Not the policy, the decision. They've already gotten the bad press, and the amount of good press they receive from reversing course will not make up for it.
Say you pick between two lines at the grocery store. By the time you're two-thirds of the way through the line, you realize it's moving more slowly than the other. Your decision was a net negative, but that doesn't mean you leave your line and join the other. Sometimes we make mistakes but have to stick with them.
You're right. Say I pick a fight with some poor kid. I'm beating the crap out of him, and he doesn't stand a chance. I've already made my evil decision, and the amount of good that I will do by stopping won't make up for it, so I keep beating the poor kid. Sometimes we make mistakes but have to stick with them, but when you are actively doing something wrong, you can stop at any time.
They can stop censoring at any time. They can refuse to do it. They can't undo the damage that has been done, but they can stop doing more.
The amount of credibility that they have lost so far is a sunk cost, but by continuing to do it, they are loosing more. Their argument is "we did something wrong, and we are still doing it because the amount of credit we will get for stopping isn't enough." That isn't an argument from principle. It's saying that they won't do the right thing because it doesn't gain them enough. They will gain more by staying evil than by being good, so that's what they choose to do.
Under the attractive nuisance doctrine of the law of torts, a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by a hazardous object or condition on the land that is likely to attract children, who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object or condition. The doctrine has been applied to hold landowners liable for injuries caused by abandoned cars, piles of lumber or sand, trampolines, and swimming pools. However, it can be applied to virtually anything on the property of the landowner.
However, putting up a warning about the dangers of meeting strangers from on-line, or requiring parent's permission (which I believe is required by another US law) to join the site would exempt MySpace from accountability.
A playground analogy would apply in defence of the claim. If a child plays unattended on a playground and is abducted, the operator of the playground likely wouldn't be held accountable. [Or is unattended in a mall or place of business or whatever... the operator did not have a duty of care to protect the children from external threats].
It's a question of law and deserves to be decided. Precedent has to be determined somehow.
At my university there is a 4:1 women to men ratio in their medial program.
I think this raises a good point. Why are there so many more women in medicine than men? What is being done to decrease this gender gap? What programs are being created to get more men into medicine?
I propose a one-year, co-op, certificate-granting program for men, set up and sponsored by hospitals.
Why is it that only women get these special programs? Where are the programs trying to get men into nursing or childcare (both having major shortages in my nation)?
Is it actually 40 inches, or did the person writing the article find the measure in metric, and then convert it to a round number in inches?
This page gives 986 mm and 1006 mm for the lengths of the M16A1 and M16A2, respectively. 1006 mm is supported by thesethreepages.
In fact, the "External links" on Wiki even list the lengths as 1006 mm and 1000 mm.
1006 mm is 39.61 inches, which rounds to 40 inches, but notice how the conversion errors made the grandparent's claim seem less valid. It changed the error rate from 0.6% to 1.6%.
I believe that you just helped the argument for converting to metric.
But a U.S. agency that investigated the complaint found no evidence of any secret transmitters, or of any other tampering.
It's not clear why this information failed to find its way into the released U.S. Defence Security Service report.
The Canadian mint puts out speciality coins on a regular basis. I remember getting dimes that I thought were subway tokens at one point (they looked different and weighed less). What is most likely is that the contractors got a speciality coin and didn't know what it was.
I guess the question is "who controls the cameras?" Is the footage made available to the public? Or, if the cops start beating the shit out of some Critical Mass bicyclists do the cameras suddenly all go on the fritz?
I think that you mean: "if the cops shoot some Brazilian electrician in the head eight time in the London subway while he is on his way to work, then lie about virtually ever aspect of the shooting, do the cameras suddenly all go on the fritz?"
He wasn't wearing a heavy jacket. He used his card to get into the station. He didn't vault the barrier. And now police say there are no CCTV pictures to reveal the truth.
The police returned the three CCTV tapes saying that they were blank and no good to the investigation. But London Underground officials and transport unions have challenged this claim suggesting that the tapes have either been lost or erased.
The first officers on the scene after Mr de Menezes was shot took away all CCTV tapes but allegedly found them blank..... The IPCC has already protested that the police have compromised their investigation by taking away vital evidence, including the tapes,
Extracts from a police report, however, claimed that examination of the platform cameras had produced no footage. It said: "It has been established that there has been a technical problem with the CCTV equipment on the relevant platform and no footage exists."
The idea is to convince people to *believe* that the polygraph machine is scientific
Unfortunately they are not, and informed people (say, scientists) know this./I hear that you can beat them by curling your toes//It's not a lie if you believe it's true
What gives with Los Alamos? Instead of coddling their bullpen of 2000 watt minds they seem insistent on beating them into submission.
Hey now, we don't want any free thinkers having independent thoughts when national security is concerned, or when business processes are being emplaced. That's just un-American.
Le'me see: because there is no scientific basis for polygraphs (because they are not admissible in court--having nothing to do with the science of polygraphs, but because of court standards for admission of evidence), if you agree to something this unscientific, then you cannot possibly claim to be a scientist.
By that logic because religion has no scientific basis, anyone who is religious cannot also be a scientist.....
Speaking of bad logic. Your argument is a straw man, which is a logical fallacy.
"Caprica" is set 50 years before BSG, presumably right before the first Cylon War. My question is, how do you 'bridge a gap' going backwards? Have a movie set 20 years in the past first?
With bad cliches and weak devices: time travel, flashbacks, or some events from the past that haven't mattered until now suddenly becoming pivotal points of the existing story (making the writers free to expand upon those past events).
RTA and ICRA are in active use today. PICS fell mostly away (to my knowledge) -- probably because it wasn't just for filtering, but for any kind of content tagging. Being a general solution doesn't get the "save the children" mouth-breathers behind you.
The problem with the rel=nsfw is that it is binary. I can't establish any kind of scale for what I want to see (nudity is okay, sex acts are not), and it only filters in one dimension (I can't say that I am okay with sex, but not with violence, or vice-versa for the U.S.A.).
Seriously.. nobody really knows what "web 2.0" is. In my head, it basically consists of:
- google / gmail
- wikipedia
- blogs
- youtube
- maps.google.com
A web 2.0 site is one where the users provide the content.
Google is not [it's just a search engine]. Gmail is arguable, but would likely fall into the "not" category. Wiki is. Blogs are not (unless the main draw is the comments, ala Slashdot), but blogging sites (blogger, livejournal) are. YouTube definately is. Maps is not (modulo the Maps API).
Other examples: Ebay, discussion forums, dating sites, social networking sites.
One thing that I haven't seen anyone else mention yet is, regardless of if Google dominates search and search advertisement or not, they have an opportunity cost in that they could be advertising something for someone else in the space they take for themselves. This is true even if it's in a space of the page that isn't used for AdWords (Seriously, what would YOU pay to place a link to your site on Google's front page? What do you think Amazon, Netflix, or WalMart would pay, given the chance?). If Google gives up a click that they would get money for in order to promote something of their own, so be it. They are, after all, paying for it!
Yeah, it's the same with Microsoft. By bundling their own software, they lose the potential revenue of someone else paying them to include software in their bundle, plus they have to pay their own developers to create the software. They could save money by not writing their own apps, and make money by charging other vendors to bundle things with the OS./same line of reasoning
Wah. Why shouldn't Google put their own products first? Name me one other company that wouldn't do the same thing.
Microsoft. Microsoft would never leverage their leadership position in one market to capture new markets or lock out competitors. They would never bundle or cross-promote their products. They would never prevent their competitors from reaching their customers. They would never use their monopoly position to push into other spaces or prevent competition.
Wait... they do do that. But... Slashdot tells me that Microsoft doing it is bad. But... somehow Google doing it is okay. I'm confused. Surely, when Microsoft does this, and it's bad, then when Google does the same thing, it must also be bad. No?
Actually, terrorists often do carry ID. In fact, in most major terrorist attacks in the West since 9/11, the terrorists have been carrying genuine ID. The 9/11 hijackers used real ID to get on the planes. The Madrid train bombers had official ID. The London transport bombers were not using false ID.
This is why the whole ID card scheme business, both over in the US and here in the UK, is one big sham. In fact, our government has moved the goalposts so often, as each successive "justification" has been debunked, that I can't even remember what useful stuff they do think they'll achieve now.
You see, the new IDs will come with this form when you apply for one. It will have these check-boxes on it: (select one) * I intend to commit a terrorist act * I do not intend to commit a terrorist act, but I will in the future * I am a criminal * I am a pedophile * I believe in personal freedoms * I am capable of critical though and analysis * none of the above, therefore I am an honest citizen
If your status ever changes, you will be required to apply for a new card. It's completely fool-proof.
Slashdot Mirror
This question was asked and answered in 1986. Why is it on Slashdot as if it was a new idea every two months?
No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering
They can stop censoring at any time. They can refuse to do it. They can't undo the damage that has been done, but they can stop doing more.
The amount of credibility that they have lost so far is a sunk cost, but by continuing to do it, they are loosing more. Their argument is "we did something wrong, and we are still doing it because the amount of credit we will get for stopping isn't enough." That isn't an argument from principle. It's saying that they won't do the right thing because it doesn't gain them enough. They will gain more by staying evil than by being good, so that's what they choose to do.
Then he should be using the RPL. Any changes have to be sent back to the developers. But that's not free...
one word... ...encryption.
It's too bad that having encrypted documents (or encryption software) is probably grounds to have you "detained."
However, putting up a warning about the dangers of meeting strangers from on-line, or requiring parent's permission (which I believe is required by another US law) to join the site would exempt MySpace from accountability.
A playground analogy would apply in defence of the claim. If a child plays unattended on a playground and is abducted, the operator of the playground likely wouldn't be held accountable. [Or is unattended in a mall or place of business or whatever... the operator did not have a duty of care to protect the children from external threats].
It's a question of law and deserves to be decided. Precedent has to be determined somehow.
IANAL.
I think this raises a good point. Why are there so many more women in medicine than men? What is being done to decrease this gender gap? What programs are being created to get more men into medicine?
I propose a one-year, co-op, certificate-granting program for men, set up and sponsored by hospitals.
Why is it that only women get these special programs? Where are the programs trying to get men into nursing or childcare (both having major shortages in my nation)?
Citation needed.
Is it actually 40 inches, or did the person writing the article find the measure in metric, and then convert it to a round number in inches?
This page gives 986 mm and 1006 mm for the lengths of the M16A1 and M16A2, respectively. 1006 mm is supported by these three pages.
In fact, the "External links" on Wiki even list the lengths as 1006 mm and 1000 mm.
1006 mm is 39.61 inches, which rounds to 40 inches, but notice how the conversion errors made the grandparent's claim seem less valid. It changed the error rate from 0.6% to 1.6%.
I believe that you just helped the argument for converting to metric.
It's always about Marcia!
Marcia! Marcia! Marcia!
But... performance... power... flexibility... waaaaaaaaaah.
I think that Virgin is going after them.
Spy coin report overblown, U.S. official says
The Canadian mint puts out speciality coins on a regular basis. I remember getting dimes that I thought were subway tokens at one point (they looked different and weighed less). What is most likely is that the contractors got a speciality coin and didn't know what it was.
Remembrance day quarter.
What Makes Software Development So Hard?
Asked and answered in 1987, and still spot-on. No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering
See also: The Iceberg Secret, Revealed.
I think that you mean: "if the cops shoot some Brazilian electrician in the head eight time in the London subway while he is on his way to work, then lie about virtually ever aspect of the shooting, do the cameras suddenly all go on the fritz?"
The answer is: yes.
Death in Stockwell: the unanswered questions
CCTV Cameras at Platform of Shooting 'Were Working'
Staff say Stockwell Tube shooting was caught on camera
Tube CCTV: Was there a cover-up?
Shot man not connected to bombing
Unfortunately they are not, and informed people (say, scientists) know this.
Hey now, we don't want any free thinkers having independent thoughts when national security is concerned, or when business processes are being emplaced. That's just un-American.
Speaking of bad logic. Your argument is a straw man, which is a logical fallacy.
Any system that enables you to verify your vote after you leave the voting both allows you to sell votes, or to be coerced into voting a certain way.
With bad cliches and weak devices: time travel, flashbacks, or some events from the past that haven't mattered until now suddenly becoming pivotal points of the existing story (making the writers free to expand upon those past events).
It's been done before and is not a new idea.
PICS labels have been around since 1996, and were proposed to label for language, violence, and sexual content (among others).
ASACP RTA is another labelling scheme from 1996.
ICRA labels have been doing the same since 1999.
RTA and ICRA are in active use today. PICS fell mostly away (to my knowledge) -- probably because it wasn't just for filtering, but for any kind of content tagging. Being a general solution doesn't get the "save the children" mouth-breathers behind you.
The problem with the rel=nsfw is that it is binary. I can't establish any kind of scale for what I want to see (nudity is okay, sex acts are not), and it only filters in one dimension (I can't say that I am okay with sex, but not with violence, or vice-versa for the U.S.A.).
A web 2.0 site is one where the users provide the content.
Google is not [it's just a search engine].
Gmail is arguable, but would likely fall into the "not" category.
Wiki is.
Blogs are not (unless the main draw is the comments, ala Slashdot), but blogging sites (blogger, livejournal) are.
YouTube definately is.
Maps is not (modulo the Maps API).
Other examples: Ebay, discussion forums, dating sites, social networking sites.
Yeah, it's the same with Microsoft. By bundling their own software, they lose the potential revenue of someone else paying them to include software in their bundle, plus they have to pay their own developers to create the software. They could save money by not writing their own apps, and make money by charging other vendors to bundle things with the OS.
Microsoft. Microsoft would never leverage their leadership position in one market to capture new markets or lock out competitors. They would never bundle or cross-promote their products. They would never prevent their competitors from reaching their customers. They would never use their monopoly position to push into other spaces or prevent competition.
Wait... they do do that. But... Slashdot tells me that Microsoft doing it is bad. But... somehow Google doing it is okay. I'm confused. Surely, when Microsoft does this, and it's bad, then when Google does the same thing, it must also be bad. No?
My advice: quit.
You lose.
You see, the new IDs will come with this form when you apply for one. It will have these check-boxes on it:
(select one)
* I intend to commit a terrorist act
* I do not intend to commit a terrorist act, but I will in the future
* I am a criminal
* I am a pedophile
* I believe in personal freedoms
* I am capable of critical though and analysis
* none of the above, therefore I am an honest citizen
If your status ever changes, you will be required to apply for a new card. It's completely fool-proof.