No. EU directives are clear: no additional restrictions may be imposed on EU citizens over those already imposed on the local population. Period.
Now, local immigration services may try be obstructionist and e.g. insist an EU citizen gets a work permit to work in the Netherlands (happened to a UK friend of mine), but they have zero authority to enforce that ruling.
For one, anecdotes do not constitute proof. For another, you can't read, can you? And finally, you have nothing to refute Eric Flint's numbers? Not showing any loss, but instead profit, despite offering his work free for download. He gives numbers, all you give is unsubstantiated anecdote. I know who I should believe.
[...] [people] are not going to pay for [songs] if they are made available for free
Prove it. This statement is built on the assumption that people that pick the free download would have bought the product anyway. This assumption is not proven.
In fact, with e-books there is a strong indication that free downloads actually increase sales.
Excuse me? The resignation of Con Kolivas has nothing to do with corporate interests, but everything with Con being a loose cannon who doesn't play nice, and instead of backing up his arguments with reproducible benchmarks sends Slashdot-recruited fanbois to LKML to try and get his patches into the kernel.
[...] as long as the auditors sign off on it and the procedures look good and reasonable steps were taken to see they were followed, the CEO is still off the hook. It just now takes more paperwork to make them as invincible as before.
Paperwork, it must be admitted, the creation of which has no impact on the CEO at all. Basically, all SOx does is give the CEO the privilege of commanding his underlings to create the rope to hang themselves with themselves.
I think you're misreading Sarbanes-Oxley. It does not make the CEO responsible per se. It makes the CEO responsible unless he can point out that there were procedures in place to combat illegal behaviour, and that it was wilful disregard of those procedures that led to said behaviour. If he can make that stick (and SOx is written to give him the powers to do so), it is just another peon who gets the axe.
If that description sounds like SOx is open to abuse and not more than symbolic legislation, you've got it exactly right.
This mirrors my experience as a motorcyclist. Most professional drivers (excepting most delivery vans) are very good at watching the road and trying to anticipate the behaviour of other traffic participants. I've gotten nothing but polite behaviour from trucks, for example.
OTOH, in the Netherlands a primary cause of fatal accidents with bicycles is trucks hitting them while the cyclist is in their blind spot. There is pressure to come up with all sorts of technological measures to decrease trucks' blind spots, but IMO it is primarily the cyclists' fault; they should just learn to stay out of blind spots.
Yes, why wouldn't people get the heck out of the big city in Japan? The big city that is built on the only place where you can actually build cities in Japan: it's almost non-existent coastal plain?
Look, half a minute with a geographical map, or a couple of minutes on Google and Wikipedia, or plain simply a bit of education that covers the world beyond your parochial immediate neighbourhood, and the answer is obvious: Japan is basically a mountain ridge sticking out of the Pacific. All its prime spots for human habitation are covered in sprawling cities, because there is nowhere else to go.
The earth is not 6000 years old. The Holocaust did happen. The current US health reform does not include death panels. These are verifiable facts. Anyone claiming anything different is claiming objective reality does not exist. This is the very definition of delusional.
Everyone who professes belief in young-earth creationism, denies the Holocaust, or tries to say that Obama wants to implement death panels is just plain delusional. That's as true as saying the sun rises in the east.
In my reckoning, if someone is willing to invest so much energy and expense in promoting a position, it's worth at least giving a hearing
Are you really suggesting that we should give, as an example, a serious hearing to creationists and Holocaust deniers?
I'm very sorry, but some opinions are so worthless that the second it is clear someone is going to go on about them should be followed with: "I'm not going to listen to you". And I suggest the world would be a better place if journalists followed that rule.
the only thing that has every stopped [terrorism] is repression.
History disagrees. The Troubles mostly stopped when the British government started seriously negotiating with Northern Irish Republicans. The PLO stopped using terrorism when Israel sat down to negotiate.
Terrorists do what they do for a reason. That reason can usually be addressed by politics. There will always be a hardcore that doesn't think the political solution proposed is sufficient (witness IRA splinter groups and Hamas in Israel), but political action can kill most of the support for them. One thing that history did teach us, is that repression is definitely not the political action that works, unless you're prepared for some unacceptable politics (aka, genocide) on the non-terrorist side.
In the eyes of morons and cranks, yes. You know what? I don't care about your opinion of me. But the facts and established practices are verifiably on my side, so I don't have to care. I just enjoy sniping at idiots.
Again, when a claim on a scientific subject is backed by peer review, and a counterclaim is not, I don't need to review the content of the papers myself to know that claim 1 starts with a credibility headstart.
Honestly, how hard can it be? Why do people keep insisting that the peer review doesn't matter? Because they want their favourite cranks to be right? Sucks to be you, because it just doesn't work that way.
We find no such thing. You are dishonestly stating things that are not in that linked e-mail at all. Dr. Jones points out that the problems in the Siberian data set are known and published about, and yet people keep submitting papers about it without referring to the existing literature. That's sloppy research, and he is right to recommend a rejection as a peer reviewer.
But don't take my word for it, here's the full text:
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> Subject: Re: have you seen this? Date: Wed Mar 31 09:09:04 2004
Mike, Yes, but not had a chance to read it yet. Too much else going on. Ed has a paper reworking Esper et al. as you'll know. If you're going to Tucson, I suggest you talk to Keith about it then - don't email him as he's too busy preparing to go and marking essays. Jan is in one of our EU projects. Seems that Keith thinks Jan is reinventing a lot of Keith's work, renamed the RCS method and much more. Jan doesn't always take in what is in the literature even though he purports to read it. He's now looking at homogenization techniques for temperature to check the Siberian temperature data. We keep telling him the decline is also in N. Europe, N. America (where we use all the recently homogenized Canadian data). The decline may be slightly larger in Siberia, but it is elsewhere as well. Also Siberia is one of the worst places to look at homogeneity, as the stations aren't that close together (as they are in Fennoscandia and most of Canada) and also the temperature varies an awful lot from year to year. Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL. Cheers Phil Cheers Phil At 11:20 30/03/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Phil, Have you seen this piece of crap by Esper? The JGR paper, which Scott is supposed to be finalizing, demonstrates quite convincingly that the greater amplitude of Esper et al is due to spatial and seasonal sampling, mike
Gosh. Another stupid idiot. When given two claims, one backed by a peer reviewed article, and one not, saying that the unbacked claim is less credible is the scientific way. You may not like it, but the world won't start functioning differently if you stick your fingers in your ears and go 'LALALALAAA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!'.
Typical denialist bullshit. Cherry pick a few sentences out of a whole email to make a scientist look bad. But the linked e-mail shows exactly why Dr. Jones is planning on going to town on his peer review: people are stating things about the Siberian data that the CRU has already accounted for in published research.
Drivers should have a stable interface specification. Other applications should be kept from interfering by the OS. If these are your examples, then you must agree that Windows is a piece of shit OS.
Slashdot Mirror
No. EU directives are clear: no additional restrictions may be imposed on EU citizens over those already imposed on the local population. Period.
Now, local immigration services may try be obstructionist and e.g. insist an EU citizen gets a work permit to work in the Netherlands (happened to a UK friend of mine), but they have zero authority to enforce that ruling.
Mart
So you've just admitted you're just spouting uninformed dogma. Thank you for making that clear, I will no longer waste my time with you.
Mart
For one, anecdotes do not constitute proof. For another, you can't read, can you? And finally, you have nothing to refute Eric Flint's numbers? Not showing any loss, but instead profit, despite offering his work free for download. He gives numbers, all you give is unsubstantiated anecdote. I know who I should believe.
Mart
Prove it. This statement is built on the assumption that people that pick the free download would have bought the product anyway. This assumption is not proven.
In fact, with e-books there is a strong indication that free downloads actually increase sales.
Mart
Excuse me? The resignation of Con Kolivas has nothing to do with corporate interests, but everything with Con being a loose cannon who doesn't play nice, and instead of backing up his arguments with reproducible benchmarks sends Slashdot-recruited fanbois to LKML to try and get his patches into the kernel.
Mart
Paperwork, it must be admitted, the creation of which has no impact on the CEO at all. Basically, all SOx does is give the CEO the privilege of commanding his underlings to create the rope to hang themselves with themselves.
Mart
I think you're misreading Sarbanes-Oxley. It does not make the CEO responsible per se. It makes the CEO responsible unless he can point out that there were procedures in place to combat illegal behaviour, and that it was wilful disregard of those procedures that led to said behaviour. If he can make that stick (and SOx is written to give him the powers to do so), it is just another peon who gets the axe.
If that description sounds like SOx is open to abuse and not more than symbolic legislation, you've got it exactly right.
Mart
Have you ever listened to what your Great Leader Ballmer has said about the competition?
What is it with these fucking pro-MS concern trolls on Slashdot?
Mart
This mirrors my experience as a motorcyclist. Most professional drivers (excepting most delivery vans) are very good at watching the road and trying to anticipate the behaviour of other traffic participants. I've gotten nothing but polite behaviour from trucks, for example.
OTOH, in the Netherlands a primary cause of fatal accidents with bicycles is trucks hitting them while the cyclist is in their blind spot. There is pressure to come up with all sorts of technological measures to decrease trucks' blind spots, but IMO it is primarily the cyclists' fault; they should just learn to stay out of blind spots.
Mart
Yes, why wouldn't people get the heck out of the big city in Japan? The big city that is built on the only place where you can actually build cities in Japan: it's almost non-existent coastal plain?
Look, half a minute with a geographical map, or a couple of minutes on Google and Wikipedia, or plain simply a bit of education that covers the world beyond your parochial immediate neighbourhood, and the answer is obvious: Japan is basically a mountain ridge sticking out of the Pacific. All its prime spots for human habitation are covered in sprawling cities, because there is nowhere else to go.
Mart
I am afraid you are a moron.
The earth is not 6000 years old. The Holocaust did happen. The current US health reform does not include death panels. These are verifiable facts. Anyone claiming anything different is claiming objective reality does not exist. This is the very definition of delusional.
Mart
No, because those are verifiable facts.
What are you, stupid?
Mart
Everyone who professes belief in young-earth creationism, denies the Holocaust, or tries to say that Obama wants to implement death panels is just plain delusional. That's as true as saying the sun rises in the east.
Mart
I don't havev to try and understand why people believe these things. They're delusional, and that's the end of it.
Mart
Are you really suggesting that we should give, as an example, a serious hearing to creationists and Holocaust deniers?
I'm very sorry, but some opinions are so worthless that the second it is clear someone is going to go on about them should be followed with: "I'm not going to listen to you". And I suggest the world would be a better place if journalists followed that rule.
Mart
A point made, in fact, by that very Karl Marx (together with Engels) in the Communist Manifesto.
Mart
History disagrees. The Troubles mostly stopped when the British government started seriously negotiating with Northern Irish Republicans. The PLO stopped using terrorism when Israel sat down to negotiate.
Terrorists do what they do for a reason. That reason can usually be addressed by politics. There will always be a hardcore that doesn't think the political solution proposed is sufficient (witness IRA splinter groups and Hamas in Israel), but political action can kill most of the support for them. One thing that history did teach us, is that repression is definitely not the political action that works, unless you're prepared for some unacceptable politics (aka, genocide) on the non-terrorist side.
Mart
Control-Shift-W
Doesn't seem to enrage me.
Mart
In the eyes of morons and cranks, yes. You know what? I don't care about your opinion of me. But the facts and established practices are verifiably on my side, so I don't have to care. I just enjoy sniping at idiots.
Mart
Again, when a claim on a scientific subject is backed by peer review, and a counterclaim is not, I don't need to review the content of the papers myself to know that claim 1 starts with a credibility headstart.
Honestly, how hard can it be? Why do people keep insisting that the peer review doesn't matter? Because they want their favourite cranks to be right? Sucks to be you, because it just doesn't work that way.
Mart
We find no such thing. You are dishonestly stating things that are not in that linked e-mail at all. Dr. Jones points out that the problems in the Siberian data set are known and published about, and yet people keep submitting papers about it without referring to the existing literature. That's sloppy research, and he is right to recommend a rejection as a peer reviewer.
But don't take my word for it, here's the full text:
Mart
Gosh. Another stupid idiot. When given two claims, one backed by a peer reviewed article, and one not, saying that the unbacked claim is less credible is the scientific way. You may not like it, but the world won't start functioning differently if you stick your fingers in your ears and go 'LALALALAAA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!'.
Moron.
Mart
In discussing a scientific subject, questioning an authors credability (sic) by means of peer reviewed articles, is exactly what science is.
Are you really that stupid, or are you just trolling?
Mart
Typical denialist bullshit. Cherry pick a few sentences out of a whole email to make a scientist look bad. But the linked e-mail shows exactly why Dr. Jones is planning on going to town on his peer review: people are stating things about the Siberian data that the CRU has already accounted for in published research.
Mart
Drivers should have a stable interface specification. Other applications should be kept from interfering by the OS. If these are your examples, then you must agree that Windows is a piece of shit OS.
Mart