Not letting them use a test that will only give a positive result, accurate or not, is not sweeping things under a rug.
The test fails to detect the presence of the disease. Failing to find evidence of the disease is a negative result, not a positive one, in this context. Sorry.
A real question here is *why* the FDA is so hell bent on blocking testing for mad cow disease... and I think we all know the reason why... the tests would reveal that mad cow disease is rampant within the US Beef supply.
As additional support for this theory, I offer this factoid: The US response to mad cow disease was to institute new regulations that mandated cows be slaughtered before they could reach the age that mad cow disease can first exhibit symptoms. This regulation does nothing to stop the spread of mad cow disease, of course, but it is very effective at sweeping the problem under the rug.
RTFA:
Because most cattle slaughtered in the United States are less than 24 months old, the most common mad cow disease test is unlikely to catch the disease, the appeals court noted. If the government does not control the tests, the USDA is worried about beef exporters unilaterally giving consumers false assurance.
The actual decision (PDF) made it clear that the company wanted to use the test that won't work. Not letting them use a test that will only give a positive result, accurate or not, is not sweeping things under a rug.
For anyone who is curious about it, the blog says that they flew out of Las Vegas. Zero G's FAQ says that they use the Signature Air Terminal at the main airport there. Signature Air Services is basically a chain of Fixed Based Operators (FBOs). They serve business and private pilots mostly. They use the same runways, but different buildings compared to the airlines.
You left off parts of what he said. They might not support your rant so well, but I think they provide a more complete picture.
And I'd also like to thank the TSA screeners, who arrived on site already totally up to speed on what we wanted to do (they'd even seen my test videos).
But in our case, since the screeners had been pre-briefed, it was easy to demonstrate that everything we wanted to use was well within the TSA rules. The only thing that didn't fly was a tiny ball of modelling clay that we were going to use to mount the mento onto a ziptie with, and the screeners helped brainstorm an acceptable (and better!) mounting method.
You summarized part of the bottom quote, but not all of it.
In an earlier blog he points out that as a commercial flight, the TSA rules must be obeyed and he still had to be screened by the TSA (yes, that's silly), but he wasn't talking about the regular line at an airport.
According to wikipedia, exhalation has 4-5% CO2. I don't think my own breath (garlic or otherwise) is "immediately dangerous to life and health"
However, according to wikianswers, 365Kg of CO2 is emitted per breath.
Think about it! If the air you exhale weren't "immediately dangerous to life and health", why would you need to exhale it? As soon as you exhale, the CO2 gets diluted, of course. Once that happens it's not hazardous to other people, but it's not at 4%, either.
Were you just poking fun at wikianswers? I couldn't find anything about people exhaling 365kg of CO2 there, but I found other stuff that was equally ridiculous. Just in case you were serious, the mass of a normal sized person is somewhere around 80kg, so the idea that people exhale 365kg in a single breath is absurd.
I hate it when someone copies text some elsewhere, but doesn't give the source! The "Due to the health risks..." quote in the grandparent comment apparently came from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Dioxide#Toxicity.
Did you move beyond landmarks that you tended to use to orient yourself? You would know better than me, but if you are used to thinking that Idaho, the Western Range, potatoes, or whatever it is, are to your West or Southwest, then being on the far side of them might mess you up.
I had similar problems when I moved or traveled a few hundred miles north of where I was raised. I think the issue was that I was raised in Ohio, so toward Toledo or Lake Erie was North. When I moved to Detroit temporarily, I was constantly turned around. Of course, if you are correct, that could be magnetism, too, but I had a feeling of being on the wrong side of the land in between. A similar thing happens, too, when I think about directions with respect to locations in continental Europe or Asia. That can't involve magnetism very well, especially since I am just looking at maps or pondering about locations without actually being there. I think I tend to orient myself with the Atlantic Ocean to the East or the Pacific to the West, which, of course, doesn't work so well when considering the Eastern Hemisphere.
Extortion for what? He bought the system and all of the items with it legally. By most laws, that data is physically located on his property, and is legally his to do with what he wants. The inadvertent sale is not his fault; it's pretty much akin (I would think; IANAL) to being sold a house with $25,000 in the attic.
IANAL, and I'm on the wrong side of the Atlantic, but TFA mentioned a Data Protection Act. Aspects of it may well apply to anyone in possession of the data. It may well have be stolen property, too. The article gives no indication one way or another, nor did it identify the seller. It could be that no one wants to make an accusation until facts are known.
There is actually very little to go on from that article. The reporter seemed to know little more than that some spokesmen, who didn't seem to known much themselves, had said some PR-type stuff. The reporter even managed this gem:
The Information Commissioner's Office said an investigation would be launched as soon as Mr Chapman had handed the computer in to them.
A spokeswoman said: "We are now investigating this potential data breach...
Beyond the timing, who does "them" refer to? Graphic Data or the Information Commissioner's Office? The article certainly wasn't clear about that, either.
I would be curious if the magnets move inside the cow depending on which way the cow is facing. Could it be that the cow tends to stand in whatever direction reduces the discomfort caused by those magnets? They are about 3 inches long and attract sharp hardware, so it seems conceivable, at least.
Unfortunately for that idea, the researchers said that the Czech deer they studied do the same thing. Could the Czech deer have been on farms where they might have had the magnets, too? The article doesn't give any indication.
I checked to see if the terms were used differently in the UK compared to the USA. Trademark is apparently spelled Trade Mark over there, but otherwise the ideas seem similar. I suppose it's possible the blog was wrong initially and corrected later, but I can't find any evidence of that in the comments. I think the BBC just screwed up. I also think I just put more effort into researching what I wrote than the BBC did.
I might have missed something, but I didn't see anything that said MS paid face value, so how do you know that MS actually paid $100M or that it's selling them at a loss? As long as Novell didn't have the customers already locked up, why wouldn't Novell be willing to wholesale at some discount? And how often does Novell give discounts directly to the customers anyway? I'd bet it's pretty common.
Yeah, that's nothing new around here. My main gripe is that this isn't even a well-written editorial! They never support their claim. How is S. 3212 a "step backward"? How is the current situation better than it will be if S. 3212 passes? Don't answer with Holt's bill. That was in 2007, and it went nowhere, so it's not the current situation. Maybe some state has better requirements now, but if so the editorial never says so. Furthermore, the editorial would need to explain how this law law would override the state law. I don't think it could, given the US Constitution. So, what then? It never says.
Maybe the conclusion is correct, but I doubt it is after reading this piece. So how was this worth reading?
The lead developer did the graphics and knew what he was up to. Steve Bovis had had 404 posts on the forum for the game development software he used where he made it fairly clear what he was trying to do.
They didn't just use 2-D screenshots of 3-D scenes as backgrounds. They also copied graphical "assets" directly and also stole film footage for their trailers. Apparently they stole music, too. And the lead guy or his daughter posed as buyers to spam forums. And the game apparently sucks, besides.
BTW, I also disagree with your logic. Even if all they did was use the other games' graphics as backgrounds, it would still be a rip-off. Keep in mind that they are trying to compete with the same games they are using.
The next launch from pad 39A is scheduled for Oct. 8. NASA sources say engineers believe the damage can be repaired by then with no impact on plans to launch Atlantis on a mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope.
There are better pictures now at the original source for that story: http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/current.html. Scroll down to "11:30 PM, 6/1/08, Update: Shuttle launch pad damaged during liftoff (UPDATED at 12 p.m. 6/2 with additional pictures)." "Photo 2" seems to show a large section of a wall in the pit that had the brick veneer blown off.
You and your fancy talking! Back in my day, we just grunted and picked the insects out of each other's hair. And what's this "fire" thing you sat around?
Thanks for the clarification. I don't know why he couldn't say it in plain English like you did. I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic, but I don't think you are. The words "snarky" and "schadenfreude" are fairly commonly used in English writing; I'm surprised if you are unfamiliar with them. OTOH, I've never heard of "epicaricacy" before and there is no entry for it at dictionary.com nor in my collegiate dictionary, so it must be used only very rarely if at all. Of course, lawyers are familiar with a somewhat different set of words than normal people use. In my opinion, the original is a better, if not great, example of plain speaking (by non-lawyers) than man_ls's explanation.
BTW, snarky means testy or snide, rather than smug. Schadenfreude refers to taking pleasure in someone else's misfortune. Typing "define:epicaricacy" into Google results in only one definition (with a broken link) that is mostly identical to one of the results for "define:schadenfreude", including the claim that it is a loanword from German. I don't know what to make of that. I assume epicaricacy means schadenfreude, but it doesn't look like something that originally came from German.
How about this one: Designing and Implementing Malicious Hardware? Now that people are figuring out how to deal with Storm, we may have to start worrying about bogus ICs that will be designed to allow your computer to be compromised easily. Damn! Interesting, though. It was awarded "Best Paper".
Slashdot Mirror
Not letting them use a test that will only give a positive result, accurate or not, is not sweeping things under a rug.
The test fails to detect the presence of the disease. Failing to find evidence of the disease is a negative result, not a positive one, in this context. Sorry.
A real question here is *why* the FDA is so hell bent on blocking testing for mad cow disease... and I think we all know the reason why... the tests would reveal that mad cow disease is rampant within the US Beef supply.
As additional support for this theory, I offer this factoid: The US response to mad cow disease was to institute new regulations that mandated cows be slaughtered before they could reach the age that mad cow disease can first exhibit symptoms. This regulation does nothing to stop the spread of mad cow disease, of course, but it is very effective at sweeping the problem under the rug.
RTFA:
Because most cattle slaughtered in the United States are less than 24 months old, the most common mad cow disease test is unlikely to catch the disease, the appeals court noted. If the government does not control the tests, the USDA is worried about beef exporters unilaterally giving consumers false assurance.
The actual decision (PDF) made it clear that the company wanted to use the test that won't work. Not letting them use a test that will only give a positive result, accurate or not, is not sweeping things under a rug.
For anyone who is curious about it, the blog says that they flew out of Las Vegas. Zero G's FAQ says that they use the Signature Air Terminal at the main airport there. Signature Air Services is basically a chain of Fixed Based Operators (FBOs). They serve business and private pilots mostly. They use the same runways, but different buildings compared to the airlines.
You left off parts of what he said. They might not support your rant so well, but I think they provide a more complete picture.
And I'd also like to thank the TSA screeners, who arrived on site already totally up to speed on what we wanted to do (they'd even seen my test videos).
But in our case, since the screeners had been pre-briefed, it was easy to demonstrate that everything we wanted to use was well within the TSA rules. The only thing that didn't fly was a tiny ball of modelling clay that we were going to use to mount the mento onto a ziptie with, and the screeners helped brainstorm an acceptable (and better!) mounting method.
You summarized part of the bottom quote, but not all of it.
In an earlier blog he points out that as a commercial flight, the TSA rules must be obeyed and he still had to be screened by the TSA (yes, that's silly), but he wasn't talking about the regular line at an airport.
According to wikipedia, exhalation has 4-5% CO2. I don't think my own breath (garlic or otherwise) is "immediately dangerous to life and health"
However, according to wikianswers, 365Kg of CO2 is emitted per breath.
Think about it! If the air you exhale weren't "immediately dangerous to life and health", why would you need to exhale it? As soon as you exhale, the CO2 gets diluted, of course. Once that happens it's not hazardous to other people, but it's not at 4%, either.
Were you just poking fun at wikianswers? I couldn't find anything about people exhaling 365kg of CO2 there, but I found other stuff that was equally ridiculous. Just in case you were serious, the mass of a normal sized person is somewhere around 80kg, so the idea that people exhale 365kg in a single breath is absurd.
I hate it when someone copies text some elsewhere, but doesn't give the source! The "Due to the health risks..." quote in the grandparent comment apparently came from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Dioxide#Toxicity.
Are these numbers really right for CO2 concentrations? I would think that 4% would occur naturally?
You are only off by two decimal points. The correct figure is 0.038%.
It will depend on how "slimy" the campaign for EOT is. If something is slimy enough, /. actually thinks it's cool.
/. will never get tired of watching "Ghostbusters".
Did you move beyond landmarks that you tended to use to orient yourself? You would know better than me, but if you are used to thinking that Idaho, the Western Range, potatoes, or whatever it is, are to your West or Southwest, then being on the far side of them might mess you up.
I had similar problems when I moved or traveled a few hundred miles north of where I was raised. I think the issue was that I was raised in Ohio, so toward Toledo or Lake Erie was North. When I moved to Detroit temporarily, I was constantly turned around. Of course, if you are correct, that could be magnetism, too, but I had a feeling of being on the wrong side of the land in between. A similar thing happens, too, when I think about directions with respect to locations in continental Europe or Asia. That can't involve magnetism very well, especially since I am just looking at maps or pondering about locations without actually being there. I think I tend to orient myself with the Atlantic Ocean to the East or the Pacific to the West, which, of course, doesn't work so well when considering the Eastern Hemisphere.
Extortion for what? He bought the system and all of the items with it legally. By most laws, that data is physically located on his property, and is legally his to do with what he wants. The inadvertent sale is not his fault; it's pretty much akin (I would think; IANAL) to being sold a house with $25,000 in the attic.
IANAL, and I'm on the wrong side of the Atlantic, but TFA mentioned a Data Protection Act. Aspects of it may well apply to anyone in possession of the data. It may well have be stolen property, too. The article gives no indication one way or another, nor did it identify the seller. It could be that no one wants to make an accusation until facts are known.
There is actually very little to go on from that article. The reporter seemed to know little more than that some spokesmen, who didn't seem to known much themselves, had said some PR-type stuff. The reporter even managed this gem:
The Information Commissioner's Office said an investigation would be launched as soon as Mr Chapman had handed the computer in to them.
A spokeswoman said: "We are now investigating this potential data breach...
Beyond the timing, who does "them" refer to? Graphic Data or the Information Commissioner's Office? The article certainly wasn't clear about that, either.
I would be curious if the magnets move inside the cow depending on which way the cow is facing. Could it be that the cow tends to stand in whatever direction reduces the discomfort caused by those magnets? They are about 3 inches long and attract sharp hardware, so it seems conceivable, at least.
Unfortunately for that idea, the researchers said that the Czech deer they studied do the same thing. Could the Czech deer have been on farms where they might have had the magnets, too? The article doesn't give any indication.
Was the owner part of a conspiracy?
Was the media part of a conspiracy?
You sound like the crackpots, even though you're on the other side.
I checked to see if the terms were used differently in the UK compared to the USA. Trademark is apparently spelled Trade Mark over there, but otherwise the ideas seem similar. I suppose it's possible the blog was wrong initially and corrected later, but I can't find any evidence of that in the comments. I think the BBC just screwed up. I also think I just put more effort into researching what I wrote than the BBC did.
Thanks for fixing the link, but that article didn't say what you said it did. There were no denials that they pay for placement.
I might have missed something, but I didn't see anything that said MS paid face value, so how do you know that MS actually paid $100M or that it's selling them at a loss? As long as Novell didn't have the customers already locked up, why wouldn't Novell be willing to wholesale at some discount? And how often does Novell give discounts directly to the customers anyway? I'd bet it's pretty common.
Note the article's date: 18/08/2007! That isn't a mistake; I remember reading the article months ago.
I realize SCO is a juicy target, but I hope this won't be on /. again on August 18, 2009. I wouldn't bet on it, though.
At best it is a 100,000 foot view of the past 5 years...but there is no "chronicling" going on.
Not even that. It is a year old, so there is no view of the last year.
Well, more knowledgeable, anyway. A few months ago you said that you didn't know what "snarky" meant. Now you understand and even use it!
Yeah, that's nothing new around here. My main gripe is that this isn't even a well-written editorial! They never support their claim. How is S. 3212 a "step backward"? How is the current situation better than it will be if S. 3212 passes? Don't answer with Holt's bill. That was in 2007, and it went nowhere, so it's not the current situation. Maybe some state has better requirements now, but if so the editorial never says so. Furthermore, the editorial would need to explain how this law law would override the state law. I don't think it could, given the US Constitution. So, what then? It never says.
Maybe the conclusion is correct, but I doubt it is after reading this piece. So how was this worth reading?
I'm afraid it looks as if they might have been ripping stuff off already back then, too.
The lead developer did the graphics and knew what he was up to. Steve Bovis had had 404 posts on the forum for the game development software he used where he made it fairly clear what he was trying to do.
They didn't just use 2-D screenshots of 3-D scenes as backgrounds. They also copied graphical "assets" directly and also stole film footage for their trailers. Apparently they stole music, too. And the lead guy or his daughter posed as buyers to spam forums. And the game apparently sucks, besides.
The best thread I've seen is at NeoGAF. Somebody eventually bought the game and posted screenshots to show how bad it is. They even failed to edit the default registry settings for the game installer. You can find support for all of my other accusations elsewhere in the same thread.
BTW, I also disagree with your logic. Even if all they did was use the other games' graphics as backgrounds, it would still be a rip-off. Keep in mind that they are trying to compete with the same games they are using.
There are better pictures now at the original source for that story: http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/current.html. Scroll down to "11:30 PM, 6/1/08, Update: Shuttle launch pad damaged during liftoff (UPDATED at 12 p.m. 6/2 with additional pictures)." "Photo 2" seems to show a large section of a wall in the pit that had the brick veneer blown off.
You and your fancy talking! Back in my day, we just grunted and picked the insects out of each other's hair. And what's this "fire" thing you sat around?
BTW, snarky means testy or snide, rather than smug. Schadenfreude refers to taking pleasure in someone else's misfortune. Typing "define:epicaricacy" into Google results in only one definition (with a broken link) that is mostly identical to one of the results for "define:schadenfreude", including the claim that it is a loanword from German. I don't know what to make of that. I assume epicaricacy means schadenfreude, but it doesn't look like something that originally came from German.
How about this one: Designing and Implementing Malicious Hardware? Now that people are figuring out how to deal with Storm, we may have to start worrying about bogus ICs that will be designed to allow your computer to be compromised easily. Damn! Interesting, though. It was awarded "Best Paper".