And yet that comment gets rec'ced up as being "insightful".
Even more ironically, it's the same folks who love to talk about "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" the most that seem to forget the bit about the next clause, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men" more often than not.
But then, and speaking of editing the Declaration of Independence, Texas did drop Jefferson from its textbooks:
you'll find that while formats aren't called out explicitly, it basically instructs the archivist to come up with a comprehensive system within a limited amount of time. It's a pretty high level set of business level requirements; basically, these business level requirements translate to, "give me the system level requirements docs and specifics within four months." I can't imagine that such a system wouldn't include the proposed formats.
Yeah - as noted, the man can't win. Ask any corporate bean counter about the cost savings (that is, stopping spending money) by going digital.
Also - remember - he's the President. He doesn't make the budget. (That's tied up in the Super Committee.) And unlike the previous President, he hasn't been ruling by fiat, executive order and signing statement.
What are the savings for going digital? (Without a doubt, they exist; if not, we'd still all be filling out forms in triplicate at work.)
What is the up front cost to convert?
How long will it take the up front cost to be absorbed by the savings?
I suspect that it will pay for itself faster than you might think. Paper records searches are expensive to say the least. And they're extremely personal intensive, not to mention inefficient and error prone.
I realize that there are people out there who will condemn anything this administration does out of hand, but at least try to pretend that you think about things before you make a judgement.
We must save our children's heritage. President Obama obviously hates America and it's legacy, otherwise, why would he be trying to destroy all the paper records? Undoubtedly, he'll claim that his long form birth certificate was destroyed during the digitization effort. It's obviously an Islamic socialist fascist communist ACORN black panther George Soros funded plot of some sort. Also.
Because, you know, having to do paper record archive searches is so much cheaper than going digital. That's why all the big corporations insist that all records be stored in triplicate in properly filing cabinits... oh... wait...
(A recent November 14 order went after an additional 228 sites; none had a chance to contest the request until after it was approved and the names had been seized.)
How were the sites investigated? For the most recent batch of names, Chanel hired a Nevada investigator to order from three of the 228 sites in question. When the orders arrived, they were reviewed by a Chanel official and declared counterfeit. The other 225 sites were seized based on a Chanel anti-counterfeiting specialist browsing the Web.
Well, it's really not about technological beliefs; it's about international business trends and ownership in conjunction with the fundamental principles of what makes a good social network. And as noted previously, I'd define the latter as simply the network that (1) allows easy communication, and (2) where everyone is. The first part can be replicated; much harder to pry people away when all their friends/etc are not there yet.
This is a field where momentum counts. Especially now that there's been a lot of stabilization of the net.
Course, I could be very wrong, and might be saying that 640K is enough for anybody....
As CmdrPony noted above, the internet has stabilized quite a bit. (For that matter, the industry has a well, and we have a lot of corporations that are here to stay; there is little chance of them being bumped out of their niche at this point.)
MySpace might have made themselves more than a stepping stone to social networking stabilization, but they did not. Facebook, on the other hand, has done so.
Too bad the deniers harbor resentment when they can't get a lock on the publicity, and their ideas are killed at berth. I guess that those who don't want to believe are o-quay with it, though...
Furthermore, from what I'm seeing, the kid (blogger) in question writes well, and basically assembled a list of scientific sources that say "injecting urine extract does not help with cancer, and in fact, can make you sicker". He's not going around randomly criticizing doctors.
In this, I'd say he's actually better in his reaction than most folks would be. Because I'm pretty sure that most people would say something to the effect of, "You want to do WHAT with that bottle of piss?!?" rather than actually taking the time to find scientific evidence on the matter.
Why? Because they fill a niche, and do it well. And the thing about social networks is this: whoever is the biggest is probably going to stay the biggest at this point. It's no good joining a social network that none of your friends use. And to some folks, Facebook is the internet.
Not saying this is a good thing, or right - just my observations on the way that things are.
On the one hand, good on the FTC. Especially for the followup reviews.
On the other hand, this once again proves that it's far easier to just do something contractually and ethically questionable yet massively profitable and wiggle out of the consequences later (especially if you've the money for a squadron of lawyers) than to do things above the board from the get go.
Except that the deniers tend to claim a giant conspiracy and don't themselves go through the pier review process. At least those that don't really look at the data, and then realize that, yeah, it is happening:
And - over 95% of the world's climate experts say that it's happening, and that it's at least partially caused by humans. That's quite a peer review. Especially when the majority of the rest work for the very industries that contribute the most to said climate change.
Skepticism is a critical part of the scientific process. Debating on whether the oncoming train is a mirage without getting off the tracks is foolish and suicidal.
Sorry, but society does have the right to shut down those who do harm by deceit. Your right to free speech does not extend to selling snake oil that does measurable harm.
As far as kemo and radiation, while hardly perfect, there are measurable and repeatable results confirming that these techniques improve the chances of survival. In this fraudster's case, random trials have shown that there is no such evidence.
... that we don't enforce the immigration laws in many ways, but for those who would truly bring wealth to the country, this sort of approach is seriously proposed.
True, but when you "like" an official Facebook page, you get all the wall posts from that page. And that is a marketeer's dream - to have people ask you to spam them.
If you tell Disney that they can put up a billboard on your property (thus getting people to notice your own store, while advertising theirs), then change the directions on that billboard to send people to Homer's Funhouse and Screen Door Company while leaving the name as Disney, even if Disney didn't pay you monies, they'd have a case against you.
Same goes for your web page. If you invite Disney to put a sign on your webpage, then send that link to a competitor, I'm thinking that the sharks would be all over you.
The difference is that if you go to facebook.com/abcd, there is a reasonable expectation to find company abcd's information there, not some other (let alone a rival's) information.
In the case of your webserver, by virtue of the fact that it is not the de facto social networking site, where vanity URL's are associated with companies, it probably wouldn't be an actionable issue.
With all this said, Facebook seems to claim to respect IP, trademarks and copyright, while at the same time saying they can yank back any name they want, for any reason:
Slashdot Mirror
Two wars on credit combined with high end tax cuts do tend to drain the coffers with a quickness.
And yet that comment gets rec'ced up as being "insightful".
Even more ironically, it's the same folks who love to talk about "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" the most that seem to forget the bit about the next clause, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men" more often than not.
But then, and speaking of editing the Declaration of Independence, Texas did drop Jefferson from its textbooks:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html
If you look at the executive order itself:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/74042394/Managing-Government-Records-November-28-2011
you'll find that while formats aren't called out explicitly, it basically instructs the archivist to come up with a comprehensive system within a limited amount of time. It's a pretty high level set of business level requirements; basically, these business level requirements translate to, "give me the system level requirements docs and specifics within four months." I can't imagine that such a system wouldn't include the proposed formats.
Yeah - as noted, the man can't win. Ask any corporate bean counter about the cost savings (that is, stopping spending money) by going digital.
Also - remember - he's the President. He doesn't make the budget. (That's tied up in the Super Committee.) And unlike the previous President, he hasn't been ruling by fiat, executive order and signing statement.
So, you condemn Obama for things he doesn't do (e.g., reduce costs), then condemn him for doing things (e.g., reducing costs).
Gotcha.
Questions worth considering:
What are the savings for going digital? (Without a doubt, they exist; if not, we'd still all be filling out forms in triplicate at work.)
What is the up front cost to convert?
How long will it take the up front cost to be absorbed by the savings?
I suspect that it will pay for itself faster than you might think. Paper records searches are expensive to say the least. And they're extremely personal intensive, not to mention inefficient and error prone.
I realize that there are people out there who will condemn anything this administration does out of hand, but at least try to pretend that you think about things before you make a judgement.
Trollish troll is trollin'.
We must save our children's heritage. President Obama obviously hates America and it's legacy, otherwise, why would he be trying to destroy all the paper records? Undoubtedly, he'll claim that his long form birth certificate was destroyed during the digitization effort. It's obviously an Islamic socialist fascist communist ACORN black panther George Soros funded plot of some sort. Also.
Because, you know, having to do paper record archive searches is so much cheaper than going digital. That's why all the big corporations insist that all records be stored in triplicate in properly filing cabinits... oh... wait...
Here's the bit that gets to me:
(A recent November 14 order went after an additional 228 sites; none had a chance to contest the request until after it was approved and the names had been seized.)
How were the sites investigated? For the most recent batch of names, Chanel hired a Nevada investigator to order from three of the 228 sites in question. When the orders arrived, they were reviewed by a Chanel official and declared counterfeit. The other 225 sites were seized based on a Chanel anti-counterfeiting specialist browsing the Web.
Well, it's really not about technological beliefs; it's about international business trends and ownership in conjunction with the fundamental principles of what makes a good social network. And as noted previously, I'd define the latter as simply the network that (1) allows easy communication, and (2) where everyone is. The first part can be replicated; much harder to pry people away when all their friends/etc are not there yet.
This is a field where momentum counts. Especially now that there's been a lot of stabilization of the net.
Course, I could be very wrong, and might be saying that 640K is enough for anybody....
No, I don't believe that I would have said that.
As CmdrPony noted above, the internet has stabilized quite a bit. (For that matter, the industry has a well, and we have a lot of corporations that are here to stay; there is little chance of them being bumped out of their niche at this point.)
MySpace might have made themselves more than a stepping stone to social networking stabilization, but they did not. Facebook, on the other hand, has done so.
Too bad the deniers harbor resentment when they can't get a lock on the publicity, and their ideas are killed at berth. I guess that those who don't want to believe are o-quay with it, though...
I'd suggest you read the original article.
Furthermore, from what I'm seeing, the kid (blogger) in question writes well, and basically assembled a list of scientific sources that say "injecting urine extract does not help with cancer, and in fact, can make you sicker". He's not going around randomly criticizing doctors.
In this, I'd say he's actually better in his reaction than most folks would be. Because I'm pretty sure that most people would say something to the effect of, "You want to do WHAT with that bottle of piss?!?" rather than actually taking the time to find scientific evidence on the matter.
Probably never.
Why? Because they fill a niche, and do it well. And the thing about social networks is this: whoever is the biggest is probably going to stay the biggest at this point. It's no good joining a social network that none of your friends use. And to some folks, Facebook is the internet.
Not saying this is a good thing, or right - just my observations on the way that things are.
On the one hand, good on the FTC. Especially for the followup reviews.
On the other hand, this once again proves that it's far easier to just do something contractually and ethically questionable yet massively profitable and wiggle out of the consequences later (especially if you've the money for a squadron of lawyers) than to do things above the board from the get go.
Etymology of the word Privilege: Latin privilegium law affecting a specific person, special right, from privus private + leg- lex law
Except that the deniers tend to claim a giant conspiracy and don't themselves go through the pier review process. At least those that don't really look at the data, and then realize that, yeah, it is happening:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/opinion/04krugman.html
And - over 95% of the world's climate experts say that it's happening, and that it's at least partially caused by humans. That's quite a peer review. Especially when the majority of the rest work for the very industries that contribute the most to said climate change.
Skepticism is a critical part of the scientific process. Debating on whether the oncoming train is a mirage without getting off the tracks is foolish and suicidal.
Sorry, but society does have the right to shut down those who do harm by deceit. Your right to free speech does not extend to selling snake oil that does measurable harm.
As far as kemo and radiation, while hardly perfect, there are measurable and repeatable results confirming that these techniques improve the chances of survival. In this fraudster's case, random trials have shown that there is no such evidence.
... appears to be engaged in one of the more repugnant types of theft and fraud that I can imagine: taking advantage of the painfully sick and dying.
And then trying to sue a kid for shedding light on their morally and ethically reprehensible activities?
I wonder if^w how often they go around kicking puppies...
... that we don't enforce the immigration laws in many ways, but for those who would truly bring wealth to the country, this sort of approach is seriously proposed.
So, it's a good decision when a mugger and a victim go to court, and neither gets the wallet in question?
True, but when you "like" an official Facebook page, you get all the wall posts from that page. And that is a marketeer's dream - to have people ask you to spam them.
If you tell Disney that they can put up a billboard on your property (thus getting people to notice your own store, while advertising theirs), then change the directions on that billboard to send people to Homer's Funhouse and Screen Door Company while leaving the name as Disney, even if Disney didn't pay you monies, they'd have a case against you.
Same goes for your web page. If you invite Disney to put a sign on your webpage, then send that link to a competitor, I'm thinking that the sharks would be all over you.
The difference is that if you go to facebook.com/abcd, there is a reasonable expectation to find company abcd's information there, not some other (let alone a rival's) information.
In the case of your webserver, by virtue of the fact that it is not the de facto social networking site, where vanity URL's are associated with companies, it probably wouldn't be an actionable issue.
With all this said, Facebook seems to claim to respect IP, trademarks and copyright, while at the same time saying they can yank back any name they want, for any reason:
http://www.facebook.com/help/?page=147505728655200