It seems to me that if the climate warming scientists truly know their subject, then they should be able to predict the effects of specific national programs.
There is no debate?! Didn't you read the article? The guy gets paid big bucks because he has a habit of correctly predicting weather, not because he's on a government-funded or "Big Oil" gravy train.
If there's no debate, then the global warming high priests will be all too happy to take up his wager.
Interesting comments, but I think they miss the mark. Education *is* job training; if nothing else it teaches you for a job at Starbuck's.
As for solving problems, that is what exams are for. If it happens that a particular exam question can be solved by going to wolframalpha.com, then what is the problem? If, on the other hand, a particular exam question exists elsewhere on the Net with an answer, then either the question was bad or, once again, a modern tool was used to solve a problem.
A more difficult question that was not addressed is that of collaborating with others. Access to the Net implies access to Uncle Bob, who aced the course. Here again, though, I think that universities are fighting a losing battle. The fact is that the world of today is growing increasingly interlinked. Centres of learning that fail to embrace the reality will be left in the dust.
Writing exams without using the Internet is like fighting the last war. Open the taps and make exams that test someone's capacity to solve these problems in real life in a real working environment.
Change we can Believe in? People might say that this FBI reprioritization is only to be expected and would happen no matter which party was in charge. That may well be, but if so it finally puts to rest the hope that things would be any different for this current administration.
I know this was meant to be funny (so, "ha ha"), but in fact the latest versions of OSS audio are doing very well and perform far superior to the offal that calls itself pulseaudio.
I don't know a lot about Islamic cultures, but it seems to me that some areas/sects might be said to have civilized views. I am thinking in particular of Singapore, where many are muslim, and of Ismaili Muslims (led by the Aga Khan). (Granted, Singapore is not held as a paragon of civil liberties, and under the right conditions may be a generation or two away from becoming the next Zimbabwe.)
Can anyone enlighten me about the Ismailis, though? If they indeed behave "sanely", I wonder how they have come to terms with Muhammud's barbarity and sexual depravity (including pedophilia.)
The Conservatives and the Liberals don't agree on anything. So good luck on that happening. What is much more likely is the NDP getting the Liberals and the Bloc on their side with this bill and getting it passed.
Actually, the Conservatives and Liberals both follow a more-or-less centrist line, so they have a fair bit of agreement on the big issues, except in the areas where they try to differentiate themselves. These two parties are papabile, in a manner of speaking, and the other parties play the role of spoiler.
Despite that, from time to time the NDP do come up with suggestions that the governing Conservatives can support. It is possible that this bill will be one of them.
No, Harper's point was that the UK coalition included the Conservative party, which got the most seats. It would have been possible for a coalition to have been formed that excluded the Conservatives, but polls showed the Brits would not have approved.
In Canada in the last election, the Conservative Party fell just short of winning enough seats to form a majority. In order for a coalition government to succeed it would have required support from *all* the other parties -- i.e. the "losers" -- including the Bloc Quebecois, which advocates the breakup of Canada. Harper correctly said that this was foolhardy, and polls conducted at the time supported his stand.
Yes, Google is horribly broken in this area. I have a similar experience with the same lack of explanation. It's scary, actually, how quickly Google can turn into The Phone Company.
People who are putting their life into "the cloud" perhaps should be looking at online backup solutions specifically aimed at Google.
I suppose if we have to live next door to a superpower then the US is by far the best choice. However, that the US is a superpower means that it is a de facto bully and imposes its version of right and wrong on its neighbours and the world.
In Canada, our sane banking rules have been credited with the fact that *no* bank went under during this recession. Despite this, the US wants a global banking tax, which Canada doesn't need and which would have the effect of penalizing Canadian banks for being prudent.
In Canada, up to now drug enforcement efforts -- although unreasonably restrictive -- are models of restraint compared to US actions that would have comfortably fitted into Nazi Germany. With the arrogant assumption that what is good for the US is good for the world, America strong-arms its neighbours to support drug interdiction despite the cost of lives, property, jobs and individual liberty.
The parent posting refers to the US imprisonment of marijuana legalization advocate, and Canadian hero, Marc Emery. For years, Emery has been a leading spokesman and political advocate for this cause. Not unlike Ghandi, Emery has personally put himself on the line for his beliefs. He has been jailed several times for openly infringing drug laws and his pot store raided. His commitment, however, to the cause has contributed to increased tolerance towards drugs, particularly in his hometown of Vancouver, BC., where people smoking a joint will not normally be arrested unless they are doing some other illegal act. Emery's growing success, however, at changing Canadian attitudes towards marijuana has only served to anger US officials. His arrest at their behest, and his extradition to the States and imprisonment amount to a gross interference in Canada's internal debate on drugs.
Finally, US pandering to its Disney overlords means that once again it is putting the squeeze on Canada. For all that the US and Canada are said to be the best of neighbours with the longest undefended border in the world, there is a ton of resentment building north of the border. One can get along with a bully, but one can never truly be friends with one. If the US keeps doing what it's doing to us, the day may come when it will stand alone.
Yes, it is a valid point that data can potentially be locked into Google's universe. However, Google have set up a website, http://www.dataliberation.org/ to help move data in and out of its products. Not perfect, perhaps, but certainly not Microsoft.
I know it's a stretch, but some may well view unobtrusive ads as a bonus.
We say we hate ads, but I bet that the ones that really irk us are the "in your face ones": boring TV commercials; popups; ads that make you scroll past them; etc. The ads that stay in prescribed spaces are not a problem for me, and have sometimes actually turned out to be relevant and useful.
Google's Spreadsheet product is actually in some respects superior to Microsoft's. Yes, it doesn't do data pivots or indents (crucial for accounting layouts), but it's integrated with (online, natch) forms and search.
I haven't had much call to use Google's "word", but fire up the spreadsheets daily.
In the long run, however, I think that Microsoft has hooped itself by valuing customer lock-in over actual innovation. Google will continue to improve its "office" offering, becoming "good enough" for more and more applications.
Utter nonsense. If you want a widget and are willing to pay $x for it, and if I am willing to provide it at that price, nothing else matters. I am no more a thief for making a gazillion percent profit on it than you are if I am selling the widget at a loss.
It seems to me that instructors could improve the way they deliver their lectures. Why not provide prepackaged lecture notes in advance of the class, so that students can review in advance and be ready to participate in a class discussion?
The question of laptops in class is a red herring. More likely is that poor teachers with ego issues don't like to be reminded that their lectures are boring.
I had the same problem with pen and paper, I was too busy trying to write down what was being said rather than paying attention. With a computer at least I can write quite fast, so I could spend more time listening to the words and less frantically trying to write quickly but legibly. I stopped taking notes after my first year of University, when I didn't even use any of my notes to revise. I revised using lecture notes, and very occasionally I'd use a textbook.
The comment is not specifically related to Magic Jack, and "prick" is more a characteristic of Type "A" personalities than of criminals -- although the two are not mutually exclusive.
As for Magic Jack, there is not enough for me to conclude that its executive team is "evil". In line with the principle of not ascribing to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence, it's quite possible that the team is young and having to learn as the company grows. Given "New Coke" and "Microsoft Bob", a blooper like this should be surprising to no one.
I try not to support companies run by litigious pricks with no sense of humor.
I think this covers a fair chunk of successful companies, public and private. When you're on the hook for millions of dollars in revenue, and competitors are looking for any weakness to bring you down, a sense of humour can be a liability. As for pricks, Microsoft didn't muscle its way into preeminence by Gates being a nice guy. Even allowing that Google isn't evil, it hasn't gotten to its position today by allowing itself to be pushed around.
so you enjoy the advertisements and them selling your info to marketing companies?
you read the EULA right???
Is that really the case? I know someone who not only has a MagicJack himself, but bought another for a relative on another continent. He's probably had one for more than a year and seems quite happy with the product. If there are ads and reselling of info, then it doesn't seem to have lessened his regard.
There is all this criticism about the EULA, but is there anyone here who can tell us what this has meant in practise?
Maybe laws work differently in Italy. It seems to me that Youtube must have terms and conditions in which the poster assumes responsibility for ensuring he has the rights to upload content.
Granted, laws are a little funny when dealing with contracts with children, but that does not seem to be the point of contention in this case.
I am not suggesting that the RIAA lawyers are from the A-team -- by all accounts they are not. What I am saying is that the brief does not look like the kind that can frog-march a judge to a desired decision. If, as I believe you have suggested, the judge is inclined toward the RIAA, a successful brief has to choke every avenue the judge has for finding for the plaintiffs.
On the other hand, what do I know? I'm certainly not a lawyer. What's more, legal strategies span more than a single filing, or even court case. As far as I can tell, nothing is finally decided until the money runs out.
I've read the brief, and it is interesting, but it seems to me that the authors are punching above their weight.
In I(A) they assert that Tenenbaum's share folder had no impact on the availability of the songs to other downloaders, but they cite no case law in support. I'm guessing that they cannot directly introduce an economic treatise on marginal utility, but there must be favourable cases that involve this concept. Without such a reference their assertion rings hollow.
Elsewhere, I see the hand-waving word "surely". That word, to my mind, along with "obviously", "undoubtedly", etc., are flags that sections of proof have probably been skipped.
Finally, the brief uses emotionally charged words in reference to the plaintiffs: "railing", "bridle", "bellow". While not an error in itself, it nevertheless suggests that the brief's authors are emotionally entangled, possibly clouding their judgement and use of case law.
In contrast to this brief, head over to groklaw and review some of IBM's briefs in its dispute with SCO. These are clear, thorough, and leave no doubt that they are playing in the big leagues.
Slashdot Mirror
If the climate warmers are so certain of their science, though, shouldn't the odds be the other way around?
It seems to me that if the climate warming scientists truly know their subject, then they should be able to predict the effects of specific national programs.
There is no debate?! Didn't you read the article? The guy gets paid big bucks because he has a habit of correctly predicting weather, not because he's on a government-funded or "Big Oil" gravy train. If there's no debate, then the global warming high priests will be all too happy to take up his wager.
Henri de ... Balsack?? Perhaps you meant "Balsac", although given the current topic the misspelling is understandable.
Interesting comments, but I think they miss the mark. Education *is* job training; if nothing else it teaches you for a job at Starbuck's. As for solving problems, that is what exams are for. If it happens that a particular exam question can be solved by going to wolframalpha.com, then what is the problem? If, on the other hand, a particular exam question exists elsewhere on the Net with an answer, then either the question was bad or, once again, a modern tool was used to solve a problem. A more difficult question that was not addressed is that of collaborating with others. Access to the Net implies access to Uncle Bob, who aced the course. Here again, though, I think that universities are fighting a losing battle. The fact is that the world of today is growing increasingly interlinked. Centres of learning that fail to embrace the reality will be left in the dust.
Writing exams without using the Internet is like fighting the last war. Open the taps and make exams that test someone's capacity to solve these problems in real life in a real working environment.
Change we can Believe in? People might say that this FBI reprioritization is only to be expected and would happen no matter which party was in charge. That may well be, but if so it finally puts to rest the hope that things would be any different for this current administration.
I know this was meant to be funny (so, "ha ha"), but in fact the latest versions of OSS audio are doing very well and perform far superior to the offal that calls itself pulseaudio.
I don't know a lot about Islamic cultures, but it seems to me that some areas/sects might be said to have civilized views. I am thinking in particular of Singapore, where many are muslim, and of Ismaili Muslims (led by the Aga Khan). (Granted, Singapore is not held as a paragon of civil liberties, and under the right conditions may be a generation or two away from becoming the next Zimbabwe.)
Can anyone enlighten me about the Ismailis, though? If they indeed behave "sanely", I wonder how they have come to terms with Muhammud's barbarity and sexual depravity (including pedophilia.)
The Conservatives and the Liberals don't agree on anything. So good luck on that happening. What is much more likely is the NDP getting the Liberals and the Bloc on their side with this bill and getting it passed.
Actually, the Conservatives and Liberals both follow a more-or-less centrist line, so they have a fair bit of agreement on the big issues, except in the areas where they try to differentiate themselves. These two parties are papabile, in a manner of speaking, and the other parties play the role of spoiler.
Despite that, from time to time the NDP do come up with suggestions that the governing Conservatives can support. It is possible that this bill will be one of them.
No, Harper's point was that the UK coalition included the Conservative party, which got the most seats. It would have been possible for a coalition to have been formed that excluded the Conservatives, but polls showed the Brits would not have approved.
In Canada in the last election, the Conservative Party fell just short of winning enough seats to form a majority. In order for a coalition government to succeed it would have required support from *all* the other parties -- i.e. the "losers" -- including the Bloc Quebecois, which advocates the breakup of Canada. Harper correctly said that this was foolhardy, and polls conducted at the time supported his stand.
Yes, Google is horribly broken in this area. I have a similar experience with the same lack of explanation. It's scary, actually, how quickly Google can turn into The Phone Company.
People who are putting their life into "the cloud" perhaps should be looking at online backup solutions specifically aimed at Google.
I suppose if we have to live next door to a superpower then the US is by far the best choice. However, that the US is a superpower means that it is a de facto bully and imposes its version of right and wrong on its neighbours and the world.
In Canada, our sane banking rules have been credited with the fact that *no* bank went under during this recession. Despite this, the US wants a global banking tax, which Canada doesn't need and which would have the effect of penalizing Canadian banks for being prudent.
In Canada, up to now drug enforcement efforts -- although unreasonably restrictive -- are models of restraint compared to US actions that would have comfortably fitted into Nazi Germany. With the arrogant assumption that what is good for the US is good for the world, America strong-arms its neighbours to support drug interdiction despite the cost of lives, property, jobs and individual liberty.
The parent posting refers to the US imprisonment of marijuana legalization advocate, and Canadian hero, Marc Emery. For years, Emery has been a leading spokesman and political advocate for this cause. Not unlike Ghandi, Emery has personally put himself on the line for his beliefs. He has been jailed several times for openly infringing drug laws and his pot store raided. His commitment, however, to the cause has contributed to increased tolerance towards drugs, particularly in his hometown of Vancouver, BC., where people smoking a joint will not normally be arrested unless they are doing some other illegal act. Emery's growing success, however, at changing Canadian attitudes towards marijuana has only served to anger US officials. His arrest at their behest, and his extradition to the States and imprisonment amount to a gross interference in Canada's internal debate on drugs.
Finally, US pandering to its Disney overlords means that once again it is putting the squeeze on Canada. For all that the US and Canada are said to be the best of neighbours with the longest undefended border in the world, there is a ton of resentment building north of the border. One can get along with a bully, but one can never truly be friends with one. If the US keeps doing what it's doing to us, the day may come when it will stand alone.
Yes, it is a valid point that data can potentially be locked into Google's universe. However, Google have set up a website, http://www.dataliberation.org/ to help move data in and out of its products. Not perfect, perhaps, but certainly not Microsoft.
I know it's a stretch, but some may well view unobtrusive ads as a bonus.
We say we hate ads, but I bet that the ones that really irk us are the "in your face ones": boring TV commercials; popups; ads that make you scroll past them; etc. The ads that stay in prescribed spaces are not a problem for me, and have sometimes actually turned out to be relevant and useful.
Google's Spreadsheet product is actually in some respects superior to Microsoft's. Yes, it doesn't do data pivots or indents (crucial for accounting layouts), but it's integrated with (online, natch) forms and search. I haven't had much call to use Google's "word", but fire up the spreadsheets daily. In the long run, however, I think that Microsoft has hooped itself by valuing customer lock-in over actual innovation. Google will continue to improve its "office" offering, becoming "good enough" for more and more applications.
Profit is inheritly evil by definition.
Utter nonsense. If you want a widget and are willing to pay $x for it, and if I am willing to provide it at that price, nothing else matters. I am no more a thief for making a gazillion percent profit on it than you are if I am selling the widget at a loss.
It seems to me that instructors could improve the way they deliver their lectures. Why not provide prepackaged lecture notes in advance of the class, so that students can review in advance and be ready to participate in a class discussion?
The question of laptops in class is a red herring. More likely is that poor teachers with ego issues don't like to be reminded that their lectures are boring.
I had the same problem with pen and paper, I was too busy trying to write down what was being said rather than paying attention. With a computer at least I can write quite fast, so I could spend more time listening to the words and less frantically trying to write quickly but legibly. I stopped taking notes after my first year of University, when I didn't even use any of my notes to revise. I revised using lecture notes, and very occasionally I'd use a textbook.
The comment is not specifically related to Magic Jack, and "prick" is more a characteristic of Type "A" personalities than of criminals -- although the two are not mutually exclusive.
As for Magic Jack, there is not enough for me to conclude that its executive team is "evil". In line with the principle of not ascribing to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence, it's quite possible that the team is young and having to learn as the company grows. Given "New Coke" and "Microsoft Bob", a blooper like this should be surprising to no one.
I try not to support companies run by litigious pricks with no sense of humor.
I think this covers a fair chunk of successful companies, public and private. When you're on the hook for millions of dollars in revenue, and competitors are looking for any weakness to bring you down, a sense of humour can be a liability. As for pricks, Microsoft didn't muscle its way into preeminence by Gates being a nice guy. Even allowing that Google isn't evil, it hasn't gotten to its position today by allowing itself to be pushed around.
so you enjoy the advertisements and them selling your info to marketing companies?
you read the EULA right???
Is that really the case? I know someone who not only has a MagicJack himself, but bought another for a relative on another continent. He's probably had one for more than a year and seems quite happy with the product. If there are ads and reselling of info, then it doesn't seem to have lessened his regard.
There is all this criticism about the EULA, but is there anyone here who can tell us what this has meant in practise?
Maybe laws work differently in Italy. It seems to me that Youtube must have terms and conditions in which the poster assumes responsibility for ensuring he has the rights to upload content.
Granted, laws are a little funny when dealing with contracts with children, but that does not seem to be the point of contention in this case.
I am not suggesting that the RIAA lawyers are from the A-team -- by all accounts they are not. What I am saying is that the brief does not look like the kind that can frog-march a judge to a desired decision. If, as I believe you have suggested, the judge is inclined toward the RIAA, a successful brief has to choke every avenue the judge has for finding for the plaintiffs.
On the other hand, what do I know? I'm certainly not a lawyer. What's more, legal strategies span more than a single filing, or even court case. As far as I can tell, nothing is finally decided until the money runs out.
I've read the brief, and it is interesting, but it seems to me that the authors are punching above their weight.
In I(A) they assert that Tenenbaum's share folder had no impact on the availability of the songs to other downloaders, but they cite no case law in support. I'm guessing that they cannot directly introduce an economic treatise on marginal utility, but there must be favourable cases that involve this concept. Without such a reference their assertion rings hollow.
Elsewhere, I see the hand-waving word "surely". That word, to my mind, along with "obviously", "undoubtedly", etc., are flags that sections of proof have probably been skipped.
Finally, the brief uses emotionally charged words in reference to the plaintiffs: "railing", "bridle", "bellow". While not an error in itself, it nevertheless suggests that the brief's authors are emotionally entangled, possibly clouding their judgement and use of case law.
In contrast to this brief, head over to groklaw and review some of IBM's briefs in its dispute with SCO. These are clear, thorough, and leave no doubt that they are playing in the big leagues.
If the judge actually bothers to read it, he can still disregard it and rule in favor of the RIAA.
That's why there are courts of appeal.