They want to show that data that was collected for climate research was not used because it not only failed to support the theory that the researcher proposed but contradicted it.
Yes, the data was not used for climate change articles, but it was collected for climate change research. Those asking for the data are suggesting that the researchers did something like the following:
Theorize that "If A, then B". Collect 15 data sets. In 14 of the data sets there is either, "A" but not "B", or there is "not A", but "B". In the 15th set there is both "A" and "B". The researchers publish an article saying "This data proves, 'If A, then B'."
OK, so we have a study that was bad using data that was collected for that study and you use that as evidence that allowing people to see the data from publicly funded studies will result in the same thing? We already have the problem that you say this ruling will create.
And AGW proponents are funded by oil companies at about 10x the amount the those who are "denying" AGW, so who has more economic interest in the results they are producing? I always love these people who complain that those who are skeptical of AGW are just doing it for financial reasons, but the proponents (who are receiving much more funding) are completely unaffected by financial considerations.
This won't be a class action lawsuit, most of the computers effected are corporate. Corporations don't as a general rule do class action lawsuits. They want a direct peice of the action.
McAffee may be the worst major anti-virus vendor on the planet. I never understand why they are so popular, except for that the fact that they have some name recognition.
No, that would be Symantec (although McAfee is a close second).
Speed skating involves defense (positioning so as to limit where others can pass), Running, swimming and skiing do not involve any defense (at least any competition I have ever seen involving only those), so, no I do not consider them sports. I have never seen competitive kayaking so I have no idea.
That is the point I was going to make. The Macintosh project was already in process when the plug got pulled on the Lisa project and Jobs took it over. While Jobs did make some contributions to the Macintosh, his primary role was marketing and claiming credit for it. The only reason the Macintosh came to be is because of the same forces that later forced Jobs out of the company.
I think they have these things called 'fields' nowadays.
Yes, but if you don't pen them into the field, they will just wander on out. Now maybe you think that a field is a good pen for cattle, but some would find fault with that...which was the OP's point.
The problem is that he fails to admit that his definition of art starts with "video games are not art". From there he attempts to define what art is in such a way as to exclude video games, but not anything he defines as being art. I did something similar with sports. There are several activities that are commonly called sports that I do not feel deserve being called that (golf in particular). It took me a long time to come up with a definition that excluded golf without excluding anything that I do consider a sport. My definition of sport is this: A physical activity that involves competition where there is both offense and defense. This definition excludes golf (no defense) and chess (no physical activity). I am unaware of any non-sport that would pass this test and have never considered any "sport" that failed it to be a sport.
He's really not as bright as he thinks he is, is he?
Not even close. When I worked there I was one of his favorites because when he decided to redo the corporate organization chart while the other owners were on vacation and demote them, I made up the new corporate org chart after another person with the access to change it refused without authorization from the other owners. What he didn't realize was that I put it in different folder from the official org chart. If someone with the legal authority to demand a copy of our org chart had come in before the other owners came back, I would have printed them out what I still considered to be the official org chart.
As a result of this and several other instances where I humored him, he thought I was his buddy. I never tried to get him to think that, it was just easier to nod and go "uh-huh" when he said he wanted to do something a particular way and then do it the right way. He was shocked when I turned in my notice and told him I thought the company would be out of business before much longer. He told me I was wrong. I left in November and the company is less than half the size it was when I left.
They don't, but he was an inactive owner when they were hired. About a year before I left, the other owners tried to buy him out. He decided to prove how indispensable he was to the company and started to reassert his authority (actually, he hired a new lawyer to pick through the corporate bylaws to find a loophole to allow him to run things against the wishes of the other two owners). Unfortunately, many of the employees need the job and have been unable to find another one.
The difference is that in your universe, they will have some excuse as to why the rest of the recording is gone, whereas in mine (the real one) not only is the recording inadmissible in court but they can be prosecuted for having it (although I believe that should rarely--if ever-- be done).
So, you are saying only the wealthy should eat meat? Local, organic and free range farming is much more labor intensive (higher cost) than ordinary farming and produces significantly less food per acre than the more common practices.
He would have gotten rid of the other footage, so he doesn't have that footage anymore. If he turned over all the recording he had of the person, it would only be the incriminating bit, not the part that showed him getting them wound up, that stuff he would have destroyed.
It's illegal in Illinois to record anyone without their permission, and nothing recorded without someone's permission can be used in court here.
I call it the "liar's law". But this tech won't help any Illinois crime victims.
There is a good reason for such laws. I used to work for a guy who regularly recorded people (n violation of the law) and then egged them to say things that he thought he could use to fire them (he had two business partners, which limited his ability to fire people on a whim). He would delete where he had said inflammatory and demeaning things first. After the HR person told him that he couldn't use those recordings because they were illegal, he engineered a confrontation with her and fired her (she is now suing for wrongful termination).
There was a reply to your post that referred to american3p.org as a neo-nazi organization. I went to the site to see if the accusation was name calling (as I suspected) or if it was supported by the facts. To my surprise, that Anonymous Coward was right. After a little bit of digging I discovered that the site considers Charles Lindbergh as one of its inspirations. Not his flight across the Atlantic, but his pro-Nazi speeches just before the outbreak of WWII.
He was convicted because his account of a conversation from several months earlier differed from that of the only other person who was part of that conversation. The prosecutor convinced a jury that the reason that his account differed was because he lied. We now know that he neither committed the "crime" being investigated, nor did he know who had done so. Not only that, but we know that the "crime" being investigated wasn't a crime. How do you "obstruct justice" when there was no crime?
I find it funny when gaming execs (or music, or movie) go on about how much money they are "losing" to piracy. I know a 100% sure fire way they could defeat the pirates. Make really cool games, advertise them massively, then just keep them in house and never release them. Think how much more money they would make if they never let the games out into the public so that the pirates couldn't copy them. Maybe if they worked really hard at their security, they could let people pay them to come into their facilities and play the games, but they would have to be careful, if they let just anybody in, someone might make a copy and sneak it out./s
These guys need to stop worrying about how many copies of their games are pirated and concentrate on getting more people to pay for their games. While it may be true that if they do absolutely nothing about people who pirate their games, more and more people will pirate the games rather than buy them, they are much more obsessed with stopping pirates than they are with getting paying customers.
According to the article, the students were allowed to take the laptops home if their parents had paid a $55 insurance fee which, according to the school district, the parents in this case had not paid.
And that is a terrible idea. These people need to pay for what they have done. Prison time and sex offender registration, the whole 9 yards.
Pleading the fifth isn't going to do shit to protect them if the prosecutors have documented evidence showing what they have done, which it seems they have.
There are, at this time, no prosecutors involved in this case. Currently the only people involved in this case is a family that has good reason to want a big payday against the taxpayers of the school district (they are deeply in debt and have been living beyond their means for years), a school district that had the poor judgement (stupidity?) to set up a laptop monitoring system without properly notifying parents (and getting appropriate permissions) and their lawyers.
The school district in this case did something very stupid, but the parents of this child are scumbags.
I don't think it's an attempt to imply guilt, but more show the cracks in the formerly unified stance of the board et al. Fifth Amendment invocation is different than "no comment," and it shows that some members are starting to think of themselves, rather than the message.
You can't answer "no comment" when giving a deposition, which is what was going on when this individual invoked the Fifth Ammendment. The summary is badly misleading. When it says "answering all questions", most people will assume that the person in question invoked the Fifth Ammendment when questioned by reporters. The article does not say that the person in question was ever questioned by reporters. It says that they answered questions in a deposition by invoking the Fifth.
Slashdot Mirror
They want to show that data that was collected for climate research was not used because it not only failed to support the theory that the researcher proposed but contradicted it.
Yes, the data was not used for climate change articles, but it was collected for climate change research. Those asking for the data are suggesting that the researchers did something like the following:
Theorize that "If A, then B". Collect 15 data sets. In 14 of the data sets there is either, "A" but not "B", or there is "not A", but "B". In the 15th set there is both "A" and "B". The researchers publish an article saying "This data proves, 'If A, then B'."
OK, so we have a study that was bad using data that was collected for that study and you use that as evidence that allowing people to see the data from publicly funded studies will result in the same thing? We already have the problem that you say this ruling will create.
And AGW proponents are funded by oil companies at about 10x the amount the those who are "denying" AGW, so who has more economic interest in the results they are producing? I always love these people who complain that those who are skeptical of AGW are just doing it for financial reasons, but the proponents (who are receiving much more funding) are completely unaffected by financial considerations.
This won't be a class action lawsuit, most of the computers effected are corporate. Corporations don't as a general rule do class action lawsuits. They want a direct peice of the action.
McAffee may be the worst major anti-virus vendor on the planet. I never understand why they are so popular, except for that the fact that they have some name recognition.
No, that would be Symantec (although McAfee is a close second).
So what is so new with the ipad in this sense?
It's from Apple and people are desperately trying to come up with a reason why people who aren't into the Apple "cool" factor would buy one.
Speed skating involves defense (positioning so as to limit where others can pass), Running, swimming and skiing do not involve any defense (at least any competition I have ever seen involving only those), so, no I do not consider them sports. I have never seen competitive kayaking so I have no idea.
I hope that you responded to the wrong post, since you appear to have restated what I said in my post.
That is the point I was going to make. The Macintosh project was already in process when the plug got pulled on the Lisa project and Jobs took it over. While Jobs did make some contributions to the Macintosh, his primary role was marketing and claiming credit for it. The only reason the Macintosh came to be is because of the same forces that later forced Jobs out of the company.
I think they have these things called 'fields' nowadays.
Yes, but if you don't pen them into the field, they will just wander on out. Now maybe you think that a field is a good pen for cattle, but some would find fault with that...which was the OP's point.
The problem is that he fails to admit that his definition of art starts with "video games are not art". From there he attempts to define what art is in such a way as to exclude video games, but not anything he defines as being art. I did something similar with sports. There are several activities that are commonly called sports that I do not feel deserve being called that (golf in particular). It took me a long time to come up with a definition that excluded golf without excluding anything that I do consider a sport. My definition of sport is this: A physical activity that involves competition where there is both offense and defense. This definition excludes golf (no defense) and chess (no physical activity). I am unaware of any non-sport that would pass this test and have never considered any "sport" that failed it to be a sport.
He's really not as bright as he thinks he is, is he?
Not even close. When I worked there I was one of his favorites because when he decided to redo the corporate organization chart while the other owners were on vacation and demote them, I made up the new corporate org chart after another person with the access to change it refused without authorization from the other owners. What he didn't realize was that I put it in different folder from the official org chart. If someone with the legal authority to demand a copy of our org chart had come in before the other owners came back, I would have printed them out what I still considered to be the official org chart.
As a result of this and several other instances where I humored him, he thought I was his buddy. I never tried to get him to think that, it was just easier to nod and go "uh-huh" when he said he wanted to do something a particular way and then do it the right way. He was shocked when I turned in my notice and told him I thought the company would be out of business before much longer. He told me I was wrong. I left in November and the company is less than half the size it was when I left.
They don't, but he was an inactive owner when they were hired. About a year before I left, the other owners tried to buy him out. He decided to prove how indispensable he was to the company and started to reassert his authority (actually, he hired a new lawyer to pick through the corporate bylaws to find a loophole to allow him to run things against the wishes of the other two owners). Unfortunately, many of the employees need the job and have been unable to find another one.
The difference is that in your universe, they will have some excuse as to why the rest of the recording is gone, whereas in mine (the real one) not only is the recording inadmissible in court but they can be prosecuted for having it (although I believe that should rarely--if ever-- be done).
Dairy cows are rarely (if ever) "locked up all the time".
So, you are saying only the wealthy should eat meat? Local, organic and free range farming is much more labor intensive (higher cost) than ordinary farming and produces significantly less food per acre than the more common practices.
Have you ever considered, not putting them in a pen at all?
I don't know about you, but I don't want cows wandering through my yard because the local dairy farmer doesn't pen them up.
He would have gotten rid of the other footage, so he doesn't have that footage anymore. If he turned over all the recording he had of the person, it would only be the incriminating bit, not the part that showed him getting them wound up, that stuff he would have destroyed.
It's illegal in Illinois to record anyone without their permission, and nothing recorded without someone's permission can be used in court here.
I call it the "liar's law". But this tech won't help any Illinois crime victims.
There is a good reason for such laws. I used to work for a guy who regularly recorded people (n violation of the law) and then egged them to say things that he thought he could use to fire them (he had two business partners, which limited his ability to fire people on a whim). He would delete where he had said inflammatory and demeaning things first. After the HR person told him that he couldn't use those recordings because they were illegal, he engineered a confrontation with her and fired her (she is now suing for wrongful termination).
There was a reply to your post that referred to american3p.org as a neo-nazi organization. I went to the site to see if the accusation was name calling (as I suspected) or if it was supported by the facts. To my surprise, that Anonymous Coward was right. After a little bit of digging I discovered that the site considers Charles Lindbergh as one of its inspirations. Not his flight across the Atlantic, but his pro-Nazi speeches just before the outbreak of WWII.
He was convicted because his account of a conversation from several months earlier differed from that of the only other person who was part of that conversation. The prosecutor convinced a jury that the reason that his account differed was because he lied. We now know that he neither committed the "crime" being investigated, nor did he know who had done so. Not only that, but we know that the "crime" being investigated wasn't a crime. How do you "obstruct justice" when there was no crime?
I find it funny when gaming execs (or music, or movie) go on about how much money they are "losing" to piracy. I know a 100% sure fire way they could defeat the pirates. Make really cool games, advertise them massively, then just keep them in house and never release them. Think how much more money they would make if they never let the games out into the public so that the pirates couldn't copy them. Maybe if they worked really hard at their security, they could let people pay them to come into their facilities and play the games, but they would have to be careful, if they let just anybody in, someone might make a copy and sneak it out. /s
These guys need to stop worrying about how many copies of their games are pirated and concentrate on getting more people to pay for their games. While it may be true that if they do absolutely nothing about people who pirate their games, more and more people will pirate the games rather than buy them, they are much more obsessed with stopping pirates than they are with getting paying customers.
According to the article, the students were allowed to take the laptops home if their parents had paid a $55 insurance fee which, according to the school district, the parents in this case had not paid.
She
And that is a terrible idea. These people need to pay for what they have done. Prison time and sex offender registration, the whole 9 yards.
Pleading the fifth isn't going to do shit to protect them if the prosecutors have documented evidence showing what they have done, which it seems they have.
There are, at this time, no prosecutors involved in this case. Currently the only people involved in this case is a family that has good reason to want a big payday against the taxpayers of the school district (they are deeply in debt and have been living beyond their means for years), a school district that had the poor judgement (stupidity?) to set up a laptop monitoring system without properly notifying parents (and getting appropriate permissions) and their lawyers.
The school district in this case did something very stupid, but the parents of this child are scumbags.
I don't think it's an attempt to imply guilt, but more show the cracks in the formerly unified stance of the board et al. Fifth Amendment invocation is different than "no comment," and it shows that some members are starting to think of themselves, rather than the message.
You can't answer "no comment" when giving a deposition, which is what was going on when this individual invoked the Fifth Ammendment. The summary is badly misleading. When it says "answering all questions", most people will assume that the person in question invoked the Fifth Ammendment when questioned by reporters. The article does not say that the person in question was ever questioned by reporters. It says that they answered questions in a deposition by invoking the Fifth.