Electronic refers to a subset of electric. I.e., you can have an electric vacuum that contains no electronics. There are many electricians who know nothing about electronics and wont work on them.
The thing that surprises me the most is that no teachers have sued over this. I would imagine that atleast one of the thousands of teachers being required to lead their classes in the Pledge of Allegiance would be athiest/polythiest/agnostic/etc.
What I want to know is why they went to Boeing for the grant. I would imagine that Radio Shack would have given them the parts for free just for the publicity it generates.
I read somewhere recently that MS has upwards of $30 billion in cash reserves. Losing %60 of that would hurt, but would do nothing to change their behavior. Besides, they would never pay it out in a lump sum anyway. They would work something to pay it out over 5-10 years minimum. In the end, you would need something on the order of the tobacco settlement to really hurt MS financially and I doubt that will ever happen.
What is needed is a repository that can provide a guarantee of persistence. This would need to be maintained at multiple sites with disaster recovery etc.
I believe they do this for math, physics, cs and nonlinear science at xxx.lanl.gov. Its funded by the government so who knows how long it will last, but supposedly it was created as a permanent storage for academic papers in these fields.
That is why the people in the article have quit JML and started JMLR. There, you can view every paper for free, the turn around time from submittal to publication is potentially less than that of a conference since all papers are posted on the web site immediately after reviewers give the OK and you dont need to get any copy rights from publishers(just the authors of the paper) since the author retains the copyrights.
I think that you and the original poster are misinterpreting what is going on. What the letter suggests is not to remove the peer review process, but to remove the process of printing the journal and mailing it to people. For instance, would you prefer to pay money for the IEEE journals you now get in hard copy form, or pay nothing and simply download all the articles off of a web site and print them yourself? The same articles, published by the same people and reviewed by the same reviewers. Nothing about the process changes except the distribution medium and who holds the copyright.
In fact, with the new journal the reviewers are moving to(JMLR) you can still pay money for a hard copy if you prefer. The idea is that you dont have to pay any money if you dont want to, and authors dont lose the copyrights if they dont want to.
The peer reviewers in this article who "quit" haven't said they want to stop reviewing or do away with peer review...
In fact, if you compare the editorial board of JMLR with the people that resigned from JML, you will see that many of them are now just reviewing for the new free online journal.
The US is demanding that any page served from a US server... Exactly. That is why they have the jurisdiction over this matter. US politicians have jurisdiction over US citizens, US corporations, US everything. The French prohibit any French server from selling Nazi stuff to anyone, not just French citizens. In essence, the French have already done what the US politicians want to do. I doubt American politicans will go as far as the French though and filter incomming foreign originating material. But that is only due to technical reasons and not political reasons.
The US politicians are not trying to change domestic policies in other countries. They are simply setting the ground rules for doing business with the US. Just like France did with Yahoo. There is nothing wrong with this. In an international community, you must respect the laws of the locals or do business elsewhere.
Most people, including policy makers, in the US are not concerned with children seeing nude bodies. What most people in the US are concerned about is the glamorization of sex. This is evidenced by the fact that in many states it is not illegal to be nude in public, unless you are trying to arouse yourself or someone else.
Sex is a wonderful act, but has many serious side effects (pregnancy, STDs, etc). The fear is that children, irrational as they tend to be, will not protect themselves from these side effects. This fear is promoted by the spread of HIV and other STDs as well as the fact that there are roughly 1.5 million abortions every year. If people were responsible when having sex, there would be virtually no STDs and no need to have so many abortions.
Pornography is essentially the glamorization of sex. Since the consequences of sex are not glamorous, they are not addressed in porn. When was the last time you heard of a porn flick ending with everyone dying of AIDS or all the women getting pregnant. Until the porn industry decides to show the consequences of sex, it should be regulated to give parents the time to teach their children of its consequences as well as give children the chance to become more rational and less impulsive with their decisions.
Because guns might affect schools which might affect intelligence which might at some future date affect interstate commerce.
That is not why the federal government has control over school systems. It is because they give alot of money (were talking hundreds of billions of dollars) to the states for use in their schools. The states are more than happy to take the money and therefore are more than willing to do what the feds tell them to do. When congress allocates the money for education, they simply put qualifications on its use, such as requiring the school to be gun free. Yes, congress can force states to do things via the commerce clause, but most of the time they just use bribery (federal highway funds, school funds, etc).
That doesnt take into account the potential to link several satellites together to get a much larger resolution. We already do that with many ground based telescopes such as the Very Large Array in New Mexico and the Very Large Telescope being built in Chile. Whats to stop the military from doing the same with orbital telescopes?
Well, seeing as that it was known to the public that the launch was taking place, I would imagine that foreign defense departments would know about it ahead of time. That and they probably have satelites monitoring activity at the launch pad to make sure they know whats being launched even if the public doesnt.
Im not familiar with Killustrator/Kontour, could you provide a reference? IIRC the only controls over court costs are to limit the damages the court can award for a crime, not for the amount a lawyer can charge for their services.
No, I was mentioning a worst case scenario to illustrate potential abuse of the system. In an ideal case this would be settled out of court.
Regardless though, lawyers are usually highered before a plea is made and are retained through sentencing. This is plenty of time for a greedy lawyer to rack up a significant amount of money in excessive fees regardless of whether or not you plead guilty. Since the plaintif knows they can win this one, they would have no problems agreeing to the large fees by their attorneys. This is because they know that they wont have to pay anything in the end.
In the case of the Rodney King and Simpson trails, the prosecutors were the government. Do you suggest that we raise taxes to pay the government lawyers the same as that of private lawyers or do you think that there should be a cap on the amount that a person can spend on legal fees?
That will only be fair if there is some control over the court costs. The loser should only have to pay for reasonable court costs. If I hit my rich neighbor, I shouldnt be required to pay for the 30 lawyers he hired to make sure that I go to jail. I know I'm using a worst case scenario to make my point, but a law like the one you mention could easily violate the eighth amendment if implemented in the US without some kind of oversight. Perhaps only requiring the plaintif to pay both costs when the defendant is found not guilty, or only requiring the the losing side to pay for a cost equivalent to that of a court appointed attorney. Are there any exceptions like these in the European laws you refer to?
No, you cant presume it was his decision. You can presume that it is his responsibility though. The president does not make all the decisions of the administration, but he is responsible for all the decisions of the administration. There is a fine line between the two concepts. You can blame him for not correcting the error of the justice department, but you cannot assume that anyone in the justice department asked him for his opinion or if they ever did that he told them what to do.
IIRC there was some kind of study on this showing that 90% of the features in Office were used only about 5% of the time or by only 5% of the people using Office or something like that. Then again, I cant think of where I heard this so if anyone else remembers hearing about this please speak up.
And to add to that, it's only a legal precedant in Australia. Legal precedant is only valid within the jurisdiction of the court that makes the ruling. In this case, Australia. The other 190 countries will have to set their own legal precedants because they have different laws. It's the same reason that you can't use legal precedant from state courts in Oregon while arguing a case in state courts in California. If Australia wants to enforce this precedant against people and businesses with no presence in Australia, they will have to amend their extradition treaties with the countries where these people and businesses do have a presence to include these types of cases, bring them to Australia and prosecute them there. Until I see extradition treaties changing, Im going to laugh at the futility of the Australian court system making this kind of ruling.
I believe that SCOTUS has jurisdiction over both cases at least from the American point of view. Article III section 2 of the constitution specifically gives it this power. Unless Dow Jones has holdings in Australia, they can essentially ignore the case until SCOTUS rules one way or the other. Same with DVD-CCA. Its quite obvious that the California courts never read the constitution.
The relevant portion of the Constitution:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Slashdot Mirror
Electronic refers to a subset of electric. I.e., you can have an electric vacuum that contains no electronics. There are many electricians who know nothing about electronics and wont work on them.
The thing that surprises me the most is that no teachers have sued over this. I would imagine that atleast one of the thousands of teachers being required to lead their classes in the Pledge of Allegiance would be athiest/polythiest/agnostic/etc.
What I want to know is why they went to Boeing for the grant. I would imagine that Radio Shack would have given them the parts for free just for the publicity it generates.
That way, MS will see its cash reserves depleted
I read somewhere recently that MS has upwards of $30 billion in cash reserves. Losing %60 of that would hurt, but would do nothing to change their behavior. Besides, they would never pay it out in a lump sum anyway. They would work something to pay it out over 5-10 years minimum. In the end, you would need something on the order of the tobacco settlement to really hurt MS financially and I doubt that will ever happen.
What is needed is a repository that can provide a guarantee of persistence. This would need to be maintained at multiple sites with disaster recovery etc.
I believe they do this for math, physics, cs and nonlinear science at xxx.lanl.gov. Its funded by the government so who knows how long it will last, but supposedly it was created as a permanent storage for academic papers in these fields.
That is why the people in the article have quit JML and started JMLR. There, you can view every paper for free, the turn around time from submittal to publication is potentially less than that of a conference since all papers are posted on the web site immediately after reviewers give the OK and you dont need to get any copy rights from publishers(just the authors of the paper) since the author retains the copyrights.
I think that you and the original poster are misinterpreting what is going on. What the letter suggests is not to remove the peer review process, but to remove the process of printing the journal and mailing it to people. For instance, would you prefer to pay money for the IEEE journals you now get in hard copy form, or pay nothing and simply download all the articles off of a web site and print them yourself? The same articles, published by the same people and reviewed by the same reviewers. Nothing about the process changes except the distribution medium and who holds the copyright.
In fact, with the new journal the reviewers are moving to(JMLR) you can still pay money for a hard copy if you prefer. The idea is that you dont have to pay any money if you dont want to, and authors dont lose the copyrights if they dont want to.
The peer reviewers in this article who "quit" haven't said they want to stop reviewing or do away with peer review...
In fact, if you compare the editorial board of JMLR with the people that resigned from JML, you will see that many of them are now just reviewing for the new free online journal.
The US is demanding that any page served from a US server...
Exactly. That is why they have the jurisdiction over this matter. US politicians have jurisdiction over US citizens, US corporations, US everything. The French prohibit any French server from selling Nazi stuff to anyone, not just French citizens. In essence, the French have already done what the US politicians want to do. I doubt American politicans will go as far as the French though and filter incomming foreign originating material. But that is only due to technical reasons and not political reasons.
The US politicians are not trying to change domestic policies in other countries. They are simply setting the ground rules for doing business with the US. Just like France did with Yahoo. There is nothing wrong with this. In an international community, you must respect the laws of the locals or do business elsewhere.
Most people, including policy makers, in the US are not concerned with children seeing nude bodies. What most people in the US are concerned about is the glamorization of sex. This is evidenced by the fact that in many states it is not illegal to be nude in public, unless you are trying to arouse yourself or someone else.
Sex is a wonderful act, but has many serious side effects (pregnancy, STDs, etc). The fear is that children, irrational as they tend to be, will not protect themselves from these side effects. This fear is promoted by the spread of HIV and other STDs as well as the fact that there are roughly 1.5 million abortions every year. If people were responsible when having sex, there would be virtually no STDs and no need to have so many abortions.
Pornography is essentially the glamorization of sex. Since the consequences of sex are not glamorous, they are not addressed in porn. When was the last time you heard of a porn flick ending with everyone dying of AIDS or all the women getting pregnant. Until the porn industry decides to show the consequences of sex, it should be regulated to give parents the time to teach their children of its consequences as well as give children the chance to become more rational and less impulsive with their decisions.
Because guns might affect schools which might affect intelligence which might at some future date affect interstate commerce.
That is not why the federal government has control over school systems. It is because they give alot of money (were talking hundreds of billions of dollars) to the states for use in their schools. The states are more than happy to take the money and therefore are more than willing to do what the feds tell them to do. When congress allocates the money for education, they simply put qualifications on its use, such as requiring the school to be gun free. Yes, congress can force states to do things via the commerce clause, but most of the time they just use bribery (federal highway funds, school funds, etc).
That doesnt take into account the potential to link several satellites together to get a much larger resolution. We already do that with many ground based telescopes such as the Very Large Array in New Mexico and the Very Large Telescope being built in Chile. Whats to stop the military from doing the same with orbital telescopes?
Dont forget the unmanned spy planes they have. By flying at an altitude much lower than standard earth orbits, they can get a much better resolution.
Well, seeing as that it was known to the public that the launch was taking place, I would imagine that foreign defense departments would know about it ahead of time. That and they probably have satelites monitoring activity at the launch pad to make sure they know whats being launched even if the public doesnt.
The 90% chance of poor weather was just for this launch only. It did not reflect the weather conditions for future launches.
That and:
Worldwide scalability. Logically there should be only one system...
Im not familiar with Killustrator/Kontour, could you provide a reference? IIRC the only controls over court costs are to limit the damages the court can award for a crime, not for the amount a lawyer can charge for their services.
No, I was mentioning a worst case scenario to illustrate potential abuse of the system. In an ideal case this would be settled out of court.
Regardless though, lawyers are usually highered before a plea is made and are retained through sentencing. This is plenty of time for a greedy lawyer to rack up a significant amount of money in excessive fees regardless of whether or not you plead guilty. Since the plaintif knows they can win this one, they would have no problems agreeing to the large fees by their attorneys. This is because they know that they wont have to pay anything in the end.
In the case of the Rodney King and Simpson trails, the prosecutors were the government. Do you suggest that we raise taxes to pay the government lawyers the same as that of private lawyers or do you think that there should be a cap on the amount that a person can spend on legal fees?
That will only be fair if there is some control over the court costs. The loser should only have to pay for reasonable court costs. If I hit my rich neighbor, I shouldnt be required to pay for the 30 lawyers he hired to make sure that I go to jail. I know I'm using a worst case scenario to make my point, but a law like the one you mention could easily violate the eighth amendment if implemented in the US without some kind of oversight. Perhaps only requiring the plaintif to pay both costs when the defendant is found not guilty, or only requiring the the losing side to pay for a cost equivalent to that of a court appointed attorney. Are there any exceptions like these in the European laws you refer to?
No, you cant presume it was his decision. You can presume that it is his responsibility though. The president does not make all the decisions of the administration, but he is responsible for all the decisions of the administration. There is a fine line between the two concepts. You can blame him for not correcting the error of the justice department, but you cannot assume that anyone in the justice department asked him for his opinion or if they ever did that he told them what to do.
IIRC there was some kind of study on this showing that 90% of the features in Office were used only about 5% of the time or by only 5% of the people using Office or something like that. Then again, I cant think of where I heard this so if anyone else remembers hearing about this please speak up.
And to add to that, it's only a legal precedant in Australia. Legal precedant is only valid within the jurisdiction of the court that makes the ruling. In this case, Australia. The other 190 countries will have to set their own legal precedants because they have different laws. It's the same reason that you can't use legal precedant from state courts in Oregon while arguing a case in state courts in California. If Australia wants to enforce this precedant against people and businesses with no presence in Australia, they will have to amend their extradition treaties with the countries where these people and businesses do have a presence to include these types of cases, bring them to Australia and prosecute them there. Until I see extradition treaties changing, Im going to laugh at the futility of the Australian court system making this kind of ruling.
I believe that SCOTUS has jurisdiction over both cases at least from the American point of view. Article III section 2 of the constitution specifically gives it this power. Unless Dow Jones has holdings in Australia, they can essentially ignore the case until SCOTUS rules one way or the other. Same with DVD-CCA. Its quite obvious that the California courts never read the constitution.
The relevant portion of the Constitution:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.