According to TFA (and even the summary) they are asking the employee to log into their own account and watch, not to give up their password. In fact, they specifically did it, according to the article, after complaints from the ACLU about giving up their password.
Obviously the whole point of t\doing it this way is being done to get around the whole terms of service question.
That doesn't show that students have more free speech now than they did back then. Everything you describe about back then was in-school. In this case, the student was forced to give up her Facebook password for something done outside of school.
How about the ACLU opposing the CAN-SPAM act on the grounds that this incredibly weak law was actually too restrictive? And the statements by an ACLU representative that people who are spammed should just press delete?
Human ability has limits, even taking standard deviations into account. Your chance of being able to hear this stuff is equal to your chance at being able to see microwaves.
Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the rest.
Either we have democracy and let everyone including stupid people pick the government, or we don't. If we don't, *someone* has to pick the people who are allowed to vote. That set of someones is going to be as stupid as the general public, so you don't really get any benefit, but you increase the chance for corruption and power grabs when the system of deciding who's smart enough to vote is biased.
Wikipedia is going to be bad at almost anything whose main source is normal people on the Internet . Wikipedia has strict rules about reliable sources that don't consider most Internet sources to be good and the result is that an article gets written based on a few random references that happen to be published, instead of being based on sources that are actually good by non-Wikipedia standards. In extreme cases, Wikipedia deletes the article because the print sources don't establish "notability" even though looking to such sources is nonsensical for the subject in question.
When Wikipedia *does* have good articles about such things, it is often either that the article violates Wikipedia's own rules, or else that by sheer luck someone picked the one good print source despite the print sources averaging worse than the online ones.
Popular culture and mainly online things such as MUDs and webcomics fall into this category. So does the definition of a term mostly used on the Internet such as "patent troll".
And normal environmental messages are not coopted by money? Of course they are. Is shilling a fuel-friendly vehicle that much worse than shilling a Prius or carbon credits?
It's the difference between having a forum and not deleting people's comments, and having a forum and selectively deleting all comments that insult Christians, but allowing Jews and Muslims to be insulted. In the former situation, nobody has a reason to complain. In the latter situation, they have a reason to complain, because the owner is exercising his power, but he's doing it selectively in a way which fails to give certain groups protection.
In other words, they don't have to deliberately manipulate the result for this campsite. They're deliberately manipulating the results for other people and then refusing to do it for the campsite.
Google doesn't just go into its database, do a count of what web pages contain a term, and return those web pages ordered by number of references. Google uses a complex, hand-tuned algorithm that is strictly proprietary. A search for the town shows pictures of the accident because Google chooses to have an algorithm that does so, not because having that happen is a natural result of searching.
If Google tweaks their algorithm to make pages more or less prominent based on what people at Google personally think of them--and there is no question that Google does exactly that--then it is reasonable for someone to request that Google not do this in a manner which causes them financial damage.
Everyone on Slashdot seems to be responding as if Google's search results for this camp are based on happenstance, which isn't really right.
If 35.5 versus 36.1 is fractions of a penny, it's fractions of a penny in something whose cost is already measured in pennies. That fraction of a penny is almost 2% and it's not obviously insane that such a figure can make a difference, especially considering that that's 2% of the total price--it's going to be a much bigger percentage of the margin.
What? According to the article, it was "confirmed" that the birdsong belongs to your company.
You're saying that the simple and necessary action of confirming the video was just done now? I thought we were told that you *already* confirmed it. You know, "'All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content."
The conclusion that is obvious to many people here is that you're really confirming it now, but your previous "confirmation" was a fake. You seem to have a habit of doing fake confirmations and only following up with real ones when the fake ones get enough bad publicity. Iff there *hadn't* been an embarrassing article on Slashdot about it, it simply would have been fake-"confirmed" as belonging to your company and that's that--no way to appeal.
According to TFA, he didn't post the video on Twitter. He posted a message.
At any rate, I would say that if you want to punish him for causing the death, then do that. If you don't think you can prove he's guilty of that, then don't punish him for it.
It seems like what the court is doing is officially claiming they are trying him for spying and not for causing the death, while in fact they're trying him for causing the death. That's an end run around the fact that they can't prove him guilty, and doing so is a perversion of justice, even if he is a creep.
If teaching such kids results in the teacher getting a low salary or being fired because of "performance metrics", then "getting stuck with" is the correct phrase to use, even if it's not flattering to the kids. Not getting your salary reduced and not getting fired is a very important thing to most people.
If you do that you get the opposite problem. Now the students from good neighborhoods, with pushy parents, who are already doing about as well as they could and have little room for improvement, are going to penalize the teachers, since they can't exceed expectations.
Having the group that benefits from the fine also decide what needs to be punished, and whether students are guilty or not, is a conflict of interest. Of course, such conflicts of interest exist in the real world as well, but it's worse the closer the lawmakers, judge, and cashier are to each other. And in the real world, we recognize such things as potential for corruption--most people don't have a high regard for speed traps, and recognize that they are more about making revenue than actually improving safety, because of the perverse incentives involved.
I suppose the students are taught a lesson, but not quite the one they want to teach.
If you read the article, which a lot of people on Slashdot don't do, a lot of scientists are skeptical, but even if the Russians did exactly what they said they did, they didn't grow the plants from seeds in the normal sense. They basically cloned the plants, growing them from cells in the seeds--if only a few cells are alive, they could be cloned but it probably wouldn't be enough for the seeds to sprout.
if the documents were fake, they wouldn't elicit such a strong reaction. therefore, the documents are real
By your reasoning, it should be okay to run around saying that black people are low IQ and are stealing all the white women. I mean, you know there would be a strong reaction to that, right? So it must be true.
If the documents made the left look bad instead of the right everyone would be falling over themselves to claim that Internet people with no professional training who figured out the documents were fake were doing the people a valuable service and a prime example of how the Internet empowered the common man.
There certainly have been cases in the past where fake documents were exposed by people on the Internet with no professional training. Remember Dan Rather's Killian documents? (Another case where the documents made the right look bad, but turned out to be fabricated). It wasn't the mass media that exposed those--it was guys on the Internet.
"You may be charged for the food", followed by a media frenzy, followed by not being charged for the food, doesn't mean the story was wrong. Bureaucracies like to say "you may", "we might", "we reserve the right to", etc. so that nothing they can do will possibly contradict their statements. Assuming that "we may" really means "we're going to do it, unless you make enough of a fuss that we have to retract it" is often common sense when dealing with bureaucracies, and "you may be charged" is therefore as outrageous as "you will be charged".
It's not so much security theater as it is political patronage. Having all that "security" makes some companies lots of money. This plan will go through because a device to analyze liquids with a laser is again something that has to be bought and will make the provider a lot of money.
Calling it security theater focusses on the wrong problem. The security-just-for-show is only the side effect; it's the fat government contracts that are the cause.
According to the article she's already suing the hospital.
If the hospital's going to break the law anyway by not recognizing the existing documents, it could equally well break the law by not recognizing the marriage. In either case, they can screw her over and force her to sue them to get any justice at all. The marriage doesn't really being her any benefits in this situation, except maybe if the hospital is breaking two laws instead of one she can get it hit with a bigger penalty.
In that example, they had documents, which the hospital received but didn't act on. What's a marriage going to do, force the hospital to illegally reject a set of documents and a marriage certificate, rather than just illegally rejecting a set of documents?
Slashdot Mirror
According to TFA (and even the summary) they are asking the employee to log into their own account and watch, not to give up their password. In fact, they specifically did it, according to the article, after complaints from the ACLU about giving up their password.
Obviously the whole point of t\doing it this way is being done to get around the whole terms of service question.
That doesn't show that students have more free speech now than they did back then. Everything you describe about back then was in-school. In this case, the student was forced to give up her Facebook password for something done outside of school.
How about the ACLU opposing the CAN-SPAM act on the grounds that this incredibly weak law was actually too restrictive? And the statements by an ACLU representative that people who are spammed should just press delete?
Also see http://techliberation.com/2008/08/07/anti-spam-laws-and-the-first-amendment/ . Do a google search for "aclu" and "anti-spam".
Then do some double blind tests that show that you can actually hear the difference.
Human ability has limits, even taking standard deviations into account. Your chance of being able to hear this stuff is equal to your chance at being able to see microwaves.
Getting lost in a fire is quite possible for real books. Paper burns well.
That said, the overall chance of catastrophically osing a lot of books, or of losing a single book 20 years later, is going to be a lot lower.
Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the rest.
Either we have democracy and let everyone including stupid people pick the government, or we don't. If we don't, *someone* has to pick the people who are allowed to vote. That set of someones is going to be as stupid as the general public, so you don't really get any benefit, but you increase the chance for corruption and power grabs when the system of deciding who's smart enough to vote is biased.
You quoted Wikipedia. You lose.
Wikipedia is going to be bad at almost anything whose main source is normal people on the Internet . Wikipedia has strict rules about reliable sources that don't consider most Internet sources to be good and the result is that an article gets written based on a few random references that happen to be published, instead of being based on sources that are actually good by non-Wikipedia standards. In extreme cases, Wikipedia deletes the article because the print sources don't establish "notability" even though looking to such sources is nonsensical for the subject in question.
When Wikipedia *does* have good articles about such things, it is often either that the article violates Wikipedia's own rules, or else that by sheer luck someone picked the one good print source despite the print sources averaging worse than the online ones.
Popular culture and mainly online things such as MUDs and webcomics fall into this category. So does the definition of a term mostly used on the Internet such as "patent troll".
Saying that that's based on flesh-eating bacteria is like saying that a taxi service uses getaway cars, when in fact it just uses ordinary cars.
The material on which the adhesive is based is produced by bacteria of that species in general, not just by the flesh-eating ones.
And normal environmental messages are not coopted by money? Of course they are. Is shilling a fuel-friendly vehicle that much worse than shilling a Prius or carbon credits?
It's the difference between having a forum and not deleting people's comments, and having a forum and selectively deleting all comments that insult Christians, but allowing Jews and Muslims to be insulted. In the former situation, nobody has a reason to complain. In the latter situation, they have a reason to complain, because the owner is exercising his power, but he's doing it selectively in a way which fails to give certain groups protection.
In other words, they don't have to deliberately manipulate the result for this campsite. They're deliberately manipulating the results for other people and then refusing to do it for the campsite.
Google doesn't just go into its database, do a count of what web pages contain a term, and return those web pages ordered by number of references. Google uses a complex, hand-tuned algorithm that is strictly proprietary. A search for the town shows pictures of the accident because Google chooses to have an algorithm that does so, not because having that happen is a natural result of searching.
If Google tweaks their algorithm to make pages more or less prominent based on what people at Google personally think of them--and there is no question that Google does exactly that--then it is reasonable for someone to request that Google not do this in a manner which causes them financial damage.
Everyone on Slashdot seems to be responding as if Google's search results for this camp are based on happenstance, which isn't really right.
If 35.5 versus 36.1 is fractions of a penny, it's fractions of a penny in something whose cost is already measured in pennies. That fraction of a penny is almost 2% and it's not obviously insane that such a figure can make a difference, especially considering that that's 2% of the total price--it's going to be a much bigger percentage of the margin.
What? According to the article, it was "confirmed" that the birdsong belongs to your company.
You're saying that the simple and necessary action of confirming the video was just done now? I thought we were told that you *already* confirmed it. You know, "'All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content."
The conclusion that is obvious to many people here is that you're really confirming it now, but your previous "confirmation" was a fake. You seem to have a habit of doing fake confirmations and only following up with real ones when the fake ones get enough bad publicity. Iff there *hadn't* been an embarrassing article on Slashdot about it, it simply would have been fake-"confirmed" as belonging to your company and that's that--no way to appeal.
According to TFA, he didn't post the video on Twitter. He posted a message.
At any rate, I would say that if you want to punish him for causing the death, then do that. If you don't think you can prove he's guilty of that, then don't punish him for it.
It seems like what the court is doing is officially claiming they are trying him for spying and not for causing the death, while in fact they're trying him for causing the death. That's an end run around the fact that they can't prove him guilty, and doing so is a perversion of justice, even if he is a creep.
If teaching such kids results in the teacher getting a low salary or being fired because of "performance metrics", then "getting stuck with" is the correct phrase to use, even if it's not flattering to the kids. Not getting your salary reduced and not getting fired is a very important thing to most people.
If you do that you get the opposite problem. Now the students from good neighborhoods, with pushy parents, who are already doing about as well as they could and have little room for improvement, are going to penalize the teachers, since they can't exceed expectations.
Having the group that benefits from the fine also decide what needs to be punished, and whether students are guilty or not, is a conflict of interest. Of course, such conflicts of interest exist in the real world as well, but it's worse the closer the lawmakers, judge, and cashier are to each other. And in the real world, we recognize such things as potential for corruption--most people don't have a high regard for speed traps, and recognize that they are more about making revenue than actually improving safety, because of the perverse incentives involved.
I suppose the students are taught a lesson, but not quite the one they want to teach.
If you read the article, which a lot of people on Slashdot don't do, a lot of scientists are skeptical, but even if the Russians did exactly what they said they did, they didn't grow the plants from seeds in the normal sense. They basically cloned the plants, growing them from cells in the seeds--if only a few cells are alive, they could be cloned but it probably wouldn't be enough for the seeds to sprout.
By your reasoning, it should be okay to run around saying that black people are low IQ and are stealing all the white women. I mean, you know there would be a strong reaction to that, right? So it must be true.
If the documents made the left look bad instead of the right everyone would be falling over themselves to claim that Internet people with no professional training who figured out the documents were fake were doing the people a valuable service and a prime example of how the Internet empowered the common man.
There certainly have been cases in the past where fake documents were exposed by people on the Internet with no professional training. Remember Dan Rather's Killian documents? (Another case where the documents made the right look bad, but turned out to be fabricated). It wasn't the mass media that exposed those--it was guys on the Internet.
"You may be charged for the food", followed by a media frenzy, followed by not being charged for the food, doesn't mean the story was wrong. Bureaucracies like to say "you may", "we might", "we reserve the right to", etc. so that nothing they can do will possibly contradict their statements. Assuming that "we may" really means "we're going to do it, unless you make enough of a fuss that we have to retract it" is often common sense when dealing with bureaucracies, and "you may be charged" is therefore as outrageous as "you will be charged".
It's not so much security theater as it is political patronage. Having all that "security" makes some companies lots of money. This plan will go through because a device to analyze liquids with a laser is again something that has to be bought and will make the provider a lot of money.
Calling it security theater focusses on the wrong problem. The security-just-for-show is only the side effect; it's the fat government contracts that are the cause.
According to the article she's already suing the hospital.
If the hospital's going to break the law anyway by not recognizing the existing documents, it could equally well break the law by not recognizing the marriage. In either case, they can screw her over and force her to sue them to get any justice at all. The marriage doesn't really being her any benefits in this situation, except maybe if the hospital is breaking two laws instead of one she can get it hit with a bigger penalty.
In that example, they had documents, which the hospital received but didn't act on. What's a marriage going to do, force the hospital to illegally reject a set of documents and a marriage certificate, rather than just illegally rejecting a set of documents?