Exactly how do you think that Iran can step up their actions against the U.S. and Israel without starting an actual shooting war? From the Iran side they have been at war with the U.S. and Israel since the day the current government took power in 1979.
And this is why I wanted this to get to the front page of slashdot. I don't happen to think the proposed report is as bad an idea as the summary I wrote makes it sound, but I could not think of a more evenhanded way to summarize the articles that would get to the slashdot front page.
I wrote the headline and the summary. I was not exactly happy with how they came out, but I thought the topic and points being discussed in the two articles linked to in the summary should be discussed on slashdot. I think that THOMAS and the proposed changes are good things. I, also, felt that both articles were somewhat hyperbolic in their approach to the issue, but I wanted to be sure that this made it to the frontpage so I stayed with the tenor of those two articles in my summary.
I do think that the articles make some good points, especially about the secrecy of the body conducting the report and about the lack of a deadline. That being said, your comment adds some much needed context to the discussion.
That's ok, they have plenty of money to appeal where it will probably get overturned by some moron.
Well, first of all, Google has plenty of money as well, so on that level it is pretty clearly a "push" between these two companies (financially, they are basically in the same weight class). The area where there is some difference is political connections, but that favors Google. Brin and Page are significantly more politically connected than Ellison.
I think that quote from James Hansen exactly fit the OP's point. In the quote, James Hansen, who is one of those people who keeps saying that we must base government policy on the climate change models that expect drastic changes from AGW, says that those models are badly flawed because those making the models (of whom he is one) do not understand the effect aerosols have on the climate.
No, you are reading this wrong. NYC Comptroller is running for mayor. He is using this "scandal" in order to get his name out in front of the voters. Personally, I think this makes him look like Eliot Spitzer. If you don't know what a sleazeball Eliot Spitzer was, read his Wikipedia page and realize that it was sanitized (not particularly because of political bias, primarily because the unsanitized version would sound too tabloid).
If that were the case, HP would easily be able to provide CCDs that show the city requested additional items that caused the cost overruns.
Not sure that's a wise strategy.
And if it is the case, they will happily do so if and when the case goes to court. In the meantime, HP is in a no-win situation. If they keep silent, they take a significant PR hit. On the other hand, if they make defend themselves, they may piss off the next mayor of New York (Liu is running for mayor) and that will be bad for business in the long run.
Basically what you have going on here is John Liu trying to make a big splash to improve his chances in the upcoming mayoral election.
That Supreme Court ruling is not actually applicable to this as that applied to a contract that people actually signed. This is an attempt to do the same thing using a EULA. I think that that becomes a completely different ballgame. Especially when you consider that there has been no Supreme Court ruling on the subject and that district court rulings are in conflict.
Of course, I am not much of a fan of class-action lawsuits considering that their main purpose is to transfer money from the hands of consumers to the hands of lawyers.
Yeah, that works real well for a topic that is important but has no particular urgency with a colleague who is busy doing something that is both important and urgent. Of course the fact that whatever you discuss is subject to the interpretation and memory of the people involved in the conversations means that it is really useful as well.
Having said that, there are definitely many exchanges of information that take place by email that should take place in person. On the other hand there are many exchanges of information that take place in person that should take place in writing.
What gets me is the number of people who fail to realize that the majority of lobbyists work for non-profit organizations, from Greenpeace to the NRA. That is the majority of lobbyists are hired by groups of people who have gotten together and pooled their money so as to petition Congress to take action on issues that are of particular concern to them...you know, the way some here on slashdot have done concerning Network Neutrality.
There have also been tests where they put out toys for children to play with where the children were unaware of adult supervision. In general, girls played "house", or some similar game, even when the only toys were cars and trucks. On the other hand, boys, in general, played with "cars" and "trucks" or played with "guns", even when the only toys were dolls. There were clear exceptions, but the play style was about 75% determined by the biology of the child.
The reason that boys are encouraged to take things apart and put them back together, possibly with improved functionality, is because boys tend to do that sort of thing any way(especially the take it apart phase). Girls have different behavioral tendencies, some of which are probably beneficial in IT. But IT departments are not built to value those skill sets, so women are less likely to find IT jobs fulfilling than men do.
No, there is no problem with the argument made by the poster you are replying to. The poster you are replying to is addressing the question of what happens to the quality of work produced when you establish a quota of how many women are hired. You appear to be addressing the question of why there are so few women in IT.
You appear to be saying that if we want to increase the number of women in IT, we need to find out why so few women enter the field. Which is exactly the point which the poster you replied to was making.
Only if you believe that CO2, which only causes health problems in humans or other animals at much higher levels than anyone is talking about ever coming to be, is a pollutant in the same class as nitrogen dioxide or sulfur dioxide and similar pollutants.
And right there is your problem, you do not understand what real pollution looks like. Real pollution causes people, wildlife, and plants to become sick and sometimes die within a short time period. A short enough time period that people don't have to be told how bad it is, they can see it for themselves.
What China has is not in any way a hybrid between capitalism and totalitarianism. It is a well-known system that is but a short step from Communism. China's current economic system is Fascism.
Secondly, because it's harder to fire someone from the U.S. federal government than from a U.S. private company, employees may be more willing to report illegal activity, because there may be less fear of effective retribution.
The problem is that the same thing that may make employees more willing to report illegal activity also makes them more willing to treat the people they are supposed to serve like their servants.
He knows that, but if he doesn't make it sound like he thinks he can make money from the actual sale of news (rather than from getting people to support whatever government policy one of his other companies will make a profit off of) people will catch on and it will stop working.
Or he thinks that their value in shaping opinion will increase his profit in other areas enough to make up for his losses in owning them, but he needs to make people think that he is expecting to make a profit from the news business (rather than planning to use the news business to make a profit elsewhere).
How do you know that IBM has not implemented an official file sharing system? As to whether or not it is easy is another question. However, my experience is that easy and secure rarely go together. That is not to say that a secure file sharing system has to be hard, but knowing the way most people think, I doubt you could make one they think of as "easy" that was secure because in order for it to be secure it requires the user sharing out the file to give information to the parties receiving the shared file some information about accessing the secured file outside of the file sharing system and only to those parties entitled to see this particular file. The way an easy system would work is that I would give you the access information once and then every time I upload a file you can access it. The problem with that is that most people would not bother to change the access information when they are uploading information that should not be accessed by some of the people they had been sharing with on the last project they worked on.
Reading your comment you apparently do not realize that the law that the Citizen's United decision partially pulled the teeth from is part of the problem. All "campaign finance reform" laws should be known as Incumbent Protection Acts because they do not actually reduce the influence of money in politics, their ostensible purpose, but they do make it harder for a challenger to displace an incumbent. Whether the Citizen's United decision was a good decision or a bad decision, the law that was at the center of it was a bad law.
It is not salvage because they say it is not salvage and the applicable international treaty says that that is final, barring one of the other signatories to that treaty saying, "No, it's fine, go take it." The international salvage treaties do not apply because there is an Outer Space Treaty that says that all non-governmental entities must have authorization from one of the signatory governments for any activity that they perform in Outer Space, including the Moon.
Not necessary, there is already an international treaty which requires non-government entities to have authorization from one of the signatory governments for any activity in space. NASA has just informed all such entities that they do not have authorization to mess with the stuff left on the Moon by the various governmental space agencies. Unless one of the other signatories will expressly give them permission, they are forbidden by international law to do so. The same treaty says that the signatory countries will be responsible for actions performed by non-governmental entities based in their borders (actually, the way it is worded, that responsibility--and authority over--is not necessarily limited to non-governmental entities based within the borders of the country).
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly how do you think that Iran can step up their actions against the U.S. and Israel without starting an actual shooting war? From the Iran side they have been at war with the U.S. and Israel since the day the current government took power in 1979.
And this is why I wanted this to get to the front page of slashdot. I don't happen to think the proposed report is as bad an idea as the summary I wrote makes it sound, but I could not think of a more evenhanded way to summarize the articles that would get to the slashdot front page.
I wrote the headline and the summary. I was not exactly happy with how they came out, but I thought the topic and points being discussed in the two articles linked to in the summary should be discussed on slashdot. I think that THOMAS and the proposed changes are good things. I, also, felt that both articles were somewhat hyperbolic in their approach to the issue, but I wanted to be sure that this made it to the frontpage so I stayed with the tenor of those two articles in my summary.
I do think that the articles make some good points, especially about the secrecy of the body conducting the report and about the lack of a deadline. That being said, your comment adds some much needed context to the discussion.
That's ok, they have plenty of money to appeal where it will probably get overturned by some moron.
Well, first of all, Google has plenty of money as well, so on that level it is pretty clearly a "push" between these two companies (financially, they are basically in the same weight class). The area where there is some difference is political connections, but that favors Google. Brin and Page are significantly more politically connected than Ellison.
Do you disagree with the historical climate change events that follow the c02 level in the atmosphere?
Yes, since historically, most of them precede increases in CO2 level in the atmosphere.
I think that quote from James Hansen exactly fit the OP's point. In the quote, James Hansen, who is one of those people who keeps saying that we must base government policy on the climate change models that expect drastic changes from AGW, says that those models are badly flawed because those making the models (of whom he is one) do not understand the effect aerosols have on the climate.
No, you are reading this wrong. NYC Comptroller is running for mayor. He is using this "scandal" in order to get his name out in front of the voters. Personally, I think this makes him look like Eliot Spitzer. If you don't know what a sleazeball Eliot Spitzer was, read his Wikipedia page and realize that it was sanitized (not particularly because of political bias, primarily because the unsanitized version would sound too tabloid).
If that were the case, HP would easily be able to provide CCDs that show the city requested additional items that caused the cost overruns.
Not sure that's a wise strategy.
And if it is the case, they will happily do so if and when the case goes to court. In the meantime, HP is in a no-win situation. If they keep silent, they take a significant PR hit. On the other hand, if they make defend themselves, they may piss off the next mayor of New York (Liu is running for mayor) and that will be bad for business in the long run.
Basically what you have going on here is John Liu trying to make a big splash to improve his chances in the upcoming mayoral election.
That Supreme Court ruling is not actually applicable to this as that applied to a contract that people actually signed. This is an attempt to do the same thing using a EULA. I think that that becomes a completely different ballgame. Especially when you consider that there has been no Supreme Court ruling on the subject and that district court rulings are in conflict.
Of course, I am not much of a fan of class-action lawsuits considering that their main purpose is to transfer money from the hands of consumers to the hands of lawyers.
Yeah, that works real well for a topic that is important but has no particular urgency with a colleague who is busy doing something that is both important and urgent. Of course the fact that whatever you discuss is subject to the interpretation and memory of the people involved in the conversations means that it is really useful as well.
Having said that, there are definitely many exchanges of information that take place by email that should take place in person. On the other hand there are many exchanges of information that take place in person that should take place in writing.
What gets me is the number of people who fail to realize that the majority of lobbyists work for non-profit organizations, from Greenpeace to the NRA. That is the majority of lobbyists are hired by groups of people who have gotten together and pooled their money so as to petition Congress to take action on issues that are of particular concern to them...you know, the way some here on slashdot have done concerning Network Neutrality.
There have also been tests where they put out toys for children to play with where the children were unaware of adult supervision. In general, girls played "house", or some similar game, even when the only toys were cars and trucks. On the other hand, boys, in general, played with "cars" and "trucks" or played with "guns", even when the only toys were dolls. There were clear exceptions, but the play style was about 75% determined by the biology of the child.
The reason that boys are encouraged to take things apart and put them back together, possibly with improved functionality, is because boys tend to do that sort of thing any way(especially the take it apart phase). Girls have different behavioral tendencies, some of which are probably beneficial in IT. But IT departments are not built to value those skill sets, so women are less likely to find IT jobs fulfilling than men do.
No, there is no problem with the argument made by the poster you are replying to. The poster you are replying to is addressing the question of what happens to the quality of work produced when you establish a quota of how many women are hired. You appear to be addressing the question of why there are so few women in IT.
You appear to be saying that if we want to increase the number of women in IT, we need to find out why so few women enter the field. Which is exactly the point which the poster you replied to was making.
Only if you believe that CO2, which only causes health problems in humans or other animals at much higher levels than anyone is talking about ever coming to be, is a pollutant in the same class as nitrogen dioxide or sulfur dioxide and similar pollutants.
Taking just CO2
And right there is your problem, you do not understand what real pollution looks like. Real pollution causes people, wildlife, and plants to become sick and sometimes die within a short time period. A short enough time period that people don't have to be told how bad it is, they can see it for themselves.
What China has is not in any way a hybrid between capitalism and totalitarianism. It is a well-known system that is but a short step from Communism. China's current economic system is Fascism.
Secondly, because it's harder to fire someone from the U.S. federal government than from a U.S. private company, employees may be more willing to report illegal activity, because there may be less fear of effective retribution.
The problem is that the same thing that may make employees more willing to report illegal activity also makes them more willing to treat the people they are supposed to serve like their servants.
He knows that, but if he doesn't make it sound like he thinks he can make money from the actual sale of news (rather than from getting people to support whatever government policy one of his other companies will make a profit off of) people will catch on and it will stop working.
Or he thinks that their value in shaping opinion will increase his profit in other areas enough to make up for his losses in owning them, but he needs to make people think that he is expecting to make a profit from the news business (rather than planning to use the news business to make a profit elsewhere).
How do you know that IBM has not implemented an official file sharing system? As to whether or not it is easy is another question. However, my experience is that easy and secure rarely go together. That is not to say that a secure file sharing system has to be hard, but knowing the way most people think, I doubt you could make one they think of as "easy" that was secure because in order for it to be secure it requires the user sharing out the file to give information to the parties receiving the shared file some information about accessing the secured file outside of the file sharing system and only to those parties entitled to see this particular file. The way an easy system would work is that I would give you the access information once and then every time I upload a file you can access it. The problem with that is that most people would not bother to change the access information when they are uploading information that should not be accessed by some of the people they had been sharing with on the last project they worked on.
Reading your comment you apparently do not realize that the law that the Citizen's United decision partially pulled the teeth from is part of the problem. All "campaign finance reform" laws should be known as Incumbent Protection Acts because they do not actually reduce the influence of money in politics, their ostensible purpose, but they do make it harder for a challenger to displace an incumbent. Whether the Citizen's United decision was a good decision or a bad decision, the law that was at the center of it was a bad law.
Am I missing something here?
It is not salvage because they say it is not salvage and the applicable international treaty says that that is final, barring one of the other signatories to that treaty saying, "No, it's fine, go take it." The international salvage treaties do not apply because there is an Outer Space Treaty that says that all non-governmental entities must have authorization from one of the signatory governments for any activity that they perform in Outer Space, including the Moon.
Not necessary, there is already an international treaty which requires non-government entities to have authorization from one of the signatory governments for any activity in space. NASA has just informed all such entities that they do not have authorization to mess with the stuff left on the Moon by the various governmental space agencies. Unless one of the other signatories will expressly give them permission, they are forbidden by international law to do so. The same treaty says that the signatory countries will be responsible for actions performed by non-governmental entities based in their borders (actually, the way it is worded, that responsibility--and authority over--is not necessarily limited to non-governmental entities based within the borders of the country).