One statistical outlier doesn't make a trend. One cold winter doesn't undo decades of warmer than average years.
And taking you at face value on the Antarctic gaining mass, if you think through the implications it is completely consistent with a warming planet. The Antarctic is still very very cold, and warming means an increase in humidity and precipitation, i.e. a larger ice sheet building over the central regions of the continent. That region still hasn't warmed sufficiently to cause large-scale melting.
Ice sheets are complicated things. Warming in general causes increased melting at the edges (near the lower lattitudes) and increased precipitation over the center. It's just a question of how fast it's adding mass at the center vs. losing it at the sides, but ultimately as it gets warmer the whole thing will melt at some temperature.
I'm not really debating the usefulness of string theory, I'm just pointing out the lag time between "curiousity" math being done and a use being found. Whether or not string theory is useful is something only time will tell. Plenty of other physics theories hung around for decades before some evidence one way or another was established. I'm content to give it time and just enough funding to find out if it's just mathematical masturbation or something with real legs.
n refers to the number of massive objects causing the lensing as I understand it, but I could be wrong. I'm slightly drunk while posting and my previous existence as an astronomy grad student eludes me.
This was exactly the point I was going to make. I spend a very large fraction of my time on any code project of importance just designing the damn thing. It annoys the hell out of people I work with sometimes, but generally by the time I finish the design job the code just flows naturally. And at the end of the day most of my compile time errors are just stupid typos and once I fix them my programs rarely have any unknown (i.e. I know what I'm doing has ways to break it and I flag them) runtime errors. Then again, I mostly design static libraries for other developers and I trust them to not do stupid things with my code (like ignoring 5 error returns before finally passing a function bad input that should've been caught WAY before).
What I did was went on a diet that consisted entirely of portion controlled meals for a week (frozen Lean Cuisine in my case) so I could establish my base metabolic rate by knowing exactly how many calories I ate and seeing how much weight I lost on about 1500 calories/day. It sucks but it's the best way to figure out exactly how much you really can eat and work out a meal plan from there. The first few weeks sucked but eventually my body got used to the reduced calorie intake and I stopped feeling hungry all the time, and now if I try to eat something like a double quarter pounder (or something equally bad for me) I actually feel sick afterwards instead of just the guilt of knowing I probably shouldn't have had it.
Did you factor your drinking into your food intake? I was packing on the pounds a few months ago before I did a total accounting of everything I ate and drank and started tracking my weight daily. A few minor tweaks to my diet (the first couple weeks were rough I'll admit) and 4 months later I've lost over 30 lbs. I was only eating about 1800 calories a day but my drinking habits averaged over a week easily put me over 2300 calories. A couple cocktails or non-light beers add up hella fast, and even most "light" beers are packed with calories. This is what got me started and I'd say it's successful (and fairly illuminating) if you can stick to it.
Is there any chance Mr. Gabriel could face some form of punishment for a breach of ethics in this case? And if so, would it potentially affect his pending judicial career? If the answers are yes it would be a nice bit of karma.
The total impact of these things to the planet's albedo is negligible in comparison to replacing the Arctic ice caps with open ocean. If you did something completely silly like cover the entire Mojave with a giant power plant you'd surely affect local climate, but I don't think any rational proposal would call for this. Not to mention a lot of the Mojave is a protected national park, so getting such a project completed is unlikely.
You may notice they are studying air pollution in California where it is a problem? That other cities in the US have "clean" air is a happy circumstance of their location. California has the some of the strictest emissions standards of anywhere in the US, but because of quirks of local geography and weather, some of the worst air pollution. The other US cities aren't for the most part any cleaner, they just don't have as many people and the wind tends to blow the pollution downstream so it can be Somebody Else's Problem.
You must not live in LA. Yes, most days are ok here (at least a vast improvement over the 70s), but there are still days you can see a visible brown haze. Improvements have been made but the problem is definitely not "solved".
You're trolling, but I'll make my point anyway. In all of the comments I've seen by NYCL, and in looking at his litigation history I see little to no evidence that he is "anti-RIAA" because he opposes copyright in general. In fact, the litigation history suggests his typical case is one where the RIAA's fishnet has wrongly fingered someone for infringement and the RIAA insists on pressing forward despite having a generally flimsy case.
The impression I get is not one of anti-copyright, but one of anti-abuse of the legal system. There are many of us who support the idea that copyright infringement is wrong, but still abhor the legal practices of the RIAA. It's easy to just say "if you do nothing wrong you won't get sued" but I think there's a certain single mother in Oregon who would argue against that point. I really see no alternative in such situations but a direct confrontation. Perhaps you have a better solution Mr. Anonymous Coward?
As a side note: Perhaps you wouldn't get down-modded as troll if you made a truly insightful post rather than going for cheap ad hominem attacks. If you don't want to be marked as a troll don't sound like one when you post.
I personally had to not laugh out loud when I read the idea that a lawyer thinks a room full of lawyers is a fair representation of the "intellectual elite". To me that's not unlike saying a jar full of leeches are a fair representation the most medicinally beneficial animals. Sure, sometimes they're useful, but generally they're just out to suck your blood.
I'm pulling this completely out of my ass here, but I suspect copyright is mostly irrelevant to most "classical" music modern and otherwise. Modern classical performers/composers still operate very much on a system not unlike patronage. I imagine record sales for any "new" classical music are quite low, the money is in the performance.
My personal example: the LA Philharmonic. When there is a guest performer (especially a big name like Midori) the concert will sell out months in advance, yet you rarely see recordings of such events. Also our former conductor Esa Pekka Salonen has decided to pursue a career in composition. As far as I know not a single piece of his has been included in a recording for sale, but several have been performed here and he seems to be doing just fine.
The LA Phil has recorded several albums, but I've yet to buy a single one. I'd much rather pay $80 for a good seat in one of the best concert halls in the world, and judging by the usual attendance there are a lot of people like me out there.
So no, I don't think classical music need concern itself at all with copyright. It generally gets by fine on performance and recordings seem more of an afterthought. Perhaps this is why we haven't seen record labels like Naxos suing the crap out of everyone?
From personal experience, I have a beard, I write code, and I read slashdot. So, from my sample size of 2 (including the GP), I must conclude this statement has a high probability of being true.
Thus, it is misleading to imply that our physical laws are simple and elegant because we have simple and elegant requirements to describe the universe. An accurate description of the universe need not be simple -- and often it is not. For instance, I understand (although lack the mathematical sophistication to prove) that the electron spin g-factor has a theoretical value of exactly 2. Yet it is observed to be approximately 2.00232 and is one of the most precisely measured physical constants. So it is not always simple truth and beauty. Which makes it all the more surprising when the simplicity is there nevertheless.
Actually, that's not quite correct. You're referring to the observed gyromagnetic ratio which is theoretically 2 if you don't account for relativity. If you use Dirac's equations the theory gives the observed value for g.
Malted barley prices have been going up for microbreweries as a result of farmers planting corn instead of barley. My family runs a small craft brewery and we've been feeling this pinch firsthand along with the shortages/high-prices of hops. It's not just the big players that will have to raise their prices.
And FYI corn can be a perfectly valid adjunct if you're trying to achieve a specific flavor. We produce a blonde ale that uses a corn adjunct for that purpose. It just shouldn't be used solely for the purpose of making the beer cheap by replacing as much malted barley as possible. Besides, rice is a more popular adjunct for that since it imparts less flavor/color.
My family has a cabin in rural MN which is off a short public road. All of the houses/lots along the road have their mailboxes at the turnoff to the main highway, but anyone looking at a map would just see a short unpaved frontage road. So, no, mailboxes don't always mean "driveway".
From my reading of the article it seems someone posted a fake profile of Jane Doe and falsely alleged they had permission to use the photos. Many of these online sites explicitly request your permission to use the contents of your profile in their advertising. It seems what has happened is the judge has decided that the website is still potentially liable for using Jane Doe's photos in their advertising because they never had express permission from her, just whoever created the fake profile.
Where this could become troubling for the industry is the need to verify beyond a doubt that every user is really who they say they are before using the contents of their profiles in advertising. It seems while they wouldn't be liable for defamation as a result of the fake profile, they can still get in trouble for using a person's likeness in their advertising if it came from a bogus profile.
That's just what I got from the reading, the full article is a little light on details.
I had a question regarding the improper joinder. I noticed on pages 9 and 10 this judge has consolidated multiple John Doe cases on account of "similar, even virtually identical, issues of law and fact" for "administrative efficiency". Whereas other judges have frequently brought up this same issues of improper joinder. What's the difference (if any) in these circumstances? I fail to see why consolidation should be appropriate here where other judges have considered it improper.
Slashdot Mirror
One statistical outlier doesn't make a trend. One cold winter doesn't undo decades of warmer than average years.
And taking you at face value on the Antarctic gaining mass, if you think through the implications it is completely consistent with a warming planet. The Antarctic is still very very cold, and warming means an increase in humidity and precipitation, i.e. a larger ice sheet building over the central regions of the continent. That region still hasn't warmed sufficiently to cause large-scale melting.
Ice sheets are complicated things. Warming in general causes increased melting at the edges (near the lower lattitudes) and increased precipitation over the center. It's just a question of how fast it's adding mass at the center vs. losing it at the sides, but ultimately as it gets warmer the whole thing will melt at some temperature.
They do that in mine too. Darned things sublimate right out of my ice cube trays and somehow magically reappear in my cocktail glass.
I'm not really debating the usefulness of string theory, I'm just pointing out the lag time between "curiousity" math being done and a use being found. Whether or not string theory is useful is something only time will tell. Plenty of other physics theories hung around for decades before some evidence one way or another was established. I'm content to give it time and just enough funding to find out if it's just mathematical masturbation or something with real legs.
n refers to the number of massive objects causing the lensing as I understand it, but I could be wrong. I'm slightly drunk while posting and my previous existence as an astronomy grad student eludes me.
Sometimes it takes decades to find the relevant uses for the math though. For example the beta function and string theory
This was exactly the point I was going to make. I spend a very large fraction of my time on any code project of importance just designing the damn thing. It annoys the hell out of people I work with sometimes, but generally by the time I finish the design job the code just flows naturally. And at the end of the day most of my compile time errors are just stupid typos and once I fix them my programs rarely have any unknown (i.e. I know what I'm doing has ways to break it and I flag them) runtime errors. Then again, I mostly design static libraries for other developers and I trust them to not do stupid things with my code (like ignoring 5 error returns before finally passing a function bad input that should've been caught WAY before).
What I did was went on a diet that consisted entirely of portion controlled meals for a week (frozen Lean Cuisine in my case) so I could establish my base metabolic rate by knowing exactly how many calories I ate and seeing how much weight I lost on about 1500 calories/day. It sucks but it's the best way to figure out exactly how much you really can eat and work out a meal plan from there. The first few weeks sucked but eventually my body got used to the reduced calorie intake and I stopped feeling hungry all the time, and now if I try to eat something like a double quarter pounder (or something equally bad for me) I actually feel sick afterwards instead of just the guilt of knowing I probably shouldn't have had it.
Did you factor your drinking into your food intake? I was packing on the pounds a few months ago before I did a total accounting of everything I ate and drank and started tracking my weight daily. A few minor tweaks to my diet (the first couple weeks were rough I'll admit) and 4 months later I've lost over 30 lbs. I was only eating about 1800 calories a day but my drinking habits averaged over a week easily put me over 2300 calories. A couple cocktails or non-light beers add up hella fast, and even most "light" beers are packed with calories. This is what got me started and I'd say it's successful (and fairly illuminating) if you can stick to it.
Is there any chance Mr. Gabriel could face some form of punishment for a breach of ethics in this case? And if so, would it potentially affect his pending judicial career? If the answers are yes it would be a nice bit of karma.
Well, they might be on to something. I have it on good information they have teeth.
I dunno, I know a disturbing number of gay men who have a strange fascination with boobs. Especially when they're drunk.
The total impact of these things to the planet's albedo is negligible in comparison to replacing the Arctic ice caps with open ocean. If you did something completely silly like cover the entire Mojave with a giant power plant you'd surely affect local climate, but I don't think any rational proposal would call for this. Not to mention a lot of the Mojave is a protected national park, so getting such a project completed is unlikely.
You may notice they are studying air pollution in California where it is a problem? That other cities in the US have "clean" air is a happy circumstance of their location. California has the some of the strictest emissions standards of anywhere in the US, but because of quirks of local geography and weather, some of the worst air pollution. The other US cities aren't for the most part any cleaner, they just don't have as many people and the wind tends to blow the pollution downstream so it can be Somebody Else's Problem.
You must not live in LA. Yes, most days are ok here (at least a vast improvement over the 70s), but there are still days you can see a visible brown haze. Improvements have been made but the problem is definitely not "solved".
I'd rather not see another term of Dick Cheney in the White House, thanks.
You're trolling, but I'll make my point anyway. In all of the comments I've seen by NYCL, and in looking at his litigation history I see little to no evidence that he is "anti-RIAA" because he opposes copyright in general. In fact, the litigation history suggests his typical case is one where the RIAA's fishnet has wrongly fingered someone for infringement and the RIAA insists on pressing forward despite having a generally flimsy case.
The impression I get is not one of anti-copyright, but one of anti-abuse of the legal system. There are many of us who support the idea that copyright infringement is wrong, but still abhor the legal practices of the RIAA. It's easy to just say "if you do nothing wrong you won't get sued" but I think there's a certain single mother in Oregon who would argue against that point. I really see no alternative in such situations but a direct confrontation. Perhaps you have a better solution Mr. Anonymous Coward?
As a side note: Perhaps you wouldn't get down-modded as troll if you made a truly insightful post rather than going for cheap ad hominem attacks. If you don't want to be marked as a troll don't sound like one when you post.
I personally had to not laugh out loud when I read the idea that a lawyer thinks a room full of lawyers is a fair representation of the "intellectual elite". To me that's not unlike saying a jar full of leeches are a fair representation the most medicinally beneficial animals. Sure, sometimes they're useful, but generally they're just out to suck your blood.
I'm pulling this completely out of my ass here, but I suspect copyright is mostly irrelevant to most "classical" music modern and otherwise. Modern classical performers/composers still operate very much on a system not unlike patronage. I imagine record sales for any "new" classical music are quite low, the money is in the performance.
My personal example: the LA Philharmonic. When there is a guest performer (especially a big name like Midori) the concert will sell out months in advance, yet you rarely see recordings of such events. Also our former conductor Esa Pekka Salonen has decided to pursue a career in composition. As far as I know not a single piece of his has been included in a recording for sale, but several have been performed here and he seems to be doing just fine.
The LA Phil has recorded several albums, but I've yet to buy a single one. I'd much rather pay $80 for a good seat in one of the best concert halls in the world, and judging by the usual attendance there are a lot of people like me out there.
So no, I don't think classical music need concern itself at all with copyright. It generally gets by fine on performance and recordings seem more of an afterthought. Perhaps this is why we haven't seen record labels like Naxos suing the crap out of everyone?
From personal experience, I have a beard, I write code, and I read slashdot. So, from my sample size of 2 (including the GP), I must conclude this statement has a high probability of being true.
Actually, that's not quite correct. You're referring to the observed gyromagnetic ratio which is theoretically 2 if you don't account for relativity. If you use Dirac's equations the theory gives the observed value for g.
Malted barley prices have been going up for microbreweries as a result of farmers planting corn instead of barley. My family runs a small craft brewery and we've been feeling this pinch firsthand along with the shortages/high-prices of hops. It's not just the big players that will have to raise their prices.
And FYI corn can be a perfectly valid adjunct if you're trying to achieve a specific flavor. We produce a blonde ale that uses a corn adjunct for that purpose. It just shouldn't be used solely for the purpose of making the beer cheap by replacing as much malted barley as possible. Besides, rice is a more popular adjunct for that since it imparts less flavor/color.
My family has a cabin in rural MN which is off a short public road. All of the houses/lots along the road have their mailboxes at the turnoff to the main highway, but anyone looking at a map would just see a short unpaved frontage road. So, no, mailboxes don't always mean "driveway".
From my reading of the article it seems someone posted a fake profile of Jane Doe and falsely alleged they had permission to use the photos. Many of these online sites explicitly request your permission to use the contents of your profile in their advertising. It seems what has happened is the judge has decided that the website is still potentially liable for using Jane Doe's photos in their advertising because they never had express permission from her, just whoever created the fake profile.
Where this could become troubling for the industry is the need to verify beyond a doubt that every user is really who they say they are before using the contents of their profiles in advertising. It seems while they wouldn't be liable for defamation as a result of the fake profile, they can still get in trouble for using a person's likeness in their advertising if it came from a bogus profile.
That's just what I got from the reading, the full article is a little light on details.
Actually, considering the range of sizes stars can have, a factor of 2 is pretty damn close in the astronomical world.
I had a question regarding the improper joinder. I noticed on pages 9 and 10 this judge has consolidated multiple John Doe cases on account of "similar, even virtually identical, issues of law and fact" for "administrative efficiency". Whereas other judges have frequently brought up this same issues of improper joinder. What's the difference (if any) in these circumstances? I fail to see why consolidation should be appropriate here where other judges have considered it improper.