For that matter, I'd like TFA to define "progressive". I'm not sure it's really being used as it should.
For example: Obama and cronies are "Progressives". Yet under their administration, income inequality has gone up considerably, gender pay gap is a big issue again, racial tensions are at a decades-long high, etc.
Maybe if we're talking about Progressive ideals, rather than what it's really like to live under Progressives, then it might make sense.
Off-topic: I was looking through some old posts, and see you ran into "khayman80" and some of his cronies.
Sorry about that. But if you do so again, you should be aware of his tactics. He has been known to distort old comments out of context, resort to personal attacks, and otherwise do whatever he felt would discredit or get the other party to shut up. I have archives full of him doing that kind of stuff. I've had to put up with his BS for years.
He even tracked down who I was, followed me to other forums, and tried to attack me there, too. Apparently just because that's the kind of guy he is.
It's usually just irritating but he's been pretty nasty at times. Be warned, and I suggest keeping copies of everything in case he goes too far. He has, more than once. A paper trail could be useful in that event.
GP is wrong since they DID NOT HAVE A WAREHOUSE when they started collecting tax. They hadn't even purchased/leased land for it yet. Still not sure if they have one today. To put it another way, they started collecting sales tax BEFORE they had a physical or even legal presence in the state.
That's really irrelevant to the basic principle. They made a deal with the state becausethey were putting in a warehouse, which is a physical presence. No doubt it was a voluntary agreement in exchange for some kind of perk for the warehouse.
But physical presence is the general legal rule. If they made some different kind of deal with the state, then blame the state. Or blame them. It makes no difference to how the law generally works.
The original Palm Pilot did make the list, though not at #1. It was influential, but ultimately was a device and a category of devices that wasn't quite good enough to achieve the kind of mass acceptance that the smartphone has.
Again, not quite true. Palm Tungsten was selling like hotcakes. It basically was a smartphone, without the phone part.
But when real smartphones came out, it became almost instantly obsolete. Not because the Palm was really inferior in other ways. Hell, in those other ways it was a lot better than most smartphones: better and bigger screen, plenty of memory, and a very decent processor.
The reason it became obsolete was pretty much because it wasn't a phone too. People didn't want to carry 2 devices around.
The Palm Treo (smartphone) did not do very well because it sacrificed all those other things that made Palm stand out. Like the really nice, big color screen.
Funny how you ignore the Apple Newton - without which Palm wouldn't exist. Quite remarkable for a rant about selective reasoning.
Funny how you accuse me of something I didn't do.
I simply gave examples, to show that iPhone was definitely not first. I didn't claim Palm was the first. In fact I could not have, since I also mentioned a much earlier example.
So I really don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Even their reasoning for choosing the iPhone is faulty.
Before the iPhone there was the Palm. While Palm OS was a bit funky, some of the later (still pre-iPhone) devices like the Tungsten were definitely full-blown pocket computers. You could get apps for them, read and write MS Office documents, spreadsheets, and databases, and even play Bejeweled 2 in high-res. full color with good sound. And browse the Internet.
Before the Palm was the HP programmable calculator. The HP 28S was definitely a general-purpose pocket computer, back in the late 80s. I/O was a bit of a problem... I was only keyboard and O was only screen or portable printer... but it was definitely a computer and I wrote many programs for it. The language is/was a lot like Forth. It had a multi-line alphanumeric screen and fit in your shirt pocket.
I understand them liking the iPhone, but it was nowhere near the first viable pocket computer. Not even the first good one.
This sort of case has been made in a few courts now, and so far they all agree that just filtering user content does not invalidate the safe harbor protections.
Not "all" of them agree.
It has been a few years, and I don't have case citations in front of me. But there's pretty strong precedent saying that if you "moderate" your site's content, then you become responsible for that content, for the simple reason that you have altered it.
Filtering is moderation. And it's a completely reasonable premise. For example, if you "filtered" any comments about any Presidential candidate but Bernie Sanders, then you would in effect be promoting Bernie Sanders on your site, which is a form of speech. Even if none of the content actually originated from anyone in your company.
The whole idea behind safe harbor is that your site is not originating content. But there are many ways that "managing" the content supplied by others becomes de facto your own speech... which safe harbor is not intended to protect.
Oh, I remember Jane Q Public -- the poster child for motivated reasoning. Perhaps she should do an abstract study herself, but that would involve reading actual real climate science papers, which would be too much to ask. So back to the righteous indignation, isn't it Jane.
I would be willing to wager I've read a lot more of them than you have.
As usual, Jane, you don't fail to amuse. The "people ripping it to shreds" is one guy, with what appears to be a personal grudge against John Cook and the Skeptical Science web site, complaining about one chart used in the paper with much histrionics and hyperbole.
And as usual, you just don't get it. I gave one example. Out of many. You can find them yourself easily enough, and at least one other example has been given here by others.
Is this some new meaning of "ripping it to shreds" that I've never heard of before or are you just repeating what you read on some retired weatherman's blog?
Catching somebody lie about the methodology of their "science" paper is indeed ripping it to shreds. Sorry you don't understand that, but so be it.
Yes, and that should raise a serious red flag. Because anyone can see for themselves that the Cook paper is utter garbage. It's blatant. And yet NASA supports this horrendous paper because it reaches the 'correct' conclusion. (and is useful for 'raising awareness'?)
Exactly. Glad to see people recognize that one doesn't have to be NASA to catch people lying, or to understand that deliberate lying about methodology invalidates it.
It is indeed bothersome that NASA would support the Cook paper since the evidence the authors lied is a matter of public record, and beyond any reasonable doubt.
The new paper cites as evidence Cook's old paper (referenced as "C13"), which has been pretty thoroughly refuted by now. I mean, it's pretty amazing that these people can be caught red-handed lying about their methodology, beyond any reasonable doubt, and then act like nothing happened. The "C13" paper is utter garbage. I haven't read the entire new paper yet, but if it cites "C13" my expectations are extremely low.
And just FYI: I'm not going to argue about that fact. If anybody doubts that "C13" was garbage, all they have to do is spend a few minutes on Google and view the evidence. Deliberately (and repeatedly) lying about your data and your methods is a cardinal sin. Not to mention the just plain errors.
Anyway: as I say I haven't read the entire new paper yet, but there are already people ripping it to shreds. I don't really expect it will get much better reception than C13 did. But I do think it will be fun to watch what's coming.
I, too, want them to succeed. Which is why so many of their recent moves have been bothersome.
I've written to Mozilla several times asking them to stop removing popular features and "Chrome-ifying" their UI.
The fact remains that Mozilla is the only organization today making a browser that truly encourages electronic privacy, though they've stumbled over even that once or twice.
Its presence is valuable, and people should celebrate it, not try to tear it down.
It still bothers me when I see articles like this which label copyers or downloaders as "pirates".
Copyright "piracy" was defined more than 100 years ago. It's a legal term, and it relates to those who copy and reproduce copyrighted works for profit.
The vast majority of file-sharers are not "pirates". Copyright holders started using that term around 2000 to deliberately muddy the waters surrounding file sharing.
Just in case there is someone who doesn't yet know: copyright "piracy" is a crime. File sharing, if not done for profit, is not. Uploading could make you the subject of a civil suit, but not a criminal charge. Unless you're doing it for meaningful personal gain.
The article is not just pointless but also misleading. The implication is that software jobs are replacing hardware jobs... but that is pretty obviously not the case, when you look at the overall numbers of jobs in the respective fields.
For the most part, what this is actually showing is a decline in manufacturing, as you say. Mostly due to offshoring. And it is a Very Bad Thing to be losing that production capacity.
However, software replacing specialized hardware mostly happened a long time ago. It's continuing, but I don't think it's any kind of big new trend.
Could it be that this is the case because what already burned nearly century ago can not burn again? Or did all of the burned out areas regrow trees etc.?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
For that matter, I'd like TFA to define "progressive". I'm not sure it's really being used as it should.
For example: Obama and cronies are "Progressives". Yet under their administration, income inequality has gone up considerably, gender pay gap is a big issue again, racial tensions are at a decades-long high, etc.
Maybe if we're talking about Progressive ideals, rather than what it's really like to live under Progressives, then it might make sense.
Oh... and he's tried to pull the "creationist" thing on me, too, like he did you.
Same sh*t, different day. One thing I will say is that his distortions, while very tiresome, tend to be pretty predictable.
You already have evidence of his stalking behavior.
:o)
You make up your own mind whether you think the rest of what I wrote is "libelous".
Yep. There you have it.
Off-topic: I was looking through some old posts, and see you ran into "khayman80" and some of his cronies.
Sorry about that. But if you do so again, you should be aware of his tactics. He has been known to distort old comments out of context, resort to personal attacks, and otherwise do whatever he felt would discredit or get the other party to shut up. I have archives full of him doing that kind of stuff. I've had to put up with his BS for years.
He even tracked down who I was, followed me to other forums, and tried to attack me there, too. Apparently just because that's the kind of guy he is.
It's usually just irritating but he's been pretty nasty at times. Be warned, and I suggest keeping copies of everything in case he goes too far. He has, more than once. A paper trail could be useful in that event.
Don't back down.
GP is wrong since they DID NOT HAVE A WAREHOUSE when they started collecting tax. They hadn't even purchased/leased land for it yet. Still not sure if they have one today. To put it another way, they started collecting sales tax BEFORE they had a physical or even legal presence in the state.
That's really irrelevant to the basic principle. They made a deal with the state because they were putting in a warehouse, which is a physical presence. No doubt it was a voluntary agreement in exchange for some kind of perk for the warehouse.
But physical presence is the general legal rule. If they made some different kind of deal with the state, then blame the state. Or blame them. It makes no difference to how the law generally works.
The original Palm Pilot did make the list, though not at #1. It was influential, but ultimately was a device and a category of devices that wasn't quite good enough to achieve the kind of mass acceptance that the smartphone has.
Again, not quite true. Palm Tungsten was selling like hotcakes. It basically was a smartphone, without the phone part.
But when real smartphones came out, it became almost instantly obsolete. Not because the Palm was really inferior in other ways. Hell, in those other ways it was a lot better than most smartphones: better and bigger screen, plenty of memory, and a very decent processor.
The reason it became obsolete was pretty much because it wasn't a phone too. People didn't want to carry 2 devices around.
The Palm Treo (smartphone) did not do very well because it sacrificed all those other things that made Palm stand out. Like the really nice, big color screen.
Funny how you ignore the Apple Newton - without which Palm wouldn't exist. Quite remarkable for a rant about selective reasoning.
Funny how you accuse me of something I didn't do.
I simply gave examples, to show that iPhone was definitely not first. I didn't claim Palm was the first. In fact I could not have, since I also mentioned a much earlier example.
So I really don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Their rationale was that it was the first successful pocket computer (i.e. in the pockets of millions), but even that is somewhat debatable.
It's not even really very debatable. The Palm was there first.
That's a very different situation, though.
In the U.S., where it's illegal in most states, women (including the young ones) often don't do it just for the money. Because it's illegal.
Instead, many of them get into the (illegal) business in order to support drug habits, or other such things.
In any case, personally I think it should be legalized. Making it a crime just makes everything surrounding it worse.
They all have "physical presence" in Washington State, that's why.
GP is correct. A warehouse is a physical presence.
Even their reasoning for choosing the iPhone is faulty.
Before the iPhone there was the Palm. While Palm OS was a bit funky, some of the later (still pre-iPhone) devices like the Tungsten were definitely full-blown pocket computers. You could get apps for them, read and write MS Office documents, spreadsheets, and databases, and even play Bejeweled 2 in high-res. full color with good sound. And browse the Internet.
Before the Palm was the HP programmable calculator. The HP 28S was definitely a general-purpose pocket computer, back in the late 80s. I/O was a bit of a problem... I was only keyboard and O was only screen or portable printer... but it was definitely a computer and I wrote many programs for it. The language is/was a lot like Forth. It had a multi-line alphanumeric screen and fit in your shirt pocket.
I understand them liking the iPhone, but it was nowhere near the first viable pocket computer. Not even the first good one.
This sort of case has been made in a few courts now, and so far they all agree that just filtering user content does not invalidate the safe harbor protections.
Not "all" of them agree.
It has been a few years, and I don't have case citations in front of me. But there's pretty strong precedent saying that if you "moderate" your site's content, then you become responsible for that content, for the simple reason that you have altered it.
Filtering is moderation. And it's a completely reasonable premise. For example, if you "filtered" any comments about any Presidential candidate but Bernie Sanders, then you would in effect be promoting Bernie Sanders on your site, which is a form of speech. Even if none of the content actually originated from anyone in your company.
The whole idea behind safe harbor is that your site is not originating content. But there are many ways that "managing" the content supplied by others becomes de facto your own speech... which safe harbor is not intended to protect.
Oh, I remember Jane Q Public -- the poster child for motivated reasoning. Perhaps she should do an abstract study herself, but that would involve reading actual real climate science papers, which would be too much to ask. So back to the righteous indignation, isn't it Jane.
I would be willing to wager I've read a lot more of them than you have.
As usual, Jane, you don't fail to amuse. The "people ripping it to shreds" is one guy, with what appears to be a personal grudge against John Cook and the Skeptical Science web site, complaining about one chart used in the paper with much histrionics and hyperbole.
And as usual, you just don't get it. I gave one example. Out of many. You can find them yourself easily enough, and at least one other example has been given here by others.
Is this some new meaning of "ripping it to shreds" that I've never heard of before or are you just repeating what you read on some retired weatherman's blog?
Catching somebody lie about the methodology of their "science" paper is indeed ripping it to shreds. Sorry you don't understand that, but so be it.
Again, that was but one example of many. You can find more here.
Yes, and that should raise a serious red flag. Because anyone can see for themselves that the Cook paper is utter garbage. It's blatant. And yet NASA supports this horrendous paper because it reaches the 'correct' conclusion. (and is useful for 'raising awareness'?)
Exactly. Glad to see people recognize that one doesn't have to be NASA to catch people lying, or to understand that deliberate lying about methodology invalidates it.
It is indeed bothersome that NASA would support the Cook paper since the evidence the authors lied is a matter of public record, and beyond any reasonable doubt.
who the hell is Brandon Shollenberger , what are his qualifications?
You don't need "qualifications" to catch somebody lying.
Well, I do think this part is fun:
The new paper cites as evidence Cook's old paper (referenced as "C13"), which has been pretty thoroughly refuted by now. I mean, it's pretty amazing that these people can be caught red-handed lying about their methodology, beyond any reasonable doubt, and then act like nothing happened. The "C13" paper is utter garbage. I haven't read the entire new paper yet, but if it cites "C13" my expectations are extremely low.
And just FYI: I'm not going to argue about that fact. If anybody doubts that "C13" was garbage, all they have to do is spend a few minutes on Google and view the evidence. Deliberately (and repeatedly) lying about your data and your methods is a cardinal sin. Not to mention the just plain errors.
Anyway: as I say I haven't read the entire new paper yet, but there are already people ripping it to shreds. I don't really expect it will get much better reception than C13 did. But I do think it will be fun to watch what's coming.
I, too, want them to succeed. Which is why so many of their recent moves have been bothersome.
I've written to Mozilla several times asking them to stop removing popular features and "Chrome-ifying" their UI.
The fact remains that Mozilla is the only organization today making a browser that truly encourages electronic privacy, though they've stumbled over even that once or twice.
Its presence is valuable, and people should celebrate it, not try to tear it down.
It still bothers me when I see articles like this which label copyers or downloaders as "pirates".
Copyright "piracy" was defined more than 100 years ago. It's a legal term, and it relates to those who copy and reproduce copyrighted works for profit.
The vast majority of file-sharers are not "pirates". Copyright holders started using that term around 2000 to deliberately muddy the waters surrounding file sharing.
Just in case there is someone who doesn't yet know: copyright "piracy" is a crime. File sharing, if not done for profit, is not. Uploading could make you the subject of a civil suit, but not a criminal charge. Unless you're doing it for meaningful personal gain.
The article is not just pointless but also misleading. The implication is that software jobs are replacing hardware jobs... but that is pretty obviously not the case, when you look at the overall numbers of jobs in the respective fields. For the most part, what this is actually showing is a decline in manufacturing, as you say. Mostly due to offshoring. And it is a Very Bad Thing to be losing that production capacity. However, software replacing specialized hardware mostly happened a long time ago. It's continuing, but I don't think it's any kind of big new trend.
Could it be that this is the case because what already burned nearly century ago can not burn again? Or did all of the burned out areas regrow trees etc.?
NO
I find it interesting how they could claim to correlate wildfires with global warming.
Their chart on p. 83 of the report does not contradict THIS chart, but this chart does contradict that idea.
There were vastly more acres of woodland burned by wildfires per year in the 1920s-1930s than today.