The AIA also (and very significantly) allows the USPTO to keep the revenue it generates on fees. Currently, the fees paid to the USPTO are taken by the government for general funds.That lowers the quality of patents issued because examiners are paid less, worked more, and encouraged to generate more fees by granting more patents and encouraging more applications.
This paragraph doesn't make sense to me. I think it says the current system lowers the quality, but I can't see how a change in where the fees go would change that. Currently if an examiner grants more patents it makes no difference to the funding for the USPTO, so how does it encourage more grants? If examiners were paid according to how many they examined (as could happen if the USPTO budget was determined by examination fees), wouldn't that encourage quick shoddy examinations?
Standards and Poors also gave AIG and Lehman Brothers AAA credit ratings up til they crashed and burned. Then there were the mortgage backed derivatives issued the same AAA rating by S&P.
So you're saying S&P over-rated securities in the past. (Actually, AIG and Lehman weren't AAA, they started lower than that. But they were clearly over-rated.)
The other two ratings agencies, Moodys and Fitch, have no plans to downgrade US debt.
They also over-rated AIG/Lehman. Isn't that a sign that you shouldn't believe their AAA?
The 99.99% figure is the only one that is reliable. The 9% figure depends on things that vary over time outside the control of the company selling the software, i.e. the proportion of true terrorists (or other true targets) in the passenger stream.
The problem is the education system, that doesn't teach even basic numerical reasoning to people who need to use it all the time.
Say half of the top 20% leave; the US government is now down 40% yearly income due to those 10% relocating.
I'm not sure how many "income earners" there are in the US; let's guess 150 million (but that's probably low). So you are suggesting that 15 million rich people will leave the US if taxes go up. That's just not believable. Currently, there are only about 6 million US expats in total.
And where would they go? There are tax havens, but those are for people who already have their wealth and don't need to earn any more. Most of the top 20% of "income earners" are still working to earn that high income, they aren't living off their investments.
Okay, so what should you do with it? You want to return it to its owner, and examining its contents is the obvious way to find the owner.
You should be able to trust your computer to let you look at what's on a USB stick. Otherwise, you can't:
- trust files that your colleague is giving you via USB
- trust a USB stick distributed as a promotion
- trust your own USB stick, if you've used it to give a presentation on someone else's computer.
Obviously, you shouldn't run programs on the stick, and you should know that lots of document formats are really programs, but you should be able to trust your computer to show you the contents without running everything on it.
Presumably they have a legal opinion that they don't need a license to do this. In the US, fair use says you can copy your owned music to other media. That's not true in all countries.
The average age doesn't go up at the same rate the calendar changes. The only plausible way that would happen is for huge numbers of young people to emigrate. Young people do emigrate, but not fast enough to cancel out the old people dying and the babies being born.
At that point, it seems the BFDI hadn't even talked to the American agency; and when they finally did, the American Agency chastised them for requiring so much information.
You're still misreading it. The article says
At the beginning of this month, the BFDI confirmed that Alvaro's request had finally been sent to US authorities. At the same time, the agency said it had no information or authority to determine whether and who has accessed his data in the US. The agency criticized that the person requesting information about how personal data has been used must submit additional personal information in order to learn whether the US has made use of their data.
It's clear from the second sentence that "the agency" is the BFDI, not some American agency. The whole point of the article is that the BFDI is confused about what the requirements are from the Americans, they ask for more, they criticize how much they need to provide, etc.
I don't think that's an accurate summary. When describing the delay, the article says "There was, still no agreement between the US authorities and the BFDI. The American authorities would require still more data from the applicant." That sure sounds as though there were discussions taking place with the Americans, and the Americans were unclear or inconsistent about what was needed.
There's also the quote from the MEP, ""The German authorities have not yet been able to find out whether data has been accessed at all. As such, the rights of EU citizens on correction, deletion or blockage of the data are being violated."
And the headline of the original article: "Problems with Transparency. Brussels Eyes a Halt to SWIFT Data Agreement"
So I think in this case Slashdot got the anti-American sentiment of the article about right.
I think their argument is that things are different now. The MAD strategy worked to deter a nuclear war (though it didn't deter all sorts of other bad things, from the invasion of Hungary on), but it isn't needed any more.
But that's not how it went. The Psy-Ops guys were asked to study the dignitaries in order to find our how to manipulate them, and to sit in on meetings with them without identifying their role. They weren't asked to show off how articulate they were.
If that was the only solution, maybe. Another suggestion would be to limit the maximum noise a vehicle could make. Then hybrids wouldn't stand out, and pedestrians would be able to hear them.
Where are you finding the accident statistics? I can find lots of sites that make claims like yours or the opposite (e.g. elderly drivers are as risky as 20 year olds), but none reference the original source of the data. Is it all just anecdotal?
I believe the argument is that Apple violates this part of paragraph 6 of the GPL:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
Does the DRM or the Apple Store license impose additional restrictions? If so, then they have no right to distribute VLC.
Perhaps they also modify the program to install DRM; in that case, they'd need to distribute the DRM source code under the GPL as well, under paragraph 2 of the GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
...it's pretty clear that the US owns Canada.
Not all of Canada. Only the Conservative party. Oh yeah, and the Liberal party.
Turns out there are 3 deaths
Turns out the mainstream media got it wrong too. I've heard 3 deaths, 9 deaths, 12 deaths.
I guess the mainstream media (who just parrot the first thing they hear) are also rarely capable of making fast, accurate assessments.
No, T is tera. 1 TWh is 1000 GWh. 314 GW corresponds to 2750640 GWh, or 2751 TWh.
The linked source claims there are 30000 deaths per year from coal, and 2000 Twh. Those are roughly consistent with your numbers.
They aren't all coal miners, so it's also consistent with the OP.
The AIA also (and very significantly) allows the USPTO to keep the revenue it generates on fees. Currently, the fees paid to the USPTO are taken by the government for general funds.That lowers the quality of patents issued because examiners are paid less, worked more, and encouraged to generate more fees by granting more patents and encouraging more applications.
This paragraph doesn't make sense to me. I think it says the current system lowers the quality, but I can't see how a change in where the fees go would change that. Currently if an examiner grants more patents it makes no difference to the funding for the USPTO, so how does it encourage more grants? If examiners were paid according to how many they examined (as could happen if the USPTO budget was determined by examination fees), wouldn't that encourage quick shoddy examinations?
Standards and Poors also gave AIG and Lehman Brothers AAA credit ratings up til they crashed and burned. Then there were the mortgage backed derivatives issued the same AAA rating by S&P.
So you're saying S&P over-rated securities in the past. (Actually, AIG and Lehman weren't AAA, they started lower than that. But they were clearly over-rated.)
The other two ratings agencies, Moodys and Fitch, have no plans to downgrade US debt.
They also over-rated AIG/Lehman. Isn't that a sign that you shouldn't believe their AAA?
The 99.99% figure is the only one that is reliable. The 9% figure depends on things that vary over time outside the control of the company selling the software, i.e. the proportion of true terrorists (or other true targets) in the passenger stream.
The problem is the education system, that doesn't teach even basic numerical reasoning to people who need to use it all the time.
Say half of the top 20% leave; the US government is now down 40% yearly income due to those 10% relocating.
I'm not sure how many "income earners" there are in the US; let's guess 150 million (but that's probably low). So you are suggesting that 15 million rich people will leave the US if taxes go up. That's just not believable. Currently, there are only about 6 million US expats in total.
And where would they go? There are tax havens, but those are for people who already have their wealth and don't need to earn any more. Most of the top 20% of "income earners" are still working to earn that high income, they aren't living off their investments.
But you work for them. I don't believe anything you say about PayPal.
Okay, so what should you do with it? You want to return it to its owner, and examining its contents is the obvious way to find the owner.
You should be able to trust your computer to let you look at what's on a USB stick. Otherwise, you can't:
- trust files that your colleague is giving you via USB
- trust a USB stick distributed as a promotion
- trust your own USB stick, if you've used it to give a presentation on someone else's computer.
Obviously, you shouldn't run programs on the stick, and you should know that lots of document formats are really programs, but you should be able to trust your computer to show you the contents without running everything on it.
According to TFA, there are also meteorites and a few small samples returned by Soviet robotic probes.
the Apache 2.0 license is incompatible with GPLv2 code.
I think they see that as a feature, not a bug. The FSF really wants everyone to upgrade to GPLv3 (which is also incompatible with GPLv2).
Claiming 80% uptime when it's really 92.6% is "complete fiction".
But 1.09 employees/MW is "slightly higher" than 0.8 employees/MW, "in the same general ballpark".
I can't figure out the rule: is it more fictional the closer it gets?
Presumably they have a legal opinion that they don't need a license to do this. In the US, fair use says you can copy your owned music to other media. That's not true in all countries.
The average age doesn't go up at the same rate the calendar changes. The only plausible way that would happen is for huge numbers of young people to emigrate. Young people do emigrate, but not fast enough to cancel out the old people dying and the babies being born.
How can they include "l33t" when they don't even include "gullible"?
If you've got wires with 17+mm diameter solid conductors in them, you're DOING IT WRONG...
Right, those are for high end audio, not for power distribution.
At that point, it seems the BFDI hadn't even talked to the American agency; and when they finally did, the American Agency chastised them for requiring so much information.
You're still misreading it. The article says
At the beginning of this month, the BFDI confirmed that Alvaro's request had finally been sent to US authorities. At the same time, the agency said it had no information or authority to determine whether and who has accessed his data in the US. The agency criticized that the person requesting information about how personal data has been used must submit additional personal information in order to learn whether the US has made use of their data.
It's clear from the second sentence that "the agency" is the BFDI, not some American agency. The whole point of the article is that the BFDI is confused about what the requirements are from the Americans, they ask for more, they criticize how much they need to provide, etc.
I don't think that's an accurate summary. When describing the delay, the article says "There was, still no agreement between the US authorities and the BFDI. The American authorities would require still more data from the applicant." That sure sounds as though there were discussions taking place with the Americans, and the Americans were unclear or inconsistent about what was needed.
There's also the quote from the MEP, ""The German authorities have not yet been able to find out whether data has been accessed at all. As such, the rights of EU citizens on correction, deletion or blockage of the data are being violated."
And the headline of the original article: "Problems with Transparency. Brussels Eyes a Halt to SWIFT Data Agreement"
So I think in this case Slashdot got the anti-American sentiment of the article about right.
I think their argument is that things are different now. The MAD strategy worked to deter a nuclear war (though it didn't deter all sorts of other bad things, from the invasion of Hungary on), but it isn't needed any more.
But that's not how it went. The Psy-Ops guys were asked to study the dignitaries in order to find our how to manipulate them, and to sit in on meetings with them without identifying their role. They weren't asked to show off how articulate they were.
If that was the only solution, maybe. Another suggestion would be to limit the maximum noise a vehicle could make. Then hybrids wouldn't stand out, and pedestrians would be able to hear them.
Those quotes are not from Wikileaks insiders. The first is from the lawyer representing the victims, and the others are from "an acquaintance".
Where are you finding the accident statistics? I can find lots of sites that make claims like yours or the opposite (e.g. elderly drivers are as risky as 20 year olds), but none reference the original source of the data. Is it all just anecdotal?
I believe the argument is that Apple violates this part of paragraph 6 of the GPL:
You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
Does the DRM or the Apple Store license impose additional restrictions? If so, then they have no right to distribute VLC.
Perhaps they also modify the program to install DRM; in that case, they'd need to distribute the DRM source code under the GPL as well, under paragraph 2 of the GPL.