Google has about 2/3 of the search market, while Comcast has about 1/3 of the connectivity market. Now zoom in a little bit and you get a bunch of regions where Comcast has 100% market share, because they are the only provider.
There's nowhere in the world where Google has 100% market share, or where users do not have a choice but to use Google.
There are several levels of "rejection" and "acceptance."
Typically, a paper may receive "reject", "reject and resubmit," "accept with revisions" or "accept." All except the last would require major revisions, and the last would still receive minor changes and proofreading. TFA refers to the first category: papers which cannot be resubmitted to the same journal.
I don't have access to the full paper so I can't say if these conclusions apply all or in part to papers resubmitted to the same journal ("reject and resubmit").
I meant that it's easier to get people to encrypt their IMs with OTR than email with GPG and mail client plugins. They still wont exchange fingerprints to get authentication, but that's another battle I think.
No, what happened was that rubycodez said it is a natural right for humans to predate on the higher mammals, and erlegreer added that this predation is "natural" because its means are the product of evolution. My response was that this argument-from-nature might fall short for factory farmed meat.
Once again, there is no inherent meaning in nature. No example from nature implies anything about good, or evil, or whether or not there is a natural right to predate on lower animals. The AC in question specifically did not imply that methods of industrial beef production make us an "evil species." As food for thought, the AC stated some facts about how factory farms make meat.
Since you found those facts to imply that humans are evil, perhaps that finding should inform your dietary choices.
It's just a video game or whatever, but most people don't think it's crazy to condemn video games or other elements of pop culture which depict actions which would be illegal if they were real.
I don't care what happens in your virtual world, and don't think anyone else should either, but that doesn't make it insane to oppose oneself to Pokemon or GTA or whatever.
That's actually a neat feature (and a good idea to exploit)...but isn't it still a lot easier to just install AdBlock? Really, it's like two clicks away.
Seriously, I don't lose anything by using gmail. Not one cent of currency, not one second wasted reading ads, and not the ability to encrypt messages I want to keep private.
That's right, I haven't seen an ad on gmail for 7 years. Why? Because I'm not an idiot.
What's the US legislation on reading non-encrypted transmissions? Is there an expectation of privacy when you are shouting across the internet?
I believe that with email, there is an expectation of privacy. However, in a recent case a judge compared tweets directly to "shouting" and ruled there was no expectation of privacy.
I didn't know tarantula hawks had a culture that produced systems of morality and ethics (maybe you should reread the AC's post). The example from nature is neither here nor there, or perhaps you think that because the preying mantis exists women should devour their partners (after obtaining the seed, of course)?
There is no inherent meaning in nature. If you believe that the methods of industrial meat production are acceptable, argue that instead of bringing up something unrelated.
I only disagree on one point: condemning Pokemon isn't that crazy. If Pokemon were real, fighting them for sport would be illegal, at least in developed countries. It is really unlikely that any little kids decided to become cock fighters based on the fun times they had playing gameboy.
Grant proposals are extensively and secretly reviewed by authors' peers, in a very similar process to that for journal publications. I was slightly inaccurate above, in referring to editors rather than program managers and others involved in the funding agency decision process.
Due to the funding squeeze - which is significantly tighter today than in the past, with ~7% of grants funded by NIH rather than 30% - there is competition beyond normal competition for excellence, competition arising because there is not enough to go around. The current system of decision making - about both journal papers and grant proposals - would not function if the deliberations leading to decisions were not secret.
What others haven't brought up is revealing the content of peer reviews and private emails - probably those between the editorial board and the reviewers - would open up a huge door of legal and professional liability. Between equally good proposals, it is often the case that one must be rejected.
For example, say a $1 million proposal from a researcher at Stanford University is rejected. Stanford charges ~60% overhead, so the university loses up to $600,000. Then, on the basis of correspondence between the editors and reviewers (which constitute the peer review that BP wants to be public) showing the proposal to be equal to one that was not rejected, the university sues. Doesn't sound very far-fetched to me.
How is a natural gas furnace worse for the environment than burning wood? The latter creates a large amount of particulate pollution, in addition to nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons of various weights and carbon monoxide. Here, in the Bay Area, a full third of winter particulates comes from wood fires in homes.
Open access journals like BioMed Central, PLoS, Oxford's OA journals, etc. all prove a OA business model can be successful (and profitable) if structured well.
Also by charging authors ~$1k per publication. But keep in mind that subscription fee journals typically charge hundreds of dollars for color and extra pages (e.g. most IEEE Transactions journals charges $300 per page over 8).
Sorry, I was imprecise. I meant that I had no further recourse without initiating legal action. The YouTube website itself just says "too bad," essentially.
I had a satirical video on YouTube which was targeted by ContentID. After I contested (because it is satire), some of the copyright holders removed their claims, but one reinstated them (one based in Germany, where I believe there is no "fair use").
At that point it was I who had no further recourse, not them. I was under the impression that YouTube's policies were basically biased towards presumed copyright holders. What makes this situation different? Have you already confirmed / reinstated your claims using their system?
You would just show them your altered, "in-system" card. It would clear their reader because it cleared the fare gate. This would be with an unregistered Clipper card, naturally.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? As far as I can tell, even the legal definition of monopoly requires "exclusive control of a market," not "being a clear leader."
Lying about the PageRank of a page, while slimy, is not illegal.
Google has about 2/3 of the search market, while Comcast has about 1/3 of the connectivity market. Now zoom in a little bit and you get a bunch of regions where Comcast has 100% market share, because they are the only provider.
There's nowhere in the world where Google has 100% market share, or where users do not have a choice but to use Google.
There are several levels of "rejection" and "acceptance."
Typically, a paper may receive "reject", "reject and resubmit," "accept with revisions" or "accept." All except the last would require major revisions, and the last would still receive minor changes and proofreading. TFA refers to the first category: papers which cannot be resubmitted to the same journal.
I don't have access to the full paper so I can't say if these conclusions apply all or in part to papers resubmitted to the same journal ("reject and resubmit").
Ok, if "natural" just means "anything", fine.
I meant that it's easier to get people to encrypt their IMs with OTR than email with GPG and mail client plugins. They still wont exchange fingerprints to get authentication, but that's another battle I think.
No, what happened was that rubycodez said it is a natural right for humans to predate on the higher mammals, and erlegreer added that this predation is "natural" because its means are the product of evolution. My response was that this argument-from-nature might fall short for factory farmed meat.
Once again, there is no inherent meaning in nature. No example from nature implies anything about good, or evil, or whether or not there is a natural right to predate on lower animals. The AC in question specifically did not imply that methods of industrial beef production make us an "evil species." As food for thought, the AC stated some facts about how factory farms make meat.
Since you found those facts to imply that humans are evil, perhaps that finding should inform your dietary choices.
It's just a video game or whatever, but most people don't think it's crazy to condemn video games or other elements of pop culture which depict actions which would be illegal if they were real.
I don't care what happens in your virtual world, and don't think anyone else should either, but that doesn't make it insane to oppose oneself to Pokemon or GTA or whatever.
That's actually a neat feature (and a good idea to exploit)...but isn't it still a lot easier to just install AdBlock? Really, it's like two clicks away.
Much easier to get them to encrypt instant messages with OTR, by installing Adium or Pidgin on their machines.
Seriously, I don't lose anything by using gmail. Not one cent of currency, not one second wasted reading ads, and not the ability to encrypt messages I want to keep private.
That's right, I haven't seen an ad on gmail for 7 years. Why? Because I'm not an idiot.
This is on a computer. There only difference between "copied" and "read" is the destination of the bits.
at the same time using part of the message to display targeted ads
The ads are displayed to the right of a message, not in line with it.
At least, I think that's how it works - I haven't seen an ad in gmail for the past 7 years.
What's the US legislation on reading non-encrypted transmissions? Is there an expectation of privacy when you are shouting across the internet?
I believe that with email, there is an expectation of privacy. However, in a recent case a judge compared tweets directly to "shouting" and ruled there was no expectation of privacy.
I didn't know tarantula hawks had a culture that produced systems of morality and ethics (maybe you should reread the AC's post). The example from nature is neither here nor there, or perhaps you think that because the preying mantis exists women should devour their partners (after obtaining the seed, of course)?
There is no inherent meaning in nature. If you believe that the methods of industrial meat production are acceptable, argue that instead of bringing up something unrelated.
I only disagree on one point: condemning Pokemon isn't that crazy. If Pokemon were real, fighting them for sport would be illegal, at least in developed countries. It is really unlikely that any little kids decided to become cock fighters based on the fun times they had playing gameboy.
I don't think the "natural predator" line works on factory farmed beef.
Grant proposals are extensively and secretly reviewed by authors' peers, in a very similar process to that for journal publications. I was slightly inaccurate above, in referring to editors rather than program managers and others involved in the funding agency decision process.
Due to the funding squeeze - which is significantly tighter today than in the past, with ~7% of grants funded by NIH rather than 30% - there is competition beyond normal competition for excellence, competition arising because there is not enough to go around. The current system of decision making - about both journal papers and grant proposals - would not function if the deliberations leading to decisions were not secret.
What others haven't brought up is revealing the content of peer reviews and private emails - probably those between the editorial board and the reviewers - would open up a huge door of legal and professional liability. Between equally good proposals, it is often the case that one must be rejected.
For example, say a $1 million proposal from a researcher at Stanford University is rejected. Stanford charges ~60% overhead, so the university loses up to $600,000. Then, on the basis of correspondence between the editors and reviewers (which constitute the peer review that BP wants to be public) showing the proposal to be equal to one that was not rejected, the university sues. Doesn't sound very far-fetched to me.
I assume you are alluding to the greater male variability hypothesis, which has been extensively debunked by research in many countries.
Here is an excellent paper which fairly treats that and other gender-differences hypothesis (full text PDF).
How is a natural gas furnace worse for the environment than burning wood? The latter creates a large amount of particulate pollution, in addition to nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons of various weights and carbon monoxide. Here, in the Bay Area, a full third of winter particulates comes from wood fires in homes.
Open access journals like BioMed Central, PLoS, Oxford's OA journals, etc. all prove a OA business model can be successful (and profitable) if structured well.
Also by charging authors ~$1k per publication. But keep in mind that subscription fee journals typically charge hundreds of dollars for color and extra pages (e.g. most IEEE Transactions journals charges $300 per page over 8).
Go back to Roman numerals, see how you like that.
Sorry, I was imprecise. I meant that I had no further recourse without initiating legal action. The YouTube website itself just says "too bad," essentially.
I had a satirical video on YouTube which was targeted by ContentID. After I contested (because it is satire), some of the copyright holders removed their claims, but one reinstated them (one based in Germany, where I believe there is no "fair use").
At that point it was I who had no further recourse, not them. I was under the impression that YouTube's policies were basically biased towards presumed copyright holders. What makes this situation different? Have you already confirmed / reinstated your claims using their system?
You would just show them your altered, "in-system" card. It would clear their reader because it cleared the fare gate. This would be with an unregistered Clipper card, naturally.