Quick skim on Wikipedia makes it look like 60-86%, which...isn't terrible. Not great, but not terrible. I'd be more worried about the possibilities of stray EM fields frying electronic devices (or cats, as the summary mentions). It's quite a lot of power to transfer wirelessly.
Perhaps, IANAL so I don't know, but it also should prevent Apple from being able to file an injunction against selling it (at least over this issue), since the function no longer exists on it. Samsung may figure it is easier to pay a small fee over prior "infringement" (quotes because the whole "patent on local search" is complete and utter bullshit) than to have their sales of the device blocked for weeks or months, losing them market share.
The funny thing is, even if the US cut 100% of that spending overnight, it still wouldn't make up the deficit. Military spending, while it certainly doesn't help, is not the biggest problem with US spending. Not even close.
The military typically only funds research of something that could be built within the next 20 years, usually much less. Fusion is nowhere near that close. The military, despite what you may think of it, is interested in stuff that can produce practical results in the foreseeable future, not theoretical research (and never have been). Fusion research is currently very much theoretical. If you wanted DoD funding for fusion research, you'd have to go to DARPA or something, and they aren't likely to be interested either, again because unless they can work on actually building something (even if it isn't practical), they won't really fund it.
Yeah, because holy shit that teacher pay rate is out of control.
Seriously, since when did the abysmally low rate of pay teachers receive become a point of contention?
Because they are getting paid an average salary (median, according to some quick Googling, is $50,000 or about the same as the median for US household income) for working 8-9 months or so of the year (factoring in summer/Christmas/spring vacation, and sure that isn't completely time off but it's a lot more than most people get), and doing an absolutely shitty job, judging by the results (US high school eduction being considered one of the worst in the world).
Samsung just needs to stop making A5 cpu's in Texas and cut a ton of American jobs, see how quick will get the government's attention on this whole patent mess.
Apple has won a preliminary injunction against the Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7 across the European Union, thanks to a decision in a German regional court today
Hmm, methinks someone needs to brush up on their geography a bit (the patent in question is a European design patent, which are a kind of patent the US does not even have. Which, yes, makes the US look like the reasonable one in this area. )
According to Wikipedia, the first two computer networks were connected together (to form an "internet", because that is what the word means) was in 1969, more than 10 years before Ethernet was invented. That means an internet proceeded Ethernet in existence. Ethernet was created as one means of transmitting networked data. It was not the only possibility: dozens of other standards could have been adapted for a de facto LAN standard (note the "LAN" part of that: Ethernet isn't even really part of the Internet per se). It did not invent it, it did not proceed it, and in fact it was not even necessary to the Internet's existence. Hell, the backbone of the Internet is fiber optics, not Ethernet.
Also, I'm a little confused by them calling ARPANET "not an Internet" (not least because "Internet" shouldn't be capitalized in that context), since it was a connection of multiple networks together.
"Our new PSCs are made from plastic-like materials and are lightweight and flexible," he said. "More importantly, they can be produced in high volume at low cost."
Of course, I'll believe that when I see the bill. However, if it works as they say about the only downside is that you won't get as much heat during cold winters through the windows. That's actually about it. Oh yeah, and they are polymers so they may require oil to be produced (maybe, not sure and don't care enough to find out). Maybe some Slashdoter could get worked up about that or something.
Depends entirely on when in the 1960s you are talking. Around 1960 itself, the rate was over 20%, and had fallen to half that by the end. But anyways, I trust economists predictions about what is going to happen in a year about as much as I do weather predictions 5 days hence: if I had to bet on them or a coin flip, I'd go with the coin every time.
...Ask yourself, then answer: who is the real terrorist?
The man fighting to keep his family and his livelihood against corporate interests?
Or the man who wages war from a bombproof office, nine thousand miles away, that he might steal that which does not belong to him?
Pretty sure it's the people who strap bombs to children to blow up in crowded areas and fly planes full of civilians into buildings. But your definition could be different. The end result of both actions will be just about the same.
Pretend you are a software developer (I can already tell you are not). By your logic, it's totally fine if everyone downloads your software without paying for it. After all, you've lost nothing, right? None of the software you have is gone, so everything is great. Right?
Yes indeed. Red Hat makes billions of dollars doing this, and Linus Torvalds (together with everyone who works on the GNU project) has done it for years as well.
That's true. Well, beyond what they charged him for the dev kit, and the fee to publish on XBLA, plus their part of the profits from the game sold, plus the tens of thousands he paid them to certify the first patch. So, you know, the hundreds of thousands (at a guess, could be millions or a few thousand) of dollars they have made off him. Beyond that, nothing at all!
OTOH, he did fuck up, and he could publish the patch even now if he really wanted to (but it only affects a few people who already finished the game before the patch, so it wouldn't be worth it financially from his point of view). Frankly, neither MSFT nor Fish comes up looking very good from this whole ordeal.
And Congress has the Constitutional authority to tell the courts to take a hike.
No, they don't. The courts have the Constitutional right to tell Congress to take a hike, though, if anything Congress does or enacts breaks the Constitution (that is a significant part of their job).
The main difference being NSLs are pretty much not legally enforceable and have, in fact, been ruled against by courts in the US in the past as unconstitutional. Basically, they only "force" they bear is that companies haven't really protested against them, for the most part, finding it easier to simply hand over the information. Also, they can only request partial, non-content records (e.g. "party A dialed party B"). Still probably illegal, but less so.
In fact, the actual trends in temperatures had nothing to do with how people perceived them. If you graphed the predictive power of people's perceptions against the actual temperatures, the resulting line was flat—it showed no trend at all. In the statistical model, the actual weather had little impact on people's perception of recent temperatures. Education continued to have a positive impact on whether they got it right, but its magnitude was dwarfed by the influences of political affiliation and cultural beliefs.
And those cultural affiliations had about the effect you'd expect. Individualists, who often object to environmental regulations as an infringement on their freedoms, tended to think the temperatures hadn't gone up in their area, regardless of whether they had. Strong egalitarians, in contrast, tended to believe the temperatures had gone up.
So nope, no matter what your political beliefs, your perception of the temperature is wrong (unless, possibly, you have neutral beliefs, I don't see anything that mentions that).
Outcome based eduction is widely known to be ineffective and useless.
Is answering questions like "Which fallacy does sycodon use in his argument?" part of traditional education or would this require some evil OBE magic?
The fallacy you are implying he is using is an appeal to common opinion (which depending on which "traditional education" you are referring to, may or may not be taught, and also may or may not be taught in OBE), which is only a fallacy if it is common opinion among those who are uneducated in the field: since most of those people don't even know what is meant by "outcome based education", he obviously didn't mean it that way and was instead meaning it to be an argument by authority, which is commonly (well aware of the irony here) and historically considered the weakest form of argument, but is perfectly valid (this is the reason people can actually use scientific consensus as a valid argument, but again, it is still the weakest way to argue. It's also one of the easiest, hence why it is so common especially on the Internet).
You, on the other hand, were (actually ironically) committing a fallacy by implication.
Now, whether sycodon has a valid argument or is correct, I don't know.
Then you obviously need to learn how to use Google. Or Wikipedia. Or not, since I just gave you the link. If you are to lazy to click on that: they got fined €860 million for anti-competitive practices, plus had a lot of compliance stuff they also had to do.
What boot loader lock? On x86, it doesn't exist (yet). Motherboard makers are free to let any OS install or not as they see fit (if the OEM locks it down, bitch to them about it, since they are the ones doing it, not MS). And on ARM, Windows has such a small market share, it can't be considered monopolistic (since MS is nowhere near being able to exploit a monopoly position). MS is free to require ARM tablet makers who make Windows RT tablets lock the bootloader as much as they want, since it doesn't matter, since Windows has, at the moment, about 0% of that market.
If they started asking/requiring OEMs to do that on an x86 system, then you would have a valid point. But they haven't, and they almost certainly won't, because they know they would likely get into a lot of trouble for trying.
It's possible they mean files that appear as text to the user. Ars Technica mentions they use "Right to Left Override" to make it look like executable files aren't (they might show up as a.jpg, for example, complete with a jpg icon) to the end user. If the creators are clever, they could even have it launch the appropriate viewer to make it look like they opened the kind of file they did. So it isn't hard to imagine they did the same with.txt files, although given the context with "PowerPoint" they probably did mean.doc files or the like.
This may come across as pedantic, but I honestly thought that, since "takedown" is a noun, the Dutch police had takedown C&Cs that were being used by the Grum botnet (because that is what the damned headline says, so I think my confusion is understandable). "Take down", the verb, is two words, not one, and what you meant to use.
Yes, Slashdot, grammar does matter, when you try to use a noun as a verb (which it cannot be used as). And I can understand not editing the summary (who wants to do work, after all?) but the headline? Really?
One of them was an experienced skydiver, and they were doing it in part to raise funds for orphans in Iraq, so yeah, you kinda look like an ass making that comment now (no offense, I'm sure you didn't know that). And since you have a ton of balloons, it's actually less risky in a way than most lighter-than-air flight, since a few balloons bursting will mean a slow gentle fall, not a rapid descent. Obviously, you don't want to let go of all of them, but if you do, thats why you carry a parachute (which they were).
To say it "never was a planet" is not quite true. It never was a planet according to the definition of planet that we use now, but it was a planet according to the definition we used to use. If you change the definition, people are going to be confused. It has nothing to do with tradition (except insofar as language is a "tradition"), and everything to do with the alteration of the language. Now, that alteration may be fully scientifically justified and acceptable... but it's still going to annoy people.
The comparison with the geocentrism is a little faulty. The issue here has very little to do with our knowledge of reality changing (it didn't really), but with the way we look at that reality changing (i.e. the words used for a thing).
It's not science, it's linguistics. The result is even now what category Pluto falls into can be debated: we could quite easily call it a planet even now, the problem is the definition would be too wide and force us to call things planets not traditionally called planets. So somewhat contrary to your point, a large part of the reason Pluto isn't called a planet anymore is actually tradition: because we don't want to call all the Kuiper belt objects planets also.
Slashdot Mirror
Quick skim on Wikipedia makes it look like 60-86%, which...isn't terrible. Not great, but not terrible. I'd be more worried about the possibilities of stray EM fields frying electronic devices (or cats, as the summary mentions). It's quite a lot of power to transfer wirelessly.
Serious answer (not complete, but should give you a good idea). Summary: a lot.
Perhaps, IANAL so I don't know, but it also should prevent Apple from being able to file an injunction against selling it (at least over this issue), since the function no longer exists on it. Samsung may figure it is easier to pay a small fee over prior "infringement" (quotes because the whole "patent on local search" is complete and utter bullshit) than to have their sales of the device blocked for weeks or months, losing them market share.
The funny thing is, even if the US cut 100% of that spending overnight, it still wouldn't make up the deficit. Military spending, while it certainly doesn't help, is not the biggest problem with US spending. Not even close.
The military typically only funds research of something that could be built within the next 20 years, usually much less. Fusion is nowhere near that close. The military, despite what you may think of it, is interested in stuff that can produce practical results in the foreseeable future, not theoretical research (and never have been). Fusion research is currently very much theoretical. If you wanted DoD funding for fusion research, you'd have to go to DARPA or something, and they aren't likely to be interested either, again because unless they can work on actually building something (even if it isn't practical), they won't really fund it.
Yeah, because holy shit that teacher pay rate is out of control.
Seriously, since when did the abysmally low rate of pay teachers receive become a point of contention?
Because they are getting paid an average salary (median, according to some quick Googling, is $50,000 or about the same as the median for US household income) for working 8-9 months or so of the year (factoring in summer/Christmas/spring vacation, and sure that isn't completely time off but it's a lot more than most people get), and doing an absolutely shitty job, judging by the results (US high school eduction being considered one of the worst in the world).
Samsung just needs to stop making A5 cpu's in Texas and cut a ton of American jobs, see how quick will get the government's attention on this whole patent mess.
Apple has won a preliminary injunction against the Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7 across the European Union, thanks to a decision in a German regional court today
Hmm, methinks someone needs to brush up on their geography a bit (the patent in question is a European design patent, which are a kind of patent the US does not even have. Which, yes, makes the US look like the reasonable one in this area. )
Ars Technica did as well, but it isn't terribly in-depth.
According to Wikipedia, the first two computer networks were connected together (to form an "internet", because that is what the word means) was in 1969, more than 10 years before Ethernet was invented. That means an internet proceeded Ethernet in existence. Ethernet was created as one means of transmitting networked data. It was not the only possibility: dozens of other standards could have been adapted for a de facto LAN standard (note the "LAN" part of that: Ethernet isn't even really part of the Internet per se). It did not invent it, it did not proceed it, and in fact it was not even necessary to the Internet's existence. Hell, the backbone of the Internet is fiber optics, not Ethernet.
Also, I'm a little confused by them calling ARPANET "not an Internet" (not least because "Internet" shouldn't be capitalized in that context), since it was a connection of multiple networks together.
"Our new PSCs are made from plastic-like materials and are lightweight and flexible," he said. "More importantly, they can be produced in high volume at low cost."
Of course, I'll believe that when I see the bill. However, if it works as they say about the only downside is that you won't get as much heat during cold winters through the windows. That's actually about it. Oh yeah, and they are polymers so they may require oil to be produced (maybe, not sure and don't care enough to find out). Maybe some Slashdoter could get worked up about that or something.
Depends entirely on when in the 1960s you are talking. Around 1960 itself, the rate was over 20%, and had fallen to half that by the end. But anyways, I trust economists predictions about what is going to happen in a year about as much as I do weather predictions 5 days hence: if I had to bet on them or a coin flip, I'd go with the coin every time.
...Ask yourself, then answer: who is the real terrorist?
The man fighting to keep his family and his livelihood against corporate interests? Or the man who wages war from a bombproof office, nine thousand miles away, that he might steal that which does not belong to him?
Pretty sure it's the people who strap bombs to children to blow up in crowded areas and fly planes full of civilians into buildings. But your definition could be different. The end result of both actions will be just about the same.
Pretend you are a software developer (I can already tell you are not). By your logic, it's totally fine if everyone downloads your software without paying for it. After all, you've lost nothing, right? None of the software you have is gone, so everything is great. Right?
Yes indeed. Red Hat makes billions of dollars doing this, and Linus Torvalds (together with everyone who works on the GNU project) has done it for years as well.
I dislike MSFT, but they owe him nothing.
That's true. Well, beyond what they charged him for the dev kit, and the fee to publish on XBLA, plus their part of the profits from the game sold, plus the tens of thousands he paid them to certify the first patch. So, you know, the hundreds of thousands (at a guess, could be millions or a few thousand) of dollars they have made off him. Beyond that, nothing at all!
OTOH, he did fuck up, and he could publish the patch even now if he really wanted to (but it only affects a few people who already finished the game before the patch, so it wouldn't be worth it financially from his point of view). Frankly, neither MSFT nor Fish comes up looking very good from this whole ordeal.
And Congress has the Constitutional authority to tell the courts to take a hike.
No, they don't. The courts have the Constitutional right to tell Congress to take a hike, though, if anything Congress does or enacts breaks the Constitution (that is a significant part of their job).
The main difference being NSLs are pretty much not legally enforceable and have, in fact, been ruled against by courts in the US in the past as unconstitutional. Basically, they only "force" they bear is that companies haven't really protested against them, for the most part, finding it easier to simply hand over the information. Also, they can only request partial, non-content records (e.g. "party A dialed party B"). Still probably illegal, but less so.
To quote TFA:
In fact, the actual trends in temperatures had nothing to do with how people perceived them. If you graphed the predictive power of people's perceptions against the actual temperatures, the resulting line was flat—it showed no trend at all. In the statistical model, the actual weather had little impact on people's perception of recent temperatures. Education continued to have a positive impact on whether they got it right, but its magnitude was dwarfed by the influences of political affiliation and cultural beliefs.
And those cultural affiliations had about the effect you'd expect. Individualists, who often object to environmental regulations as an infringement on their freedoms, tended to think the temperatures hadn't gone up in their area, regardless of whether they had. Strong egalitarians, in contrast, tended to believe the temperatures had gone up.
So nope, no matter what your political beliefs, your perception of the temperature is wrong (unless, possibly, you have neutral beliefs, I don't see anything that mentions that).
Outcome based eduction is widely known to be ineffective and useless.
Is answering questions like "Which fallacy does sycodon use in his argument?" part of traditional education or would this require some evil OBE magic?
The fallacy you are implying he is using is an appeal to common opinion (which depending on which "traditional education" you are referring to, may or may not be taught, and also may or may not be taught in OBE), which is only a fallacy if it is common opinion among those who are uneducated in the field: since most of those people don't even know what is meant by "outcome based education", he obviously didn't mean it that way and was instead meaning it to be an argument by authority, which is commonly (well aware of the irony here) and historically considered the weakest form of argument, but is perfectly valid (this is the reason people can actually use scientific consensus as a valid argument, but again, it is still the weakest way to argue. It's also one of the easiest, hence why it is so common especially on the Internet).
You, on the other hand, were (actually ironically) committing a fallacy by implication.
Now, whether sycodon has a valid argument or is correct, I don't know.
Then you obviously need to learn how to use Google. Or Wikipedia. Or not, since I just gave you the link. If you are to lazy to click on that: they got fined €860 million for anti-competitive practices, plus had a lot of compliance stuff they also had to do.
What boot loader lock? On x86, it doesn't exist (yet). Motherboard makers are free to let any OS install or not as they see fit (if the OEM locks it down, bitch to them about it, since they are the ones doing it, not MS). And on ARM, Windows has such a small market share, it can't be considered monopolistic (since MS is nowhere near being able to exploit a monopoly position). MS is free to require ARM tablet makers who make Windows RT tablets lock the bootloader as much as they want, since it doesn't matter, since Windows has, at the moment, about 0% of that market.
If they started asking/requiring OEMs to do that on an x86 system, then you would have a valid point. But they haven't, and they almost certainly won't, because they know they would likely get into a lot of trouble for trying.
It's possible they mean files that appear as text to the user. Ars Technica mentions they use "Right to Left Override" to make it look like executable files aren't (they might show up as a .jpg, for example, complete with a jpg icon) to the end user. If the creators are clever, they could even have it launch the appropriate viewer to make it look like they opened the kind of file they did. So it isn't hard to imagine they did the same with .txt files, although given the context with "PowerPoint" they probably did mean .doc files or the like.
This may come across as pedantic, but I honestly thought that, since "takedown" is a noun, the Dutch police had takedown C&Cs that were being used by the Grum botnet (because that is what the damned headline says, so I think my confusion is understandable). "Take down", the verb, is two words, not one, and what you meant to use.
Yes, Slashdot, grammar does matter, when you try to use a noun as a verb (which it cannot be used as). And I can understand not editing the summary (who wants to do work, after all?) but the headline? Really?
One of them was an experienced skydiver, and they were doing it in part to raise funds for orphans in Iraq, so yeah, you kinda look like an ass making that comment now (no offense, I'm sure you didn't know that). And since you have a ton of balloons, it's actually less risky in a way than most lighter-than-air flight, since a few balloons bursting will mean a slow gentle fall, not a rapid descent. Obviously, you don't want to let go of all of them, but if you do, thats why you carry a parachute (which they were).
It claims the moon has 0.01% of the mass of Earth. In reality, it's closer to 1.2%.
No, it isn't. It's close to .012%.
To say it "never was a planet" is not quite true. It never was a planet according to the definition of planet that we use now, but it was a planet according to the definition we used to use. If you change the definition, people are going to be confused. It has nothing to do with tradition (except insofar as language is a "tradition"), and everything to do with the alteration of the language. Now, that alteration may be fully scientifically justified and acceptable... but it's still going to annoy people.
The comparison with the geocentrism is a little faulty. The issue here has very little to do with our knowledge of reality changing (it didn't really), but with the way we look at that reality changing (i.e. the words used for a thing).
It's not science, it's linguistics. The result is even now what category Pluto falls into can be debated: we could quite easily call it a planet even now, the problem is the definition would be too wide and force us to call things planets not traditionally called planets. So somewhat contrary to your point, a large part of the reason Pluto isn't called a planet anymore is actually tradition: because we don't want to call all the Kuiper belt objects planets also.