This. Fuck, they should give him a nice cushy pension and his own private island for giving them the methods he used to steal said information over those 20 years.
Unless the method he used was to exploit bureaucratic inertia and dysfunction. It's only worth paying people for information you plan to do something about. If you don't plan to do something about it, the next best choice would be to make an example of people who expose your incompetence.
Well, a fire at a lithium battery factory may be one of those things that has the potential to escalate faster than you as an incident commander can escalate your response.
Well, if the TOS are governed by contract law, then such a term is unenforceable in this scenario. The "Public Policy" doctrine says you can't contractually forbid someone from doing a thing that public policy says should be allowed (e.g. joining a union) or even mandated (e.g., cooperating with a criminal investigation).
So -- he's saying that if coal plants had to pay for the cost their emissions impose on other people then they wouldn't be economical. How is that a "war on coal"?
I think the best energy source is a mix of sources joined on an advanced electricity distribution system. This allows you to build out various sources to the point where their marginal costs start to rise. I have no doubt that nuclear can play a key role, but I'd be against a crash program which made us dependent on it, because even if that would work in the short term it doesn't give us time to develop experience with the technologies we'll need or prepare for decommissioning.
Gas for getting stuff working, and pork for all the people who are making money off of useless "renewables".
Appeal to the stone.
At the end of the day, every renewable is backed up by a gas plant.
This actually isn't true. Some energy from renewables are stored, sometimes on a rather large scale.
In the long term the "non-renewable" energy problem will resolve itself, because non-renewable energy sources just aren't... renewable. In the short term, I have to say your logic escapes me. You seem to be implying that the only way an energy source has any usefulness is if we get all of our energy from it all the time. That's really only true if you don't have the technology to build load-following non-renewable power plants.
Eventually, as the percentage of intermittent renewable sources like solar become high enough, then we'll be forced to add over capacity plus storage. But in the meantime a non-renewable joule saved is a non-renewable joule earned.
It's not the object that's copyrighted in any case, it's the expression.
Consider Ansel Adams famous photo of Half Dome at Yosemite. That was taken in 1960 and remains under copyright, but you're allowed to make your own photos of Half Dome, and because it's the same thing, they'll have quite a bit of similarity. But your photo is still yours.
Now imagine you went through a great deal of trouble to reproduce the Adams photo as exactly as possible, taking a picture from the same place at the same time of day with similar film (if you can find it) at the same phase and altitude of the moon. I'd argue then that you've actually violated the Adams copyright, even though you never at any point made a physical copy of a copyrighted image. It's because you've copied his creative expression.
By the same reasoning I believe the claims to copyright of simple photos of non-copyrighted paintings to be wrong. You are trying to reproduce the creative expression of the artist as closely as possible, and that is in the public domain. The situation is more complicated for three dimensional objects like sculptures or furniture where there are significant choices to be made about lighting and composition, but as long as you are producing a one-to-one reproduction (two dimensions to two dimensions, or three dimensions to three dimensions) I see insufficient creative input to stake any claim in the result.
Art museums I think routinely make over-broad claims of intellectual property in order to monetize as much of their investment as they can. As social problems go, though, it's hardly high on the list; that said this is a praiseworthy step by the Metropolitan Museum.
No, "public domain" means use of the works isn't legally restricted. It doesn't mean anyone actually has access to it.
There are no doubt films in studio archives that are no longer covered by copyright for one reason or other, but they have particular reason to dig them out and transcode them. And certainly there are many works in museums that predate copyright altogether that are not available to outsiders. If the museum staff takes a picture of a public domain picture, the resulting picture of a picture is probably at least claimed to by under copyright, so that does the public no good either.
Actually it's just the National Review passing along an "expose" by The Daily Mail. This is the same "newspaper" that claimed a 63 year-old woman became pregnant with baby squid after eating calimari.
If you look into the objections, they're rubbish. The paper in question (Karl et al) is part of an ongoing back-and-forth by scientists over the degree of warming post-1998, so if it is part of a conspiracy by the scientific establishment to cover up contrary data it's a pretty lame conspiracy because it let both sides of the data out.
As for Karl et al, it's a highly technical paper, but to cut to the chase the reason it has the denialists in an uproar is that it proposes a method that erases their precious, cherry-picked post '98 "hiatus". That hiatus didn't exist if you smoothed the data or chose any other starting point but the record setting '98, and it was was blown away by 2014-2016 anyhow. So this is beating a dead horse that was barely alive to begin with. The method in the Karl paper also suggests that the rate of warming since the early 20th C is actually lower than previously believed. Alarmist!
The thing about this kind of bullshit response is that the attraction of a conspiracy theory is that it's quick and easy to understand, as long as you don't try to square it with actual events. People find CTs credible because it says the people bearing bad news are out to get them.
It depends on volume, I guess. An automotive engineer will sell his soul for a buck savings on a $30K car, because that savings if extended over several model years you could be talking millions of cars.
The more repeatable an activity is, the more marginal improvements in financial efficiency matter. We only launched a dozen Saturn Vs, at a billion plus per launch, only 10% of which was the rocket itself. So you put a high premium on simpler operations than minor cost savings on the rocket. But if we were planning hundreds of launches the economics would be different. You'd amortize the engineering over 10x as many vehicles, and your refurbishment operations would become more efficient as it becomes more like an assembly line and less like a craft project.
Seriously, Westeros has nothing on the Eternal City.
And knowledge of Roman history is something all Americans should have. After considering the history of Rome the notion that small-r republican traditions and constitutional arrangements can restrain a tyrant or preserve individual liberty seems naive.
A local problem in the US often is a global problem by extension.
The US represents about 20% of the global economy. Although that figure is declining, it's still a big chunk. And being able to us American consumers as a cash cow underwrites the economic power of these companies in other places.
By analogy look at the kind of market power Microsoft had in the 90s and 00s. It could always survive failure in any market it entered, sometimes for years on end, because of its Office and Windows cash cows.
Would the elite in this country stand for it being done in the prestigious prep schools they send their offspring to? If not, it's no good for your kids either.
Your mind doesn't exist in one dimension. So anything that "expands your mind" isn't necessarily a suitable replacement for something else that "expands your mind".
Greek and Latin are valuable because they give you access to the mind and thoughts of other people. The same for foreign languages. Programming languages don't do that, except in a very narrow domain.
The failure of US language instruction is due to a stubborn unwillingness to change. We've known for fifty years or more that human language acquisition ability rapidly fades at adolescence, and yet we continue to to insist on waiting until adolescence to teach kids foreign language.
Slashdot Mirror
You are making a Blazing Saddles reference, I know, but the actual Le Pétomane was an interesting character. He was a French professional flatulist. He was the toast of Paris until, disgusted by WW1, decided humanity did not deserve his art and retired to run a bakery in Marseilles.
It's enough to make you believe in a God -- albeit of the kind who would mock a noble soul with a ridiculous talent.
This. Fuck, they should give him a nice cushy pension and his own private island for giving them the methods he used to steal said information over those 20 years.
Unless the method he used was to exploit bureaucratic inertia and dysfunction. It's only worth paying people for information you plan to do something about. If you don't plan to do something about it, the next best choice would be to make an example of people who expose your incompetence.
You do realize all it takes to be "up for" a Pulitzer is pay the $50 entry fee.
You do realize all it takes to be "up for" a Pulitzer is pay the $50 entry fee.
As with the Nobel's, which are a *little* harder to get nominated for, the only thing that matters is winning. Being considered says nothing.
Well, a fire at a lithium battery factory may be one of those things that has the potential to escalate faster than you as an incident commander can escalate your response.
That's the big problem everybody has.
Well, if the TOS are governed by contract law, then such a term is unenforceable in this scenario. The "Public Policy" doctrine says you can't contractually forbid someone from doing a thing that public policy says should be allowed (e.g. joining a union) or even mandated (e.g., cooperating with a criminal investigation).
Oh it's not getting caught you have to evade; it's paying consequences.
Of course that ice storm can also bring down transmission lines.
Actually, neither analogy is in any way useful.
Seriously, can you imagine someone warming themself next to a solar panel?
No, but I can imagine someone warming himself next to an electric space heater.
So -- he's saying that if coal plants had to pay for the cost their emissions impose on other people then they wouldn't be economical. How is that a "war on coal"?
I think the best energy source is a mix of sources joined on an advanced electricity distribution system. This allows you to build out various sources to the point where their marginal costs start to rise. I have no doubt that nuclear can play a key role, but I'd be against a crash program which made us dependent on it, because even if that would work in the short term it doesn't give us time to develop experience with the technologies we'll need or prepare for decommissioning.
Gas for getting stuff working, and pork for all the people who are making money off of useless "renewables".
Appeal to the stone.
At the end of the day, every renewable is backed up by a gas plant.
This actually isn't true. Some energy from renewables are stored, sometimes on a rather large scale.
In the long term the "non-renewable" energy problem will resolve itself, because non-renewable energy sources just aren't... renewable. In the short term, I have to say your logic escapes me. You seem to be implying that the only way an energy source has any usefulness is if we get all of our energy from it all the time. That's really only true if you don't have the technology to build load-following non-renewable power plants.
Eventually, as the percentage of intermittent renewable sources like solar become high enough, then we'll be forced to add over capacity plus storage. But in the meantime a non-renewable joule saved is a non-renewable joule earned.
Because we'll never need more power.
It wouldn't have to be exact, it would have to be close enough to be a clear attempt at copying.
It's not the object that's copyrighted in any case, it's the expression.
Consider Ansel Adams famous photo of Half Dome at Yosemite. That was taken in 1960 and remains under copyright, but you're allowed to make your own photos of Half Dome, and because it's the same thing, they'll have quite a bit of similarity. But your photo is still yours.
Now imagine you went through a great deal of trouble to reproduce the Adams photo as exactly as possible, taking a picture from the same place at the same time of day with similar film (if you can find it) at the same phase and altitude of the moon. I'd argue then that you've actually violated the Adams copyright, even though you never at any point made a physical copy of a copyrighted image. It's because you've copied his creative expression.
By the same reasoning I believe the claims to copyright of simple photos of non-copyrighted paintings to be wrong. You are trying to reproduce the creative expression of the artist as closely as possible, and that is in the public domain. The situation is more complicated for three dimensional objects like sculptures or furniture where there are significant choices to be made about lighting and composition, but as long as you are producing a one-to-one reproduction (two dimensions to two dimensions, or three dimensions to three dimensions) I see insufficient creative input to stake any claim in the result.
Art museums I think routinely make over-broad claims of intellectual property in order to monetize as much of their investment as they can. As social problems go, though, it's hardly high on the list; that said this is a praiseworthy step by the Metropolitan Museum.
No, "public domain" means use of the works isn't legally restricted. It doesn't mean anyone actually has access to it.
There are no doubt films in studio archives that are no longer covered by copyright for one reason or other, but they have particular reason to dig them out and transcode them. And certainly there are many works in museums that predate copyright altogether that are not available to outsiders. If the museum staff takes a picture of a public domain picture, the resulting picture of a picture is probably at least claimed to by under copyright, so that does the public no good either.
Actually it's just the National Review passing along an "expose" by The Daily Mail. This is the same "newspaper" that claimed a 63 year-old woman became pregnant with baby squid after eating calimari.
If you look into the objections, they're rubbish. The paper in question (Karl et al) is part of an ongoing back-and-forth by scientists over the degree of warming post-1998, so if it is part of a conspiracy by the scientific establishment to cover up contrary data it's a pretty lame conspiracy because it let both sides of the data out.
As for Karl et al, it's a highly technical paper, but to cut to the chase the reason it has the denialists in an uproar is that it proposes a method that erases their precious, cherry-picked post '98 "hiatus". That hiatus didn't exist if you smoothed the data or chose any other starting point but the record setting '98, and it was was blown away by 2014-2016 anyhow. So this is beating a dead horse that was barely alive to begin with. The method in the Karl paper also suggests that the rate of warming since the early 20th C is actually lower than previously believed. Alarmist!
The thing about this kind of bullshit response is that the attraction of a conspiracy theory is that it's quick and easy to understand, as long as you don't try to square it with actual events. People find CTs credible because it says the people bearing bad news are out to get them.
It depends on volume, I guess. An automotive engineer will sell his soul for a buck savings on a $30K car, because that savings if extended over several model years you could be talking millions of cars.
The more repeatable an activity is, the more marginal improvements in financial efficiency matter. We only launched a dozen Saturn Vs, at a billion plus per launch, only 10% of which was the rocket itself. So you put a high premium on simpler operations than minor cost savings on the rocket. But if we were planning hundreds of launches the economics would be different. You'd amortize the engineering over 10x as many vehicles, and your refurbishment operations would become more efficient as it becomes more like an assembly line and less like a craft project.
Seriously, Westeros has nothing on the Eternal City.
And knowledge of Roman history is something all Americans should have. After considering the history of Rome the notion that small-r republican traditions and constitutional arrangements can restrain a tyrant or preserve individual liberty seems naive.
A local problem in the US often is a global problem by extension.
The US represents about 20% of the global economy. Although that figure is declining, it's still a big chunk. And being able to us American consumers as a cash cow underwrites the economic power of these companies in other places.
By analogy look at the kind of market power Microsoft had in the 90s and 00s. It could always survive failure in any market it entered, sometimes for years on end, because of its Office and Windows cash cows.
The vast majority of people will sign away anything just to make a page of legalese disappear.
Would the elite in this country stand for it being done in the prestigious prep schools they send their offspring to? If not, it's no good for your kids either.
Your mind doesn't exist in one dimension. So anything that "expands your mind" isn't necessarily a suitable replacement for something else that "expands your mind".
Greek and Latin are valuable because they give you access to the mind and thoughts of other people. The same for foreign languages. Programming languages don't do that, except in a very narrow domain.
The failure of US language instruction is due to a stubborn unwillingness to change. We've known for fifty years or more that human language acquisition ability rapidly fades at adolescence, and yet we continue to to insist on waiting until adolescence to teach kids foreign language.