When my car breaks down, I don't talk to the guy that assembled it, the person that sold it to me, or even somebody that worked on the design. I talk to people who diagnose and fix cars.
When my nuclear reactor threatens to meltdown, I don't talk to the guy that installs it and walks away, I talk to somebody who runs and fixes reactors.
I never said bias was a good thing. I merely said that this was NOT a conflict of interest, and that lawyers who become judges cannot be expected to recuse themselves from every case that might be related to a matter they have worked in the past.
Also, a lawyer that has argued on one side of a case does NOT necessarily agree with their client.
As I said in my last post, are lawyers who used to work criminal law recuse themselves from any case involving civil liberties? It's an issue that comes up in every criminal lawyer's career sooner or later, and briefs will be written and positions advocated for, because that is the lawyer's job.
A large number of posters seem to be confusing bias (pre-determined unjustified favoritism towards one side or the other) with a Conflict of Interest. A Conflict of Interest is indeed a serious matter, and not disclosing them can lead to censure, having a caseload pulled, etc. However, a Conflict of Interest would require a *current* financial or personal incentive to rule for one side or the other. Merely having worked for one side or the other at some point in the past is NOT a Conflict of Interest. Judges are required to recuse themselves from individual cases they have personally worked, but she worked for the RIAA, and this particular suit was brought by the movie industry.
Judges, by necessity are lawyers, and they will have of course worked for clients. We don't ask judges who worked in criminal defense (or prosecutions) to recuse themselves on civil liberties cases, nor can we demand a corporate lawyer recuse themselves from a case that happened to involve the same industry as one or more of his/her clients.
This is speculation by ONE guy in an article in the Guardian, hardly a bastion of calm, rational, journalism. NONE of the other usual online sources have corroborated this at all.
An actual meltdown, with the core sitting on the floor of the building, would be front page news across the world, yet only this one article says this is the case.
I've been reading the NYT website for about as long as they have had one. I was reading it when the "website" consisted of a about a dozen image-map GIFs, each of which lead to eight or so stories.
In thanks for my sixteen years of freeloading, they have seen fit to grant me a free subscription! I was browsing the other day, and saw a Lincoln ad that also mentioned a free subscription. I clicked on the ad, figuring they'll want my e-mail address to send me some crap I'll simply delete (that's fine by me), or ask me to take a test drive in return for a subscription. (Not fine.) I'm so far out of Lincoln's target demographic, it's not even vaguely amusing...
Nope! Didn't have to do a thing other than click on "activate my free subscription." That was it. I'm sure they've sold my name to advertisers long ago, and GMail's spam folder takes care of that crap for me.
Gee, it's very nice that Symbian sold more than iOS or Android. If it wasn't making Nokia any money, or if Nokia couldn't eke out much of a profit on the phones that had it, the fact that they sold tons of phones with it loaded is not really relevant. We don't call Microsoft a titan of the PC Games industry because every computer comes with the hugely popular Solitaire and Minesweeper, and Nokia doesn't consider Symbian a success just because a lot of phones happen to have it loaded.
You say you don't have enough bandwidth for WiFi, but you do! Simply set up your WiFi network to only have a single destination. There is no rule that says "all WiFi access points must have full internet access." Students without a laptop could share another student's machine since even two or three people voting on one machine wouldn't take long.
Your plain-vanilla 10GbE switch does not have the flow-control bits required to make Ethernet lossless; without essentially lossless traffic, SCSI/FC perf goes in the dumpster. (0.03% packet loss == approx. 50% performance cut.)
In addition, there must be at least one switch in the VLAN that can provide FC services, such as zoning, address assignment, name services, etc.
I remember when I was in Boy Scouts, our leader told us to ignore any advice you might have heard about finding your way back to civilization if you are lost. If somebody, somewhere, has some remote clue as to where you might be (and thinks to have someone search), you are 100% better off not going anywhere. You probably are not as lost as you think, and are likely not far from where you were trying to be. The best way for somebody to find you is for you not to go even farther away.
Yes, by moving you may, by dumb luck, blunder back to where you need to be, but you are far more likely to simply end up getting more lost and hard to find.
And never, ever, abandon your car if you are lost. It contains all sorts of useful resources and is rather larger (and easier to find) than you wandering about the woods alone, passed out under a tree. It contains a conveniently large tank of liquid firestarter, and if you carry a couple of basic tools, a large amount of nice insulation in the form of your seat cushions and carpeting. In the heat, the underside is perfectly good shade (if a little cramped.)
Yes, you have just accurately described what the job description of the President's General Counsel does.
But none of that has anything to do whatsoever with the job of the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General's office argues on behalf of the government for the Supreme Court. They also approve (or disapprove) appeals by the DOJ when it has lost at the trial level. (I guess to act as a "sanity check" on appeals)
It is completely separate from the General Counsel in the Office of the President.
His specialty as a paid litigator is IP and Telecomm law. But most of his Supreme Court cases were on other topics, including those near and dear to Slashdot hearts like civil liberties.
This guy was NOT the RIAAs chief counsel, or responsible for their litigation strategy against individuals. He is a lawyer who has litigated a wide range of cases, most of which have absolutely bupkis to do with the entertainment industry. In fact, it is probably his broad expertise that led to him being appointed to the job. Yes, he was the litigator for the Grokster case, which he won. I don't see how this makes him a slave to the entertainment industry. Both sides of a case are entitled to be represented by counsel; in this case, he happened to be representing a side we, Slashdot, don't particularly like.
Just because a lawyer represents one side of a case does not mean they approve of everything (or even anything) a client does. Are we also going to claim the lawyer representing the maniac from AZ is on the side of "letting psychotic killers go free?"
He was not RIAA's in-house counsel, responsible for all of their litigation strategy. He is a "generic" litigator with a wide-ranging practice. He did happen to represent the RIAA in the Grokster case, which was not, in any way, related to the verifiably insane suits against individuals.
In case you hadn't noticed, when somebody bring a lawsuit, they are going to be represented by somebody, and that somebody does not necessarily agree with the positions they argue on behalf of their client.
I do have my doubt about these guys; they certainly do reek strongly of pump-n-dump (extraordinary claims, no patents, no papers... but the article never stated they were using chlorophyll. While I'm not a biologist, I can imagine the existence of a atmospheric carbon-fixing biological process that does not utilize chlorophyll.
Device makers have used funny fasteners for many years. I suspect that what Apple is trying to prevent was curious teenagers from idly popping the thing open, damaging it, and then filing a warranty claim. I sincerely doubt it was their intention to block all repairs forevermore; doing so obviously would be impossible.
Anybody that wants to open the thing should have no issues whatsoever getting the correct tool from whatever phone parts source they go to (just like you go there for your spudger, phone prying tool, etc.), and I'm equally sure that Apple knows this and does not care.
This is a stupid publicity ploy by iFixit to get you to buy your special screwdriver from them, instead of somebody else.
Jeopardy is not some retarded trivia show like "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire." Many of the questions involve puns, wordplay, rhymes, etc. that cannot be answered with a Google search.
If you click in too early, your clicker is disabled for a certain span of time because of your "false start". This keeps somebody from rapid-firing the clicker as soon as they think they know the answer.
If nobody else clicks in, you can answer, but the competitors get the first crack.
No, this isn't "Dangerous", it's part of the give and take of a criminal trial, and requesting this information was a perfectly proper thing to do. Just like you can use phone recordings, e-mail messages, letters, conversations, etc.... why should there be special status for his online message transcripts?
Yes, things can be taken out of context. And that is an argument the defense can make, should the prosecution choose to use this evidence in the trial. The mere possibility of the evidence being mis-interpreted is no reason for the evidence never to be collected.
If you read my post, you will see that I specifically said the preservative was no longer used in CHILDHOOD disease vaccines. As in, MMR, Polio, Chickenpox, Whooping Cough, Tetanus, etc. Your link confirms this. I know it is still present in some forms of the seasonal flu vaccine.
And the seasonal flu vaccine is not "untested." It most certainly is tested before being released to the public every year.
The companion article talks about something entirely different, namely security issues with wireless Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems. Neither the main article nor the "companion" article talk about the TPMS hack having anything whatsoever to do with vehicle theft or sabotage at the current time.
Thimerosol (sp?), the trace-murcury-containing preservative you are thinking of, is no longer used in US childhood disease vaccines. Hasn't been for many years. And when it was gone, whadda-know, autism rates didn't drop.
There is a problem with letting mornic parents do there own thing. It can (and does) hurt the children of responsible parents too.
There are two main ways for the children of a responsible parent to come down with one of these childhood diseases:
1) The vaccine just "didn't take". It happens. They aren't perfect. However, if EVERYONE was vaccinated, this wouldn't matter, as the disease would be eradicated (or nearly so), and then you don't have to worry about catching it. Instead, kids where it didn't take pick it up from kids whose parents were morons. 2) A child is too young to be vaccinated. These vaccines are not administered at birth, and some of them require several doses before immunity is achieved. It is quite possible to pick up the disease from the child of a vaccination-refusing parent. To top things off, the older unvaccinated child is more likely to survive the disease, while the newborn is quite vulnerable.
Yes, it is possible for the diseases to be transmitted solely among children with failed vaccines or those that are too young to be vaccinated, but those cases are quite rare. Measles was well on the way to being eradicated in the Western World before this clown came along. Imagine what a disaster it would have been if this guy was peddling his quackery prior to the eradication of smallpox or the near-eradication of polio.
That "hardest part" is quite hard indeed. It implies huge advances in language processing, which, next to vision, is one of the "hard problems" in AI. Jeopardy answers involve trivia, yes, but many of them also take wordplay, puns, phonetics, analogies, non-sequiturs, etc. Jeopardy is not some cheesy show like Who Wants To Be A Millionaire; Google could win that one without trying hard... winning Jeopardy is going to require feats of AI that are leaps and bounds beyond anything else currently available.
Those Jeopardy contestants aren't good at what they do simply because they've read a lot of books. Computers can read way more than Ken Jennings ever could, and access it all much faster than he can. Google does this every day and we take that for granted. What makes a Jeopardy contestant good is the ability to pick patterns and make connections out of that information given a "search query" that makes little sense and only has the most tenuous connection to the needed result.
Personally, I believe the machine is going to get it's butt kicked... these guys aren't like the clowns they pick up for Celebrity Jeopardy and I don't expect the producers to be throwing a whole lot of DB-friendly softballs just to make IBM look good; I'm sure the Jeopardy folks get paid just fine by IBM either way.
I work in enterprise tech support, and finding a setup with unsupported hardware or code is the highlight of my day. No problem is easier for me to close than one where the customer has let equipment drop out of warranty and/or software support. Just did one today... box has been in continuous service (without poweroff) for six years; the model was discontinued in '05 and dropped out of support on 12/31/09. They have a difficult problem that likely would have taken me a day or two to solve... instead I made it go away in five minutes of pulling up their logfiles. Now, it's entirely possible that removing the equipment won't fix the issue, but then I have access to better troubleshooting tools, developers that give a *bleep!*, and more comprehensive log files when the put in newer gear.
All this is good for me, but it sucks to be you if you have some really important stuff on that gear...
Slashdot Mirror
When my car breaks down, I don't talk to the guy that assembled it, the person that sold it to me, or even somebody that worked on the design. I talk to people who diagnose and fix cars.
When my nuclear reactor threatens to meltdown, I don't talk to the guy that installs it and walks away, I talk to somebody who runs and fixes reactors.
I never said bias was a good thing. I merely said that this was NOT a conflict of interest, and that lawyers who become judges cannot be expected to recuse themselves from every case that might be related to a matter they have worked in the past.
Also, a lawyer that has argued on one side of a case does NOT necessarily agree with their client.
As I said in my last post, are lawyers who used to work criminal law recuse themselves from any case involving civil liberties? It's an issue that comes up in every criminal lawyer's career sooner or later, and briefs will be written and positions advocated for, because that is the lawyer's job.
A large number of posters seem to be confusing bias (pre-determined unjustified favoritism towards one side or the other) with a Conflict of Interest. A Conflict of Interest is indeed a serious matter, and not disclosing them can lead to censure, having a caseload pulled, etc. However, a Conflict of Interest would require a *current* financial or personal incentive to rule for one side or the other. Merely having worked for one side or the other at some point in the past is NOT a Conflict of Interest. Judges are required to recuse themselves from individual cases they have personally worked, but she worked for the RIAA, and this particular suit was brought by the movie industry.
Judges, by necessity are lawyers, and they will have of course worked for clients. We don't ask judges who worked in criminal defense (or prosecutions) to recuse themselves on civil liberties cases, nor can we demand a corporate lawyer recuse themselves from a case that happened to involve the same industry as one or more of his/her clients.
This is speculation by ONE guy in an article in the Guardian, hardly a bastion of calm, rational, journalism. NONE of the other usual online sources have corroborated this at all.
An actual meltdown, with the core sitting on the floor of the building, would be front page news across the world, yet only this one article says this is the case.
I've been reading the NYT website for about as long as they have had one. I was reading it when the "website" consisted of a about a dozen image-map GIFs, each of which lead to eight or so stories.
In thanks for my sixteen years of freeloading, they have seen fit to grant me a free subscription! I was browsing the other day, and saw a Lincoln ad that also mentioned a free subscription. I clicked on the ad, figuring they'll want my e-mail address to send me some crap I'll simply delete (that's fine by me), or ask me to take a test drive in return for a subscription. (Not fine.) I'm so far out of Lincoln's target demographic, it's not even vaguely amusing...
Nope! Didn't have to do a thing other than click on "activate my free subscription." That was it. I'm sure they've sold my name to advertisers long ago, and GMail's spam folder takes care of that crap for me.
Gee, it's very nice that Symbian sold more than iOS or Android. If it wasn't making Nokia any money, or if Nokia couldn't eke out much of a profit on the phones that had it, the fact that they sold tons of phones with it loaded is not really relevant. We don't call Microsoft a titan of the PC Games industry because every computer comes with the hugely popular Solitaire and Minesweeper, and Nokia doesn't consider Symbian a success just because a lot of phones happen to have it loaded.
You say you don't have enough bandwidth for WiFi, but you do! Simply set up your WiFi network to only have a single destination. There is no rule that says "all WiFi access points must have full internet access." Students without a laptop could share another student's machine since even two or three people voting on one machine wouldn't take long.
Your plain-vanilla 10GbE switch does not have the flow-control bits required to make Ethernet lossless; without essentially lossless traffic, SCSI/FC perf goes in the dumpster. (0.03% packet loss == approx. 50% performance cut.)
In addition, there must be at least one switch in the VLAN that can provide FC services, such as zoning, address assignment, name services, etc.
I remember when I was in Boy Scouts, our leader told us to ignore any advice you might have heard about finding your way back to civilization if you are lost. If somebody, somewhere, has some remote clue as to where you might be (and thinks to have someone search), you are 100% better off not going anywhere. You probably are not as lost as you think, and are likely not far from where you were trying to be. The best way for somebody to find you is for you not to go even farther away.
Yes, by moving you may, by dumb luck, blunder back to where you need to be, but you are far more likely to simply end up getting more lost and hard to find.
And never, ever, abandon your car if you are lost. It contains all sorts of useful resources and is rather larger (and easier to find) than you wandering about the woods alone, passed out under a tree. It contains a conveniently large tank of liquid firestarter, and if you carry a couple of basic tools, a large amount of nice insulation in the form of your seat cushions and carpeting. In the heat, the underside is perfectly good shade (if a little cramped.)
Yes, you have just accurately described what the job description of the President's General Counsel does.
But none of that has anything to do whatsoever with the job of the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General's office argues on behalf of the government for the Supreme Court. They also approve (or disapprove) appeals by the DOJ when it has lost at the trial level. (I guess to act as a "sanity check" on appeals)
It is completely separate from the General Counsel in the Office of the President.
Sorry about that... you are absolutely correct. That'll teach me not to read twice before responding.
His specialty as a paid litigator is IP and Telecomm law. But most of his Supreme Court cases were on other topics, including those near and dear to Slashdot hearts like civil liberties.
This guy was NOT the RIAAs chief counsel, or responsible for their litigation strategy against individuals. He is a lawyer who has litigated a wide range of cases, most of which have absolutely bupkis to do with the entertainment industry. In fact, it is probably his broad expertise that led to him being appointed to the job. Yes, he was the litigator for the Grokster case, which he won. I don't see how this makes him a slave to the entertainment industry. Both sides of a case are entitled to be represented by counsel; in this case, he happened to be representing a side we, Slashdot, don't particularly like.
Just because a lawyer represents one side of a case does not mean they approve of everything (or even anything) a client does. Are we also going to claim the lawyer representing the maniac from AZ is on the side of "letting psychotic killers go free?"
He was not RIAA's in-house counsel, responsible for all of their litigation strategy. He is a "generic" litigator with a wide-ranging practice. He did happen to represent the RIAA in the Grokster case, which was not, in any way, related to the verifiably insane suits against individuals.
In case you hadn't noticed, when somebody bring a lawsuit, they are going to be represented by somebody, and that somebody does not necessarily agree with the positions they argue on behalf of their client.
I do have my doubt about these guys; they certainly do reek strongly of pump-n-dump (extraordinary claims, no patents, no papers... but the article never stated they were using chlorophyll. While I'm not a biologist, I can imagine the existence of a atmospheric carbon-fixing biological process that does not utilize chlorophyll.
Device makers have used funny fasteners for many years. I suspect that what Apple is trying to prevent was curious teenagers from idly popping the thing open, damaging it, and then filing a warranty claim. I sincerely doubt it was their intention to block all repairs forevermore; doing so obviously would be impossible.
Anybody that wants to open the thing should have no issues whatsoever getting the correct tool from whatever phone parts source they go to (just like you go there for your spudger, phone prying tool, etc.), and I'm equally sure that Apple knows this and does not care.
This is a stupid publicity ploy by iFixit to get you to buy your special screwdriver from them, instead of somebody else.
Jeopardy is not some retarded trivia show like "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire." Many of the questions involve puns, wordplay, rhymes, etc. that cannot be answered with a Google search.
If you click in too early, your clicker is disabled for a certain span of time because of your "false start". This keeps somebody from rapid-firing the clicker as soon as they think they know the answer.
If nobody else clicks in, you can answer, but the competitors get the first crack.
No, this isn't "Dangerous", it's part of the give and take of a criminal trial, and requesting this information was a perfectly proper thing to do. Just like you can use phone recordings, e-mail messages, letters, conversations, etc.... why should there be special status for his online message transcripts?
Yes, things can be taken out of context. And that is an argument the defense can make, should the prosecution choose to use this evidence in the trial. The mere possibility of the evidence being mis-interpreted is no reason for the evidence never to be collected.
SirWired
If you read my post, you will see that I specifically said the preservative was no longer used in CHILDHOOD disease vaccines. As in, MMR, Polio, Chickenpox, Whooping Cough, Tetanus, etc. Your link confirms this. I know it is still present in some forms of the seasonal flu vaccine.
And the seasonal flu vaccine is not "untested." It most certainly is tested before being released to the public every year.
The companion article talks about something entirely different, namely security issues with wireless Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems. Neither the main article nor the "companion" article talk about the TPMS hack having anything whatsoever to do with vehicle theft or sabotage at the current time.
Thimerosol (sp?), the trace-murcury-containing preservative you are thinking of, is no longer used in US childhood disease vaccines. Hasn't been for many years. And when it was gone, whadda-know, autism rates didn't drop.
There is a problem with letting mornic parents do there own thing. It can (and does) hurt the children of responsible parents too.
There are two main ways for the children of a responsible parent to come down with one of these childhood diseases:
1) The vaccine just "didn't take". It happens. They aren't perfect. However, if EVERYONE was vaccinated, this wouldn't matter, as the disease would be eradicated (or nearly so), and then you don't have to worry about catching it. Instead, kids where it didn't take pick it up from kids whose parents were morons.
2) A child is too young to be vaccinated. These vaccines are not administered at birth, and some of them require several doses before immunity is achieved. It is quite possible to pick up the disease from the child of a vaccination-refusing parent. To top things off, the older unvaccinated child is more likely to survive the disease, while the newborn is quite vulnerable.
Yes, it is possible for the diseases to be transmitted solely among children with failed vaccines or those that are too young to be vaccinated, but those cases are quite rare. Measles was well on the way to being eradicated in the Western World before this clown came along. Imagine what a disaster it would have been if this guy was peddling his quackery prior to the eradication of smallpox or the near-eradication of polio.
That "hardest part" is quite hard indeed. It implies huge advances in language processing, which, next to vision, is one of the "hard problems" in AI. Jeopardy answers involve trivia, yes, but many of them also take wordplay, puns, phonetics, analogies, non-sequiturs, etc. Jeopardy is not some cheesy show like Who Wants To Be A Millionaire; Google could win that one without trying hard... winning Jeopardy is going to require feats of AI that are leaps and bounds beyond anything else currently available.
Those Jeopardy contestants aren't good at what they do simply because they've read a lot of books. Computers can read way more than Ken Jennings ever could, and access it all much faster than he can. Google does this every day and we take that for granted. What makes a Jeopardy contestant good is the ability to pick patterns and make connections out of that information given a "search query" that makes little sense and only has the most tenuous connection to the needed result.
Personally, I believe the machine is going to get it's butt kicked... these guys aren't like the clowns they pick up for Celebrity Jeopardy and I don't expect the producers to be throwing a whole lot of DB-friendly softballs just to make IBM look good; I'm sure the Jeopardy folks get paid just fine by IBM either way.
I work in enterprise tech support, and finding a setup with unsupported hardware or code is the highlight of my day. No problem is easier for me to close than one where the customer has let equipment drop out of warranty and/or software support. Just did one today... box has been in continuous service (without poweroff) for six years; the model was discontinued in '05 and dropped out of support on 12/31/09. They have a difficult problem that likely would have taken me a day or two to solve... instead I made it go away in five minutes of pulling up their logfiles. Now, it's entirely possible that removing the equipment won't fix the issue, but then I have access to better troubleshooting tools, developers that give a *bleep!*, and more comprehensive log files when the put in newer gear.
All this is good for me, but it sucks to be you if you have some really important stuff on that gear...