From a conservative newsite: (http://www.baltimorereporter.com/?p=4499)
"RUSH: Mike in Chicago, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush, how you doing today?
RUSH: Fine, sir, thank you.
CALLER: Good. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and that there's actually no Republicans that can possibly be against the war?
RUSH: Well, who are these Republicans? I can think of Chuck Hagel, and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators, but they don't want to lose the war like the Democrats do. I can't think of who the Republicans are in the anti-war movement.
CALLER: I'm not talking about the senators. I'm talking about the general public. You accuse the public and all the Democrats of being, you know, wanting to lose -
RUSH: Oh, come on, here we go again. I utter the truth, and you can't handle it so you gotta call here and change the subject. How come I'm not also hitting Republicans? I don't know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically....
CALLER2: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am serving in the American military, in the Army. I've been serving for 14 years, very proudly.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER2: I'm one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I'm proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, what these people don't understand, is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is not possible because of all the stuff that's over there, it would take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse and we'd have to go right back over there within a year or so.
RUSH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. The next guy that calls here I'm going to ask them, "What is the imperative of pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out?" I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "When's he going to bring the troops home? Keep the troops safe," whatever.
CALLER2: Yeah.
RUSH: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.
CALLER2: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.
RUSH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER2: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country."
Note the plurals: "soldiers". It's pretty clear from context that they are referring to any soldiers that have spoken out against the Iraq war. The immediate trigger was the prior caller Mike, who has nothing to do with "Jesse Macbeth" that Rush mentioned some 2 minutes later on.
Don't just look at his edited video, read the transcipt.
"(b) constitutes a violation of any law, regulation or tariff (including, without limitation, copyright and intellectual property laws) or a violation of these TOS, or any applicable policies or guidelines"
It would be simple for them to adopt a guideline of "not defaming any organizatin with out massive proof or criminal conviction". Then, they can still shut down anyone who criticize at&t actions as defamation. The only check is public outcry such as these.
Now if only they'd apologize for being the FBI/NSA's lap dog...
If you are criticizing the comment on Christians who don't act like Christ, please be aware that it's directed at a group of religious adherents and not a race. Furthermore, he was mainly concerned with India's colonial masters who self identifies as Anglican Christians. Do you think Christ would support colonialism?
"Oh, I definitely agree that some of the assets you listed have value to SOME individuals, but there is generally NO asset that is valuable to all individuals -- except for gold, which I can not believe that another individual would not covet or desire if offered in trade for a profitable outcome (for both parties)."
Say you were Robinson Crusoe and shipwrecked on an island with no hope of rescue, would you trade your machete, food, and gun for this bag of gold galleons? I doubt it very much. 'Value' is always relative to personal perspective and conditions. Remember King Midas? And what happens if we found a cheap way to produce gold, say from sea water? Then the gold economy would be sunk. Aluminum used to be very expensive, afforable only to royalties. Then, the electrolysis method make it very cheap and common place. Is it wise to pin an entire economy to one commodity?
All excellent communicators on top of being scientists.
Specifically, Gould's Natural History columns are often short and intriguing investigations into history of science. The Feynman lectures are very accessible to high school and even motivated junior high students. He approaches physics from a conceptual viewpoints and does not get bogged down in the maths. Sagan's many video works certainly impacted a sense of wonder and a view of our place in the univers. "Flatland" stimulates mind stretching shifts in perspectives.
All fertile departure points for more in depth explorations in classes.
is all it is. That should be obvious from the interview where all he talked about were the FISA process and the rough order of magnitude in terms of people being monitored. Yet he repeatedly trotted out the line about "this will cost some American life."
How can terrorists make use of such information to increase the danger to the American public?
Secondly, if he REALLY believes that such data are dangerous, WHY IS HE DISCLOSING THEM to a newspaper and allowing them to publish it ?!
Rather deep inside, it does indeed describe some of the bloggers as "fringe groups". For a casual reader scanning this article, what impression would she/he get?
"Hmm. Those NASA scientists screwed up again. The little guy was right. May be that global warming talk from those government scientists are so reliable..."
Kudos to Fox for spinning a factual article artfully to suit their slant.
What might be a more accurate head line? How about:
"NASA corrects trivial error in climate data found by blogger"
Some projections show the global population to eventually stablize around 15-16 billions. Would we really be a 'greater' civilization with more people? More people clearly would destroy more animal habitats. What's the additional good that comes out of that?
for the right job. These languages are optimized for different kinds of problems. It's futile to compare them.
Furthermore, this reinforces the point of the article that the most important aspect of software production is NOT implementation languages. Architecture, process, testing, interface, etc. matter much more. You're looking in the wrong place for productivity.
The more people you put on a project, the more overhead there exist in communication, coordination, etc. The per person produtivity inevitably goes down. This overhead could easily be half the effort when you get to a 10 person team. So the uber programmer could be only 5x more effective and still match a 10 person team.
Every one who buys a license from MS owns nothing but a right to use the MS product within prescribed conditions. It's functionally equivalent to a lease. OK, one CAN capitalize a lease for accounting purposes, but you never own the assets and the only effect is timing of taxation.
The same effect can be achieved by buying a OSS support contract and capitalizing it.
Possibly the most prolific composer ever. He was quite concerned about lucre as shown in many of his letters. Copy rights did not exist in his days, yet that arguably encouraged him to be more productive. In other words, he had to keep writing new materials every weeks and months to give to his choir and orchestra. He could not rely on repeating the same repertoire. Of course, he's considered a genius because he still produced very high quality work in spite of his quantity. His motivation depended not on a jackpot, but on getting steady income from steady work.
You might argue that the poor staving artists produce the best works. But I see scant evidences of that. If you consider who are considered to be masters in western visual and music, I think you'll find just as many who were poor and staving as ones who were established and working steadily.
BTW, I DO support channel more money to support young artist to try out their ideas. I suspect that a lifetime stipend would be considered too socialist though!
Father explains the statistics of roulette to his son. He shows how in the long run, all players will lose to the casino. His son nods and nods with his explanation. At the end, the father said, "Well son, have you learn anything from this lession?"
"Yes indeed. I'm going to open a casino when I grow up!"
What about the technologist developing this weapon? Should they protest this use of their knowledge? Should they quit?
One of my old professor once developed a ball bearing to spec. Later on, he found out to his regret that they were being used in component of a bomb as shrapnels. While he did not know how his product was being used, the technologists for this LED company certainly do.
How might he feel when the CIA and Gitmo start using his work product?
of copyright. Only the stars and their heirs might benefits from 50-90 years span of copyright. The question is, does fattening the lottery jackpot really stimulates creativity of the musicians? And how does that compare to the chilling effects of more lawsuits?
and they could not make an arrest! (except a Citizen's arrest) Thus they had to travel with a US Marshall to make an arrest in those days. They had an investigative function only.
People knew enough during the plagues in the middle ages to quarantee the diseased and burn the deads. Even without germ theory, various naive forms of infection theories existed.
Since any epidemic can rebound on the colonizers, it is doubtful that they would spread it on purpose. But while we have no hard evidence of biological warfare having been waged, there are documents of British officers contemplating such tactics:
"According to historian Francis Parkman, Amherst first raised the possibility of giving the Indians infected blankets in a letter to Colonel Henry Bouquet, who would lead reinforcements to Fort Pitt. No copy of this letter has come to light, but we do know that Bouquet discussed the matter in a postscript to a letter to Amherst on July 13, 1763:
P.S. I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine.
On July 16 Amherst replied, also in a postscript:
P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England is at too great a Distance to think of that at present.
On July 26 Bouquet wrote back:
I received yesterday your Excellency's letters of 16th with their Inclosures. The signal for Indian Messengers, and all your directions will be observed.
We don't know if Bouquet actually put the plan into effect, or if so with what result. We do know that a supply of smallpox-infected blankets was available, since the disease had broken out at Fort Pitt some weeks previously. We also know that the following spring smallpox was reported to be raging among the Indians in the vicinity."
But I AM really curious where this 'clash of civilization' viewpoint come from? Are we re-enacting the crusades? Why do you feel muslims are out to destroy your civilization? Where are the evidences? I'd really like to understand where these ideas come from.
Slashdot Mirror
From a conservative newsite: (http://www.baltimorereporter.com/?p=4499)
...
"RUSH: Mike in Chicago, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush, how you doing today?
RUSH: Fine, sir, thank you.
CALLER: Good. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and that there's actually no Republicans that can possibly be against the war?
RUSH: Well, who are these Republicans? I can think of Chuck Hagel, and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators, but they don't want to lose the war like the Democrats do. I can't think of who the Republicans are in the anti-war movement.
CALLER: I'm not talking about the senators. I'm talking about the general public. You accuse the public and all the Democrats of being, you know, wanting to lose -
RUSH: Oh, come on, here we go again. I utter the truth, and you can't handle it so you gotta call here and change the subject. How come I'm not also hitting Republicans? I don't know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically.
CALLER2: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am serving in the American military, in the Army. I've been serving for 14 years, very proudly.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER2: I'm one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I'm proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, what these people don't understand, is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is not possible because of all the stuff that's over there, it would take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse and we'd have to go right back over there within a year or so.
RUSH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. The next guy that calls here I'm going to ask them, "What is the imperative of pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out?" I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "When's he going to bring the troops home? Keep the troops safe," whatever.
CALLER2: Yeah.
RUSH: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.
CALLER2: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.
RUSH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER2: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country."
Note the plurals: "soldiers". It's pretty clear from context that they are referring to any soldiers that have spoken out against the Iraq war. The immediate trigger was the prior caller Mike, who has nothing to do with "Jesse Macbeth" that Rush mentioned some 2 minutes later on.
Don't just look at his edited video, read the transcipt.
It IS indeed good to know the facts.
From your quote:
"(b) constitutes a violation of any law, regulation or tariff (including, without limitation, copyright and intellectual property laws) or a violation of these TOS, or any applicable policies or guidelines"
It would be simple for them to adopt a guideline of "not defaming any organizatin with out massive proof or criminal conviction". Then, they can still shut down anyone who criticize at&t actions as defamation. The only check is public outcry such as these.
Now if only they'd apologize for being the FBI/NSA's lap dog...
If you are criticizing the comment on Christians who don't act like Christ, please be aware that it's directed at a group of religious adherents and not a race. Furthermore, he was mainly concerned with India's colonial masters who self identifies as Anglican Christians. Do you think Christ would support colonialism?
"Oh, I definitely agree that some of the assets you listed have value to SOME individuals, but there is generally NO asset that is valuable to all individuals -- except for gold, which I can not believe that another individual would not covet or desire if offered in trade for a profitable outcome (for both parties)."
Say you were Robinson Crusoe and shipwrecked on an island with no hope of rescue, would you trade your machete, food, and gun for this bag of gold galleons?
I doubt it very much. 'Value' is always relative to personal perspective and conditions. Remember King Midas? And what happens if we found a cheap way to produce gold, say from sea water?
Then the gold economy would be sunk. Aluminum used to be very expensive, afforable only to royalties. Then, the electrolysis method make it very cheap and common place. Is it wise to pin an entire economy to one commodity?
for the liberal arts majors unless they are from a well known school or have other connections.
Count your blessings.
Guess publishers were smarter 2 scores ago.
I read a recent poll which showed that 40% of Repulicans NOW continues to believe that Sadam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attack on the USA.
I'm scared pantless that these people will be voing for the next president....
All excellent communicators on top of being scientists.
Specifically, Gould's Natural History columns are often short and intriguing investigations into history of science.
The Feynman lectures are very accessible to high school and even motivated junior high students. He approaches physics from a conceptual viewpoints and does not get bogged down in the maths.
Sagan's many video works certainly impacted a sense of wonder and a view of our place in the univers.
"Flatland" stimulates mind stretching shifts in perspectives.
All fertile departure points for more in depth explorations in classes.
is all it is. That should be obvious from the interview where all he talked about were the FISA process and the rough order of magnitude in terms of people being monitored. Yet he repeatedly trotted out the line about "this will cost some American life."
How can terrorists make use of such information to increase the danger to the American public?
Secondly, if he REALLY believes that such data are dangerous, WHY IS HE DISCLOSING THEM to a newspaper and allowing them to publish it ?!
Looks more like a CYA job to me....
The article you referenced is titled:
"Blogger Forces NASA to Tweak Climate Data"
Rather deep inside, it does indeed describe some of the bloggers as "fringe groups". For a casual reader scanning this article, what impression would she/he get?
"Hmm. Those NASA scientists screwed up again. The little guy was right. May be that global warming talk from those government scientists are so reliable..."
Kudos to Fox for spinning a factual article artfully to suit their slant.
What might be a more accurate head line? How about:
"NASA corrects trivial error in climate data found by blogger"
Some projections show the global population to eventually stablize around 15-16 billions.
Would we really be a 'greater' civilization with more people?
More people clearly would destroy more animal habitats.
What's the additional good that comes out of that?
Can they be far behind ?
Your genius is needed today more than ever, Spider.
for the right job. These languages are optimized for different kinds of problems. It's futile to compare them.
Furthermore, this reinforces the point of the article that the most important aspect of software production is NOT implementation languages. Architecture, process, testing, interface, etc. matter much more. You're looking in the wrong place for productivity.
The more people you put on a project, the more overhead there exist in communication, coordination, etc. The per person produtivity inevitably goes down. This overhead could easily be half the effort when you get to a 10 person team. So the uber programmer could be only 5x more effective and still match a 10 person team.
Every one who buys a license from MS owns nothing but a right to use the MS product within prescribed conditions. It's functionally equivalent to a lease. OK, one CAN capitalize a lease for accounting purposes, but you never own the assets and the only effect is timing of taxation.
The same effect can be achieved by buying a OSS support contract and capitalizing it.
according the the NYT articles. So how URGENT is it really to change a law to avoid going in front of a secret rubber-stamp court ?
All of what you suggest can be accomplished with an unarmed robot.
What're the pluses and minues of arming the robot?
Sure it may protect the robot, but it might also prompt attack....
Possibly the most prolific composer ever.
He was quite concerned about lucre as shown in many of his letters.
Copy rights did not exist in his days, yet that arguably encouraged
him to be more productive. In other words, he had to keep writing
new materials every weeks and months to give to his choir and
orchestra. He could not rely on repeating the same repertoire.
Of course, he's considered a genius because he still produced very
high quality work in spite of his quantity. His motivation depended
not on a jackpot, but on getting steady income from steady work.
You might argue that the poor staving artists produce the best works.
But I see scant evidences of that. If you consider who are considered
to be masters in western visual and music, I think you'll find just
as many who were poor and staving as ones who were established and
working steadily.
BTW, I DO support channel more money to support young artist to try out
their ideas. I suspect that a lifetime stipend would be considered too socialist though!
Father explains the statistics of roulette to his son.
He shows how in the long run, all players will lose to the casino.
His son nods and nods with his explanation. At the end,
the father said, "Well son, have you learn anything from this lession?"
"Yes indeed. I'm going to open a casino when I grow up!"
What about the technologist developing this weapon?
Should they protest this use of their knowledge?
Should they quit?
One of my old professor once developed a ball bearing to spec.
Later on, he found out to his regret that they were being used
in component of a bomb as shrapnels. While he did not know
how his product was being used, the technologists for this LED
company certainly do.
How might he feel when the CIA and Gitmo start using his work product?
of copyright. Only the stars and their heirs might benefits from 50-90 years span of copyright. The question is, does fattening the lottery jackpot really stimulates creativity of the musicians? And how does that compare to the chilling effects of more lawsuits?
Can't all instructions be written down on 1 page ?????????????????
and they could not make an arrest! (except a Citizen's arrest)
Thus they had to travel with a US Marshall to make an arrest in those days.
They had an investigative function only.
People knew enough during the plagues in the middle ages to quarantee the diseased and burn the deads. Even without germ theory, various naive forms of infection theories existed.
Since any epidemic can rebound on the colonizers, it is doubtful that they would spread it on purpose. But while we have no hard evidence of biological warfare having been waged, there are documents of British officers contemplating such tactics:
"According to historian Francis Parkman, Amherst first raised the possibility of giving the Indians infected blankets in a letter to Colonel Henry Bouquet, who would lead reinforcements to Fort Pitt. No copy of this letter has come to light, but we do know that Bouquet discussed the matter in a postscript to a letter to Amherst on July 13, 1763:
P.S. I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine.
On July 16 Amherst replied, also in a postscript:
P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England is at too great a Distance to think of that at present.
On July 26 Bouquet wrote back:
I received yesterday your Excellency's letters of 16th with their Inclosures. The signal for Indian Messengers, and all your directions will be observed.
We don't know if Bouquet actually put the plan into effect, or if so with what result. We do know that a supply of smallpox-infected blankets was available, since the disease had broken out at Fort Pitt some weeks previously. We also know that the following spring smallpox was reported to be raging among the Indians in the vicinity."
Well, that pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?
But I AM really curious where this 'clash of civilization' viewpoint come from?
Are we re-enacting the crusades? Why do you feel muslims are out to destroy
your civilization? Where are the evidences?
I'd really like to understand where these ideas come from.