Which can be worse than a merely inaccurate one. First of all, TFA says nothing about changes in the past 20 years, and many of the things described in the article have manifestly not just been made up in the past 20 years. Do you really think Mexico would have let you take biological specimens prior to 1994? Second, the tone of the summary implies that these experiments are being restricted because they are "scary stuff". Only a minority of the experiments described in the article are associated with scaring the public, such as the GMO one, and even that explains that Kickstarter came to that decision after consulting with scientists, rather than just banning such things because they sounded scary. In fact, the spin of the article is completely opposite from the summary--the summary implies that these restrictions are caused by hysteria, which really isn't in the article at all.
A quirk of U.S. copyright law kept 10 stories out of the public domain, on the basis that these stories where continuously developed.
1) This conflates two things: the normal 1923 limit which kept 10 stories out of the public domain, and the "continuously developed" idea which was used to keep the characters (not the stories) out of the public domain based on the fact that the stories are not in the public domain. 2) Neither one of those two conflated ideas is a "quirk of copyright law". The 1923 limit is well-known and can't sensibly be called a quirk. The "continuously developed" idea is something that is not a quirk for the opposite reason: the Sherlock Holmes heirs pretty much made it up. 3) The judge ruled against the "continuously developed" idea on the grounds that copyright doesn't work that way. Only the incremental changes made to the characters in the last 10 copyrighted stories cannot be used, but the characters themselves can be used as long as only story elements from the public domain stories are used.
Technically Robby the Robot from Forbidden Planet counts as a non-malevolent computer, although in practice, media often doesn't take the same attitude towards robots and towards computers in general.
That motherfucking website has, if you examine the source, Javascript at the bottom which loads more Javascript from google-analytics. There's a comment of "yes, I know...wanna fight about it?" which pretty much indicates that the site creator knows he's being a motherfucking hypocrite by putting that on a website whose supposed point is that that sort of thing is a bad idea.
(Of course I put google-analytics as 127.0.0.1 in/etc/hosts, since I see no reason to ever want to load anything from there, even if for some reason I have to turn ad blocking off.)
If the price of the long warranty is equal to the cost of the warranty to Apple, they'll just bake it into the price. If the warranty is a high margin item whose standard retail price far exceeds the actual cost to Apple, Apple can't just raise the price by the standard retail price of the warranty--raising the price shifts the demand curve and reduces the total number of Apple products sold (something that does not happen if the warranty is sold at the same retail price but as an optional item). Apple would instead be forced to raise the price by a smaller amount that is closer to the actual cost of the warranty, so as not to reduce sales too much.
Imagine that they were selling iPads but had a deal where you paid an extra million dollars to get them gift-wrapped. If the government forced them to gift-wrap every iPad, they could not raise the price by a million dollars.
I wouldn't want to work for an employer that would consider anything I've said "unacceptable".
If work was something we wanted to do, it wouldn't be work, it would be hobbies. The whole idea of work is that you do something you otherwise wouldn't because people are willing to pay you for it.
Nobody wants to work for a bad employer, but most people want to be without money even less. People work for assholes because they need the money, not because they want to work for assholes.
It's a statistical measure. People who read such things generally have a low income. The fact that you specifically read them and don't have a low income is irrelevant; the advertisers don't care about you as an individual. The large number of people who do fit the profile make the advertising more lucrative to a degree which far overwhelms the small number of people like you who make it less lucrative.
I mean I just got dad a quad core Android tablet for Xmas.,..think he'll EVER come up with enough to do to peg all 4 cores enough that an upgrade would help?
"Here, Dad, here's that video you wanted. Only problem is it was encoded in 10 bit. Maybe in a few years tablets will be fast enough to play it."
You end up with the engineering equivalent of pharmacists refusing to sell contraceptives because they think that contraceptives are immoral.
It's amazing how everyone who says "so-and-so profession must consider the ethical implications of their work" always imagines that the person considering the ethics happens to be considering ethics that they agree with. They never think that they might consider unethical contraceptives, abortion, gay sex, miscegenation, etc.
We *want* apartment owners to say "If you use that apartment for sodomy, I am not responsible just because I rented you the apartment you used to do it in."
The fines are not used for restitution nor are they intended to be used for restitution. Fines are part of the punishment. They are in addition to any ordered restitution.
According to the article, the $183,000 is indeed for restitution.
Generally, the detail which is important to the reader is what distinguishes the referenced item from other things like it. It is uninformative for a Slashdot article to name a disease, type of food, operating system, or anything else without saying what it is. Just the fact that the reader can figure out that it is a disease, food, or operating system doesn't make the article informative. It's possible to figure out something from almost any article, no matter how poorly written. It's still poorly written.
Human psychology doesn't work that way. Someone who takes pictures using a hidden camera knows that he's doing it in secret, and cannot delude himself into thinking that since people see him taking pictures and don't immediately run away, they must be okay with it.
Also, while the pictures themselves can be used nefariously if they are taken secretly, the process of picture-taking cannot be used for intimidation or to intentionally be rude.
If you're referring to Julian Assange, those rape charges were the fault of radical feminists getting their beliefs entrenched in European rape law, not the NSA.
By this reasoning, there should be people wishing death on anyone who ever voted (directly or indirectly) for a policy which causes people to suffer.
And if you're about to point out that the opponents of every policy claim that the policy causes people to suffer, you are of course right.
You don't usually see people whose sons die in Iraq claiming that anyone who voted for George Bush needs to die, and when you do, they're considered nutcases.
The Slashdot article tries to claim it's proven, but if you look at the actual article, the headline reads "Is BP 'trolling' its Facebook critics?"
The usual reason for Betteridge's Law applies: the newspaper wants to suggest a sensationalistic possibility, but it knows it doesn't have any proof so it phrases it as a question instead of a statement. If there really was convincing evidence, the newspaper would not need to write the headline as a question.
Notice that he currently works at Google, and Google's business is collecting your information. He's not exactly a disinterested party in this, creator of the Internet or not.
I think the meaning (discerned from between the spelling errors) is that a population who has all their mistakes recorded for anyone to see may finally accept that most people are impulsive narcissists, and thus they will not judge others by standards that they themselves will fail. Of course, if you knew anything about humanity, it is a long tale of people holding others to standards that they themselves cannot achieve.
To disprove the idea that people who know they fail will accept that others fail, consider:
1) At how many job interviews are you asked "what is your biggest weakness"? 2) At how many of those would the person who asks you this have gotten hired if he truthfully described his biggest weakness?
If everything is as described, sure, the woman has been mistreated. But on the other hand, she's using Ripoff Report. Slashdot has done an article about a case involving Ripoff Report before, and they themselves absolutely refuse to remove even false information, and then charge people money to dispute it. It's at least as bad as the company she's fighting.
Look it up. Here, I'll help you. Read the very links described here: "She contacted Ripoffreport.com to ask that the post be removed but Ripoffreport.com won't let her without paying $2000 she says."
Stack ranking works great if you use it to get rid of the bottom 1% every year. Surely in a department with 100 people there is at least one hire who didn't turn out great.
Except that if you use it every year, then the one that didn't turn out great was already fired last year. You're really saying that in a department of 100 there are 5, or 10, or 20 who didn't turn out great (depending on how fast your natural turnover is).
If it results in few new young developers, *and* if having few new young developers is a big enough problem that we have a Slashdot article about it, then obviously it's not working.
Slashdot Mirror
Ellsberg himself is on record saying that Snowden did the right thing and that doing what Ellsberg did would no longer have worked:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/daniel-ellsberg-nsa-leaker-snowden-made-the-right-call/2013/07/07/0b46d96c-e5b7-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html
Which can be worse than a merely inaccurate one. First of all, TFA says nothing about changes in the past 20 years, and many of the things described in the article have manifestly not just been made up in the past 20 years. Do you really think Mexico would have let you take biological specimens prior to 1994? Second, the tone of the summary implies that these experiments are being restricted because they are "scary stuff". Only a minority of the experiments described in the article are associated with scaring the public, such as the GMO one, and even that explains that Kickstarter came to that decision after consulting with scientists, rather than just banning such things because they sounded scary. In fact, the spin of the article is completely opposite from the summary--the summary implies that these restrictions are caused by hysteria, which really isn't in the article at all.
1) This conflates two things: the normal 1923 limit which kept 10 stories out of the public domain, and the "continuously developed" idea which was used to keep the characters (not the stories) out of the public domain based on the fact that the stories are not in the public domain.
2) Neither one of those two conflated ideas is a "quirk of copyright law". The 1923 limit is well-known and can't sensibly be called a quirk. The "continuously developed" idea is something that is not a quirk for the opposite reason: the Sherlock Holmes heirs pretty much made it up.
3) The judge ruled against the "continuously developed" idea on the grounds that copyright doesn't work that way. Only the incremental changes made to the characters in the last 10 copyrighted stories cannot be used, but the characters themselves can be used as long as only story elements from the public domain stories are used.
Technically Robby the Robot from Forbidden Planet counts as a non-malevolent computer, although in practice, media often doesn't take the same attitude towards robots and towards computers in general.
That motherfucking website has, if you examine the source, Javascript at the bottom which loads more Javascript from google-analytics. There's a comment of "yes, I know...wanna fight about it?" which pretty much indicates that the site creator knows he's being a motherfucking hypocrite by putting that on a website whose supposed point is that that sort of thing is a bad idea.
(Of course I put google-analytics as 127.0.0.1 in /etc/hosts, since I see no reason to ever want to load anything from there, even if for some reason I have to turn ad blocking off.)
If the price of the long warranty is equal to the cost of the warranty to Apple, they'll just bake it into the price. If the warranty is a high margin item whose standard retail price far exceeds the actual cost to Apple, Apple can't just raise the price by the standard retail price of the warranty--raising the price shifts the demand curve and reduces the total number of Apple products sold (something that does not happen if the warranty is sold at the same retail price but as an optional item). Apple would instead be forced to raise the price by a smaller amount that is closer to the actual cost of the warranty, so as not to reduce sales too much.
Imagine that they were selling iPads but had a deal where you paid an extra million dollars to get them gift-wrapped. If the government forced them to gift-wrap every iPad, they could not raise the price by a million dollars.
If work was something we wanted to do, it wouldn't be work, it would be hobbies. The whole idea of work is that you do something you otherwise wouldn't because people are willing to pay you for it.
Nobody wants to work for a bad employer, but most people want to be without money even less. People work for assholes because they need the money, not because they want to work for assholes.
It's a statistical measure. People who read such things generally have a low income. The fact that you specifically read them and don't have a low income is irrelevant; the advertisers don't care about you as an individual. The large number of people who do fit the profile make the advertising more lucrative to a degree which far overwhelms the small number of people like you who make it less lucrative.
"Here, Dad, here's that video you wanted. Only problem is it was encoded in 10 bit. Maybe in a few years tablets will be fast enough to play it."
You end up with the engineering equivalent of pharmacists refusing to sell contraceptives because they think that contraceptives are immoral.
It's amazing how everyone who says "so-and-so profession must consider the ethical implications of their work" always imagines that the person considering the ethics happens to be considering ethics that they agree with. They never think that they might consider unethical contraceptives, abortion, gay sex, miscegenation, etc.
We *want* apartment owners to say "If you use that apartment for sodomy, I am not responsible just because I rented you the apartment you used to do it in."
According to the article, the $183,000 is indeed for restitution.
I'm pretty sure that walking around without a shirt and shoes is not expensive, yet restaurants ban that too.
Generally, the detail which is important to the reader is what distinguishes the referenced item from other things like it. It is uninformative for a Slashdot article to name a disease, type of food, operating system, or anything else without saying what it is. Just the fact that the reader can figure out that it is a disease, food, or operating system doesn't make the article informative. It's possible to figure out something from almost any article, no matter how poorly written. It's still poorly written.
Human psychology doesn't work that way. Someone who takes pictures using a hidden camera knows that he's doing it in secret, and cannot delude himself into thinking that since people see him taking pictures and don't immediately run away, they must be okay with it.
Also, while the pictures themselves can be used nefariously if they are taken secretly, the process of picture-taking cannot be used for intimidation or to intentionally be rude.
If you're referring to Julian Assange, those rape charges were the fault of radical feminists getting their beliefs entrenched in European rape law, not the NSA.
By this reasoning, there should be people wishing death on anyone who ever voted (directly or indirectly) for a policy which causes people to suffer.
And if you're about to point out that the opponents of every policy claim that the policy causes people to suffer, you are of course right.
You don't usually see people whose sons die in Iraq claiming that anyone who voted for George Bush needs to die, and when you do, they're considered nutcases.
PS3 has not been thoroughly hacked unless you use a hardware flasher.
The Slashdot article tries to claim it's proven, but if you look at the actual article, the headline reads "Is BP 'trolling' its Facebook critics?"
The usual reason for Betteridge's Law applies: the newspaper wants to suggest a sensationalistic possibility, but it knows it doesn't have any proof so it phrases it as a question instead of a statement. If there really was convincing evidence, the newspaper would not need to write the headline as a question.
Notice that he currently works at Google, and Google's business is collecting your information. He's not exactly a disinterested party in this, creator of the Internet or not.
To disprove the idea that people who know they fail will accept that others fail, consider:
1) At how many job interviews are you asked "what is your biggest weakness"?
2) At how many of those would the person who asks you this have gotten hired if he truthfully described his biggest weakness?
If everything is as described, sure, the woman has been mistreated. But on the other hand, she's using Ripoff Report. Slashdot has done an article about a case involving Ripoff Report before, and they themselves absolutely refuse to remove even false information, and then charge people money to dispute it. It's at least as bad as the company she's fighting.
Look it up. Here, I'll help you. Read the very links described here: "She contacted Ripoffreport.com to ask that the post be removed but Ripoffreport.com won't let her without paying $2000 she says."
Or go read some of the comments in the earlier article describing how Ripoff Report behaves. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/29/1929228/court-rules-website-doesnt-have-to-remove-defamatory-comments
Except that if you use it every year, then the one that didn't turn out great was already fired last year. You're really saying that in a department of 100 there are 5, or 10, or 20 who didn't turn out great (depending on how fast your natural turnover is).
If it results in few new young developers, *and* if having few new young developers is a big enough problem that we have a Slashdot article about it, then obviously it's not working.
with-->without, of course
Like in the Denmark example,
1) Sweden is much smaller than the US.
2) The king doesn't actually rule the country.
He walks around with bodyguards because he's a nobody.