintendent Joyce Lutrey, knew about the software and told Niesluchowski to remove it" and "[h]e assured them he had removed it". So, I'm guessing, that's why "I'm sorry and I'll remove it now" wouldn't have been an adequate response, even if SETI@Home was the only problem issue, and there wasn't the porn issue, and the issue of the school equipment at his house apparently being used in his home-based business.
I love that it took 5 different technology companies to figure out why the PCs were running slow.
The article says the district hired "five experts" and reports on "one company" that did a district-wide technology audit.
It doesn't say "five companies". It also doesn't identify the problem the five experts were hired to address as being "why the PCs were running slow?" I suspect from the description of the problems (though its not clear which were uncovered when, and which motivated the action) that a variety of intermittent problems with systems and higher than anticipated maintenance and replacement costs, which their in-house tech staff couldn't adequately explain, are what the outside experts were brought in to explain, which goes beyond "why computers are running slow?" to "why are paying so much for tech and still having so many problems?".
Knowing vaguely how SETI@home and BOINC and Folding@Home work, I suspect this is a BS allegation.
Or, more likely, just bad reporting. The more complete story cites a $1.2 million to $1.6 million estimated cost to address the problems at issue -- which go far beyond SETI@Home. TFA has elided most of the real issues to focus on SETI@Home, and presented the "over $1 million" estimated cost as the cost of dealing with SETI@Home alone.
Reading the article, you'd think the guy was some deranged tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist devilishly enlisting the school's resources to justify his own crackpot theories, not just some guy using the school's computers to help a scientific organization crunch data.
Reading TFA, yoou could, depending on your biases, get either of the above impressions, but if you read the more complete story, you might get the idea that there was more to the story than either of those, and that simply installing SETI@Home without permission was largely beside the point, and that more important in both the firing and the criminal investigation were the allegations: 1. That when problems first came to light with SETI@Home interfering with other uses of computing equipment, he was ordered to remove the software and claimed that he had, 2. That he misappropriated at least 18 computers and other associated equipment from the district to use in his personal home-based business, 3. That he used school equipment to download pornography.
However, since he was fired, it's not likely that he was able to present proof of authorization to the school board.
And, since its his wife saying it, even if she's telling the truth (from her perspective) its almost certainly just whatever he told her. According to the more complete East Valley Tribune story, the district claim is that when the problems stemming from SETI@Home interfering with other uses of computers on the network came to light, he was ordered to remove the software by a previous administrator, and gave assurances that it had been removed.
For the record, I can't imagine how they came up with $1M for damages.
The more complete seems to give $1.2 to $1.6 million as the estimate cost to deal with all the problems stemming from his mismanagement of the technology unit, which are not limited to SETI@Home; it suggests that the figure was a result of a district-wide technology audit.
I agree, filing charges was way out of line. His only real mistake was not asking permission, and getting that permission in writing.
Well, that, and lying about removing the software when the problems caused by it came to light and he was ordered by previous administrators to remove it. ...and downloading pornography using school computers. ...and, on top of all that, generally not doing the job he was hired to do.
$1 million for five thousand computers......come on, even if SET@Home had completely worn down the computers that they had to replace every single computer, it would have only cost $500k.
[...]
In addition, he had gotten permission from a previous administrator to install the software. There is nothing here that justifies filing criminal charges.
TFA is an exceptionally bad article on the story, only referring to the SETI@Home portion of the issue as if it were the only thing involved. It is not. As this East Valley Times story (which appears to be the original story) reports, Niesluchowski is "accused of taking at least 18 computers and other technology equipment to use in his home-based business, downloading pornography on school computers, and generally failing to do his job in the technology department" as well as installing SETI@Home.
Also, the $1.2 million to $1.6 million cost estimate seems to be identified as an estimate to fix all the issues involved; the article reports that the problems stemming from Niesluchowskis poor performance and misconduct "include a network system not designed to handle the district's growth, a system in need of substantial repair and a building needed to securely house the network. There are also cabling problems and a lack of tracking inventory for technology equipment that is three years out of date."
Furthermore, instead of having permission from previous administrators, the report is that he was told to remove the software by previous administrators, to whom he reported, falsely, that it had been removed.
Only a school district or the government could have taken 10 years to find a CPU hog running on 5,000 computers.
Things go undetected all the time in private organizations when the person doing them is also the person in charge of the unit that would normally be monitoring for that kind of problem. (Also, a school district is a government agency, they aren't two different things.)
Newspapers were once the only source of information
Person-to-person news dissemination predates newspapers by several thousand years, and didn't stop when newspapers came into being. Newspapers were for a while a prominent form of information because they had broader reach without change and each outlet had a reputation that could be traded on, but they were never the only source of information. And modern technology provides frameworks for narrowing the gaps between centralized media like newspapers and P2P mechanisms in terms of accountability and reach.
From what I understood, Gears was the primary reason a computer with chrome OS is somewhat more useful than a brick when offline. Does this mean they'll have to allow real local applications for chrome OS now?
No, it means that Google is planning on relying on HTML5 local storage (and related HTML5 features) to provide this functionality, instead of Gears.
Why don't other nations' militaries take a similar hard-line approach? [...] Heck, a single aircraft carrier in the region, launching planes to fly patrols which would respond to distress calls, would go a long way to securing the region. Why isn't this done?
A single aircraft carrier might do that, but few countries in the world have aircraft carriers (the portion of the US navy dedicated to carrying Marine Corps forces, alone, has, IIRC, more and larger carriers than all navies outside the US combined, and that's not even counting the large carriers that are the main striking arm of the US navy.)
In fact, very few countries in the world have navies that are equipped for substantial operations outside their own immediate neighborhood in any form, and even taking piracy in Somalia and elsewhere into account few have any incentive to build one which warrants the cost.
The pirates are, of course, violent organized criminals engaging in crimes mostly directed at foreigners. OTOH, if they stiff the people in their "investing" program, they dry up that well of support -- also, they they poison their relation with the local populace, make themselves more isolated, and easier targets for outside intervention.
So, sure, one should expect the pirates to operate out of self-interest. However, that doesn't necessarily mean not rewarding their "investors".
Pushing functionality into the browser instead of relying on scripting means longer launch times, more failure points, and more disparate functionality from browser to browser for developers to consider.
This isn't true insofar as it is relevant to the issue at hand, and isn't relevant so far as it is true. First, HTML5 local storage doesn't push "functionality into the browser instead of relying on scripting"; the browser functionality relies on JavaScript scripting. Second, because it pushes local storage for which there are demands and existing, but not common, implementations (like Gears) into a standard form (HTML5), it reduces disparate functionality among browsers.
don't know. Knowing selling the Navy computer components you KNOW would fail, to me, would fall into "giving aid to the enemy". We could argue intention/motivation, but a crime is a crime, regardless what you meant.
No, actually, its not. Crimes general have a required mental state, and "what you meant" specifically is very often an essential component of the crime. What you meant (and when and why you came to mean it) can make the difference between Murder, Voluntary Manslaughter, Involuntary Manslaughter, and a non-criminal accident in which someone happens to have died.
"a crime is a crime, regardless what you meant" would suggest that if, hypothetically, a group of passengers attempted to seize control of a commercial aircraft from hijackers attempting to use the plane as a weapon in a mass casualty attack aimed at a populated area, but caused the plane to crash in the process, and everyone on the plane was killed except for one of the passengers who tried to seize control of the plane back from the hijackers, that passenger would be as guilty of murdering everyone on the plane as he would have been if, instead, he had hijacked the plane and deliberately crashed it for the purpose of killing everyone on the plane. Intent, indeed, matters, both legally and morally.
Why is it (properly, IMHO) called racism and/or sexism if someone gives favoritism to a white male but doing the inverse is just fine and dandy?
Its not racism (or sexism) if someone gives preferential treatment to someone because they are a white male, its discrimination on the basis of race and sex. Racism is an attitude (as is sexism) that might reasonably inferred to be the (or part of the) motivation for the discrimination, depending on what other evidence of motivation is available.
OTOH, when a bunch of people, mostly wealthy white men, get together and decide to provide limited preferential treatment to people who aren't white men (but who, as business owners, are, as a class, wealthier than average) with the stated purpose of advancing the economic position of people in groups that were disadvantaged by past formal and informal discrimination, there a wide number of motives to which the action could reasonably be ascribed (some noble -- such as accepting the stated motivation -- and some less so -- seeing it as tokenism that avoids dealing with the widespread results of discrimination) but "racism" (or "sexism") -- at least in favor of the groups receiving the preferences -- isn't as easy a case to make as it is in the case of white men discriminating against people who aren't white men.
Is this like "counterfeit" copies of MS Windows? Where these chips that acted and functioned the same (shadow shift production runs)? Seems like we need a better word as counterfeit implies that it looks the same but does not act the same.
No, it doesn't. A counterfeit is something that has been made or altered to appear to be something other than what it is, it may well act the same (indeed, "acting" the same under various tests is a key part of counterfeiting some things.)
A counterfeit chip may well be one designed to perform the same function (e.g., in terms of logic), at least under normal conditions, but with different origins, QC, and/or range of designed operating conditions from the brand it is passed off as. Indeed, it would pretty much have to be not be noticed as soon as it was used.
Maybe we should just be saying "copies produced without authorization?"
"Copies produced without authorization" is quite a mouthful. If only there was an adjective that means that already, so the same idea could be expressed more concisely.
Or, in short, in response to "what does counterfeit mean?" -- RTFDictionary.
I have always felt that one huge step towards remedying this perception is to eliminate all limits on campaign contributions but to also permit campaign contributions ONLY from registered voters that are legally able to vote for the candidate. This would prohibit all political contributions from businesses and from unions, who cannot vote
Wrong.
It would prohibit all political contributions from corporations (legal entities that are creatures of law, including unions) but not "businesses", since businesses aren't always distinct legal entities from their individual owners.
Of course, it would instantly make all the fabulously rich people for whom corporations act as agents much more powerful in the political system, rather than reducing their power, and they'd obviously exert that power directly on behalf of the corporations through which they derive their wealth, so it would actually magnify the problem you are trying to solve.
I also believe that if we were to repeal the 17th amendment and go back to the original way of electing United States Senators (selection by the state legislatures) we would see less corruption at the federal level.
Well, it would certainly shift the incentives so that corruption at the state level to influence federal decision making was a more attractive alternative than it is currently, but I don't see any reason to believe that making US Senators less accountable to the public at large would reduce any corruption that exists in federal decisionmaking, even if the actual focal point of some of the corruption moved to the statehouses where Senators would be chosen, rather than be applied directly to the Senators by people outside of government.
Yes, as long as you deal with pure maths, Newton is always wrong, just less so for lower speeds and shorter distances. But if you're dealing with real objects, which have real limits (not just practical limits, but fundamental ones), I would argue that any calculation that is correct to a LARGER degree than the best representation that can exist, is *correct*.
Which is fine, but Newton's models aren't "correct to a LARGER degree than the best representation that can exist", either, otherwise, they never would have been replaced with more complicated models that, in fact, model observable reality better.
But, I think this whole discussion reveals a fundamental problem with looking at scientific models as being about being "correct" in any binary sense in the first place, as it results in convoluted attempts to make redefine "correctness" so that models that meet what we want say are "good" (in the sense that they represent what we hope for out of science) are "correct" even though they are, in fact, either incorrect in some of their predictions or inconsistent with other equally "good" models such that one of them must be incorrect in something that it predicts though we can't know which one.
Rather, I think, we should not attempt to discuss models being "correct" so much as whether, and within what parameters, they produce useful predictions (and where they don't), and how, in that regard, they stack up against the contemporary alternatives.
Saying there are lots of varieties is a dodge NOT a defense.
So? I didn't say "there are lots of varieties". Nor was I making a "defense". I was pointing out that the general claim made was false, not defending anything or anyone.
If you want to give specific religious belief systems I will take my time to kill them one at a time.
Sorry, not interested in defending any belief systems. I was merely pointing out that the generalization was inaccurate. That some other description that you find personally feel is negative might apply to those that don't meet the generalization you made may be interesting to you, but its not relevant to my point.
Gaps people have to rationalize millions of divides between essentially two disparate belief systems that constantly contradict one another.
No, actually, they don't. Its quite possible to believe that science is the best mechanism for answering claims of material fact while believing anything conceivable about morality, its source, and anything that is not within the domain of material fact subject to empirical enquiry without contradiction.
So if we allow "non pure" functional languages to be "functional languages" then the whole notion of being functional becomes irrelevant.
Not really. In fact, I think its much more useful to discuss the value of functional languages in terms of the benefits of specific features and differences of degree or, rather than just a binary categorization.
Java can be considered a non-pure functional language.
Sure, in the same sense that a pit of mud can be considered a non-pure body of water. Likewise, one can meaningfully differentiate between the non-pure functional status of Java, the non-pure functional status of Scheme, and the non-pure functional status of Erlang, and the effects of those on their utility for various programming applications, just as one can meaningfully differentiate between the non-pure water of the aforementioned mud pit, that of a somewhat silty river, and that of a fairly clear mountain lake, and the effects of those differences on their utility as a source of drinking water.
would add a couple other "must have" features in functional languages:
* The ability to pass a function as an argument to another function (i.e. higher order functions, like qsort in the C standard library).
Yeah, I'd agree that first-class functions are a requirement.
* Support for a points-free programming style in which things can be passed from one function to another without naming them.
I don't think this is a requirement for a language to be a functional programming language, though its certainly nice to have.
Some other features that perhaps aren't technically required but make functional programming a lot easier:
* Closures, local function definitions, garbage collection, partial evaluation of function.
I'm not sure I'd put "local function definitions" in the nice-to-have category rather than the definitional; if functions are first class values, it would be, at a minimum, very odd not to be able to define them locally. Generally, though, I agree.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the district, problems with the software were noted before, which is why he was directed by a previous administrator to remove it. Also, the over $1 million (more specifically, $1.2 to $1.6 million) cost estimate is not the cost of electricity, its the cost to correct the various problems the district claims stem from the various misconduct and neglect of duties he is accused of. TFA sucks, read the more complete article on the story here. (Newspapers may suck in general, but they tend to cover things far more completely than TV news organizations, which is where TFA comes from.)
Actually, the district claims that he was specifically directed to remove the software by a previous administrator, and that he claimed that he had, in fact, done so. See the last three paragraphs of the East Valley Times article, which is (typically of newspaper vs. TV news articles) far more complete.
Since the district claims (see the last three paragraphs here) that the problem came to the attention of a previous administrator, who ordered Niesluchowski to remove the software and whom Niescluchowski then assured that the software had been removed, the issue is not that no one noticed the problem.
Being sure (at least beyond a reasonable doubt) is what is required for a criminal conviction, not for starting a criminal investigation.
Since part of what he is accused of doing is misusing his position as a technology supervisor in a manner which created unnecessary holes in the district's security arrangements, if that was the reason the porn was downloaded, that wouldn't necessarily stop it from being his fault.
According to the more complete article on the story, "Former administrators, including former superintendent Joyce Lutrey, knew about the software and told Niesluchowski to remove it" and "[h]e assured them he had removed it". So, I'm guessing, that's why "I'm sorry and I'll remove it now" wouldn't have been an adequate response, even if SETI@Home was the only problem issue, and there wasn't the porn issue, and the issue of the school equipment at his house apparently being used in his home-based business.
The article says the district hired "five experts" and reports on "one company" that did a district-wide technology audit.
It doesn't say "five companies". It also doesn't identify the problem the five experts were hired to address as being "why the PCs were running slow?" I suspect from the description of the problems (though its not clear which were uncovered when, and which motivated the action) that a variety of intermittent problems with systems and higher than anticipated maintenance and replacement costs, which their in-house tech staff couldn't adequately explain, are what the outside experts were brought in to explain, which goes beyond "why computers are running slow?" to "why are paying so much for tech and still having so many problems?".
Or, more likely, just bad reporting. The more complete story cites a $1.2 million to $1.6 million estimated cost to address the problems at issue -- which go far beyond SETI@Home. TFA has elided most of the real issues to focus on SETI@Home, and presented the "over $1 million" estimated cost as the cost of dealing with SETI@Home alone.
Reading TFA, yoou could, depending on your biases, get either of the above impressions, but if you read the more complete story, you might get the idea that there was more to the story than either of those, and that simply installing SETI@Home without permission was largely beside the point, and that more important in both the firing and the criminal investigation were the allegations:
1. That when problems first came to light with SETI@Home interfering with other uses of computing equipment, he was ordered to remove the software and claimed that he had,
2. That he misappropriated at least 18 computers and other associated equipment from the district to use in his personal home-based business,
3. That he used school equipment to download pornography.
And, since its his wife saying it, even if she's telling the truth (from her perspective) its almost certainly just whatever he told her. According to the more complete East Valley Tribune story, the district claim is that when the problems stemming from SETI@Home interfering with other uses of computers on the network came to light, he was ordered to remove the software by a previous administrator, and gave assurances that it had been removed.
The more complete seems to give $1.2 to $1.6 million as the estimate cost to deal with all the problems stemming from his mismanagement of the technology unit, which are not limited to SETI@Home; it suggests that the figure was a result of a district-wide technology audit.
Well, that, and lying about removing the software when the problems caused by it came to light and he was ordered by previous administrators to remove it.
...and downloading pornography using school computers.
...and, on top of all that, generally not doing the job he was hired to do.
At least, that's what he is being accused of, according to this more complete article on the story.
SETI@Home is not the only issue here.
TFA is an exceptionally bad article on the story, only referring to the SETI@Home portion of the issue as if it were the only thing involved. It is not. As this East Valley Times story (which appears to be the original story) reports, Niesluchowski is "accused of taking at least 18 computers and other technology equipment to use in his home-based business, downloading pornography on school computers, and generally failing to do his job in the technology department" as well as installing SETI@Home.
Also, the $1.2 million to $1.6 million cost estimate seems to be identified as an estimate to fix all the issues involved; the article reports that the problems stemming from Niesluchowskis poor performance and misconduct "include a network system not designed to handle the district's growth, a system in need of substantial repair and a building needed to securely house the network. There are also cabling problems and a lack of tracking inventory for technology equipment that is three years out of date."
Furthermore, instead of having permission from previous administrators, the report is that he was told to remove the software by previous administrators, to whom he reported, falsely, that it had been removed.
Things go undetected all the time in private organizations when the person doing them is also the person in charge of the unit that would normally be monitoring for that kind of problem. (Also, a school district is a government agency, they aren't two different things.)
Person-to-person news dissemination predates newspapers by several thousand years, and didn't stop when newspapers came into being. Newspapers were for a while a prominent form of information because they had broader reach without change and each outlet had a reputation that could be traded on, but they were never the only source of information. And modern technology provides frameworks for narrowing the gaps between centralized media like newspapers and P2P mechanisms in terms of accountability and reach.
No, it means that Google is planning on relying on HTML5 local storage (and related HTML5 features) to provide this functionality, instead of Gears.
A single aircraft carrier might do that, but few countries in the world have aircraft carriers (the portion of the US navy dedicated to carrying Marine Corps forces, alone, has, IIRC, more and larger carriers than all navies outside the US combined, and that's not even counting the large carriers that are the main striking arm of the US navy.)
In fact, very few countries in the world have navies that are equipped for substantial operations outside their own immediate neighborhood in any form, and even taking piracy in Somalia and elsewhere into account few have any incentive to build one which warrants the cost.
The pirates are, of course, violent organized criminals engaging in crimes mostly directed at foreigners. OTOH, if they stiff the people in their "investing" program, they dry up that well of support -- also, they they poison their relation with the local populace, make themselves more isolated, and easier targets for outside intervention.
So, sure, one should expect the pirates to operate out of self-interest. However, that doesn't necessarily mean not rewarding their "investors".
This isn't true insofar as it is relevant to the issue at hand, and isn't relevant so far as it is true. First, HTML5 local storage doesn't push "functionality into the browser instead of relying on scripting"; the browser functionality relies on JavaScript scripting. Second, because it pushes local storage for which there are demands and existing, but not common, implementations (like Gears) into a standard form (HTML5), it reduces disparate functionality among browsers.
No, actually, its not. Crimes general have a required mental state, and "what you meant" specifically is very often an essential component of the crime. What you meant (and when and why you came to mean it) can make the difference between Murder, Voluntary Manslaughter, Involuntary Manslaughter, and a non-criminal accident in which someone happens to have died.
"a crime is a crime, regardless what you meant" would suggest that if, hypothetically, a group of passengers attempted to seize control of a commercial aircraft from hijackers attempting to use the plane as a weapon in a mass casualty attack aimed at a populated area, but caused the plane to crash in the process, and everyone on the plane was killed except for one of the passengers who tried to seize control of the plane back from the hijackers, that passenger would be as guilty of murdering everyone on the plane as he would have been if, instead, he had hijacked the plane and deliberately crashed it for the purpose of killing everyone on the plane. Intent, indeed, matters, both legally and morally.
Its not racism (or sexism) if someone gives preferential treatment to someone because they are a white male, its discrimination on the basis of race and sex. Racism is an attitude (as is sexism) that might reasonably inferred to be the (or part of the) motivation for the discrimination, depending on what other evidence of motivation is available.
OTOH, when a bunch of people, mostly wealthy white men, get together and decide to provide limited preferential treatment to people who aren't white men (but who, as business owners, are, as a class, wealthier than average) with the stated purpose of advancing the economic position of people in groups that were disadvantaged by past formal and informal discrimination, there a wide number of motives to which the action could reasonably be ascribed (some noble -- such as accepting the stated motivation -- and some less so -- seeing it as tokenism that avoids dealing with the widespread results of discrimination) but "racism" (or "sexism") -- at least in favor of the groups receiving the preferences -- isn't as easy a case to make as it is in the case of white men discriminating against people who aren't white men.
No, it doesn't. A counterfeit is something that has been made or altered to appear to be something other than what it is, it may well act the same (indeed, "acting" the same under various tests is a key part of counterfeiting some things.)
A counterfeit chip may well be one designed to perform the same function (e.g., in terms of logic), at least under normal conditions, but with different origins, QC, and/or range of designed operating conditions from the brand it is passed off as. Indeed, it would pretty much have to be not be noticed as soon as it was used.
"Copies produced without authorization" is quite a mouthful. If only there was an adjective that means that already, so the same idea could be expressed more concisely.
Or, in short, in response to "what does counterfeit mean?" -- RTFDictionary.
Wrong.
It would prohibit all political contributions from corporations (legal entities that are creatures of law, including unions) but not "businesses", since businesses aren't always distinct legal entities from their individual owners.
Of course, it would instantly make all the fabulously rich people for whom corporations act as agents much more powerful in the political system, rather than reducing their power, and they'd obviously exert that power directly on behalf of the corporations through which they derive their wealth, so it would actually magnify the problem you are trying to solve.
Well, it would certainly shift the incentives so that corruption at the state level to influence federal decision making was a more attractive alternative than it is currently, but I don't see any reason to believe that making US Senators less accountable to the public at large would reduce any corruption that exists in federal decisionmaking, even if the actual focal point of some of the corruption moved to the statehouses where Senators would be chosen, rather than be applied directly to the Senators by people outside of government.
Which is fine, but Newton's models aren't "correct to a LARGER degree than the best representation that can exist", either, otherwise, they never would have been replaced with more complicated models that, in fact, model observable reality better.
But, I think this whole discussion reveals a fundamental problem with looking at scientific models as being about being "correct" in any binary sense in the first place, as it results in convoluted attempts to make redefine "correctness" so that models that meet what we want say are "good" (in the sense that they represent what we hope for out of science) are "correct" even though they are, in fact, either incorrect in some of their predictions or inconsistent with other equally "good" models such that one of them must be incorrect in something that it predicts though we can't know which one.
Rather, I think, we should not attempt to discuss models being "correct" so much as whether, and within what parameters, they produce useful predictions (and where they don't), and how, in that regard, they stack up against the contemporary alternatives.
So? I didn't say "there are lots of varieties". Nor was I making a "defense". I was pointing out that the general claim made was false, not defending anything or anyone.
Sorry, not interested in defending any belief systems. I was merely pointing out that the generalization was inaccurate. That some other description that you find personally feel is negative might apply to those that don't meet the generalization you made may be interesting to you, but its not relevant to my point.
No, actually, they don't. Its quite possible to believe that science is the best mechanism for answering claims of material fact while believing anything conceivable about morality, its source, and anything that is not within the domain of material fact subject to empirical enquiry without contradiction.
Not really. In fact, I think its much more useful to discuss the value of functional languages in terms of the benefits of specific features and differences of degree or, rather than just a binary categorization.
Sure, in the same sense that a pit of mud can be considered a non-pure body of water. Likewise, one can meaningfully differentiate between the non-pure functional status of Java, the non-pure functional status of Scheme, and the non-pure functional status of Erlang, and the effects of those on their utility for various programming applications, just as one can meaningfully differentiate between the non-pure water of the aforementioned mud pit, that of a somewhat silty river, and that of a fairly clear mountain lake, and the effects of those differences on their utility as a source of drinking water.