Many, many tales in many religious traditions are simply oral histories, eventually written down. There's quite a bit of good history there, both in stories at least "inspired by real events", and fairly accurate representations of customs and values of ancient peoples.
Of course we won't arrest you for drunk driving or domestic assault Mr. FBI, just like you won't arrest us for violating civil rights or using this highfalutin' cell phone spy gizmo.
Won't someone require a verification of ID tags against actual equipment serial numbers in a case like this, at least for some statistically significant portion of the equipment list?
Otherwise, you're just inventorying ID tags which could be stuck to anything. Now if they could manage to integrate the tag into the system somehow, although you'd have to define what the system was, otherwise you kind of get into a Theseus paradox situation.
Which makes me wonder how many empty computer cases have been "inventoried" even though there was functionally no computer inside.
Hey, dementia is a great disease.
At first, only you notice it.
Then everyone else notices it, too.
Then, only everyone around you notices it and you don't.
And then life's great again.
The worst thing I am reading in these comments is basically "I don't understand the summary". If this is you, you are part of the problem. You think you know what science is, and this article is confusing because you're wrong and can't even recognize what you're wrong about. If you don't understand, you need to stop talking about science until you do. You are damaging the cause for science by treating it like a belief system, so just stop. The more that people like you claim that God is made obsolete by science, the more that everyone else thinks that science is just like another religion.
Ever so much: this!
I meet people frequently who believe firmly in evolution, but don't understand why it's a good model. They take in on faith, because it's what the wise men told them. They don't understand why frequently-made creationist claims are wrong. They have some vaguely-remembered examples of evolution that are actually false. C'mon, it's all there in the talk.origins FAQ, just takes a few hours of your time to make your belief in evolution founded in science, not in faith.
But no one cares. It's not about science. It's about tribal identification. You don't need any arguemnts for evolution - duh, it's what smart people believe! If you don't believe it, you're not a smart people!
You see the same thing with people who have a religious faith in global warming, but again it's not grounded in anything. They take in on faith, because it's what the wise men told them. They may have some vague idea about CO2 and greenhouses, but that's about it. (Protip: greenhouses don't work by blocking IR radiation, they work by blocking convection). They have no idea how the CO2 in the upper atmosphere getting warmer makes the surface temp higher, but who cares? It's all about tribal identification, dummy, and this is what the smart people believe! Aren't you a smart people?
I like the multigenerational family setup, although it could have some annoyances (will I really have to listen to my dad's ideas on how I am supposed to mow the fucking lawn forever?).
The biggest problem is that employers don't want to give you time to manage the lives of your children, let alone elderly parents.
Science must take on faith a set of axioms, ones we assume to be true because otherwise we couldn't do science (basically: that inductive reasoning works), but that we have no a priori argument for, and likely cannot make any argument for.
Effectively, all science can every say is "assuming these common axioms, then what follows is
Tyson has been manufacturing quotes, attributing those quotes to people, and then attacking the quotes he made up, to show how Sciency he is or they aren't or something. It's dirty pool.
Super short version:
Philosophy addresses questions of truth.
Science addresses questions of observation.
Well, the sky is just a little less dense than the ocean so you need to work on your buoyancy.
. An IT group that is stretched too thin, asked to do too many things, or held accountable for things beyond its control, and has therefore devised methods to insulate itself from complaints
Who's talking about "IT"? I'm talking about software development. If you don't have those things I listed, you're doing it wrong - this is an engineering field now, the days of "seat of your pants" are past us.
But process that gets in your way is a sure sign of bad management. With the right tools, everything conspires to let teams work together faster, with no "who broke the build?" and no integration explosion at the end of large projects (a.k.a, the second 90% of the schedule).
Accountability is orthogonal to all of this.
You may quietly drop your geek card in the box provided on your way out.