For instance, I couldn't get the neutrino beam working and while scanning for life forms it identified my cat as silicone based! Neat, but needs some work.
Even if female bosses tend to be more democratic that doesn't mean that YOUR particular female boss is. When are we going to stop judging people by their gender, race or ethnicity and start judging them by the job they do?
I was quite skeptical but you were totally right about the NASA data and programs being available. They are a bit of a mess but they are there. I stand corrected
I shouldn't have used climate science as an example as that just got the political factions out warring. My point was really just that I was happy to see that although the original topic is likely psuedo-science it was published in such a way as to be reproducible (the study, not necessarily the result) and you don't see that in a lot of things labeled real science.
The fact that they didn't replicate the original result once doesn't invalidate it. It could be that the retest was a "statistical fluke" in not being able to validate it.
In any case, although on a dubious subject the original study was exemplary science in that all the data and the process, including the source code for the original program, were made publicly available so anyone could see exactly what went on how how they might replicate it. Transparent science is good science.
Compare this to something like climate science where both the data and the models are private. Kind of scary when a pseudo-science is practicing better science that "real" science.
I guess you don't remember Jimmy Carter negotiating a treaty with North Korea back in 1994 almost exactly along the lines you state. Or them cheating on it by continuing to develop nuclear weapons and being called on it even before Bush was elected and well before the Axis of Evil speech.
Good points. I wish I had a moderator point left to give you. While this study's results should be taken with a grain of salt it's an innovative idea of how to better quantify side effects and better information for consumers.
The attorney had a great analogy. Imagine if to own your house you not only had to live in it but "vigorously enforce" that it's your house. Moreover, the courts have consistently ruled that if you let anyone use any part of your yard without extensive oversight you lose ownership. There are even documented cases where people lost their house for knowingly letting one kindergartner cross his yard to get to school without calling the police.
You may very much not like being considered the curmudgeonly old man but not only will you have the cops on speed dial you'll build a stout wall around your property and have poorly fed lions roaming it looking for prey. You'll also ignore all the local renters who don't have this problem when they tell you are just being mean or when they suggest "solutions" that have been shot down by the courts in the past.
They are forced to either do business with these people or sue them
Exactly, but they aren't offering the first alternative.
I'm not in that exact situation but in a somewhat similar one and I can assure you that we bear no malice to those using our trademarks and really would rather look the other way but know we can't because failure to "vigorously enforce" your trademark on even a single occasion can get your trademark invalidated.
We do license our trademark and I'm heavily involved in that process. I asked the attorney who heads this process if we caught someone using our trademark without permission would we consider letting them license it? His off-the-cuff opinion was that doing so except in bizarre circumstances would be likely seen by the courts as not "vigorously enforcing" our trademark.
Perhaps I'm projecting in this case, but if we had a similar situation we'd feel really bad but feel the laws forced us to sue. And I can say with authority that the legal rulings saying that trademarks must be "vigorously enforced" are the driving force behind such decisions. Oh, and I work for a non-profit that is neither evil nor greedy. But the idiotic way trademarks are handled legally force us to do things we'd rather not do.
IANAL but my understanding is that licensing without significant oversight creates a large risk of courts determining that the trademark was "abandoned".
But in any case there is a "damn them for making us do this excuse". They are forced to either do business with these people or sue them. They can not ignore the issue without potentially suffering large legal consequences.
The problem is more complicated than that. Companies that don't pursue any infringement they find out about vigorously often end up losing their trademark. This leads to these silly types of cases where the company doesn't really care that some small pub somewhere is using its trademark but if they don't come down hard on them the fact that they knew about it and didn't vigorously defend their trademark could cause them to lose a trademark decision against someone they do care about.
Don't blame the company, blame the law that forces companies to act this way or risk losing their trademarks.
I'm surprised that so many people are taking NSA's "neither confirm nor deny" as proof of Google's guilt. Ask them if they had a ham sandwich for lunch and they'll give you that response. It is the STANDARD response and means absolutely nothing.
It wouldn't surprise me a bit if they were or were not working with the NSA but the NSA's statement gives no information as to wether they are or not.
Exactly. I was considering buy a Volt but not only are they hideously expensive but the resale value is almost nil because the batteries need to be fully replaced after 10 years and that costs $20,000.
The lawyers aren't being egregious, they are just making people aware of ongoing litigation and court orders that might land them in the middle of something they don't want to be in the middle of if they publish. I don't think it's extortion as they don't claim they will sue if the study is published, they just warn the publication there's an ongoing issue and an injunction. Moreover, it makes it clear that it's only a 90 day restriction.
Without reading the lawsuit I can't judge at all if the mining industry is being nasty and litigious to the authors or if they have a valid claim but either way warning publications to talk to counsel seems like a good idea.
Back in the 90's Chrysler produced the Eagle which was the a re-branded Mitsubishi Mirage. It was literally off the same assembly line with some branded one and some the other.
Consumer reports ranked the Eagle as unreliable with many defects and the Mirage as highly reliable with few defects.
Back then the general feeling was that Asian cars were better quality but based on this I always wondered how much was reality and how much unconscious bias.
It is very likely faked. It was not gotten through the same channel as the other documents and there are many inconsistencies which make it of doubtful authenticity including metadata: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/notes-on-the-fake-heartland-document/
That said, it serves Heartland right after the fuss they made over Climategate.
It's not going anywhere. If bio-fuels do become economical the billions or trillions of barrels of petroleum that's left will be used for synthesis instead of for running cars and the like.
by implying that drug errors are causing 50,000 to 100,00 deaths a year when, in fact, drug issues are a very small portion preventable adverse events (PAE). Things like falls and catheter infections are far more common. The article mentions that drug allergies and cross drug reactions are already extremely low and unaffected by implementing e-prescription (probably because the computers in the pharmacy already alert to this). The only thing effected are illegible prescriptions.
I think e-prescriptions are a fine idea but this article is misleading as to how much benefit it would have in terms of lives saved.
The US federal debt is only 15 trillion dollars. 6 trillion would make a big difference.
Yes, our government would use such a windfall wisely and never just take the money and splurge on $500 hammers, payouts to contributors and pet projects./sarc
Other great civilizations have done this and it always leads to ruin.
A thousand years from now the text books (or ebooks or brain implants or whatever they have then) will all point to 2012 and the changing of the metal content of pennies as root cause of the fall of the USA. Having learned their lesson they'll have golden pennies with a bullion value of $5 and a nominal value of $.01. Utopia will be achieved.
I'd pick up a penny on the ground just like I often pick up any other trash, not for the monetary value but because it's litter. Non-biodegradable liter at that.
An old study (well, executive) showed that there was a world wide demand for "maybe 6" computers. This might all be true at current technology levels but technology will have changed an awful lot by 2024.
Your lottery payouts don't require you to scorch the earth beneath your feet.
Fracking is not scorching by any means. But the proper way to handle environmental issues isn't to stop all development, especially in a case like fracking where the evidence of environmental damage is hotly debated. Instead it's to hold the companies making the profit liable for any environmental damage. Unless you are one of those people who think mankind is evil the problem is how to improve human living standards while keeping the earth a fit home for future generations. We need energy to improve those living standards and bring people out of poverty. Alternative energy just isn't there yet and likely won't be until a major breakthrough occurs. Fracking is a much needed stop gap.
Saying we should stop fracking is essentially saying that a possible environmental problem, which can both be mitigated and reversed, is more important than people and more important than making sure we have the means to develop the long term sustainable energy sources that will ensure we won't have to continue using petroleum in the long term.
After awhile the only place you can build something is some place where they don't have authority.
China comes to mind as one of those places. It's not just the lower labor costs but the less painful regulation in China that makes jobs move from here to there. It's ironic that we have to go to a country known for authoritarianism and corruption in order to get the freedom needed to build things.
Slashdot Mirror
For instance, I couldn't get the neutrino beam working and while scanning for life forms it identified my cat as silicone based! Neat, but needs some work.
the change in my pocket move.
Even if female bosses tend to be more democratic that doesn't mean that YOUR particular female boss is. When are we going to stop judging people by their gender, race or ethnicity and start judging them by the job they do?
I was quite skeptical but you were totally right about the NASA data and programs being available. They are a bit of a mess but they are there. I stand corrected I shouldn't have used climate science as an example as that just got the political factions out warring. My point was really just that I was happy to see that although the original topic is likely psuedo-science it was published in such a way as to be reproducible (the study, not necessarily the result) and you don't see that in a lot of things labeled real science.
In any case, although on a dubious subject the original study was exemplary science in that all the data and the process, including the source code for the original program, were made publicly available so anyone could see exactly what went on how how they might replicate it. Transparent science is good science.
Compare this to something like climate science where both the data and the models are private. Kind of scary when a pseudo-science is practicing better science that "real" science.
I guess you don't remember Jimmy Carter negotiating a treaty with North Korea back in 1994 almost exactly along the lines you state. Or them cheating on it by continuing to develop nuclear weapons and being called on it even before Bush was elected and well before the Axis of Evil speech.
Good points. I wish I had a moderator point left to give you. While this study's results should be taken with a grain of salt it's an innovative idea of how to better quantify side effects and better information for consumers.
The attorney had a great analogy. Imagine if to own your house you not only had to live in it but "vigorously enforce" that it's your house. Moreover, the courts have consistently ruled that if you let anyone use any part of your yard without extensive oversight you lose ownership. There are even documented cases where people lost their house for knowingly letting one kindergartner cross his yard to get to school without calling the police. You may very much not like being considered the curmudgeonly old man but not only will you have the cops on speed dial you'll build a stout wall around your property and have poorly fed lions roaming it looking for prey. You'll also ignore all the local renters who don't have this problem when they tell you are just being mean or when they suggest "solutions" that have been shot down by the courts in the past.
They are forced to either do business with these people or sue them
Exactly, but they aren't offering the first alternative.
I'm not in that exact situation but in a somewhat similar one and I can assure you that we bear no malice to those using our trademarks and really would rather look the other way but know we can't because failure to "vigorously enforce" your trademark on even a single occasion can get your trademark invalidated.
We do license our trademark and I'm heavily involved in that process. I asked the attorney who heads this process if we caught someone using our trademark without permission would we consider letting them license it? His off-the-cuff opinion was that doing so except in bizarre circumstances would be likely seen by the courts as not "vigorously enforcing" our trademark.
Perhaps I'm projecting in this case, but if we had a similar situation we'd feel really bad but feel the laws forced us to sue. And I can say with authority that the legal rulings saying that trademarks must be "vigorously enforced" are the driving force behind such decisions. Oh, and I work for a non-profit that is neither evil nor greedy. But the idiotic way trademarks are handled legally force us to do things we'd rather not do.
IANAL but my understanding is that licensing without significant oversight creates a large risk of courts determining that the trademark was "abandoned". But in any case there is a "damn them for making us do this excuse". They are forced to either do business with these people or sue them. They can not ignore the issue without potentially suffering large legal consequences.
The problem is more complicated than that. Companies that don't pursue any infringement they find out about vigorously often end up losing their trademark. This leads to these silly types of cases where the company doesn't really care that some small pub somewhere is using its trademark but if they don't come down hard on them the fact that they knew about it and didn't vigorously defend their trademark could cause them to lose a trademark decision against someone they do care about. Don't blame the company, blame the law that forces companies to act this way or risk losing their trademarks.
I'm surprised that so many people are taking NSA's "neither confirm nor deny" as proof of Google's guilt. Ask them if they had a ham sandwich for lunch and they'll give you that response. It is the STANDARD response and means absolutely nothing. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if they were or were not working with the NSA but the NSA's statement gives no information as to wether they are or not.
Exactly. I was considering buy a Volt but not only are they hideously expensive but the resale value is almost nil because the batteries need to be fully replaced after 10 years and that costs $20,000.
For anyone interested in a fairly unbiased, but lengthy, rundown on the history of the issue: Here
The lawyers aren't being egregious, they are just making people aware of ongoing litigation and court orders that might land them in the middle of something they don't want to be in the middle of if they publish. I don't think it's extortion as they don't claim they will sue if the study is published, they just warn the publication there's an ongoing issue and an injunction. Moreover, it makes it clear that it's only a 90 day restriction. Without reading the lawsuit I can't judge at all if the mining industry is being nasty and litigious to the authors or if they have a valid claim but either way warning publications to talk to counsel seems like a good idea.
Back then the general feeling was that Asian cars were better quality but based on this I always wondered how much was reality and how much unconscious bias.
It is very likely faked. It was not gotten through the same channel as the other documents and there are many inconsistencies which make it of doubtful authenticity including metadata: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/notes-on-the-fake-heartland-document/ That said, it serves Heartland right after the fuss they made over Climategate.
It's not going anywhere. If bio-fuels do become economical the billions or trillions of barrels of petroleum that's left will be used for synthesis instead of for running cars and the like.
by implying that drug errors are causing 50,000 to 100,00 deaths a year when, in fact, drug issues are a very small portion preventable adverse events (PAE). Things like falls and catheter infections are far more common. The article mentions that drug allergies and cross drug reactions are already extremely low and unaffected by implementing e-prescription (probably because the computers in the pharmacy already alert to this). The only thing effected are illegible prescriptions. I think e-prescriptions are a fine idea but this article is misleading as to how much benefit it would have in terms of lives saved.
The US federal debt is only 15 trillion dollars. 6 trillion would make a big difference.
Yes, our government would use such a windfall wisely and never just take the money and splurge on $500 hammers, payouts to contributors and pet projects. /sarc
Other great civilizations have done this and it always leads to ruin.
A thousand years from now the text books (or ebooks or brain implants or whatever they have then) will all point to 2012 and the changing of the metal content of pennies as root cause of the fall of the USA. Having learned their lesson they'll have golden pennies with a bullion value of $5 and a nominal value of $.01. Utopia will be achieved.
I'd pick up a penny on the ground just like I often pick up any other trash, not for the monetary value but because it's litter. Non-biodegradable liter at that.
An old study (well, executive) showed that there was a world wide demand for "maybe 6" computers. This might all be true at current technology levels but technology will have changed an awful lot by 2024.
Your lottery payouts don't require you to scorch the earth beneath your feet.
Fracking is not scorching by any means. But the proper way to handle environmental issues isn't to stop all development, especially in a case like fracking where the evidence of environmental damage is hotly debated. Instead it's to hold the companies making the profit liable for any environmental damage. Unless you are one of those people who think mankind is evil the problem is how to improve human living standards while keeping the earth a fit home for future generations. We need energy to improve those living standards and bring people out of poverty. Alternative energy just isn't there yet and likely won't be until a major breakthrough occurs. Fracking is a much needed stop gap. Saying we should stop fracking is essentially saying that a possible environmental problem, which can both be mitigated and reversed, is more important than people and more important than making sure we have the means to develop the long term sustainable energy sources that will ensure we won't have to continue using petroleum in the long term.
After awhile the only place you can build something is some place where they don't have authority.
China comes to mind as one of those places. It's not just the lower labor costs but the less painful regulation in China that makes jobs move from here to there. It's ironic that we have to go to a country known for authoritarianism and corruption in order to get the freedom needed to build things.