Yes, it does. However, when the fact checker says they are "checking the facts" and calls someone a liar because of the way that person interprets the facts, the "fact checker" is no longer a fact checker, especially when it is the "fact checker" interpreting what the person meant when they used the facts in question. Back to my original example, Politifact, as part of "fact-checking" called Mitt Romney's statement that Chrysler was going to build Jeeps in China the "lie of the year", when, in fact,Chrysler is going to build Jeeps in China. The reason that they did so was because they believed that Romney was intending for people to interpret that statement as saying that Chrysler was going to build all Jeeps in China. You have no problem with that because you agree with their interpretation. However, the fact was not a lie, was not even missing information. I even have an interpretation of Romney's statement which makes it not even an attempt to mislead. Romney may well have been saying, "Why is a company that just received a generous bailout from the U.S. government creating jobs in China rather than in the U.S.? Could that money not have been better spent improving production and increasing jobs in the U.S.? If the answer to the second question is 'No", is it really a good use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help a company create jobs in China?" I do not know that Romney was saying that rather than what Politifact understood him to be saying, but it is consistent with other things said by the Romney campaign.
Where he promptly started writing about how evil, or stupid everyone associated with Enron management was for not blowing the whistle on what was going on, while carefully avoiding mentioning that he had spent several years as a paid adviser to those very same management people and never once noticed any of the problems (or chose to keep quiet about them) with their financial dealings.
OK, so you want "fact checkers" who call those who disagree with your interpretations of the fact liars. That's fine, just don't expect me to consider them to be credible and non-partisan, since you are asking that they be partisan. To take apart your examples and show how real fact checkers could get the same results without worrying about interpretation:
"The fences didn't kill the Ostriches. The fire did. I don't think we need to worry about whether fences are leading to trapped birds because birds can fly."
Fact Checker: It is true that the fences did not kill the ostriches and that the fire did. It is true that SOME birds can fly, however, ostriches can not fly and thus were trapped by the fences so that they were unable to escape the fire. (This is assuming that the ostriches were indeed trapped by the fences and this unable to escape the fire, rather than the ostriches dying in the fire some rather large distance from the fences and someone claiming that they had not fled the fire because they "knew" the fence was there in the distance).
"Industry experts reported 8000 cars in America. Clearly we don't need to be spending billions on highway improvements."
Fact Checker: Yes, industry experts reported 8000 cars in America, in 1900. What does that fact have to do with the question of spending money on highway improvements.
In both of my modifications, the fact checker does not call the original speaker a liar, they merely add the facts which the original speaker left out (while some birds can fly, ostriches cannot, industry experts did indeed report a mere 8000 cars in America, but that was in 1900) and leave it up to those who listen to, or read, their fact-check to decide whether the original speakers comment constituted a lie. The advantage of doing this is that the fact checker remains credible to the everyone as the interpretation of the facts becomes more subjective (which is the area where most "fact-checking" occurs).
Whether that is the correct interpretation of what he was trying to communicate, the fact was true. If you are going to be a fact checker, limit yourself to facts. As soon as you bring interpretation into it, you are no longer talking about facts rather you are talking about opinion. You may feel that your opinion is the only logical one, I may even agree with you, but it does not mean that it is fact. A fact checker should confine themselves to facts.
Which tells you more about Ronald Reagan's willingness to listen to people who disagreed with him than it does about Krugman's expertise. If you look at what Krugman says about his time working in the Reagan Administration (as an adviser to an adviser) you discover that he claims that even then he thought the answer to problems was more government as opposed to Reagan who thought the cause of most problems was government..
Of course the problem with Politifact (and most, if not all, other "fact checkers") is that they will from time to time call something fact because they disagree with the political position it is being used to support. For example, Politifacts 2012 "lie of the year" was actually true, they just felt that it was used in a way that was misleading. Politifact said that Mitt Romney's statement that Chrysler was going to build Jeeps in China was the lie of the year, yet Chrysler is indeed going to be building Jeeps in China. Now one could argue, and Politifact did, that Mitt Romney used that fact in a misleading way, but the fact itself is true.
A fact checker should check the facts, not the interpretation that is made of those facts.
So, if someone uses code you wrote and combines it with something they wrote, a third person (or perhaps fourth) person cannot use it because they do not know you to get your permission and even if you had given the first person permission to distribute it that way, there is no way for that fourth person down the chain to know that.
Nothing in copyright law says I have to make up a list of rules and conditions in order to give people permission.
But by definition when you give people permission to use it, you are giving them a license to use it. A license does not have to consist of a list of rules and conditions. It can be as simple as "I hereby grant you the right to use this and distribute copies of it." There should probably be a clause in there specifying that they are allowed to modify it (although that would probably be covered by the above wording).
I've released open source on the internet without a license. It was a choice, not laziness.
Which by law means that you have refused to give anyone permission to use the code. That is not "open source". The law says that I must have the author's permission to copy copyrighted material. The law also says that everything is by default under copyright when it is created. So, since you did not grant anyone permission to copy and distribute your code, no one can legally do so.
The problem is that if you did not put any license statement of any kind with the code, there is no way for me to know that you intended to release it. I also don't have any protection if stole someone else's code and posted it there. At least if you post a statement saying that you released it to Public Domain, if I use it and someone claims that they wrote it and I am using it without appropriate license, I can point to that statement as part of my defense. It might not be a definitive defense, but it's better than "I found this code somewhere and thought it was free to use."
In addition, it will be difficult to trace back to them.
Which makes it useless for every terror organization I am aware of. The whole point of executing a terror attack is to make some population afraid of those who carry it out. In particular, making that population fear the terror organization enough to overcome that population's unwillingness to follow the terrorist organization's political agenda. If you don't know who launched the attack, you don't know who to appease to prevent another such attack.
There is a good chance that you are correct. However, I do not believe that it would be designed to desensitize civilians, rather it would be designed to desensitize military personnel to the idea of striking targets in the U.S. (including large crowds of U.S. civilians).
This, exactly this. The reason we have this abuse of power is because we have asked Congress to make too many things federal offenses. Prosecutors, and other government officials, who answer to locally elected officials are more easily held accountable for abuse of power than government officials who theoretically answer to Congress (and in practice the only elected official they answer to is the President).
I worded what I posted the way I did on purpose. I did not write that they "rejected the Kyoto accords 98-0." Rather I wrote that they voted to reject the Kyoto accords, by which I meant that, since President Clinton would not submit the Kyoto accords for ratification (because he knew that it would be rejected), the Senate passed a bill which stated that they rejected the treaty (I forget the exact wording, but it was a very clear, bipartisan rejection of the U.S. adopting the Kyoto accords, not just a "small group of Republican lawmakers").
The U.S. was at Kyoto and took part in the negotiations. They just never agreed to the treaty that was created. Everybody agreed that even if all of the nations met the levels they had agreed to the impact would be negligible. So, the U.S. was a participant in the previous effort up until an agreement was reached which the U.S. found to be politically unacceptable (high cost for negligible results). An agreement which other countries also found to be politically unacceptable, the difference being that the U.S. did not pretend that they were going to try and follow the agreement while many other countries claimed that they were going to, but did not.
You obviously missed the story about the government officials who were fired for being racist because they used the word "niggardly". Or the story about the City Councilman in Dallas (I believe) who demanded an apology from his fellow Councilman for the latter's use of the word "black-hole" to describe the city's budget deficit. Or for that matter the story of the student who was disciplined for racial harassment because he read a book about how the KKK was defeated in a street brawl while on his breaks while working as a janitor for the school.
The problem is that the higher one goes up the ladder, the fewer jobs there are. My advice for someone graduating high school this year is, get a job where you can learn a trade (electrician, plumber, carpenter, etc). Only go to college if you have a specific long term career in mind (engineer, certain specific computer related jobs, medical profession and a handful of other specific careers) and those only if doing the job seems like it would give you joy.
I had a high school teacher who put it this way:
Those can, do
Those who can't, teach
Those who can't teach, teach teaching.
My experience with those in the education profession is that while there is some truth to it, the line is not quite that clear cut between the first and second lines (there are people who do things successfully for awhile then become teachers, although a lot of teachers have no concept of the real world occupied by most people). However, there are very vanishingly few successful teachers who become education professors.
Yes, it is a competitive strategy. ESPN has chosen a small enough amount per subscriber that it is not worth your time to switch ISPs for the amount you would save.
You are correct. My post was in reaction to the summary and some of the initial posts. I had not actually read enough to know what the actual story was. ESPN is a much more flagrant example of everybody having to pay for a service that only a limited number actually want.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it does. However, when the fact checker says they are "checking the facts" and calls someone a liar because of the way that person interprets the facts, the "fact checker" is no longer a fact checker, especially when it is the "fact checker" interpreting what the person meant when they used the facts in question. Back to my original example, Politifact, as part of "fact-checking" called Mitt Romney's statement that Chrysler was going to build Jeeps in China the "lie of the year", when, in fact,Chrysler is going to build Jeeps in China. The reason that they did so was because they believed that Romney was intending for people to interpret that statement as saying that Chrysler was going to build all Jeeps in China. You have no problem with that because you agree with their interpretation. However, the fact was not a lie, was not even missing information. I even have an interpretation of Romney's statement which makes it not even an attempt to mislead. Romney may well have been saying, "Why is a company that just received a generous bailout from the U.S. government creating jobs in China rather than in the U.S.? Could that money not have been better spent improving production and increasing jobs in the U.S.? If the answer to the second question is 'No", is it really a good use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help a company create jobs in China?" I do not know that Romney was saying that rather than what Politifact understood him to be saying, but it is consistent with other things said by the Romney campaign.
That reminds me of this story: http://sarcasticsarcasms.blogspot.com/2013/01/sowas-it-murder.html?spref=fb The story is not true, but is an interesting hypothetical.
Paul Krugman went to the Times after Enron
Where he promptly started writing about how evil, or stupid everyone associated with Enron management was for not blowing the whistle on what was going on, while carefully avoiding mentioning that he had spent several years as a paid adviser to those very same management people and never once noticed any of the problems (or chose to keep quiet about them) with their financial dealings.
"The fences didn't kill the Ostriches. The fire did. I don't think we need to worry about whether fences are leading to trapped birds because birds can fly."
Fact Checker: It is true that the fences did not kill the ostriches and that the fire did. It is true that SOME birds can fly, however, ostriches can not fly and thus were trapped by the fences so that they were unable to escape the fire. (This is assuming that the ostriches were indeed trapped by the fences and this unable to escape the fire, rather than the ostriches dying in the fire some rather large distance from the fences and someone claiming that they had not fled the fire because they "knew" the fence was there in the distance).
"Industry experts reported 8000 cars in America. Clearly we don't need to be spending billions on highway improvements."
Fact Checker: Yes, industry experts reported 8000 cars in America, in 1900. What does that fact have to do with the question of spending money on highway improvements.
In both of my modifications, the fact checker does not call the original speaker a liar, they merely add the facts which the original speaker left out (while some birds can fly, ostriches cannot, industry experts did indeed report a mere 8000 cars in America, but that was in 1900) and leave it up to those who listen to, or read, their fact-check to decide whether the original speakers comment constituted a lie. The advantage of doing this is that the fact checker remains credible to the everyone as the interpretation of the facts becomes more subjective (which is the area where most "fact-checking" occurs).
Whether that is the correct interpretation of what he was trying to communicate, the fact was true. If you are going to be a fact checker, limit yourself to facts. As soon as you bring interpretation into it, you are no longer talking about facts rather you are talking about opinion. You may feel that your opinion is the only logical one, I may even agree with you, but it does not mean that it is fact. A fact checker should confine themselves to facts.
Which tells you more about Ronald Reagan's willingness to listen to people who disagreed with him than it does about Krugman's expertise. If you look at what Krugman says about his time working in the Reagan Administration (as an adviser to an adviser) you discover that he claims that even then he thought the answer to problems was more government as opposed to Reagan who thought the cause of most problems was government..
They do not even need to do that, they still have former Enron adviser, Paul Krugman.
Of course the problem with Politifact (and most, if not all, other "fact checkers") is that they will from time to time call something fact because they disagree with the political position it is being used to support. For example, Politifacts 2012 "lie of the year" was actually true, they just felt that it was used in a way that was misleading. Politifact said that Mitt Romney's statement that Chrysler was going to build Jeeps in China was the lie of the year, yet Chrysler is indeed going to be building Jeeps in China. Now one could argue, and Politifact did, that Mitt Romney used that fact in a misleading way, but the fact itself is true.
A fact checker should check the facts, not the interpretation that is made of those facts.
So, if someone uses code you wrote and combines it with something they wrote, a third person (or perhaps fourth) person cannot use it because they do not know you to get your permission and even if you had given the first person permission to distribute it that way, there is no way for that fourth person down the chain to know that.
Nothing in copyright law says I have to make up a list of rules and conditions in order to give people permission.
But by definition when you give people permission to use it, you are giving them a license to use it. A license does not have to consist of a list of rules and conditions. It can be as simple as "I hereby grant you the right to use this and distribute copies of it." There should probably be a clause in there specifying that they are allowed to modify it (although that would probably be covered by the above wording).
I've released open source on the internet without a license. It was a choice, not laziness.
Which by law means that you have refused to give anyone permission to use the code. That is not "open source". The law says that I must have the author's permission to copy copyrighted material. The law also says that everything is by default under copyright when it is created. So, since you did not grant anyone permission to copy and distribute your code, no one can legally do so.
The problem is that if you did not put any license statement of any kind with the code, there is no way for me to know that you intended to release it. I also don't have any protection if stole someone else's code and posted it there. At least if you post a statement saying that you released it to Public Domain, if I use it and someone claims that they wrote it and I am using it without appropriate license, I can point to that statement as part of my defense. It might not be a definitive defense, but it's better than "I found this code somewhere and thought it was free to use."
If you can choose to make it traceable or non-traceable, that means that you can also lay a false trail.
In addition, it will be difficult to trace back to them.
Which makes it useless for every terror organization I am aware of. The whole point of executing a terror attack is to make some population afraid of those who carry it out. In particular, making that population fear the terror organization enough to overcome that population's unwillingness to follow the terrorist organization's political agenda. If you don't know who launched the attack, you don't know who to appease to prevent another such attack.
There is a good chance that you are correct. However, I do not believe that it would be designed to desensitize civilians, rather it would be designed to desensitize military personnel to the idea of striking targets in the U.S. (including large crowds of U.S. civilians).
This, exactly this. The reason we have this abuse of power is because we have asked Congress to make too many things federal offenses. Prosecutors, and other government officials, who answer to locally elected officials are more easily held accountable for abuse of power than government officials who theoretically answer to Congress (and in practice the only elected official they answer to is the President).
I worded what I posted the way I did on purpose. I did not write that they "rejected the Kyoto accords 98-0." Rather I wrote that they voted to reject the Kyoto accords, by which I meant that, since President Clinton would not submit the Kyoto accords for ratification (because he knew that it would be rejected), the Senate passed a bill which stated that they rejected the treaty (I forget the exact wording, but it was a very clear, bipartisan rejection of the U.S. adopting the Kyoto accords, not just a "small group of Republican lawmakers").
OH, that is why the Senate voted 98-0 to reject the Kyoto accords, because a small group of Republican lawmakers opposed it. /s
The U.S. was at Kyoto and took part in the negotiations. They just never agreed to the treaty that was created. Everybody agreed that even if all of the nations met the levels they had agreed to the impact would be negligible. So, the U.S. was a participant in the previous effort up until an agreement was reached which the U.S. found to be politically unacceptable (high cost for negligible results). An agreement which other countries also found to be politically unacceptable, the difference being that the U.S. did not pretend that they were going to try and follow the agreement while many other countries claimed that they were going to, but did not.
You obviously missed the story about the government officials who were fired for being racist because they used the word "niggardly". Or the story about the City Councilman in Dallas (I believe) who demanded an apology from his fellow Councilman for the latter's use of the word "black-hole" to describe the city's budget deficit. Or for that matter the story of the student who was disciplined for racial harassment because he read a book about how the KKK was defeated in a street brawl while on his breaks while working as a janitor for the school.
The problem is that the higher one goes up the ladder, the fewer jobs there are. My advice for someone graduating high school this year is, get a job where you can learn a trade (electrician, plumber, carpenter, etc). Only go to college if you have a specific long term career in mind (engineer, certain specific computer related jobs, medical profession and a handful of other specific careers) and those only if doing the job seems like it would give you joy.
How cute, you think there is a connection between what they name a law and what the law actually does.
I had a high school teacher who put it this way:
Those can, do
Those who can't, teach
Those who can't teach, teach teaching.
My experience with those in the education profession is that while there is some truth to it, the line is not quite that clear cut between the first and second lines (there are people who do things successfully for awhile then become teachers, although a lot of teachers have no concept of the real world occupied by most people). However, there are very vanishingly few successful teachers who become education professors.
Yes, it is a competitive strategy. ESPN has chosen a small enough amount per subscriber that it is not worth your time to switch ISPs for the amount you would save.
You are correct. My post was in reaction to the summary and some of the initial posts. I had not actually read enough to know what the actual story was. ESPN is a much more flagrant example of everybody having to pay for a service that only a limited number actually want.