If I were a paranoid man I would suspect that they're purposefully misspelling their signs at rallies.
They are purposefully misspelling their signs at rallies. Or rather, left-wing organizations are intentionally misspelling their signs at rallies in order to make it look like the tea party is doing it: link.
For instance, requiring that prospective hires know how to use Linux, Unix, and Solaris. Or require knowledge of Visual Studio 2005 and Visual Studio 2008. An alternative is to require just one such thing with the implication that you'll throw out all the others, so your job posting says Visual Studio 2005, leaving the guys who used 2008 wondering if their resumes are going to be thrown out.
Another is to be overly specific. We don't just want SQL, we want this brand of SQL from this company and this year. Yeah, they're not all exactly the same, but still. You can do this for non-language requirements too. "Experience with data driven applications involving medium-sized distributed computer systems which process customer orders in Swiss French in the used wristwatch industry. Swiss German not acceptable."
Also, I could never figure out why companies who want C++ and not C always say "C/C++".
Specifically referring to our sun and not to any primary star was done on purpose. After all, there's really no way you can tell whether something in another solar system has cleared its orbit. If you applied the definition to other systems you'd never be able to know if anything there is a planet.
Obviously no one has read the whole article. Pfizer didn't get off with a "slap on the wrist." Pfizer merely was allowed to keep selling drugs to Medicare/Medicaid. Pfizer was still fined *billions* of dollars -- the equivalent of 3 *months* profits. That's an entire quarter's profits.
All you're pointing out is that they still did get punished. That's true, but the fact remains that while they got punished, the punishment was less severe than it would have been if they hadn't been a big company. The fact that even this reduced punishment was still big enough to notice doesn't change that.
It's the New York Times. Accuracy there has been suboptimal.
And the ruling didn't even go that far. The government's defense was that it is not required to obey the law. The government didn't try to argue that it *was* obeying the law. So the judge ruled that 1) yes, you are required to obey the law, and 2) since you didn't try to argue that you were obeying the law, I have to assume that you're not, so pay up.
In other words, the issue of legality didn't really come up except in a very narrow sense.
First of all, there are so many things that money can buy that it's difficult to think of how someone who isn't a monk or equivalent wouldn't want some more. Does he have a mortgage? Children or grandchildren interested in going to Stanford? Even assuming his personal needs are met, enough money could, oh, endow a university and create a whole research center just to study his theories.
But perhaps a more important reason is that using his theories to make money is hard to fudge. Making money would prove that he's right, and surely he's interested in proving he's right even if he's not really interested in the money--it would show that he's not just making easy predictions, or fudging the predictions to match the events, because that kind of thing can make the predictions look successful but won't get him any money.
Reposting because this is really serious misinformation that's being spread:
That's out of context. Palestinians specifically weren't targeted, and the perpetrators weren't acting on behalf of the Israeli government. It's like reading an article about a car accident killing some people and saying "Israel Runs Palestinian Children Over With Cars" on the grounds that the car was being driven in Israel and one of the people killed was a Palestinian child.
Except that the headline follows years of false accusations of the same thing that aren't even based off of real traffic accidents, but were excuses to kill Jews.
In other words, it's an anti-semitic lie, used to foment hate.
That's out of context. Palestinians specifically weren't targeted, and the perpetrators weren't acting on behalf of the Israeli government. It's like reading an article about a car accident killing some people and saying "Israel Runs Palestinian Children Over With Cars" on the grounds that the car was being driven in Israel and one of the people killed was a Palestinian child.
Except that the headline follows years of false accusations of the same thing that aren't even based off of real traffic accidents, but were excuses to kill Jews.
In other words, it's an anti-semitic lie, used to foment hate.
If not idling reduces their job satisfaction that much than fewer people will drive trucks, and eventually they'll have to raise wages to attract more drivers.
This assumes that "fewer people" is still not all the companies need. It's a bad economy, with few jobs, and even when there were more jobs I'd imagine the supply of truck jobs was limited. The more truckers there are compared to the number of truck jobs, the worse they can make the working conditions; if there are only enough jobs for half of them they can make the working conditions so bad that 50% of them would rather starve than work under those conditions, without raising wages at all.
That's a well known distorted statistic. Usually it turns out to be based on a statistic which says that a gun is a lot more likely to injure someone you know. Of course, that includes a lot of gun use by criminals (for instance, a drug dealer knows his customers, an abused spouse shooting in self-defense knows the other spouse, etc.). Sometimes it even includes suicides, depending on exactly which statistic is being referenced.
It also fails to consider that most guns used in self defense are not even fired since just showing a gun scares away the criminal. Since the gun isn't fired, it doesn't injure anyone, and since it doesn't injure anyone, it doesn't show up in the statistics of who guns injure.
This shows one way in which Wikipedia hurts the level of discourse on the net. People thinking that Wikipedia rules are a fine way to run things that are not Wikipedia.
Demanding citations for widely known facts just because Wikipedia does so is *stupid*.
To be fair, if you actually read the original article he mentions books and newspapers right after talking about books on disk--in context he's obviously referring to ebooks and not ordering a book and having it physically delivered (which would be nonsense for newspapers anyway). Paying for electronic books and newspapers is better than in 1995, but it hasn't exactly taken over, and newspapers are more outcompeted by free sites than by anything you buy.
The same reasoning could justify "water pool". Pools can be made out of something other than water, just like ice can be something other than frozen water. Yet we still don't speak of water pools.
Catching scientists in a misrepresentation isn't "the scientific process worked", it's "the scientific process failed, but it could have failed even worse if they had gotten away with it". Lying is an attempted subversion of the process, not part of the process. You might say that being able to catch lies is part of the process, but not lying is still better than lying and being caught.
And many of the proposed anti-global-warming measures themselves have the potential to "eventually devastate our social and economic well being".
What it does, as written, is a good thing, but the law is ridiculously specific and has no reason to be so unless there's something more that they're not telling us. It would be like a law making it illegal to shoplift cigarette lighters that are between 4 and 8 centimeters long and colored in green or yellow. Someone tries to steal a black cigarette lighter, they have to be prosecuted under the preexisting laws against shoplifting.
The most charitable explanation I can come up with is that some industry people said that P2P is bad in a misleading way that stressed only the noncontroversial parts (perhaps they said something like "the industry lost billions of dollars to P2P software, some of which isn't even intentionally installed by the user...") and then some politicians took those misleading statements at face value, believing that that is what the industry actually wanted, and proposed a law based on them.
There are also more sinister possibilities. It could be harmless in itself, but a warning sign that the industry will buy more laws that are harmful. Some posters have suggested that it could affect liability if all P2P software is now assumed to be intentionally installed. It could be part of a "P2P is bad" propaganda campaign, or a relatively innocuous first step in a plan to gradually chip away at P2P software by putting arbitrary limits on it to "make it safer".
a discerning ear can tell right away that this is amateur composing at best... computers do not yet have the emotional and psychological depth it takes to create something truly moving
This is not true.
If you RTFA, there's an example given of someone who did find it emotionally moving, as long he wasn't yet told it was created by a computer:
At one Santa Cruz concert, the program notes neglected to mention that Emily Howell wasn't a human being, and a chemistry professor and music aficionado in the audience described the performance of a Howell composition as one of the most moving experiences of his musical life. Six months later, when the same professor attended a lecture of Cope's on Emily Howell and heard the same concert played from a recording, Cope remembers him saying, "You know, that's pretty music, but I could tell absolutely, immediately that it was computer-composed. There's no heart or soul or depth to the piece."
a discerning ear can tell right away that this is amateur composing at best... computers do not yet have the emotional and psychological depth it takes to create something truly moving
This is not true.
At one Santa Cruz concert, the program notes neglected to mention that Emily Howell wasn't a human being, and a chemistry professor and music aficionado in the audience described the performance of a Howell composition as one of the most moving experiences of his musical life. Six months later, when the same professor attended a lecture of Cope's on Emily Howell and heard the same concert played from a recording, Cope remembers him saying, "You know, that's pretty music, but I could tell absolutely, immediately that it was computer-composed. There's no heart or soul or depth to the piece."
First of all, the Slashdot article is wrong (since when is that new?) Superman didn't fly in his early appearances. He only started flying after the Fleischer cartoons showed him flying. So it's certainly not true that Action Comics #1 shows a man flying.
Second, the Kill Bill line is spoken by a villain and I'm amazed that anyone takes it seriously; the fact that the modern version of Superman is different makes it more wrong, but it was wrong even for the version of Superman he's describing. Clark Kent is not Superman's idea of a human, he's Superman's idea of a weak human. It doesn't mean that he thinks all humanity is like Clark Kent.
It's made entirely of Legos. Except for the computer.
You know, I have a great Lego pizza oven. It's made entirely of Legos. Well, except for the metal box, heating element, wires, plug, and a few other things, of course. This is obviously some new use of the word "entirely".
You left out a fourth possibility: perhaps certain ethnic groups are less willing to do the kind of things needed to get a job with Google. If someone's schoolmates beat him up for "acting white" when he studies and gets good grades, there's not much chance he's going to end up in a job that will get him hired at Google, yet it doesn't fall into any of your categories (I suppose technically it's society, but it's not society as a whole.)
The "clearing the neighborhood" definition doesn't count anything in a resonance, so that would be fine. However, you'd still have to worry about normal planets since you just can't see objects smaller than a certain size, so you can't tell if the neighborhood has been cleared.
What would really make the definition look silly is if anyone finds a Kuiper Belt object in our solar system bigger than Mercury. It's certainly possible, and they'll then have to say that Mercury is a planet and the larger Kuiper Belt object is only a "dwarf planet".
Slashdot Mirror
If I were a paranoid man I would suspect that they're purposefully misspelling their signs at rallies.
They are purposefully misspelling their signs at rallies. Or rather, left-wing organizations are intentionally misspelling their signs at rallies in order to make it look like the tea party is doing it: link.
For instance, requiring that prospective hires know how to use Linux, Unix, and Solaris. Or require knowledge of Visual Studio 2005 and Visual Studio 2008. An alternative is to require just one such thing with the implication that you'll throw out all the others, so your job posting says Visual Studio 2005, leaving the guys who used 2008 wondering if their resumes are going to be thrown out.
Another is to be overly specific. We don't just want SQL, we want this brand of SQL from this company and this year. Yeah, they're not all exactly the same, but still. You can do this for non-language requirements too. "Experience with data driven applications involving medium-sized distributed computer systems which process customer orders in Swiss French in the used wristwatch industry. Swiss German not acceptable."
Also, I could never figure out why companies who want C++ and not C always say "C/C++".
Specifically referring to our sun and not to any primary star was done on purpose. After all, there's really no way you can tell whether something in another solar system has cleared its orbit. If you applied the definition to other systems you'd never be able to know if anything there is a planet.
He ought to ask for the refund whether he's planning to use the feature or not, since not having the feature reduces his PS3's resale value.
Obviously no one has read the whole article. Pfizer didn't get off with a "slap on the wrist." Pfizer merely was allowed to keep selling drugs to Medicare/Medicaid. Pfizer was still fined *billions* of dollars -- the equivalent of 3 *months* profits. That's an entire quarter's profits.
All you're pointing out is that they still did get punished. That's true, but the fact remains that while they got punished, the punishment was less severe than it would have been if they hadn't been a big company. The fact that even this reduced punishment was still big enough to notice doesn't change that.
It's the New York Times. Accuracy there has been suboptimal.
And the ruling didn't even go that far. The government's defense was that it is not required to obey the law. The government didn't try to argue that it *was* obeying the law. So the judge ruled that 1) yes, you are required to obey the law, and 2) since you didn't try to argue that you were obeying the law, I have to assume that you're not, so pay up.
In other words, the issue of legality didn't really come up except in a very narrow sense.
First of all, there are so many things that money can buy that it's difficult to think of how someone who isn't a monk or equivalent wouldn't want some more. Does he have a mortgage? Children or grandchildren interested in going to Stanford? Even assuming his personal needs are met, enough money could, oh, endow a university and create a whole research center just to study his theories.
But perhaps a more important reason is that using his theories to make money is hard to fudge. Making money would prove that he's right, and surely he's interested in proving he's right even if he's not really interested in the money--it would show that he's not just making easy predictions, or fudging the predictions to match the events, because that kind of thing can make the predictions look successful but won't get him any money.
Reposting because this is really serious misinformation that's being spread:
That's out of context. Palestinians specifically weren't targeted, and the perpetrators weren't acting on behalf of the Israeli government. It's like reading an article about a car accident killing some people and saying "Israel Runs Palestinian Children Over With Cars" on the grounds that the car was being driven in Israel and one of the people killed was a Palestinian child.
Except that the headline follows years of false accusations of the same thing that aren't even based off of real traffic accidents, but were excuses to kill Jews.
In other words, it's an anti-semitic lie, used to foment hate.
Oh, and the organs were taken from people who died of other causes. They weren't killed for the organs.
That's out of context. Palestinians specifically weren't targeted, and the perpetrators weren't acting on behalf of the Israeli government. It's like reading an article about a car accident killing some people and saying "Israel Runs Palestinian Children Over With Cars" on the grounds that the car was being driven in Israel and one of the people killed was a Palestinian child.
Except that the headline follows years of false accusations of the same thing that aren't even based off of real traffic accidents, but were excuses to kill Jews.
In other words, it's an anti-semitic lie, used to foment hate.
If not idling reduces their job satisfaction that much than fewer people will drive trucks, and eventually they'll have to raise wages to attract more drivers.
This assumes that "fewer people" is still not all the companies need. It's a bad economy, with few jobs, and even when there were more jobs I'd imagine the supply of truck jobs was limited. The more truckers there are compared to the number of truck jobs, the worse they can make the working conditions; if there are only enough jobs for half of them they can make the working conditions so bad that 50% of them would rather starve than work under those conditions, without raising wages at all.
Correction: a lot of gun use involving criminals. Obviously I don't think an abused spoise is a criminal.
That's a well known distorted statistic. Usually it turns out to be based on a statistic which says that a gun is a lot more likely to injure someone you know. Of course, that includes a lot of gun use by criminals (for instance, a drug dealer knows his customers, an abused spouse shooting in self-defense knows the other spouse, etc.). Sometimes it even includes suicides, depending on exactly which statistic is being referenced.
It also fails to consider that most guns used in self defense are not even fired since just showing a gun scares away the criminal. Since the gun isn't fired, it doesn't injure anyone, and since it doesn't injure anyone, it doesn't show up in the statistics of who guns injure.
This shows one way in which Wikipedia hurts the level of discourse on the net. People thinking that Wikipedia rules are a fine way to run things that are not Wikipedia.
Demanding citations for widely known facts just because Wikipedia does so is *stupid*.
To be fair, if you actually read the original article he mentions books and newspapers right after talking about books on disk--in context he's obviously referring to ebooks and not ordering a book and having it physically delivered (which would be nonsense for newspapers anyway). Paying for electronic books and newspapers is better than in 1995, but it hasn't exactly taken over, and newspapers are more outcompeted by free sites than by anything you buy.
The same reasoning could justify "water pool". Pools can be made out of something other than water, just like ice can be something other than frozen water. Yet we still don't speak of water pools.
Catching scientists in a misrepresentation isn't "the scientific process worked", it's "the scientific process failed, but it could have failed even worse if they had gotten away with it". Lying is an attempted subversion of the process, not part of the process. You might say that being able to catch lies is part of the process, but not lying is still better than lying and being caught.
And many of the proposed anti-global-warming measures themselves have the potential to "eventually devastate our social and economic well being".
What it does, as written, is a good thing, but the law is ridiculously specific and has no reason to be so unless there's something more that they're not telling us. It would be like a law making it illegal to shoplift cigarette lighters that are between 4 and 8 centimeters long and colored in green or yellow. Someone tries to steal a black cigarette lighter, they have to be prosecuted under the preexisting laws against shoplifting.
The most charitable explanation I can come up with is that some industry people said that P2P is bad in a misleading way that stressed only the noncontroversial parts (perhaps they said something like "the industry lost billions of dollars to P2P software, some of which isn't even intentionally installed by the user...") and then some politicians took those misleading statements at face value, believing that that is what the industry actually wanted, and proposed a law based on them.
There are also more sinister possibilities. It could be harmless in itself, but a warning sign that the industry will buy more laws that are harmful. Some posters have suggested that it could affect liability if all P2P software is now assumed to be intentionally installed. It could be part of a "P2P is bad" propaganda campaign, or a relatively innocuous first step in a plan to gradually chip away at P2P software by putting arbitrary limits on it to "make it safer".
(properly formatted)
a discerning ear can tell right away that this is amateur composing at best... computers do not yet have the emotional and psychological depth it takes to create something truly moving
This is not true.
If you RTFA, there's an example given of someone who did find it emotionally moving, as long he wasn't yet told it was created by a computer:
a discerning ear can tell right away that this is amateur composing at best... computers do not yet have the emotional and psychological depth it takes to create something truly moving
This is not true.
At one Santa Cruz concert, the program notes neglected to mention that Emily Howell wasn't a human being, and a chemistry professor and music aficionado in the audience described the performance of a Howell composition as one of the most moving experiences of his musical life. Six months later, when the same professor attended a lecture of Cope's on Emily Howell and heard the same concert played from a recording, Cope remembers him saying, "You know, that's pretty music, but I could tell absolutely, immediately that it was computer-composed. There's no heart or soul or depth to the piece."
First of all, the Slashdot article is wrong (since when is that new?) Superman didn't fly in his early appearances. He only started flying after the Fleischer cartoons showed him flying. So it's certainly not true that Action Comics #1 shows a man flying. Second, the Kill Bill line is spoken by a villain and I'm amazed that anyone takes it seriously; the fact that the modern version of Superman is different makes it more wrong, but it was wrong even for the version of Superman he's describing. Clark Kent is not Superman's idea of a human, he's Superman's idea of a weak human. It doesn't mean that he thinks all humanity is like Clark Kent.
It's made entirely of Legos. Except for the computer.
You know, I have a great Lego pizza oven. It's made entirely of Legos. Well, except for the metal box, heating element, wires, plug, and a few other things, of course. This is obviously some new use of the word "entirely".
You left out a fourth possibility: perhaps certain ethnic groups are less willing to do the kind of things needed to get a job with Google. If someone's schoolmates beat him up for "acting white" when he studies and gets good grades, there's not much chance he's going to end up in a job that will get him hired at Google, yet it doesn't fall into any of your categories (I suppose technically it's society, but it's not society as a whole.)
A dwarf planet is not a type of planet.
The "clearing the neighborhood" definition doesn't count anything in a resonance, so that would be fine. However, you'd still have to worry about normal planets since you just can't see objects smaller than a certain size, so you can't tell if the neighborhood has been cleared.
What would really make the definition look silly is if anyone finds a Kuiper Belt object in our solar system bigger than Mercury. It's certainly possible, and they'll then have to say that Mercury is a planet and the larger Kuiper Belt object is only a "dwarf planet".