They say they controlled for some confounding factors, but there are so many potential confounding factors here, I will not assign this study much credibility.
There are so many other factors: people in those neighborhoods being exposed to other pollutants, maybe not getting enough exercise (or, conversely, too physically stressed), the quality of the water and the things in it, etc. etc. etc. There are FAR too many to list, and the researchers could not possibly have controlled for all of them.
Take this with a grain of salt the size of a basketball.
Also, engineering diagrams, just like books or paintings or computer programs, are forms of expression covered by the First Amendment as well as copyright law.
So if, like here in Seattle, there's been two record breaking highs the past decade after over a hundred years of measurements that that doesn't mean it proves global warming?
Transmission will allow you to download without uploading. But one must be very careful of the settings. And sites don't block it, because the default settings are pretty common.
Ratios are usually maintained almost entirely by the BitTorrent software. Few sites I've seen enforce ratios. In fact I don't even recall seeing one. Not that I have looked very much.
Regardless, I was talking about the law, not "what everybody does".
I don't think anyone is claiming encryption is not a problem.
But it's not more of a problem than it was before.
Encryption has been around for just about as long as recorded history. And criminals have used it for just as long.
Before the digital age they could get wiretaps (hello encrypted messaging/calling), warrants for papers like bookie ledgers (hello digital encrypted files), or find boxes of copied/burned music/movies.
And they still can. But they couldn't generally break encryption then, either.
In any case, let's keep in mind that a Federal appeals court has declared that police need a warrant to get your phone location information. Unless that is appealed to the Supreme Court, that is current law.
Which isn't perfect, maybe, but it's a bit of relief. And it represents a serious weakening of the Third Party Doctrine. So now is probably the time to kill it altogether.
I'm sure they already know this, but the algorithm isn't designed to trip up GOP politicians. It says a lot more about how they choose to phrase their message and talk about issues, than any agenda seeking to silence them on Twitter.
When what you post is designed to be inflammatory and lower discourse and a system designed to combat that properly flags it, maybe its working as intended and you should look inwards? No matter where you stand, there are good and bad ways to engage in discourse. On all topics, with all points of view.
Utter nonsense. This has been going on for a year, and only now mainstream media is picking up on it.
It's ridiculously simple, man: you simply tell your algorithm that the opposing view is "inflammatory" and there you go.
The bias has been very clear to anyone who uses Twitter on a regular basis.
It also appears in their appeal and complaint processes.
Anyone who thinks Twitter is unbiased either doesn't know Twitter, or is lying.
And this is why NFC is a terrible technology to use for making payments.
It doesn't have to be "very close by" if you have a big enough antenna. That's the thing about RF. Make an antenna big enough, and you can send and receive at a distance, even with a device that is extremely low-powered.
In general, people should not use anything that operates over radio frequencies to access their bank account. It's a fool's errand. Christopher Soghoian, the same guy who read RFID chips from passports outside an airport from 30 feet away, also cracked NFC before it ever became common in consumer products. With a portable device that cost only $200 to build.
Put your NFC-capable cards in a foil sleeve (they're cheap), or snip the coil antenna. Instructions for the latter are all over the internet.
1) Downloading is not "piracy". Piracy is a specific crime related to making and distributing copies, generally for personal gain. Somebody who sells copies of someone else's personal DVD and sells them is a pirate. An uploader might be considered a "pirate", but a downloader is not, because a downloader is not distributing. **
2) Downloading is a copyright violation, not a crime. In scope, it is akin to making a personal copy of a videotape.
3) In most cases, downloading is done when there would not have been an original sale (e.g., movie ticket or DVD) anyway. So the copyright owner didn't "lose" anything.
4) Even if there hypothetically might have been a sale, copyright violation is not "theft". See # 3. It is a completely different area of law.
5) And even if there would have been a sale, all the copyright owner "loses" is the potential profit, which is a tiny fraction of the retail price.
6) Penalties for copyright violation are already unreasonably harsh.
The thing is, there is a fine line between being a genuine contractor, and being an off-the-books "employee".
And Google could get in a lot of trouble if they turn out to be the latter.
The problem is that though the line is, fine, it is not fixed. It is generally determined on a case-by-case basis. In order to be a contractor:
* You are expected to know how to do your job. If it's something you have to be taught to do (more than a bit of reasonable orientation), you're probably an employee.
* You are expected to set your own hours. If you have to be there 9 to 5, or punch a time clock, or fill out a time card, you're probably an employee, not a contractor.
* You negotiate your own rates.
There are a few others. These rules are enforced by the IRS and a few other Federal agencies, but mainly the IRS.
IBM and rather famously Microsoft were both busted for having "off-the-books employees" which they called contractors. It cost them big.
Don't get stuck being an off-the-books employee. If you are, the company probably owes you back benefits.
And setting your own hours is not enough. You must have control over them. Even simply reporting the hours you worked to a client, in some circumstances, can be considered prima facie evidence of your status as an employee.
Don't misunderstand me. I don't discredit your experience.
Personally, I think the vast majority of the time these online petitions to get people fired are nothing more than bullying, coercive harassment.
But I perceive a problem in the Jessica Price case.
Jessica's problem was that she was using Twitter basically as an extension of her work life. She -- apparently constantly -- tweeted to people she knew to be gamers about her work designing games.
In a case like that, yeah, I can see that a backlash on Twitter could lash all the way back to her employer.
But as I said, most cases aren't like that. Generally speaking, unless someone is tweeting about their own criminal behavior or things that are really, grossly unethical, I don't think social media should have any impact on one's work or professional life.
You're delusional. The Electoral College doesn't violate the 14th Amendment. Somebody has been shovelling bullshit at you and you've been swallowing it.
"But the Chinese will borrow a leaf from their Russian friends and will retort, "the dogs bark, but the caravan goes on."
And this is exactly why -- or one reason why anyway -- trade sanctions are being imposed.
"Free" trade only works if both sides respect the other's laws. China does not.
In fact they very sneakily impose trade sanctions in almost invisible ways... like not putting a tariff on imports of Product X but then issuing a government mandate that anyone in China who needs a Product X must buy it from a Chinese supplier.
The screams that Trump is starting a "trade war" are ridiculous. China has been conducting trade war against the US for decades, and past Presidents just bent over for it.
Prior to a few (about 15?) years ago, in order to enforce a copyright claim, the material had to be declared as copyrighted.
That's where all those little captions came from: "Copyright (letter C in a circle) Jones Corp. 1982"
And in fact courts ruled that the little circled "C" was not enough: it had to have the name of the copyright owner and the year the claim was being made.
But some years back -- pretty recently -- there was a change in the law, and copyrights became "automatic" or "presumed". Before that, they weren't.
And as it turns out, that scheme of automatic copyrights doesn't work. It has led to legitimate content being censored and taken down by people claiming copyright, who didn't have any way to prove it... or even have one.
Now, to be clear: in the old system you still automatically HAD a copyright on any original work you created. But you couldn't enforce it in court without the claim.
That system worked well for like 150 years. Time we went back to it.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as it is in the tank, natural gas IS a liquid hydrocarbon.
They say they controlled for some confounding factors, but there are so many potential confounding factors here, I will not assign this study much credibility.
There are so many other factors: people in those neighborhoods being exposed to other pollutants, maybe not getting enough exercise (or, conversely, too physically stressed), the quality of the water and the things in it, etc. etc. etc. There are FAR too many to list, and the researchers could not possibly have controlled for all of them.
Take this with a grain of salt the size of a basketball.
Also, engineering diagrams, just like books or paintings or computer programs, are forms of expression covered by the First Amendment as well as copyright law.
You have always been legally able to make guns for your own use. The 1968 Act merely clarified this, it did not legalize it.
There are only a couple of restrictions:
1) You cannot make fully-automatic firearms.
2) You are not allowed to transfer or sell them.
That's it. Have fun.
Such bullshit!
While end-users do not seem to have picked up on this yet, "biometric" authentication is a security failure, and face recognition makes it even worse.
I warned about this long ago.
If you think it's bad someone can get your fingerprint while you sleep, wait until it's your face.
So if, like here in Seattle, there's been two record breaking highs the past decade after over a hundred years of measurements that that doesn't mean it proves global warming?
Correct.
There are other options.
This.
While non-cash purchases might be easier in many circumstances, that doesn't reduce the importance of cash.
The downside should be obvious to all: if we were to create a "cashless society", on that very day you could kiss your freedom goodbye.
Period. The end. It might take time to be realized, but it would already be gone.
That has occurred to me, but I don't know of it yet being used as a defense in court.
I'm not sure why it hasn't been, because it seems like a plausible argument. But I think it would have to be a lot less than 1.
Transmission will allow you to download without uploading. But one must be very careful of the settings. And sites don't block it, because the default settings are pretty common.
Ratios are usually maintained almost entirely by the BitTorrent software. Few sites I've seen enforce ratios. In fact I don't even recall seeing one. Not that I have looked very much.
Regardless, I was talking about the law, not "what everybody does".
But it's not more of a problem than it was before.
Encryption has been around for just about as long as recorded history. And criminals have used it for just as long.
Before the digital age they could get wiretaps (hello encrypted messaging/calling), warrants for papers like bookie ledgers (hello digital encrypted files), or find boxes of copied/burned music/movies.
And they still can. But they couldn't generally break encryption then, either.
In any case, let's keep in mind that a Federal appeals court has declared that police need a warrant to get your phone location information. Unless that is appealed to the Supreme Court, that is current law.
Which isn't perfect, maybe, but it's a bit of relief. And it represents a serious weakening of the Third Party Doctrine. So now is probably the time to kill it altogether.
I'm sure they already know this, but the algorithm isn't designed to trip up GOP politicians. It says a lot more about how they choose to phrase their message and talk about issues, than any agenda seeking to silence them on Twitter. When what you post is designed to be inflammatory and lower discourse and a system designed to combat that properly flags it, maybe its working as intended and you should look inwards? No matter where you stand, there are good and bad ways to engage in discourse. On all topics, with all points of view.
Utter nonsense. This has been going on for a year, and only now mainstream media is picking up on it.
It's ridiculously simple, man: you simply tell your algorithm that the opposing view is "inflammatory" and there you go.
The bias has been very clear to anyone who uses Twitter on a regular basis.
It also appears in their appeal and complaint processes.
Anyone who thinks Twitter is unbiased either doesn't know Twitter, or is lying.
And this is why NFC is a terrible technology to use for making payments.
It doesn't have to be "very close by" if you have a big enough antenna. That's the thing about RF. Make an antenna big enough, and you can send and receive at a distance, even with a device that is extremely low-powered.
In general, people should not use anything that operates over radio frequencies to access their bank account. It's a fool's errand. Christopher Soghoian, the same guy who read RFID chips from passports outside an airport from 30 feet away, also cracked NFC before it ever became common in consumer products. With a portable device that cost only $200 to build.
Put your NFC-capable cards in a foil sleeve (they're cheap), or snip the coil antenna. Instructions for the latter are all over the internet.
And I almost forgot to add one other thing.
One way the industry has tried to catch downloaders (but mainly uploaders) in the past has been to set up a "honeypot" of videos or music to download.
But a court found that the security companies doing that, on behalf of the copyright holders, did not themselves possess any copyright.
So the "honeypots" were guilty of the same violations as the people they were trying to catch.
** I almost forgot my footnote.
Many torrent programs force you to upload as you download, but not all of them.
If you aren't uploading as you download, you are not "distributing". So you can't be a pirate.
The lesson there is to make sure you have torrent software that can be set to not simultaneously upload.
Transmission for the Mac is one such example. It can be set (with some care) to not upload at all.
We've known these things for decades now:
1) Downloading is not "piracy". Piracy is a specific crime related to making and distributing copies, generally for personal gain. Somebody who sells copies of someone else's personal DVD and sells them is a pirate. An uploader might be considered a "pirate", but a downloader is not, because a downloader is not distributing. **
2) Downloading is a copyright violation, not a crime. In scope, it is akin to making a personal copy of a videotape.
3) In most cases, downloading is done when there would not have been an original sale (e.g., movie ticket or DVD) anyway. So the copyright owner didn't "lose" anything.
4) Even if there hypothetically might have been a sale, copyright violation is not "theft". See # 3. It is a completely different area of law.
5) And even if there would have been a sale, all the copyright owner "loses" is the potential profit, which is a tiny fraction of the retail price.
6) Penalties for copyright violation are already unreasonably harsh.
Oops. That was supposed to be a reply to parent.
No, they also have a responsibility to obey Federal labor laws.
The thing is, there is a fine line between being a genuine contractor, and being an off-the-books "employee".
And Google could get in a lot of trouble if they turn out to be the latter.
The problem is that though the line is, fine, it is not fixed. It is generally determined on a case-by-case basis. In order to be a contractor:
* You are expected to know how to do your job. If it's something you have to be taught to do (more than a bit of reasonable orientation), you're probably an employee.
* You are expected to set your own hours. If you have to be there 9 to 5, or punch a time clock, or fill out a time card, you're probably an employee, not a contractor.
* You negotiate your own rates.
There are a few others. These rules are enforced by the IRS and a few other Federal agencies, but mainly the IRS.
IBM and rather famously Microsoft were both busted for having "off-the-books employees" which they called contractors. It cost them big.
Don't get stuck being an off-the-books employee. If you are, the company probably owes you back benefits.
And setting your own hours is not enough. You must have control over them. Even simply reporting the hours you worked to a client, in some circumstances, can be considered prima facie evidence of your status as an employee.
Don't misunderstand me. I don't discredit your experience.
Personally, I think the vast majority of the time these online petitions to get people fired are nothing more than bullying, coercive harassment.
But I perceive a problem in the Jessica Price case.
Jessica's problem was that she was using Twitter basically as an extension of her work life. She -- apparently constantly -- tweeted to people she knew to be gamers about her work designing games.
In a case like that, yeah, I can see that a backlash on Twitter could lash all the way back to her employer.
But as I said, most cases aren't like that. Generally speaking, unless someone is tweeting about their own criminal behavior or things that are really, grossly unethical, I don't think social media should have any impact on one's work or professional life.
You're delusional. The Electoral College doesn't violate the 14th Amendment. Somebody has been shovelling bullshit at you and you've been swallowing it.
It is FUD.
They have made it clear that there are no plans to change the informal complaint process.
And formal complaints already cost $225.
So... completely false = FUD.
"But the Chinese will borrow a leaf from their Russian friends and will retort, "the dogs bark, but the caravan goes on."
And this is exactly why -- or one reason why anyway -- trade sanctions are being imposed.
"Free" trade only works if both sides respect the other's laws. China does not.
In fact they very sneakily impose trade sanctions in almost invisible ways... like not putting a tariff on imports of Product X but then issuing a government mandate that anyone in China who needs a Product X must buy it from a Chinese supplier.
The screams that Trump is starting a "trade war" are ridiculous. China has been conducting trade war against the US for decades, and past Presidents just bent over for it.
No more.
Yes and no. For practical purposes, mostly no.
Prior to a few (about 15?) years ago, in order to enforce a copyright claim, the material had to be declared as copyrighted.
That's where all those little captions came from: "Copyright (letter C in a circle) Jones Corp. 1982"
And in fact courts ruled that the little circled "C" was not enough: it had to have the name of the copyright owner and the year the claim was being made.
But some years back -- pretty recently -- there was a change in the law, and copyrights became "automatic" or "presumed". Before that, they weren't.
And as it turns out, that scheme of automatic copyrights doesn't work. It has led to legitimate content being censored and taken down by people claiming copyright, who didn't have any way to prove it... or even have one.
Now, to be clear: in the old system you still automatically HAD a copyright on any original work you created. But you couldn't enforce it in court without the claim.
That system worked well for like 150 years. Time we went back to it.
... and the notion that we have to put up with it without sanctions is YOUR fantasy.