Not sure about the study in question... but often such studies do not count dead people, just survivors. In such cases, we would find that helmets are linked quite strongly to head injuries, since all the non-helmet wearers are either dead or fortunate enough not to have suffered any particular head trauma at all.
Because Novell isn't stupid enough to believe that tripe.
Repeat after me Slashdot:
IBM is a publicly traded company; IBM is not nice or friendly or generous or willing to stick its neck out for others unless there is an extremely good reason, and "because someone needs their help" is an extremely poor reason; the Nazgul are bad people, and only a fool expects bad people to do anything to them that isn't bad; IBM would just as soon sell me and the rest of the F/OSS community down the river if doing so would help their bottom line.
Keep repeating that until it sinks in. IBM is a company, right now they're doing some good stuff, but they aren't some sort of savior for Linux. There was a time when IBM was just as bad as Microsoft, and if they could get there again they would.
I wouldn't even call it pro-MS, I'd call it anti-anti-MS and pro-"not being a douche bag and making incredibly controversial claims based on obviously and likely intentionally flawed studies".
I'm all about bashing MS, but using spurious logic to do so is just detrimental to the entire anti-MS movement.
Sure, the flavors set up to run on outdated hardware are great at it, and such distros are not only modern but regularly updated and supported to some extent. Hell, you can actually find them.
Tibet is part of china only because China invaded and occupied it. That's like saying Lebanon is part of Syria.
The Spratly's are disputed to us... but to the Chinese it's theirs and others are just interfering.
China has made no secret of the fact that they believe Taiwan is theirs, and that they tolerate Taiwan's independence only because they are currently unable to take it back by force and crush the "counter-revolution" there. It is also technically a apart of China, even if it is practically separate. As you pointed out yourself, Taiwan's government spent years in exile... and it wasn't because springtime in Japan is so lovely.
I agree that it's important they know what it is the company does, but like I said, the engineer need not know the complexities of forging steel into an I-beam so long as the engineer understands what that I-beam can do. A CEO for a software company doesn't need to know how to code any more than a CEO for a clothing company needs to know how to sew... it's probably a good idea for them to at least know the basics, and to understand a bit about how it works, but beyond that it doesn't really matter anymore.
Am I the only one who thinks that ad should be advocating for parents to completely ban their children from text messages?
I've actually heard of kids in middle and high school who use SMS and IM so much that they legitimately don't know how to spell words like "you", "your/you're", and will use internet abbreviations (lol, idk, etc.) in school papers.
It scares the shit out of me that people think that's funny, and are apparently willing to pay so that their kids can do more of it.
"Also, way too often, the CEO often doesn't know anything about programming, Ballmer just to name one, and in those cases, disaster results. A computer company CEO that doesn't know how to program is like an engineer who doesn't know the laws of physics or how his building materials work. This would never even be considered for an engineer but is almost par for the course for a bad computer company."
Only coders ever seem to think that. Ballmer may be a poor CEO, but it has nothing to do with his not knowing how to code, because it really doesn't matter at all if the CEO can code. An engineer certainly needs to know what his building materials can do, but he doesn't need to know exactly how steel is refined because it doesn't make any difference. We don't make bankers learn how to use a printing press either; or show prosecutors how the lock mechanism on a pair of handcuffs is built.
I've worked for large corporations where the CEOs started out doing the grunt work, and I haven't been thrilled with the types of decisions they make: I find that they tend to micromanage and make rules apply across the company that may well have worked in the shop they personally ran 10 years ago, but really can't be applied across the board; they also tend to disregard info from the bottom solely on the basis that they have been there, and it shouldn't make a difference.
Sweet! I've been wondering how to kill more brain cells during the work day for years now! First sniffing the fumes from all my markers and pens, then bashing my head up against the wall for hours at a time (reminds me of tech support...), and now I can get an early start by reading Slashdot on my commute!
But... but... Google Good, DMCA Bad, judges Incompetent. Everybody knows that. Don't go rocking the boat with your new fangled "ideas" that you get from "analyzing the facts for yourself" rather than just accepting the "Slasbot groupthink" as the gospel we all know it is!
No good will come of this, I tell ya. No good at all.
Now if ya'll will excuse me, I've got to go attend to my Beowulf cluster of Linux servers hosting my Natalie Portman with hot grits fingernail fetish pr0n site and distributing perfectly legal torrents, it's currently orchestrating a DDoS attack on Redmond and I need to make sure I don't accidently hit Steve Jobs or he'll send sharks with frikin' lasers to send me back to Soviet Russia as a karma whore on the streets of St. Petersburg.
I can drive me car better than it can drive itself, and I need to be in complete control for it to behave properly. I find that autos tend to shift at all the wrong times, causing me to have too little power when I need to quickly accelerate (such as when I leave my driveway and need to merge with traffic traveling at 50 mph) or too much power on roads that just can't be driven very quickly (35 mph on a long straightway with very low housing density... autos just don't want to drive the speed limit.
I doubt "ignorant" is actually accurate. The guy came from IBM, and he probably knows his shit.
His job, however, is to make MSFT look good and everyone else look bad. He is very well paid for this service. he's probably also not terribly concerned about some/. reader stating the obvious, since he probably doesn't care what most of us say even if it isn't obvious.
The original list was garnered from a counter-intelligence operation that had begun and ended nearly a decade before during WWII. It was actually intended to catch Nazis, not communists, and the most common reason for a name appearing on the list amounted to suspicion of homosexuality. The list was worthless when it was made, and by the time mcCarthy got his hands on it the list had become outdated as well.
He could have been right once or twice, but it would have been pure luck, and his real reason wouldn't have been to break up an espionage ring but rather to consolidate poltical power.
More like, the parents will be set for life, and the town will have to close down it's schools due to legal fees, and several teachers will be bankrupted and never again able to find work. The kids might get to sponge off their parents' newly enlarged coffers a little more greedily, but I seriously doubt the kids will ever see a dime of it after they turn 18. Probably won't be given the beamer either.
Doubling the number of possible file names within, of course! Everyone knows that the easiest and most mnemonic way to have two separate but similar files is to change the case of one or more characters in the file name. Numbers are for sissies.
Seriously though, it was of extreme importance when files could only have names n characters long, but since modern file systems allow file and folder names to be of virtually infinite length, it serves very little use except to those few who prefer it to sequential numbering or are so accustomed to it as to be uncomfortable without it. Oh, that and to make it harder to remember the names of files, and increase the rate of errors due to typing error.
All of which address the conditions under which one should engage in warfare, justifications for war, and the goals of war, none of which address the rules of war. Bait and switch ftl.
But yes, if your position is really "without more evidence I cannot decide", then I have no criticism for that. But i really doubt that's your position, because you seem very certain that religion is a net bad, and you have only argued that religion can be viewed as only net neutral.
I also wonder who the people are that you're talking about. Do you actually KNOW anyone who practices a religion? What are your sources? My data comes from the countless individuals whom I've met and talked religion with, personal observations of many different church/temple/whatever groups from a couple places in the country, and studying several religions both formally and informally with a large emphasis on comparing each. I've found that, overall, people are reasonable and try to do good things, some more than others, and some far less than others, and my personal finding is that religion is a very positive thing for most of the people who take part in it, and a very negative thing for a very small number of them. You're welcome to question why or take issue with their belief in the supernatural, frankly I don't care, and if you look at my very first comment on this subject you'll notice that I bolded a part stating that the existence or non-existence of any deity is not relevant to my opinion on this.
I admit that I haven't conducted any formal study or gone through the math in depth, but I also posit that any such action would be total BS anyway. It's just too vague for the sort of formal study you seem to demand. even beyond that, I'm not sure why you or anyone else would want it. Whatever the result were, it would be incredibly controversial, and the methods used would almost certainly be flawed, if only because the question being answered is virtually guaranteed to be biased. And what would actually be studied? Please, elaborate on this hypothetical study.
I question Dr. Dennet's grasp of history, with regards to the respect traditionally given to individuals specializing in the philosophy of religion, and without a clearer explanation of his views I'm not about to argue for or against his claims; though it does appear that he's known for holding other philosophers in relatively low esteem, and that his primary interest lies in determining a natural science of human morality, the idea of which somewhat bores me as I've heard it from others. If he really wants this research done, is there some reason he hasn't just done it himself? In any case, your assertion that a single philosopher who apparently refuses to play by the same rules as his peers somehow trumps anyone who disagrees with your stance that the only thing that matters is hard science is a little bizarre. I'd like to see some justification for that.
As for edge.org, well, their motto is so pretentious I have trouble taking it seriously, and their homepage isn't changing that first impression any; maybe if I had all the time in the world on my hands, I'd browse around, looks can be misleading, but it looks far from a serious intellectual circle to me. Sounds a lot more like a bunch of natural science experts trying to wax philosophical than anyone I'd actually care to listen to on the subject; I'm not interested in learning theoretical physics from a theologist, so why should I be interested in the opposite?
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure about the study in question... but often such studies do not count dead people, just survivors. In such cases, we would find that helmets are linked quite strongly to head injuries, since all the non-helmet wearers are either dead or fortunate enough not to have suffered any particular head trauma at all.
Because Novell isn't stupid enough to believe that tripe.
Repeat after me Slashdot:
IBM is a publicly traded company; IBM is not nice or friendly or generous or willing to stick its neck out for others unless there is an extremely good reason, and "because someone needs their help" is an extremely poor reason; the Nazgul are bad people, and only a fool expects bad people to do anything to them that isn't bad; IBM would just as soon sell me and the rest of the F/OSS community down the river if doing so would help their bottom line.
Keep repeating that until it sinks in. IBM is a company, right now they're doing some good stuff, but they aren't some sort of savior for Linux. There was a time when IBM was just as bad as Microsoft, and if they could get there again they would.
I wouldn't even call it pro-MS, I'd call it anti-anti-MS and pro-"not being a douche bag and making incredibly controversial claims based on obviously and likely intentionally flawed studies".
I'm all about bashing MS, but using spurious logic to do so is just detrimental to the entire anti-MS movement.
Sure, the flavors set up to run on outdated hardware are great at it, and such distros are not only modern but regularly updated and supported to some extent. Hell, you can actually find them.
Ubuntu and Fedora are not, however, such distros.
Aw, hey little buddy, you seem to have gotten stuck in that fence. Well don't worry, I'll help push you through...
Baaa! Baaa!
Good job mods, parent is a joke... it's funny, laugh.
Mod parent up, or at least something other than "troll".
Tibet is part of china only because China invaded and occupied it. That's like saying Lebanon is part of Syria.
The Spratly's are disputed to us... but to the Chinese it's theirs and others are just interfering.
China has made no secret of the fact that they believe Taiwan is theirs, and that they tolerate Taiwan's independence only because they are currently unable to take it back by force and crush the "counter-revolution" there. It is also technically a apart of China, even if it is practically separate. As you pointed out yourself, Taiwan's government spent years in exile... and it wasn't because springtime in Japan is so lovely.
Whew, good thing that isn't legally possible, or he might actually have to worry.
I agree that it's important they know what it is the company does, but like I said, the engineer need not know the complexities of forging steel into an I-beam so long as the engineer understands what that I-beam can do. A CEO for a software company doesn't need to know how to code any more than a CEO for a clothing company needs to know how to sew... it's probably a good idea for them to at least know the basics, and to understand a bit about how it works, but beyond that it doesn't really matter anymore.
Am I the only one who thinks that ad should be advocating for parents to completely ban their children from text messages?
I've actually heard of kids in middle and high school who use SMS and IM so much that they legitimately don't know how to spell words like "you", "your/you're", and will use internet abbreviations (lol, idk, etc.) in school papers.
It scares the shit out of me that people think that's funny, and are apparently willing to pay so that their kids can do more of it.
"Also, way too often, the CEO often doesn't know anything about programming, Ballmer just to name one, and in those cases, disaster results. A computer company CEO that doesn't know how to program is like an engineer who doesn't know the laws of physics or how his building materials work. This would never even be considered for an engineer but is almost par for the course for a bad computer company."
Only coders ever seem to think that. Ballmer may be a poor CEO, but it has nothing to do with his not knowing how to code, because it really doesn't matter at all if the CEO can code. An engineer certainly needs to know what his building materials can do, but he doesn't need to know exactly how steel is refined because it doesn't make any difference. We don't make bankers learn how to use a printing press either; or show prosecutors how the lock mechanism on a pair of handcuffs is built.
I've worked for large corporations where the CEOs started out doing the grunt work, and I haven't been thrilled with the types of decisions they make: I find that they tend to micromanage and make rules apply across the company that may well have worked in the shop they personally ran 10 years ago, but really can't be applied across the board; they also tend to disregard info from the bottom solely on the basis that they have been there, and it shouldn't make a difference.
They're like the K-Mart of Transformers.
Parent is not a troll, it's a joke. It's an FSM reference (and a better one than most, I might add), for all those who might not get it.
Sweet! I've been wondering how to kill more brain cells during the work day for years now! First sniffing the fumes from all my markers and pens, then bashing my head up against the wall for hours at a time (reminds me of tech support...), and now I can get an early start by reading Slashdot on my commute!
But... but... Google Good, DMCA Bad, judges Incompetent. Everybody knows that. Don't go rocking the boat with your new fangled "ideas" that you get from "analyzing the facts for yourself" rather than just accepting the "Slasbot groupthink" as the gospel we all know it is!
No good will come of this, I tell ya. No good at all.
Now if ya'll will excuse me, I've got to go attend to my Beowulf cluster of Linux servers hosting my Natalie Portman with hot grits fingernail fetish pr0n site and distributing perfectly legal torrents, it's currently orchestrating a DDoS attack on Redmond and I need to make sure I don't accidently hit Steve Jobs or he'll send sharks with frikin' lasers to send me back to Soviet Russia as a karma whore on the streets of St. Petersburg.
Of all the presidents to successfully defend...
Come on Secret Service, throw us a frickin' bone here!
And I am an admitted manual snob.
I can drive me car better than it can drive itself, and I need to be in complete control for it to behave properly. I find that autos tend to shift at all the wrong times, causing me to have too little power when I need to quickly accelerate (such as when I leave my driveway and need to merge with traffic traveling at 50 mph) or too much power on roads that just can't be driven very quickly (35 mph on a long straightway with very low housing density... autos just don't want to drive the speed limit.
I doubt "ignorant" is actually accurate. The guy came from IBM, and he probably knows his shit.
/. reader stating the obvious, since he probably doesn't care what most of us say even if it isn't obvious.
His job, however, is to make MSFT look good and everyone else look bad. He is very well paid for this service. he's probably also not terribly concerned about some
I still don't get the "why"?
Congratulations, you can insert Heroes (right? I don't watch the show myself, so I'm not sure) spoilers into an otherwise good post... so what?
The original list was garnered from a counter-intelligence operation that had begun and ended nearly a decade before during WWII. It was actually intended to catch Nazis, not communists, and the most common reason for a name appearing on the list amounted to suspicion of homosexuality. The list was worthless when it was made, and by the time mcCarthy got his hands on it the list had become outdated as well.
He could have been right once or twice, but it would have been pure luck, and his real reason wouldn't have been to break up an espionage ring but rather to consolidate poltical power.
Well, sort of.
More like, the parents will be set for life, and the town will have to close down it's schools due to legal fees, and several teachers will be bankrupted and never again able to find work. The kids might get to sponge off their parents' newly enlarged coffers a little more greedily, but I seriously doubt the kids will ever see a dime of it after they turn 18. Probably won't be given the beamer either.
Well, I don't know about the next one, but I saw on the 11 o' clock news earlier that the last one is currently listed as being in stable condition.
Doubling the number of possible file names within, of course! Everyone knows that the easiest and most mnemonic way to have two separate but similar files is to change the case of one or more characters in the file name. Numbers are for sissies.
Seriously though, it was of extreme importance when files could only have names n characters long, but since modern file systems allow file and folder names to be of virtually infinite length, it serves very little use except to those few who prefer it to sequential numbering or are so accustomed to it as to be uncomfortable without it. Oh, that and to make it harder to remember the names of files, and increase the rate of errors due to typing error.
All of which address the conditions under which one should engage in warfare, justifications for war, and the goals of war, none of which address the rules of war. Bait and switch ftl.
Now you're just changing your stance. Nice try.
But yes, if your position is really "without more evidence I cannot decide", then I have no criticism for that. But i really doubt that's your position, because you seem very certain that religion is a net bad, and you have only argued that religion can be viewed as only net neutral.
I also wonder who the people are that you're talking about. Do you actually KNOW anyone who practices a religion? What are your sources? My data comes from the countless individuals whom I've met and talked religion with, personal observations of many different church/temple/whatever groups from a couple places in the country, and studying several religions both formally and informally with a large emphasis on comparing each. I've found that, overall, people are reasonable and try to do good things, some more than others, and some far less than others, and my personal finding is that religion is a very positive thing for most of the people who take part in it, and a very negative thing for a very small number of them. You're welcome to question why or take issue with their belief in the supernatural, frankly I don't care, and if you look at my very first comment on this subject you'll notice that I bolded a part stating that the existence or non-existence of any deity is not relevant to my opinion on this.
I admit that I haven't conducted any formal study or gone through the math in depth, but I also posit that any such action would be total BS anyway. It's just too vague for the sort of formal study you seem to demand. even beyond that, I'm not sure why you or anyone else would want it. Whatever the result were, it would be incredibly controversial, and the methods used would almost certainly be flawed, if only because the question being answered is virtually guaranteed to be biased. And what would actually be studied? Please, elaborate on this hypothetical study.
I question Dr. Dennet's grasp of history, with regards to the respect traditionally given to individuals specializing in the philosophy of religion, and without a clearer explanation of his views I'm not about to argue for or against his claims; though it does appear that he's known for holding other philosophers in relatively low esteem, and that his primary interest lies in determining a natural science of human morality, the idea of which somewhat bores me as I've heard it from others. If he really wants this research done, is there some reason he hasn't just done it himself? In any case, your assertion that a single philosopher who apparently refuses to play by the same rules as his peers somehow trumps anyone who disagrees with your stance that the only thing that matters is hard science is a little bizarre. I'd like to see some justification for that.
As for edge.org, well, their motto is so pretentious I have trouble taking it seriously, and their homepage isn't changing that first impression any; maybe if I had all the time in the world on my hands, I'd browse around, looks can be misleading, but it looks far from a serious intellectual circle to me. Sounds a lot more like a bunch of natural science experts trying to wax philosophical than anyone I'd actually care to listen to on the subject; I'm not interested in learning theoretical physics from a theologist, so why should I be interested in the opposite?