Since she's being sponsored I bet the company has a contractual right to use her name. And, unless there's a clause in that contract that allows her to suspend that arrangement then she couldn't give the IOC exclusive use of her name during the term of the sponsor's contract.
I would bet the company just decided it was less risk to wait a week or two to use the name than it was to roll the dice with potential litigation.
Dude, catch up with the times. The 80s and 90s have passed with the 90s posting 1 hijacking of a US flight. (Out of the tens of thousands of flights a year.) So, obviously, it's time to start detaining people based on some behavioral traits that are sure to be kept secret by those doing the watching. (Can't let the terrorists know what we're looking for.) After all, just like with the No Fly and Watchlist there's no way this will be abused...
"What do you mean? My government is precisely the government that is the least interested in what I'm doing and where I'm going, it's all the other governments that keenly inspect my IDs and credentials."
You must not be a US citizen. The US government is very interested in where you go and what you do. How else will they be able to declare you an "enemy combatant" and lock you up without due process? They need to know that, while you were in Japan, you stopped by a restaurant and spoke to the Islamic owner. Seems mighty suspicious to me... (Yes, that last part was sarcasm.)
I would state this differently: You can't win the peace with weapons.
The USSR took over many countries with the use of weapons, then went bankrupt with the burden of the cost of maintaining their victories with the use of weapons. (So did the Roman Empire.) It's a lesson with lots of examples throughout history.
Come on mods, that's not "Insightful". It's a poor understanding of the difference between actively going to a website to read content (you're soliciting them) and having some idiot send you mail (they're soliciting you).
"Fortunately for users, in the real world, a webmaster has to earn ad revenue by finding content that users want and ads they are willing to accept -- not by taking it for granted that they will just gaze longingly into the CRT clicking on everything that swirls."
How exactly will a webmaster find ads that users are willing to accept if the ads are blocked and nobody ever sees them? I agree with TFA that ad-blocking software poses an issue for web sites and for the users of the web in general. In the Webs current state the ads are what is supporting the production of most of the content you see. What happens when that support gets pulled out from under the web site owners? (Webmasters could get around the issue by inserting the ads directly in to the content instead of having them served by a third party.)
On the other hand, I wouldn't equate ad-blocking with theft. Websites are posting content in a public infrastructure where the viewing public has a great deal of control over how they see that content. If they don't like it then they can just charge for access, or engage in an ever escalating (and losing) technology war against the user.
To me - religions holding the 'meaning' of life, and advising us how we should conduct ourselves - is what I have the biggest problem with, especially the latter part. Religious leaders can get their followers to act in any way they want depending on how they want to interpret their version of the "truth" by choosing which parts of their religious texts they want to promote and how they should be viewed. When people hand over the responsibility of their actions to someone else in order to have a clear conscience then we're all in deep doo-doo.
Women should be subservient to men? It says so in verse x in chapter y. (Just look at the dogma the Quiver Full believers follow...) I went to a Big 10 school and we had an insane preacher proselytizing on campus - reading verses from the Bible justifying him hitting his wife. Hey, it's OK, it says so here in this book.
Re:No You Dim Witted Troll
on
Why Myths Persist
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Maybe you should try taking your own advice... Here's the post in question:
"Belief in a power greater then ourselves is not about logic. It is about faith. Religion is a man made construction around Faith in something greater and a poor one at that.
Science and Faith can co-exist. I believe in God and how that Faith helps shape and guide my life. I also believe in Science, in it's ability to help describe the world around me from the smallest quark to the farthest sun. Science only reaffirms my Faith in this way, each time "We" (mankind) say this is the barrier, this is the absolute; Science through discovery pushes past that barrier. In fact I propose that there are leaps of Faith in Scientific discovery that only later logic will describe. For me those leaps are our moments of touching the God that is inside us."
First: The poster never said "Faith is a belief beyond proof" - that's your assertion. And, you're wrong, it's a belief of something in the absence of proof, or despite evidence of the contrary. There is an important distinction there. Having faith is something "greater" has no meaning in the absence of some roadmap of how that "something greater" will guide your life. All of the ideological constructs informing his/her Faith in (any) "God" is driven by the man-made religious dogma he/she ascribes to. The "Faith" that "helps shape and guide" the OP life is based on those religious constructs - he/she is making choices and shaping their life based on the dogma. So, the OP's "Faith" is essentially a man-made construct.
Second: There is a big difference between religious faith and the "leaps of faith" taken by science. The "leaps of faith" in science are ideas that are tested and accepted (or discarded) over time through the scientific process. Essentially, the antithesis of religious faith.
I agree with you about everything except the part about Excel handling it fine. I'm using Excel 2007 and have many spreadsheets with large data tables. Moving the columns around in the table (something the old file format did flawlessly) very often results in the "Unreadable content error" the next time you open the file. An extremely frustrating thing to happen, because when it does it kills your data table.
"Talk about blind. If you are not a Christian you have no way of knowing what we cherish. We cherish happiness, pleasure (not hedonistic or materialistic), and many others. The difference is we don't need to have porn nor other things that mindless drones need in order to be happy. I guess this world has to cater to all beings (especially with being politically correct and all) so porn was invented so that people like you who need something more materialistic can be happy and thus pleasured. Oh, and until you become a Christian (fat chance I'm sure) don't tell me what we cherish because you know nothing and you have graciously proven that to me. Thank you."
Sorry, but that's a horrible argument. You don't have to be a Christian to understand the dogma and workings of the Christian mythological belief systems. And if you don't believe the Christian community isn't full of "mindless drones" you'll be reminded during the next election when a good deal many of you will cast your vote for the preacher/priest-approved candidate. Which will doubtless be whoever they believe will help them maintain their position of power and influence in their community.
And, finally, porn wasn't invented by anybody. It's been around as long as people have. (Way longer than 5,000 years for you creationists...)
Not sure you really did... In the US you're allowed (at a minimum) to make a backup copy for archival purposes. Not sure our copyright law gives you the right to have a copy on your computer, your iPod, your computer at work, etc. Could you provide a pointer to the law that says you can have multiple copies on multiple devices?
You're making my point (albeit with a shorter timeline). How were customers (who purchased the phones when they first went on sale) supposed to know about the battery replacement? It takes time for information to make its way from Apple's site to the people who purchase their products. Did you expect people to monitor the web site for this kind of important information they didn't know they'd need until after their purchase? Even today, going to Apple's iPhone pages (www.apple.com/iphone) you'd be hard-pressed to find the information following the normal navigation links.
As I said originally, even if you don't believe the lawsuit has merit, you have to at least admit that Apple didn't act in a forthright manner. The details of the program should have been on Apple's site well before the iPhone went on sale and there should have been a link to the information on the product page. (Not a link that leads to a page with a link that leads to the information.)
Very informative post. The one piece you missed is that the information you point to on Apple's site didn't appear until several days after the iPhone became available. Even if you (rightfully) dismiss the complaints about the battery not being user-replaceable, you have to at least admit that not posting the costs associated with replacing the battery until after hundreds of thousands were sold wasn't very forthright.
According to the American Obesity Association - 64.5% of U.S. adults are overweight, and 30.5% are obese. That's an increase from 46% overweight, 14.4% obese back in the 70's. I guess the majority/minority threshold depends on how you want to define "fat" - simply being overweight, or needing to be overweight by a certain amount.
I think talking on the phone requires much more concentration than talking in person. I have kids and I know that, when I'm on the phone, the noise they generate makes it very hard to carry on a conversation. When I'm talking to someone in person you get visual cues back from the person that makes it much easier to ignore the noise.
"Open access rules would require the auction winner to allow any compatible device to connect to their networks on the effected spectrum."
I think you meant to say that the auction winners would have to lease, at a wholesale price determined by someone, a third of the bandwidth to other service providers that customers would then pay to access the network.
For this to be anything more than just grandstanding for good karma by Google I'd like to see how the wholesale price is set and why it's a lease instead of a purchase. Google pays a one-time fee for the airwaves and then leases them off a third of them which generates a nice revenue stream for them. The people doing the leasing still have a competitive disadvantage since they always have a bandwidth charge to add to their business model, while the purchasers will recoup their original investment over time and not have that leasing charge on their P&Ls.
The bill passed out of the committee is all about fining for the unintended utterance of "choice" words - which I think is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with the over all scheme of what kids see on the television. And, just curious, if you really believe in what you're saying would you support fines for people in public who make such utterances? After all, your kid spends (or should be) more time out in the world than in front of the TV. When you drop the groceries in the parking lot and give the appropriate response, are you really going to be glad there's a "cuss-word" jar waiting for you?
If you're worried your kid might accidentally see some uncut Sopranos episode, take the TV out of her room and give her a book or a LeapPad. Our kids get to watch about 2-hrs of TV a week plus a weekly family movie night. We control what they watch. When they go to a friends house we expect them to do other activities than watch TV, and we let the other parents know our expectations. I'll admit it's easier for us since we have a stay-at-home parent and that other's mileage may vary.
Tasmania is fairly sunny. It is hard to be certain, but some early accounts suggest that the Tasmanian Aborigines did not wear a lot of clothing. Another point is that they were hunter-gatherers, with access to meat and seafood, which could have provided good sources of vitamin D. Oddly enough, there seemed to be a taboo on fish, but they certainly ate seals, seabirds and shellfish. Many of the tribes would have had access to such coastal resources.
No one knows for sure since the aboriginal Tasmanians were wiped out in the 1800's.
I brought up Gitmo because you seemed to be implying that these confiscations would follow a normal criminal investigation process - which I highly doubt because of the administration's past and current actions. I've quoted the section of the IEEPA below that covers how Congress can revoke the Executive Order. Essentially, they'll have to pass resolutions to concurrently terminate the national emergency and revoke the exercise of the authorities the President has granted himself. (Thanks for the link, btw.) So, I was wrong, Congress does have the power to do it. They're just not likely to be able to do it - seems like a worthless power, at least in today's political climate, as it would take a 60% vote to overturn any filibuster of the resolution.
"(b) Congressional termination of national emergencies by concurrent resolution The authorities described in subsection (a)(1) of this section may not continue to be exercised under this section if the national emergency is terminated by the Congress by concurrent resolution pursuant to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act [50 U.S.C. 1622] and if the Congress specifies in such concurrent resolution that such authorities may not continue to be exercised under this section."
Slashdot Mirror
Since she's being sponsored I bet the company has a contractual right to use her name. And, unless there's a clause in that contract that allows her to suspend that arrangement then she couldn't give the IOC exclusive use of her name during the term of the sponsor's contract.
I would bet the company just decided it was less risk to wait a week or two to use the name than it was to roll the dice with potential litigation.
Because it's Slashdot, silly.
Dude, catch up with the times. The 80s and 90s have passed with the 90s posting 1 hijacking of a US flight. (Out of the tens of thousands of flights a year.) So, obviously, it's time to start detaining people based on some behavioral traits that are sure to be kept secret by those doing the watching. (Can't let the terrorists know what we're looking for.) After all, just like with the No Fly and Watchlist there's no way this will be abused...
"What do you mean? My government is precisely the government that is the least interested in what I'm doing and where I'm going, it's all the other governments that keenly inspect my IDs and credentials."
You must not be a US citizen. The US government is very interested in where you go and what you do. How else will they be able to declare you an "enemy combatant" and lock you up without due process? They need to know that, while you were in Japan, you stopped by a restaurant and spoke to the Islamic owner. Seems mighty suspicious to me... (Yes, that last part was sarcasm.)
Quick math check: .9TB = 900GB
900GB/4.8GB/s = 187.5 seconds for the transfer
187.5/60 s/minute = 3.125 minutes
Right?
I would state this differently: You can't win the peace with weapons.
The USSR took over many countries with the use of weapons, then went bankrupt with the burden of the cost of maintaining their victories with the use of weapons. (So did the Roman Empire.) It's a lesson with lots of examples throughout history.
You have it all wrong, we all know that: Four legs good, two legs better.
Come on mods, that's not "Insightful". It's a poor understanding of the difference between actively going to a website to read content (you're soliciting them) and having some idiot send you mail (they're soliciting you).
"Fortunately for users, in the real world, a webmaster has to earn ad revenue by finding content that users want and ads they are willing to accept -- not by taking it for granted that they will just gaze longingly into the CRT clicking on everything that swirls."
How exactly will a webmaster find ads that users are willing to accept if the ads are blocked and nobody ever sees them? I agree with TFA that ad-blocking software poses an issue for web sites and for the users of the web in general. In the Webs current state the ads are what is supporting the production of most of the content you see. What happens when that support gets pulled out from under the web site owners? (Webmasters could get around the issue by inserting the ads directly in to the content instead of having them served by a third party.)
On the other hand, I wouldn't equate ad-blocking with theft. Websites are posting content in a public infrastructure where the viewing public has a great deal of control over how they see that content. If they don't like it then they can just charge for access, or engage in an ever escalating (and losing) technology war against the user.
To me - religions holding the 'meaning' of life, and advising us how we should conduct ourselves - is what I have the biggest problem with, especially the latter part. Religious leaders can get their followers to act in any way they want depending on how they want to interpret their version of the "truth" by choosing which parts of their religious texts they want to promote and how they should be viewed. When people hand over the responsibility of their actions to someone else in order to have a clear conscience then we're all in deep doo-doo.
Women should be subservient to men? It says so in verse x in chapter y. (Just look at the dogma the Quiver Full believers follow...) I went to a Big 10 school and we had an insane preacher proselytizing on campus - reading verses from the Bible justifying him hitting his wife. Hey, it's OK, it says so here in this book.
Maybe you should try taking your own advice... Here's the post in question:
"Belief in a power greater then ourselves is not about logic. It is about faith. Religion is a man made construction around Faith in something greater and a poor one at that.
Science and Faith can co-exist. I believe in God and how that Faith helps shape and guide my life. I also believe in Science, in it's ability to help describe the world around me from the smallest quark to the farthest sun. Science only reaffirms my Faith in this way, each time "We" (mankind) say this is the barrier, this is the absolute; Science through discovery pushes past that barrier. In fact I propose that there are leaps of Faith in Scientific discovery that only later logic will describe. For me those leaps are our moments of touching the God that is inside us."
First: The poster never said "Faith is a belief beyond proof" - that's your assertion. And, you're wrong, it's a belief of something in the absence of proof, or despite evidence of the contrary. There is an important distinction there. Having faith is something "greater" has no meaning in the absence of some roadmap of how that "something greater" will guide your life. All of the ideological constructs informing his/her Faith in (any) "God" is driven by the man-made religious dogma he/she ascribes to. The "Faith" that "helps shape and guide" the OP life is based on those religious constructs - he/she is making choices and shaping their life based on the dogma. So, the OP's "Faith" is essentially a man-made construct.
Second: There is a big difference between religious faith and the "leaps of faith" taken by science. The "leaps of faith" in science are ideas that are tested and accepted (or discarded) over time through the scientific process. Essentially, the antithesis of religious faith.
I agree with you about everything except the part about Excel handling it fine. I'm using Excel 2007 and have many spreadsheets with large data tables. Moving the columns around in the table (something the old file format did flawlessly) very often results in the "Unreadable content error" the next time you open the file. An extremely frustrating thing to happen, because when it does it kills your data table.
"Talk about blind. If you are not a Christian you have no way of knowing what we cherish. We cherish happiness, pleasure (not hedonistic or materialistic), and many others. The difference is we don't need to have porn nor other things that mindless drones need in order to be happy. I guess this world has to cater to all beings (especially with being politically correct and all) so porn was invented so that people like you who need something more materialistic can be happy and thus pleasured. Oh, and until you become a Christian (fat chance I'm sure) don't tell me what we cherish because you know nothing and you have graciously proven that to me. Thank you."
Sorry, but that's a horrible argument. You don't have to be a Christian to understand the dogma and workings of the Christian mythological belief systems. And if you don't believe the Christian community isn't full of "mindless drones" you'll be reminded during the next election when a good deal many of you will cast your vote for the preacher/priest-approved candidate. Which will doubtless be whoever they believe will help them maintain their position of power and influence in their community.
And, finally, porn wasn't invented by anybody. It's been around as long as people have. (Way longer than 5,000 years for you creationists...)
Not sure if I should be in awe of your knowledge of so many of the porn DVDs, or somewhat disturbed... ;)
I don't know...I can think of more than 10% of either of them that I'd like. Not speaking musically...
Not sure you really did... In the US you're allowed (at a minimum) to make a backup copy for archival purposes. Not sure our copyright law gives you the right to have a copy on your computer, your iPod, your computer at work, etc. Could you provide a pointer to the law that says you can have multiple copies on multiple devices?
Just curious.
You're making my point (albeit with a shorter timeline). How were customers (who purchased the phones when they first went on sale) supposed to know about the battery replacement? It takes time for information to make its way from Apple's site to the people who purchase their products. Did you expect people to monitor the web site for this kind of important information they didn't know they'd need until after their purchase? Even today, going to Apple's iPhone pages (www.apple.com/iphone) you'd be hard-pressed to find the information following the normal navigation links.
As I said originally, even if you don't believe the lawsuit has merit, you have to at least admit that Apple didn't act in a forthright manner. The details of the program should have been on Apple's site well before the iPhone went on sale and there should have been a link to the information on the product page. (Not a link that leads to a page with a link that leads to the information.)
Very informative post. The one piece you missed is that the information you point to on Apple's site didn't appear until several days after the iPhone became available. Even if you (rightfully) dismiss the complaints about the battery not being user-replaceable, you have to at least admit that not posting the costs associated with replacing the battery until after hundreds of thousands were sold wasn't very forthright.
According to the American Obesity Association - 64.5% of U.S. adults are overweight, and 30.5% are obese. That's an increase from 46% overweight, 14.4% obese back in the 70's. I guess the majority/minority threshold depends on how you want to define "fat" - simply being overweight, or needing to be overweight by a certain amount.
Sorry, but if you take a look around you (at least in the US) fat people are definitely the majority.
I think talking on the phone requires much more concentration than talking in person. I have kids and I know that, when I'm on the phone, the noise they generate makes it very hard to carry on a conversation. When I'm talking to someone in person you get visual cues back from the person that makes it much easier to ignore the noise.
"Open access rules would require the auction winner to allow any compatible device to connect to their networks on the effected spectrum."
I think you meant to say that the auction winners would have to lease, at a wholesale price determined by someone, a third of the bandwidth to other service providers that customers would then pay to access the network.
For this to be anything more than just grandstanding for good karma by Google I'd like to see how the wholesale price is set and why it's a lease instead of a purchase. Google pays a one-time fee for the airwaves and then leases them off a third of them which generates a nice revenue stream for them. The people doing the leasing still have a competitive disadvantage since they always have a bandwidth charge to add to their business model, while the purchasers will recoup their original investment over time and not have that leasing charge on their P&Ls.
The bill passed out of the committee is all about fining for the unintended utterance of "choice" words - which I think is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with the over all scheme of what kids see on the television. And, just curious, if you really believe in what you're saying would you support fines for people in public who make such utterances? After all, your kid spends (or should be) more time out in the world than in front of the TV. When you drop the groceries in the parking lot and give the appropriate response, are you really going to be glad there's a "cuss-word" jar waiting for you?
If you're worried your kid might accidentally see some uncut Sopranos episode, take the TV out of her room and give her a book or a LeapPad. Our kids get to watch about 2-hrs of TV a week plus a weekly family movie night. We control what they watch. When they go to a friends house we expect them to do other activities than watch TV, and we let the other parents know our expectations. I'll admit it's easier for us since we have a stay-at-home parent and that other's mileage may vary.
Tasmania is fairly sunny. It is hard to be certain, but some early accounts suggest that the Tasmanian Aborigines did not wear a lot of clothing. Another point is that they were hunter-gatherers, with access to meat and seafood, which could have provided good sources of vitamin D. Oddly enough, there seemed to be a taboo on fish, but they certainly ate seals, seabirds and shellfish. Many of the tribes would have had access to such coastal resources.
No one knows for sure since the aboriginal Tasmanians were wiped out in the 1800's.
I brought up Gitmo because you seemed to be implying that these confiscations would follow a normal criminal investigation process - which I highly doubt because of the administration's past and current actions. I've quoted the section of the IEEPA below that covers how Congress can revoke the Executive Order. Essentially, they'll have to pass resolutions to concurrently terminate the national emergency and revoke the exercise of the authorities the President has granted himself. (Thanks for the link, btw.) So, I was wrong, Congress does have the power to do it. They're just not likely to be able to do it - seems like a worthless power, at least in today's political climate, as it would take a 60% vote to overturn any filibuster of the resolution.
"(b) Congressional termination of national emergencies by concurrent resolution
The authorities described in subsection (a)(1) of this section may not continue to be exercised under this section if the national emergency is terminated by the Congress by concurrent resolution pursuant to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act [50 U.S.C. 1622] and if the Congress specifies in such concurrent resolution that such authorities may not continue to be exercised under this section."