It was actually solved by Larry Guth and Nets Hawk Katz. Not sure how it is that authors magically disappear from press releases, especially principal authors...
Larry Guth seems to be some sort of graduate student, though it's not clear that that's so. That would certainly explain it, however. Graduate students are scum compared to the professors. Didn't you know that?
Here's an article that has links to several sources, albeit from the American perspective. I haven't checked all of the links, but at least a couple seem to work.
He didn't say that at all.... Anonymous is not the police. They have no authority over us
No authority or no power? Didn't they try to get people to do certain things, and succeed? Right, they don't have authority (I never said they do) but they do hold some power. And that power (be it only reputation even) can cause people to act. I wouldn't call it authority, however, because they likely have no idea who could/will respond to the request.
So, anyway, let's make a bad analogy. A government organization uses both its power (in terms of affecting laws or enforcing them) and its authority (people have jobs and report to people who make the decisions to act) to take certain actions. The claim is therefore that because of this power/authority, this organization should operate transparently. Fair enough.
Anonymous (or any similar group) uses its power (in terms of influencing members' actions to write posters, heckle speakers, shut down websites, etc.) to take certain actions. It has no authority over those people, however, so it can't (or won't) fire Ricky Bobby from his day job if he doesn't comply. Because it doesn't have the authority, it's okay for this organization to be completely opaque.
Is that accurate? If not, please explain where my bad analogy or reading comprehension broke down. It certainly seems like hypocrisy there, though that amount of hypocrisy is likely palatable to most readers on/. because they tend to support one side and not the other.
Now, regarding whether I have as much power as Anonymous, you can't be serious. You really think that people give a fuck what "Infiniti2000" or "guspasho" says? Now, if I posted something as coming from Anonymous (not AC!), then you don't think that would have any more weight? You're daft if you think that.
So, your claim is that Anonymous has no power at all? You know that's not true. They've proven otherwise that they not only have power, they have power over a lot of people and can wreck a lot of people's livelihoods and lives. In fact, the more power we allow such groups to have (e.g. Anonymous, Wikileaks), by your argument they must become fully transparent. That's why caseih's point is valid.
So, why not schedule it sooner rather than later? June 8th is still nearly five months away!
Because it takes a while to set this up, get approvals and commitments, etc. It's not easy just getting ready for something like a trade show and this is likely a much more difficult proposition.
I think it wouldn't have been too much to add this to the entry.
What else can you expect from an anonymous source? Hell, the "summary" is simply the first paragraph from the article. Fucking useless. Anonymous article submissions just shouldn't be allowed. Put at least two minutes into the summary for Christ's sake.
A huge problem with that is getting qualified (and hopefully excited) teachers in those fields. If people do well in math or science, they tend to go into higher paying jobs rather than into teaching. What happens then is the math or science teaching vacancy goes to the newly hired teacher with a general knowledge and an education degree, they're handed the book and curriculum, and told to teach.
Doing not as well in math doesn't mean that the teachers would excite the students less. In fact, good teachers should do just the opposite, regardless of whether they teach their best subject. The teachers need to learn the best approach to reach the kids and that means getting them excited, and thus interested in, the material. The curriculum, if it's set by someone other than the teacher, should go a long way to doing that. Unfortunately, that's a big should and it's what's missing.
In the U.S., we don't get health care from the government. We don't even get health insurance from the government, unless you fall under Medicare or Medicaid.
It wouldn't make any sense for the U.S. government to give us health insurance. Health insurance only makes sense when you pay 1 out of many. Health insurance companies only make money if the health benefits they pay for are less than the premiums they get. So, complete government-funded health insurance would be strictly more expensive than simply paying everyone's health bills. For no reason other than to give free cash to some companies. Of course, this has nothing whatsoever to do with whether free or subsidized health care is a good thing or not.
The inventor could not do this himself? BTW -- the grandparent said nothing about patents being intended to protect re-inventors. They are not and never were.
Typically not, no. Most inventors that sell their patents to companies like IV probably can't afford to prosecute them. Otherwise, they wouldn't sell them! I suppose another reason is that the patents aren't worth anything, but all that does is prove that there's an evil twist.
Don't tell us you seriously think IV is planning to only file non-frivolous lawsuits. No way they bought all those fucking patents (many I'm sure are useless), only to file the infringement suits they think are useful. With all that cash on hand, they plan to force the "infringing" party to spend so much in court costs that they can be reasonably expected to fight, or that they won't even think it's worthwhile to fight.
This is therefore no longer about protecting the invention (patent) from willful infringement, it's about establishing precedence/claimants for a stronger position to really screw people. By forcing 1 small company to pay on a "frivolous" lawsuit for a bullshit patent, they establish a better case that's a good patent and can use that precedence to screw bigger companies.
My biggest gripe about patents is that they're kind of like legal blackmail. "Pay me money or I'll ruin your company in a large number of frivolous lawsuits." Patents were originally intended to protect inventors, but companies like IV have provided an evil twist.
Assuming we get to the point where we have private, commercial flights in space (for a hefty price), and on-board marshals are required, we absolutely have to call them Space Rangers and not Air (or Space) Marshals.
Well, thanks very much for the excellent responses. Btw, "younger brother" isn't quite accurate. Maybe "older, but smaller brother" is better. Hell, "older and wiser, but smaller brother" would be the best analogy.:)
Most Americans I know would be *shocked* of the actual, UK man-in-the-street opinion of the US, even before all that happened. "Special relationship"? Take what you want and give nothing back, basically.
Not being from the UK, I obviously have less information than you, and thus take your comment as truth, except for the "nothing back" part. I really really doubt that the UK gets nothing back. No military designs (e.g. HMMWV's, weapons, etc.)? No cross-training with the special forces, etc.? Nothing at all? Surely the UK government feels that something is given to them, else they wouldn't be "bullied" around. Unless the people in the UK government that allows this to continue are just too stupid or scared. Given history, though, I can't imagine that the UK are scared (history proves they're some of the bravest people on the planet) and I don't really accept that they're stupid so I just think you don't understand, or know, what the UK is receiving in return for what is essentially bad behavior on the part of the US.
What would make this a balanced set of information would be leaking all of the data that describes what the US gives to everyone else. Then, you would be able to fairly judge whether the benefits (if any) outweigh the downsides of "being bullied."
I'm not sure I understand the "supposed" usage in your post. Is the US an ally to the UK or not? The answer I thought was a clear yes.
Is the US the world's most powerful country? This one I think is debatable because 'power' is debatable. I think it's clear that the US is not the world's most powerful economy, so on one level at least this isn't true.
In any case, it seems like you are trying to be passive aggressive with your word usage and it's just plain irritating. But, that must be your goal.
I would have expected india to consider purchasing the ship (as they have in the past)...
India is too busy fucking around with the Admiral Gorshkov. They're essentially being bent over by the Russians, though the statements are that they didn't "really expect" the price of refitting to be as low as originally quoted. I don't know about you, but if the car repairs on my car jump by an order of magnitude from the quote, I'd be mighty pissed off.
Sure, and I don't agree with those folks anyways, but I don't know that I've ever heard anyone say they resent paying for the fire department. Maybe there are people saying that, but I've never seen any sign of it.
The fact that there's even an opt-out policy in place proves that a majority of the citizens resent paying for the fire department. If that was true, there wouldn't be such a policy because the cost of supporting the fire department for all residents would be enforced (not optional). The loss this family is enduring is terrible, make no mistake, but the blame cannot be levied on the city.
Slashdot Mirror
It was actually solved by Larry Guth and Nets Hawk Katz. Not sure how it is that authors magically disappear from press releases, especially principal authors...
Larry Guth seems to be some sort of graduate student, though it's not clear that that's so. That would certainly explain it, however. Graduate students are scum compared to the professors. Didn't you know that?
(and sorry, I have no source)
Here's an article that has links to several sources, albeit from the American perspective. I haven't checked all of the links, but at least a couple seem to work.
He didn't say that at all. ... Anonymous is not the police. They have no authority over us
No authority or no power? Didn't they try to get people to do certain things, and succeed? Right, they don't have authority (I never said they do) but they do hold some power. And that power (be it only reputation even) can cause people to act. I wouldn't call it authority, however, because they likely have no idea who could/will respond to the request.
So, anyway, let's make a bad analogy. A government organization uses both its power (in terms of affecting laws or enforcing them) and its authority (people have jobs and report to people who make the decisions to act) to take certain actions. The claim is therefore that because of this power/authority, this organization should operate transparently. Fair enough.
Anonymous (or any similar group) uses its power (in terms of influencing members' actions to write posters, heckle speakers, shut down websites, etc.) to take certain actions. It has no authority over those people, however, so it can't (or won't) fire Ricky Bobby from his day job if he doesn't comply. Because it doesn't have the authority, it's okay for this organization to be completely opaque.
Is that accurate? If not, please explain where my bad analogy or reading comprehension broke down. It certainly seems like hypocrisy there, though that amount of hypocrisy is likely palatable to most readers on /. because they tend to support one side and not the other.
Now, regarding whether I have as much power as Anonymous, you can't be serious. You really think that people give a fuck what "Infiniti2000" or "guspasho" says? Now, if I posted something as coming from Anonymous (not AC!), then you don't think that would have any more weight? You're daft if you think that.
So, your claim is that Anonymous has no power at all? You know that's not true. They've proven otherwise that they not only have power, they have power over a lot of people and can wreck a lot of people's livelihoods and lives. In fact, the more power we allow such groups to have (e.g. Anonymous, Wikileaks), by your argument they must become fully transparent. That's why caseih's point is valid.
if i PAY for something, i expect to be able to USE it.
iPay is the name of the new plan!
The real issue in this is how this will affect the public opinion on free software. It will not be good.
So, why not schedule it sooner rather than later? June 8th is still nearly five months away!
Because it takes a while to set this up, get approvals and commitments, etc. It's not easy just getting ready for something like a trade show and this is likely a much more difficult proposition.
I think it wouldn't have been too much to add this to the entry.
What else can you expect from an anonymous source? Hell, the "summary" is simply the first paragraph from the article. Fucking useless. Anonymous article submissions just shouldn't be allowed. Put at least two minutes into the summary for Christ's sake.
A huge problem with that is getting qualified (and hopefully excited) teachers in those fields. If people do well in math or science, they tend to go into higher paying jobs rather than into teaching. What happens then is the math or science teaching vacancy goes to the newly hired teacher with a general knowledge and an education degree, they're handed the book and curriculum, and told to teach.
Doing not as well in math doesn't mean that the teachers would excite the students less. In fact, good teachers should do just the opposite, regardless of whether they teach their best subject. The teachers need to learn the best approach to reach the kids and that means getting them excited, and thus interested in, the material. The curriculum, if it's set by someone other than the teacher, should go a long way to doing that. Unfortunately, that's a big should and it's what's missing.
Who is paying and for what?
Other searches indicate that it's from "brand advertising, Microsoft advertising, virtual goods and performance advertising."
In the U.S., we don't get health care from the government. We don't even get health insurance from the government, unless you fall under Medicare or Medicaid.
It wouldn't make any sense for the U.S. government to give us health insurance. Health insurance only makes sense when you pay 1 out of many. Health insurance companies only make money if the health benefits they pay for are less than the premiums they get. So, complete government-funded health insurance would be strictly more expensive than simply paying everyone's health bills. For no reason other than to give free cash to some companies. Of course, this has nothing whatsoever to do with whether free or subsidized health care is a good thing or not.
CA is for Canada, you insensitive clod!
C'mon, you really prefer Space Marshal to Space Ranger? Buzz Lightyear is rolling over in his toy box.
The inventor could not do this himself? BTW -- the grandparent said nothing about patents being intended to protect re-inventors. They are not and never were.
Typically not, no. Most inventors that sell their patents to companies like IV probably can't afford to prosecute them. Otherwise, they wouldn't sell them! I suppose another reason is that the patents aren't worth anything, but all that does is prove that there's an evil twist.
Don't tell us you seriously think IV is planning to only file non-frivolous lawsuits. No way they bought all those fucking patents (many I'm sure are useless), only to file the infringement suits they think are useful. With all that cash on hand, they plan to force the "infringing" party to spend so much in court costs that they can be reasonably expected to fight, or that they won't even think it's worthwhile to fight.
This is therefore no longer about protecting the invention (patent) from willful infringement, it's about establishing precedence/claimants for a stronger position to really screw people. By forcing 1 small company to pay on a "frivolous" lawsuit for a bullshit patent, they establish a better case that's a good patent and can use that precedence to screw bigger companies.
My biggest gripe about patents is that they're kind of like legal blackmail. "Pay me money or I'll ruin your company in a large number of frivolous lawsuits." Patents were originally intended to protect inventors, but companies like IV have provided an evil twist.
Assuming we get to the point where we have private, commercial flights in space (for a hefty price), and on-board marshals are required, we absolutely have to call them Space Rangers and not Air (or Space) Marshals.
There didn't seem to be anywhere near as much visible smoke (exhaust) from the SpaceX Falcon 9 as there normally is from shuttles.
Well, thanks very much for the excellent responses. Btw, "younger brother" isn't quite accurate. Maybe "older, but smaller brother" is better. Hell, "older and wiser, but smaller brother" would be the best analogy. :)
Most Americans I know would be *shocked* of the actual, UK man-in-the-street opinion of the US, even before all that happened. "Special relationship"? Take what you want and give nothing back, basically.
Not being from the UK, I obviously have less information than you, and thus take your comment as truth, except for the "nothing back" part. I really really doubt that the UK gets nothing back. No military designs (e.g. HMMWV's, weapons, etc.)? No cross-training with the special forces, etc.? Nothing at all? Surely the UK government feels that something is given to them, else they wouldn't be "bullied" around. Unless the people in the UK government that allows this to continue are just too stupid or scared. Given history, though, I can't imagine that the UK are scared (history proves they're some of the bravest people on the planet) and I don't really accept that they're stupid so I just think you don't understand, or know, what the UK is receiving in return for what is essentially bad behavior on the part of the US.
What would make this a balanced set of information would be leaking all of the data that describes what the US gives to everyone else. Then, you would be able to fairly judge whether the benefits (if any) outweigh the downsides of "being bullied."
I'm not sure I understand the "supposed" usage in your post. Is the US an ally to the UK or not? The answer I thought was a clear yes.
Is the US the world's most powerful country? This one I think is debatable because 'power' is debatable. I think it's clear that the US is not the world's most powerful economy, so on one level at least this isn't true.
In any case, it seems like you are trying to be passive aggressive with your word usage and it's just plain irritating. But, that must be your goal.
After reading the "rouge" in the headline, I couldn't even make it to the summary, let alone TFA!
I would have expected india to consider purchasing the ship (as they have in the past) ...
India is too busy fucking around with the Admiral Gorshkov. They're essentially being bent over by the Russians, though the statements are that they didn't "really expect" the price of refitting to be as low as originally quoted. I don't know about you, but if the car repairs on my car jump by an order of magnitude from the quote, I'd be mighty pissed off.
That would be higher than Secret!
They might not go ballistic, but they should celebrate it with a Boston-style tea party!
Sure, and I don't agree with those folks anyways, but I don't know that I've ever heard anyone say they resent paying for the fire department. Maybe there are people saying that, but I've never seen any sign of it.
The fact that there's even an opt-out policy in place proves that a majority of the citizens resent paying for the fire department. If that was true, there wouldn't be such a policy because the cost of supporting the fire department for all residents would be enforced (not optional). The loss this family is enduring is terrible, make no mistake, but the blame cannot be levied on the city.