One's interests in keeping clients does not entitle you to make a scientific claim that cannot be peer reviewed. If a paper such as Mann is now regarded as fact, and indeed, makes policy, despite the obvious sloppiness regarding its data management process, then, what is the point of science anyway?
As sad as it is to say, people will believe the Mann paper no matter what is published. Look, the source data are published already and people still believe. Numerous independent reviewers (which is to say _everyone_ else) have debunked Mann and people still believe.
They don't believe Mann because it's verifiable (which it isn't), they believe it because they want to. Or, they claim to believe Mann so that they can justify the self-serving actions they want to take.
The fight we're fighting isn't to convince people that global warming is happening. Really. It isn't. What we're really fighting is to get them to do something about it. It won't be until _after_ we've sold them on taking action that they'll admit that global warming exists.
There's no need to publish Mann's code to peer review its science. Peer review has already happened. The scientific community is already convinced. The only people still claiming to be unconvinced are those who ignore anything that doesn't suit their interest.
What is it with news reporting that they never attach a data appendix? C'mon guys. We wanna know: # bots worldwide # broadband computers worldwide # bots in UK # broadbanded computers in UK [repeat for US, China, Canada, Spain, etc.] [then, for kicks, break them down by OS]
This leads us to 3 options: . .. 2) AFP headlines are filtered out. AFP loses market share and relevance 3) (really, a result of 2) News sites avoid AFP like the plague
AFP has "boots on the ground" to actually find out news, get facts, get quotes, verify events. They produce a real product in the real world and will continue to be valuable to their customers. The fundamentals of this situation are that AFP deserves to get paid for its efforts some how.
After all, if they didn't do this work, we'd know less.
US Code Title 17, 107: Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
So, right away Google seems cleared. If some prime minister makes a speech, it's fair use to quote text from the speech in order to report the news. The "news reporting" exception isn't designed to allow quoting of AFP's article about the speech. Put another way, the fact that AFP wrote an article isn't news being reported and doesn't trigger this exception. Go write your own article.
Contrary to your claim, Google News isn't commercial. Yet. It's not making money yet. Isn't it interesting that they don't sell ads on that page or provide google cache links?
Your point about celebrities is hard to follow, but it's worth noting that they can't use a copyrighted work to attract attention to their causes any more than anyone else can. They need a license to sing "Happy Birthday" like everyone else. [insert long, off topic rant here]
To claim news is uneducational in general is to ignore what news is. You don't seriously think that the "educational use" exception covers every quotation from which some one might learn something, do you? If you're not a school or a teacher, you'll have a hard, hard time claiming that you're making an "educational use" of a copyrighted work. That exception exists so that schools can function without hiring more lawyers than teachers.
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. AFP is in the news website business. So is Google. If AFP wants to use it's content to gain eyeballs and Google is taking the eyeballs away, AFP has been damaged. Whether Google has taken enough of the work to infringe, that's yet to be decided.
I suppose that sunrises as we know them begin happenning when there's an Earth that rotates, rather than when the sun first exists. Still, 3.6 million is shorter than the age of man.
I realize this is Slashdot and its Microsoft, but come on.
Kind of reminds you of a Wes Craven flick, doesn't it? Here, IE was guarding the front door while JavaRE was letting the slasher in through the back window.
If your browsers fail to protect each other, sooner or later they will all be owned. What this demonstrates is that no browser on your system is any safer than the weakest part of your system.
What is interesting is that there was absolutely ZERO warning. There had been some minor tremors in the hours before, but nothing that would indicate something on this scale.
People who live near volcanos (and earthquake faults and hurricane zones and tornado alleys and flood zones and . . . ) can acquire such an interesting perspective on what "no warning" means.
I mean, it's a _volcano_. It warned us in 1980. What more can we expect?
In light of many of the current scandals in the business world, I would like to believe that . . ..
So, Boeing fired its CEO this week because he had an affair. To recap: (1) she's not complaining about the affair, (2) he's not complaining about the affair, (3) her coworkers aren't complaining about favoritism, (4) the bean-counters aren't complaining about his expense account, (5) his wife has yet to publically complain, (6) the shareholders weren't hurt, and (7) his government customers weren't coerced into buying anything. But, Boeing fired him anyway.
D'ya think maybe we've gone a little too far, too fast?
That legislature is not not responsible for fixing EBay. They're responsible for fixing Ohio. This law regulates businesses physically in Ohio.
As buyers, we should be happy about a state (or country) that is keeping its citizens honest. Don't you feel better about buying from them knowing that if a seller there screws you, you have some one to complain to who can take real action to help you?
As sellers, if we don't like the law, we can build our businesses elsewhere. Then, we can do anything we want to our customers. It's that simple.
Yep, regardless of the quality. Oh, I grant you that some products are so poor they can't be helped, for example Gigli, but if your product isn't more than a standard deviation or two away from median quality, advertising can sell it.
Take, for example, the 50 films at the top of the U.S. box office over the last 4 months. (Films make a fair example, since they are fungible and have basically the same price, etc.) Rotten films (as rated by Rotten Tomatoes) out-earned fresh ones in Feb, Jan, Dec, and Nov, despite there being more fresh titles out there. You have to go back to October, when SpiderMan 2 was still in theatres, to find a month when fresh films won. Now, consider that theatres should drop bad films faster than good films; yet, bad films still win in dollars. Why?
It's not just that advertising can sway people as between two choices of equal quality. Advertising is more powerful than that and people are more manipulable. Throw enough money at promotion, and you can convince people to choose a product of inferior quality.
The primary ability of all CEOs is charisma. Same for politicians. A moderate intelligence score is also nice. No need for other abilities. The primary difference between CEOs is alignment. For example:
CE - NE - spyware distributor LE - record company CN - N - p2p software writer LN - ICANN (if they make the laws) CG - anti-spam crusader NG - LG - google
Obviously the lawyers would have a field day if P2P was banned...
Actually, the lawyers are better off (net) if P2P is not banned. Enforcing a ban on P2P would create a little work, but enforcing copyrights in a world where P2P exists, . . . that's real money.
Actually, the document covers who can take away voting rights, when, and what happens if they do.
Article I. Section 4. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
Amendment V. No person . . . shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . .
Amendment XIV. Section 1. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Amendment XIV. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Amendment XIX. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
What you're saying is that . .. money spent on promotion/advertising/public relations produces a result regardless of the quality of the thing being promoted.
This _is_ a fact. The way that you know that it is true is that producers of products (e.g. movies, cars, politicians) continue to buy advertising ($500 billion worldwide in 2004). They would not spend this money if promoting a product wasn't a successful way of influencing people to choose it.
Slashdot Mirror
It would probably be a small matter to bury into a large bill some little thing that allows . . .
Amendment XXVIII: Congress shall pass no law exceeding in length this Constitution.
Let's hear it for clear voting records and accountability in law-making.
OK. Mea culpa. After RTFA, it is clear to me that my head was up my . . . Try to pretend my parent post is deleted.
One's interests in keeping clients does not entitle you to make a scientific claim that cannot be peer reviewed. If a paper such as Mann is now regarded as fact, and indeed, makes policy, despite the obvious sloppiness regarding its data management process, then, what is the point of science anyway?
As sad as it is to say, people will believe the Mann paper no matter what is published. Look, the source data are published already and people still believe. Numerous independent reviewers (which is to say _everyone_ else) have debunked Mann and people still believe.
They don't believe Mann because it's verifiable (which it isn't), they believe it because they want to. Or, they claim to believe Mann so that they can justify the self-serving actions they want to take.
The fight we're fighting isn't to convince people that global warming is happening. Really. It isn't. What we're really fighting is to get them to do something about it. It won't be until _after_ we've sold them on taking action that they'll admit that global warming exists.
There's no need to publish Mann's code to peer review its science. Peer review has already happened. The scientific community is already convinced. The only people still claiming to be unconvinced are those who ignore anything that doesn't suit their interest.
LMAO every single time.
Sometimes, I think the SPAM might maybe be worth the trouble it causes -- if only for the amusement value of the proposed solutions.
What is it with news reporting that they never attach a data appendix? C'mon guys. We wanna know:
# bots worldwide
# broadband computers worldwide
# bots in UK
# broadbanded computers in UK
[repeat for US, China, Canada, Spain, etc.]
[then, for kicks, break them down by OS]
;)
. . . In other news, 86% of people surveyed agree that figures never lie.
This leads us to 3 options: . . .
2) AFP headlines are filtered out. AFP loses market share and relevance
3) (really, a result of 2) News sites avoid AFP like the plague
AFP has "boots on the ground" to actually find out news, get facts, get quotes, verify events. They produce a real product in the real world and will continue to be valuable to their customers. The fundamentals of this situation are that AFP deserves to get paid for its efforts some how.
After all, if they didn't do this work, we'd know less.
US Code Title 17, 107: Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
So, right away Google seems cleared.
If some prime minister makes a speech, it's fair use to quote text from the speech in order to report the news. The "news reporting" exception isn't designed to allow quoting of AFP's article about the speech. Put another way, the fact that AFP wrote an article isn't news being reported and doesn't trigger this exception. Go write your own article.
Contrary to your claim, Google News isn't commercial.
Yet. It's not making money yet. Isn't it interesting that they don't sell ads on that page or provide google cache links?
Your point about celebrities is hard to follow, but it's worth noting that they can't use a copyrighted work to attract attention to their causes any more than anyone else can. They need a license to sing "Happy Birthday" like everyone else. [insert long, off topic rant here]
To claim news is uneducational in general is to ignore what news is.
You don't seriously think that the "educational use" exception covers every quotation from which some one might learn something, do you? If you're not a school or a teacher, you'll have a hard, hard time claiming that you're making an "educational use" of a copyrighted work. That exception exists so that schools can function without hiring more lawyers than teachers.
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
AFP is in the news website business. So is Google. If AFP wants to use it's content to gain eyeballs and Google is taking the eyeballs away, AFP has been damaged. Whether Google has taken enough of the work to infringe, that's yet to be decided.
I suppose that sunrises as we know them begin happenning when there's an Earth that rotates, rather than when the sun first exists. Still, 3.6 million is shorter than the age of man.
Chessex Battlemat: $13.95
Vis-a-vis Markers (4 pack): $4.69
DLP Projector: $1,479.00
Leaving every game-geek on Slashdot with no better retort than "it-costs-too-much": priceless.
Floor? Bah. Luxury. We played in the dirt. And we were grateful for it.
Kid's these days.
So .. let me get this right. I'm supposed to pay you for the chance to do YOUR job FOR you?
"Does a boy get a chance to whitewash a fence every day?"
I realize this is Slashdot and its Microsoft, but come on.
Kind of reminds you of a Wes Craven flick, doesn't it? Here, IE was guarding the front door while JavaRE was letting the slasher in through the back window.
If your browsers fail to protect each other, sooner or later they will all be owned. What this demonstrates is that no browser on your system is any safer than the weakest part of your system.
What is interesting is that there was absolutely ZERO warning. There had been some minor tremors in the hours before, but nothing that would indicate something on this scale.
People who live near volcanos (and earthquake faults and hurricane zones and tornado alleys and flood zones and . . . ) can acquire such an interesting perspective on what "no warning" means.
I mean, it's a _volcano_. It warned us in 1980. What more can we expect?
Yes, but pics of a typical D&D session don't make such good art. There are exceptions, of course.
In light of many of the current scandals in the business world, I would like to believe that . . . .
So, Boeing fired its CEO this week because he had an affair. To recap: (1) she's not complaining about the affair, (2) he's not complaining about the affair, (3) her coworkers aren't complaining about favoritism, (4) the bean-counters aren't complaining about his expense account, (5) his wife has yet to publically complain, (6) the shareholders weren't hurt, and (7) his government customers weren't coerced into buying anything. But, Boeing fired him anyway.
D'ya think maybe we've gone a little too far, too fast?
That legislature is not not responsible for fixing EBay. They're responsible for fixing Ohio. This law regulates businesses physically in Ohio.
As buyers, we should be happy about a state (or country) that is keeping its citizens honest. Don't you feel better about buying from them knowing that if a seller there screws you, you have some one to complain to who can take real action to help you?
As sellers, if we don't like the law, we can build our businesses elsewhere. Then, we can do anything we want to our customers. It's that simple.
... studies paid for by them, which are geared to find the opposite result. Lawyers call such experts 'whores.'"
Actually, lawyers also call such experts frequently. Everyone does.
Yep, regardless of the quality. Oh, I grant you that some products are so poor they can't be helped, for example Gigli, but if your product isn't more than a standard deviation or two away from median quality, advertising can sell it.
Take, for example, the 50 films at the top of the U.S. box office over the last 4 months. (Films make a fair example, since they are fungible and have basically the same price, etc.) Rotten films (as rated by Rotten Tomatoes) out-earned fresh ones in Feb, Jan, Dec, and Nov, despite there being more fresh titles out there. You have to go back to October, when SpiderMan 2 was still in theatres, to find a month when fresh films won. Now, consider that theatres should drop bad films faster than good films; yet, bad films still win in dollars. Why?
Feb: Fresh 32 ($1159.6); Rotten 18 ($1228.2)
Jan: Fresh 25 ($885.8); Rotten 24 ($1297.9)
Dec: Fresh 24 ($721.3); Rotten 24 ($1330.4)
Nov: Fresh 26 ($952); Rotten 22 ($989.2)
Oct: Fresh 25 ($1326.5); Rotten 24 ($1047.9)
It's not just that advertising can sway people as between two choices of equal quality. Advertising is more powerful than that and people are more manipulable. Throw enough money at promotion, and you can convince people to choose a product of inferior quality.
I'll take quality over 5 updates a week anyday.
All those rules! And not one that outlaws posting a picture of "sheep in a snowstorm".
The primary ability of all CEOs is charisma. Same for politicians. A moderate intelligence score is also nice. No need for other abilities. The primary difference between CEOs is alignment. For example:
CE -
NE - spyware distributor
LE - record company
CN -
N - p2p software writer
LN - ICANN (if they make the laws)
CG - anti-spam crusader
NG -
LG - google
Obviously the lawyers would have a field day if P2P was banned...
Actually, the lawyers are better off (net) if P2P is not banned. Enforcing a ban on P2P would create a little work, but enforcing copyrights in a world where P2P exists, . . . that's real money.
Actually, the document covers who can take away voting rights, when, and what happens if they do.
Article I. Section 4. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
Amendment V. No person . . . shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . .
Amendment XIV. Section 1. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Amendment XIV. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Amendment XIX. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
- They are immortal. They can accumulate assets forever.
- They are amoral. Most are focused exclusively on making money.
- They cannot be convicted of most crimes. Having an agent be convicted is only a temporary inconvenience to the corporation.
- They do not age, get tired, or fall ill, but they can have children.
- If they make money, they can avoid tax by spending that money.
- They can exist in many places at once.
All of these facts give corporations distinct advantages against natural persons in the contest to accumulate wealth and power.What you're saying is that . . . money spent on promotion/advertising/public relations produces a result regardless of the quality of the thing being promoted.
This _is_ a fact. The way that you know that it is true is that producers of products (e.g. movies, cars, politicians) continue to buy advertising ($500 billion worldwide in 2004). They would not spend this money if promoting a product wasn't a successful way of influencing people to choose it.