I didn't say there was no reason a man should go into a ladies room. I said that it's easy to imagine a situation in which a man entering a ladies room would very definitely be sexual harassment. Like, you know, chasing after a specific woman.
From Quality control section: "Some of the world's best developers will be going over your source code with a fine comb. This may be embarrassing for a few days or weeks, but in the end the code tends to work better and be more easily maintained. In some cases the upstream developers have made network and storage drivers 30% faster, making the hardware more attractive to customers."
It's definitely better then not open source, but still I'd love to know more about those "world's best" developers and who pays them.
Open source is the necessary but not the sufficient condition. It needs to be reviewed by independent people, otherwise the open source part is useless.
Why, even the Spiegel article says right at the beginning that it's just playing with words for the sake of elections:
"But for this change of course to be more than just an election ploy, the government should however advocate a change in the EU Directive in Brussels. Which prescribes a six-month storage of traffic data - and the Union confirms in other parts of its election manifesto that it holds onto the fundamental goal to implement the Directive. "Minimum retention period" is spoken in the Union for two years already - and means nothing but data retention."
I don't see the difference. I don't trust either of them to do their jobs properly if their mental model of reality is based on religion.
If my doctor doesn't accept evolutionary theory, I have to wonder what else he doesn't accept. Can I trust him to advise on my childrens' vaccinations? Will he give me wife good advice on birth control? Did he just prescribe a homeopathic remedy for my high blood pressure?
I prefer dealing with professionals who use the best available evidence to make decisions in both their professional and personal lives. That way I don't have to wonder who he/she answers to at the end of the day. And that rules out MDs who don't accept the basic tenets of modern biology.
The difference is doing research and applying research. As long as they base their treatment on effectiveness rather than prayer, I don't care that they pray. If it makes them a happier and more peaceful person, it might do good. Unhappy people make for shitty doctors.
I don't see the difference. I don't trust either of them to do their jobs properly if their mental model of reality is based on religion.
And you consider that rational? Do I care if my car mechanic believes in ghosts? Why would it matter? Because it might mean he could have other strange ideas as well? How about I cross that bridge when I get to it and first meet the person, and maybe start caring about their beliefs once they actually do fuck up, instead of plastering my beliefs about their beliefs, and how it influences their work, all over it and calling it a day? At any rate, I would sooner look out for their office being littered with gifts from pharma salesmen and ads, if you catch my drift, and you can worry about bogeymen in the meantime.
Do you care if your electrician believes in Ohm's Law? Because that's what it means to deny evolution, for anyone whose job is even remotely connected to biological science. Your car mechanic analogy is irrelevant, because car mechanics don't confront decisions in their professional life that may bring them into conflict with their religion.
A better way to phrase your question might be, "Do you care if your car mechanic believes in phlogiston?" That would be "Yes."
>Because that's what it means to deny evolution, for anyone whose job is even remotely connected to biological science.
That's absolutely not true. Do you somehow not realize that the process that evolution describes takes millions of years to work? There is no possible way that disbelieving evolution can effect the effectiveness as a doctor.
That's like saying you can't develop a PHP app unless you understand Turing theory. The bulk of the internet proves such an assertion wrong.
Sorry, but it sounds like you're poorly-informed on the subject, or otherwise biased. We're unlikely to reach agreement.
And good luck with those Turing-denying programmers you hired. Let us know how they work out in the long run. There's a difference between someone who doesn't completely understand a given theory but accepts the process that led to it, and someone who actively denies the theory and, in doing so, rejects the entire epistemological framework it rests on.
>Sorry, but it sounds like you're poorly-informed on the subject, or otherwise biased.
I'm still waiting for you to give a concrete example where not knowing or believing evolution will cause a doctor to make a wrong choice. At is typical, people like yourself rely on hand wavy "you just don't understand" nonsense.
>And good luck with those Turing-denying programmers you hired. Let us know how they work out in the long run.
What I'm telling you is that most of the PHP sites on the web are made by people with little or no understanding of the fundamentals of the technology they use. And they make a living just fine. Honestly, I suspect Zuckerberg would be in this group as well. Fundamental understanding is never required to get results, no matter how much we may wish it so.
So, where can you sign up as an open source / creative commons artist? There are a lot of great hobby artists, but who will introduce the artists to the projects?
Whenever I see photos of suffering children in a political context for me it is the "look at those poor children, clearly the [opposing group] are poor evil" argument. Which is not about the children anymore, it's about diverting your attention from the cause of the problem. And this argument is used over and over on any occasion. How can you not become numb to that?
What's more despicable about killing children than about killing people of other ages?
Yet it's the children that are frequently used for political arguments. And that is disgusting.
What's more despicable about killing children than about killing people of other ages?
Perhaps the fact that they can't defend themselves? Or that you can't say that you just made the world better eliminating some dangerous terrorists? Or the fact that they had their whole life to live? You only have to choose.
Medical (and other) interventions that are effective on children are judged as more valuable than those that are effective on the extremely elderly due to the concept of "quality adjusted life years" (QALYs)[1]. Of course, people's emotional reaction to children being killed is merely based on evolutionary adaptedness, and has nothing to do with whether its morally justified for them to feel a particular level of outrage.
