Comment Re:It's the same old lies from these H1B advocates (Score 1) 612
If so, their morality is only dictated by laws and regulations
Yes, but don't forget that B-corps exist.
If so, their morality is only dictated by laws and regulations
Yes, but don't forget that B-corps exist.
Apparently you didn't even read to the second half of the second sentence of the article you link - reproducibility relies on Ceteris paribus. It is only necessary that experiments be reproducible in principle.
There has also been persistent oversupply - Brenner argues that that is the main driver in the decline.
If I look at a nude photograph
It's not a nude photograph - the content of the image has nothing to do with TFA's point.
it is from a magazine that exists to objectify women and titillate men
Stipulated. The interesting questions are, given the above two elements, should the image, despite it's unobjectionable content, be considered 'bad' in some way because of its provenance, and if so, why.
So far all I've heard is appeals to emotion - with which I am inclined to agree - but no arguments.
I have to waste some mod points to give the reasons. The legislation bans consideration of research where all data is not publicly available without regard for which data is available - like public health studies with anonymized data.
This bill would make it impossible for the EPA to use many health studies, since they often contain private patient information that can’t and shouldn’t be revealed. Studies based on confidential business information would also be off-limits. Studies of human exposures to toxics over time and from a variety of locations likely cannot be reproduced. Neither can meta-analyses, looking at the results of hundreds of scientific studies to assess their conclusions. Such studies provide critical scientific evidence in many fields of research. This legislation wasn’t designed to promote good science—it was crafted to prevent public health and environmental laws from being enforced.
it may be a widespread problem, but it is self-correcting.
I'm not entirely convinced it is self-correcting. Some scholars have named the MBA phenomenon as a key component in the secular decline of the average rate of profit since mid century. (Yes, profits are higher than ever now, but not the rate of profit).
[1] Brenner, Robert. The economics of global turbulence: the advanced capitalist economies from long boom to long downturn, 1945-2005. Verso, 2006.
[2] Brenner, Robert. "What is Good for Goldman Sachs is Good for America The Origins of the Present Crisis." (2009).
Microsoft itself is ditching IE for a new browser codenamed "Spartan"
I think they just announced that Spartan will be called Edge. </eyeroll>
Chrome is the new IE: Some pages only load on it...
Chrome is also the new IE because a bunch of other pages don't work on it at all. I just started switching back to Firefox because I was sick of so many compatibility issues with Chrome. (Other reasons like frequent brief lockups on one computer, the non-freeness, and the Eye of Mordor contributed somewhat).
The difference you see with Internet Explorer being "overcounted" shows that it occupies a long tail of many users who don't browse the web very often
And the users who occasionally need IE for something specific that still doesn't work in other browsers.
When I look around me I see the prices of food, electricity, and a whole host of other things I might buy frequently increasing (or the sizes of things like food decreasing while the price stays the same) by many percent a year.
You simply aren't seeing that - instead your wages have been stagnating so the extremely modest inflation we've been experiencing seems increasingly onerous. It's the proportion of your budget these things require has been increasing significantly, not their prices.
And when a page is loading in one tab, other tabs don't continue to update swiftly.
Chrome lazy-loads pages once the tabs are actually selected. In Firefox, it's an option you can set in the preferences dialog (turned on by default).
it's genuine criticism of the use of an image from Playboy.
Yes - my post above is very terse, but I want it to be made clear that the problem with the image isn't its content, but solely its provenance.
If the point is that the Playboy empire is so nasty that anything related to it is indelibly tainted by association (a position I'm sympathetic to), then I want to hear arguments supporting that position.
Similarly, if the claim is that the cropped image is pornography itself, then I want to see reasoning to that effect. Are cropped subimages of pornographic images, which themselves do not have pornographic content, nevertheless pornography? The post I replied to above had stated this as fact, without argument (thus my "no it's not").
I am not personally offended by it...But surely you accept the empirical evidence that many other people do find even the idea of the use of a centerfold image lifted (even cropped) from Playboy to be inappropriate in an academic setting...I agree its inappropriate...not something I'd knowingly do...
That's all fine, but I have yet to hear an actual argument for why the provenance of the cropped image should be the deciding factor here, since rational assessment of information is usually based on content rather than provenance. I'm sympathetic to the position, but we are talking about recreating an image which is identical in every way, except for out-of-shot information which cannot be recovered.
If the only argument is that Playboy is so bad that the cropped image is indelibly tainted by association, then I guess I'm fine with that - but the logical foundation seems shaky.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire
