Climbing Everest is stupid, irresponsible, dangerous, pointless task for people with severe mental problems like constantly needing approval from others or pathological levels of arrogance or constantly feeling inadequate. So I have to wonder how he even got that job at Google with the personality of an Everest climber.
Do you play computer games?
If so do you play on beginner mode or hard mode? Personally I go for the harder modes because accomplishment is a lot more satisfying when there's a legitimate challenge involved.
Climbing Everest isn't anything different. If you really like to climb it's the most accessible major challenge out there, it's true that not everybody who climbs Everest is a dedicated climber who's "earned" the right to take on that challenge, but I see no evidence that Dan Fredinburg was one of those people.
The fact that climbing Everest doesn't personally appeal to you doesn't give you grounds to make up some BS rationalization for insulting those who do.
Personally I have no desire to take on an even moderately dangerous hobby, but I think nothing less of those who do.
Sharpe hopes the products will be universal—in schools, retirement homes, and private residences, anywhere there is severe weather.
According to the website they sell capsules for 2-10 people. Can you imagine how big a 10 person capsule would be? For a small school of 300 kids you'd still need 30 of them! Even if you had the money where does he expect people to store them?! It doesn't even make sense for paranoid families.
If you're that worried about the weather then you won't stick around for a bad hurricane (or you'd have a safe room built in).
An earthquake won't give you time to reach the survival ball.
Yes it might be useful for the tsunami they focus on, but those are incredibly rare and inconsistent, and if people were that worried they'd already be buying cheap air tanks and respirators.
On the other hand a good usage might be what they're doing now, using it as a lifeboat (assuming the crew is small enough). If a really severe storm comes up and the ship is going down then an impregnable capsule where you can wait for rescue sounds appealing.
Am I missing something or is that the only real market for their product? Their obsession with tsunamis just strikes me as bizarre.
What is the median age of people who are applying to Google? I suspect that many older programmers are set in their job and/or do not have the skills in the newer technology and do not apply.
I suspect this is the case. Each year Google went to my graduate department and tried to recruit everyone who was coming out. Among the foreign students in particular you could walk up to a random student, ask them when they were doing their Google interview, and you'd almost always get an answer (foreign students liked big companies because it made the H1B stuff easier)
Google is also a very young company. They're not going to have people who have been around for 20 years because they haven't been around 20 years. I know a few people who are 40+ in my company and most of them have been there 10+ years.
Moreover looking at the article I don't think he's got much of a case:
In the complaint's account, Heath was contacted by a recruiter with Google's engineering staff. The company was looking for candidates with experience in C/C++ and Java. "After reviewing your experience, I thought you would be a great candidate to come work at Google and add value," wrote the Google recruiter to Heath.
I've gotten those, hell I think RMS got one from Microsoft. The recruiter just wants to get you applying, it's no indication that you're good for the job.
There was a technical telephone interview that, as described in this lawsuit, appears to have been handled oddly. The interviewer was 10 minutes late to the call, "barely fluent in English," and "used a speaker phone that did not function well." Heath politely asked him, repeatedly, to use the phone's headset but the request was declined
Alright it was a crappy interview, does he think Google was deliberately throwing the interview? Why not just give him some really difficult problems so he fails and thinks he wasn't good enough? If they really wanted to avoid old people it would be simpler just to direct their recruiters to avoid them.
Maybe there is some age discrimination going on at Google, but if so this article is hardly evidence of that fact.
I'm tired of these security experts holding these sites hostage. They should disclose these vulnerabilities to build a safer Internet, not to line their pockets.
If they really wanted to line their pockets, they'd sell them to the black hats.
Blindly disclosing the security holes to the internet at large makes the internet less safe in the short term since the bad guys can exploit the vulnerabilities before the good guys can fix them.
Groupon could hire people themselves to find the vulnerabilities, but they chose not to, instead they offer a bounty for security bugs, which apparently is very cost effective when they don't pay up, so it's a double win - no need to pay money to hire security experts when a community of bug hunters will do the work for a token bounty, and no reason to actually pay the bounty when you can find a technicality (if one out of 30 bugs were released in violation of their guidelines, why aren't they paying their promised bounty for the others?)
I'm sure they do have their own people looking for vulnerabilities, but if outsiders also find vulnerabilities they'd like to know.
As for the non-payout I doubt Groupon's motive is financial. Far more likely they really want to discourage people from disclosing the bugs publicly before they have a chance to fix them.
Whether Groupon is being reasonable is the question here.
I'm personally skeptical that the expert found 32 separate issues but suspect he found 32 variations on the same issue (he says 32 sites affected, which leads me to believe this is the case). If so the description of one issue could give an attacker enough of a clue to find the other 31 issues.
Then again it could be 32 legitimately unique issues, and the one vague disclosure might not have been enough to help an attacker. In that case Groupon should probably pay him out.
And you're saying that everyone at Apple that featured her app on the Apple Watch knew they were showing a snake oil app on their brand new shiny device?
So anything I produce at the beginning of my career, say 21 years old, is good when I am still performing at age 70? Am I the Rolling Stones? 35 years should be plenty.
Being a musician is a job. You don't have to be the Rolling Stones to have a 50+ year career, particularly if you don't have the cash to retire early.
Though I do agree that 35 years would probably be decent as well though I'm not sure how much shorter I'd want to go. Note the comment I was responding to said 3 to 5 years.
The thing is that most art can be divided into 3 categories - a) crap that no one would copy even without copyrights, b) pretty good work that need copyright protection for 5 years, but no one would copy after that anyway and c) mega-hits that earn so much money in the first 5 years that the original creators might quit and never do anything again unless we found a way to encourage them to create again - hence the copyright extension ONLY if they make a sequel.
What about d) moderate successes that build a slower success.
The release dates for the last 5 albums I bought were 1993, 1994, 2012, 2013, and 2014. The 1994 purchase was from a band with moderate success but nowhere near a mega-hit. I think there's a lot of groups like that, essentially middle class musicians who do need the income from from older releases (though I can't find any numbers to suggest how significant or insignificant that income might be).
50 years is already way too long. They should reduce it to 3-5 years. That would give the artist plenty of time to make a profit. Unfortunately, copyright as it is now implemented and enforced is entirely for the benefit of large corporate interests. It stifles creativity rather than promoting it.
This sounds like a horrible thing for smaller artists or labels. The only way to make record sales income under that term is to have a major promoter backing you. Good records that slowly build an audience? Not viable.
I actually think 50 years is appropriate, for a lifelong artist the stuff from the start of their career starts going public domain at the end of their career. If parts of their catalogue go public domain while they're still active then things start getting weird because the status is changing while they're still performing and tinkering with it.
They're a company that wants to stay in business. TV's about as locked in as can be and even they're draining audiences in one form or another. The internet is an amazing levelling field, and even if terrestrial TV packed up and quit tomorrow, there'd be no firm reason NetFlix alone would dominate the internet markets. They're playing the same game by locking up good content behuind their platform so that if/when the sh hits the fan, they'll have something to keep loyal customers paying well for their services.
I might phrase it differently as adapting to the eventual market.
Netflix isn't going to be the only big web distributor for long. Not only are cable companies putting out their own distribution networks but so are the Networks who produce content. When there's 10 services available people are going to go to the service with the hit shows, if each service is also a content provider they can create the exclusive hit show that preserves part of the audience, if not they wither away and die as their audience is slowly siphoned away.
If Netflix wants to survive they need to produce a show so they can control the distribution. Hopefully this leads to cross licensing so you can watch everything by choosing among competing services, but even if not a fragmented market is better than a monopoly.
I'm ashamed that vi vs. emacs never ended in a knife fight. The youngens are showing us up!!
No offence to Vi users but have you ever tried using Emacs? With those kinds of finger gymnastics the Emacs user would win a knife fight in a heartbeat.
I'm ashamed that vi vs. emacs never ended in a knife fight. The youngens are showing us up!!
Years back I heard a rumour that at a conference in Australia that Theo de Raadt and a relatively big name Linux contributor got in an argument over autoconf which ended with them being physically restrained.
I don't know if it's true but it's one of the more awesome things I've heard.
Are you so mentally deranged that you claim a blog post is evidence? No, it's not! Instead of wallowing in your pathetic OPINION step back and review FACTS.
Uhh, the blog post was by a medical doctor, and it was filled with facts.
Was he reprimanded in any way by any medical board? NO
Was he found guilty of any form of malpractice? NO
Probably because his actions on a talk show aren't covered by malpractice.
If the doctors want to claim he is a quack they must provide evidence. If you claim he's a quack YOU must provide evidence. No evidence == delusional opinion.
We should not have to register vehicles, obtain drivers licenses, social security numbers, license plates, or submit to other forms of identification. It's not impossible to arrest someone for committing murder in a system without driver licenses or taxi licenses. Such licensing doesn't stop or reduce the murder rate either. All it does is add costs to running a business.
Just last month I watched a truck rear end a minivan at a stop light then decide to make a run for it. In the process he forced a girl to jump out of the way (or get run over) then flew over a sidewalk around a blind corner (if anyone had been walking there he could have killed them).
Fortunately several people caught the license plate, he had a record already and with this latest infraction he'll likely be off the roads for a while. That most definitely could save lives.
you do have a right to drive people without being licensed. At the same time people have the right to refuse business with unlicensed drivers. Uber I imagine actually reduces risk to drivers and passengers alike by enabling individuals to select safer drivers.
What you don't have it the right to arbitrarily declare the laws we don't like to be unjust. There are times when there's real rights involved and civil disobedience is justified, I don't think a novel way of running a taxi service qualifies.
Should the law be changed to allow Uber-like services? Probably.
But that doesn't mean Uber can simply ignore the current laws.
And yet, there is one thing - one single bit of information - that the chemical industry has spent billions making sure never gets on that package.
That doesn't mean they know it's dangerous, it just means that they know it will make people think it's dangerous.
I've already stated that the health concerns are not what's driving my opinion on GMOs.
I don't think your concerns are the factor that's pushing the GMO labelling movement. And there are other regulatory ways to address your concerns that have nothing to do with labelling.
Shall we have a little conversation about which chemicals "Science" has told us are completely safe? And especially the FDA? You really wanna go down that road with me?
That's the question of a chemical designed to have a pharmacological effect that they didn't know how to properly test at the time.
With GMOs we're talking about chemicals that we're already ingesting as part of other foods.
And yes it's possible that it will contain some compound that will turn out to be harmful, but that's absolutely true of any food. It could even be safer since we're going to know a lot more about the chemicals in a GMO apple than the chemicals in the countless varieties of normal apples.
Or my personal favorite in the category of "Scientist who tells you something is completely safe but runs away when it comes near him":
Meh, there's a lot of things that wouldn't harm me but I really wouldn't want to drink (particularly when handed to me by a hostile interviewer). He was stupid and a bit misleading in how he brought up the drinking example since he implied it wasn't just non-toxic but actually drinkable, but he was fundamentally truthful.
There's also the question of what he means by harm, it might not cause hospitalization or serious side effects, but it might cause him to throw up and have a horrible taste in his mouth for days.
And, I'm also more than a little offended by people who say that consumers don't have a right to know the provenance of the food they eat. As if you've become some new arbiter of what information consumers may be allowed to base their purchasing decisions on. If I don't want to buy green socks, I don't have to buy green socks, even though they are every bit as safe as the grey socks I prefer. Does that mean that sock consumers must now not be allowed to see the color of the fucking socks in the package, because after all, green socks are functionally the same as grey socks?
[...]
So knock if off before you get someone hurt. And just put the goddamn label on the package, OK? If you're so ashamed of where that food comes from, well that tells me something, too.
Lets look at those socks. You can see the colour, what about the cotton? Was the cotton from a GMO cotton plant? Did it come from an organic farm? Which pesticides did they use? Were the trucks used to transport it carbon neutral? Was the farmer independent or part of a conglomerate? Did they use dye X that some random blog claimed was a carcinogen? etc
There are thousands of things the consumer might want to know but they can't all possibly fit on the package. Instead the government mandates a few pieces of information they think you need to know, if the government puts GMO labelling on foods then the government is suggesting that the GMO status is so important (ie potentially dangerous) that the consumer needs to be informed.
Yes I know a lot of people want to know if the food is GMO, but their desire to know is based on faulty science.
Also, the studies on GMO safety have been extremely narrow, looking for toxicity and certain types of cancer-causing effects. There have been no studies at all on people who've eaten GMOs for 20 years, because they've only been selling GMOs to people for 20 years. Further, no studies on the overall health of people eating GMOs or life expectancy of people eating GMOs or effect of GMOs on developing children or senior citizens. Not a fucking one. And I don't know what's up where you live, but judging from the people I see walking the streets who eat the foods most likely to come from GMOs (ie: prepared foods), I would say it's not a shining endorsement of the health-giving benefits of GMOs.
I've got concerns about the corporate influence or the monoculture that GMOs create. But the health concerns are bogus.
What's the difference between a GMO and non-GMO food? The GMO food can potentially create a slightly different set of chemicals. We can assess it's safety the same way we assess the safety of any piece of food, look at what those chemicals are and see if any are dangerous. Pretending the GMO origin of the food creates some mysterious threat without any plausible mechanism is anti-science.
There's a billion links on Google but as a quick specific piece of evidence here's a blog post by a doctor from 2011 that among other things covers Dr Oz's dalliances with reiki, Deepak Chopra, and the endorsement of a quack who claims baking soda cures cancer.
So yes, Dr Oz endorses quackery and he's been known to do it for years.
I see no substance to the claims of quackery, just empty claims. Yeah, he pissed off Monsanto or Bayer or one of those, because that is the only thing they will firmly claim.
Ask the important question: How long has he been on TV and just now someone want's to claim he's a quack? Sorry, his format has not changed, nor the advice he is giving out. Then look at cui bono, and it's obvious what is going on.
People have been calling him a quack for years, even before he got his own show.
The astounding thing is it took his colleagues this long to really call him out.
They shouldn't have said it for the reason that it was a bad PR tactic which let him spin it back at them.
If I were to guess why they included that line it's because the claimed health effects of GMO's are probably a frustrating topic. If I talk to someone and they start going on about homeopathy I know they're probably going to buy into all the alternative medicine BS. But a lot of otherwise scientifically minded people buy into the idea that GMO's have a lot of harmful health effects. They probably wanted to get in the message that there's no evidence and it's just another pile of quackery.
Quackery they could tolerate. But how dare he question the nutritious yummy GMOs whose manufacturers are pumping millions of dollars into endowments for those other Columbia University medical faculty. While he's enriching himself, those poor souls may lose out on lucrative $$$. Can't have that. (That's not to say dr. Oz is not a quack - he certainly is a snake oil salesman, but these guys have an agenda that's as clear as day)
Rather Dr. Oz has an agenda in spinning his response so it looks like his accusers have an agenda.
Police: Joe robbed a grocery store last week and shot five people this week!
Joe: It's not fair to say I robbed the grocery store. The owner was greedy and ripping people off!
As long as he was peddling magical dietary supplements and weight loss pills he was a lovable scamp and was allowed to carry on with his mischief. But as soon as he dared cross Monsanto, he is a quack that must be squashed.
Here's the relevant portions of the letter in question: As described here and here, as well as in other publications, Dr. Oz has repeatedly shown disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine, as well as baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops. Worst of all, he has manifested an egregious lack of integrity by promoting quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial gain.
Thus, Dr. Oz is guilty of either outrageous conflicts of interest or flawed judgements about what constitutes appropriate medical treatments, or both. Whatever the nature of his pathology, members of the public are being misled and endangered, which makes Dr. Oz's presence on the faculty of a prestigious medical institution unacceptable.
I see one reference to GMO opposition and two or three references to quack science and conflicts of interest. Dr. Oz's rebuttal on the other hand only specifically mentions the GMO's.
It's a clever PR ploy on Dr. Oz's part, focus on the milder part of the accusation and suggest a conspiracy. Meanwhile ignore the more serious accusations that are much harder to defend.
Nothing like releasing your review the day after units start shipping, ie when it's too late to find out the unit's faults.
Goddammit I hate embargos...the only reason they exist is to hide flaws and problems from people who could get a refund. Ray, stop being the industry's bitch. You have a ton of readers, tell gadget makers to pound sand if they tell you that you can't release a review before it ships.
More likely it's a PR thing, you want the biggest media splash when the device is available for purchase, not before when you only have a handful of people willing to preorder.
Seems they have an issue with truth here, Google does not stop them indexing Youtube, see the Robots.txt below.
The Robots.txt is just a suggestion, if the blocking was in there MS could just ignore it. I suspect the issue is that Google is detecting and blocking Microsoft's web crawlers, either deliberately or as collateral damage from trying to stop hostile bots.
Duckduckgo uses youtube
Duckduckgo is a meta search engine, they don't actually build their own index but create an index based on results from other search engines. Besides, I'm guessing the issue isn't that engines can't index Youtube at all, but they can't build a good index because they keep getting blocked.
It is junk science, some creatures can indeed be frozen and revived because of unique properties of their physiology. Humans cannot.
In fact, by decapitating this girl and digging her brain out of her skull, they've guaranteed she is forever dead.
So we're very unlikely to be able thaw her brain and have it work again.
But that's not the only option. Even in a brain frozen and turned into mush there will still be a lot of information preserved, how do you know that preserved information is insufficient to recreate a human consciousness?
Remember we're potentially talking about hundreds of years in the future, it's entirely plausible to assume we're talking a full theory of consciousness with nanites and a brains uploaded into computers. Are you really so certain consciousness couldn't be extracted from those brains?
I can remember reading several articles which stated that cryonics doesn't work because the freezing process is not perfect - it does not stop decomposition, which older frozen specimens were starting to show. Why do people still spend money on this?
Disregard cost and even at the worst their outcomes won't be any worse than the control group.
They *should*, if their goal of legitimizing Open Source video drivers is true.
Legitimizing Linux gaming is not really dependent on having open source the drivers. It is dependent on having good drivers. Valve does not have a stated goal of supporting open source. Their goal is to sell games.
Decent open source drivers might even contradict their goal of legitimizing Linux gaming.
Anyone using Steam is obviously open to running proprietary code on their computer, the only question is how much proprietary code.
If there's decent open source drivers then a subset of the Linux user base is going to use those and they've got to be supported. That's more work for Valve and game publishers since there's another driver to test against. Costs go up, bugs go up, and fewer people develop games for Linux.
The best thing for Linux gaming on Steam is everyone using the same high quality driver, I wouldn't expect Valve to fight for something else.
Slashdot Mirror
Climbing Everest is stupid, irresponsible, dangerous, pointless task for people with severe mental problems like constantly needing approval from others or pathological levels of arrogance or constantly feeling inadequate. So I have to wonder how he even got that job at Google with the personality of an Everest climber.
Do you play computer games?
If so do you play on beginner mode or hard mode? Personally I go for the harder modes because accomplishment is a lot more satisfying when there's a legitimate challenge involved.
Climbing Everest isn't anything different. If you really like to climb it's the most accessible major challenge out there, it's true that not everybody who climbs Everest is a dedicated climber who's "earned" the right to take on that challenge, but I see no evidence that Dan Fredinburg was one of those people.
The fact that climbing Everest doesn't personally appeal to you doesn't give you grounds to make up some BS rationalization for insulting those who do.
Personally I have no desire to take on an even moderately dangerous hobby, but I think nothing less of those who do.
Sharpe hopes the products will be universal—in schools, retirement homes, and private residences, anywhere there is severe weather.
According to the website they sell capsules for 2-10 people. Can you imagine how big a 10 person capsule would be? For a small school of 300 kids you'd still need 30 of them! Even if you had the money where does he expect people to store them?! It doesn't even make sense for paranoid families.
If you're that worried about the weather then you won't stick around for a bad hurricane (or you'd have a safe room built in).
An earthquake won't give you time to reach the survival ball.
Yes it might be useful for the tsunami they focus on, but those are incredibly rare and inconsistent, and if people were that worried they'd already be buying cheap air tanks and respirators.
On the other hand a good usage might be what they're doing now, using it as a lifeboat (assuming the crew is small enough). If a really severe storm comes up and the ship is going down then an impregnable capsule where you can wait for rescue sounds appealing.
Am I missing something or is that the only real market for their product? Their obsession with tsunamis just strikes me as bizarre.
What is the median age of people who are applying to Google? I suspect that many older programmers are set in their job and/or do not have the skills in the newer technology and do not apply.
I suspect this is the case. Each year Google went to my graduate department and tried to recruit everyone who was coming out. Among the foreign students in particular you could walk up to a random student, ask them when they were doing their Google interview, and you'd almost always get an answer (foreign students liked big companies because it made the H1B stuff easier)
Google is also a very young company. They're not going to have people who have been around for 20 years because they haven't been around 20 years. I know a few people who are 40+ in my company and most of them have been there 10+ years.
Moreover looking at the article I don't think he's got much of a case:
In the complaint's account, Heath was contacted by a recruiter with Google's engineering staff. The company was looking for candidates with experience in C/C++ and Java. "After reviewing your experience, I thought you would be a great candidate to come work at Google and add value," wrote the Google recruiter to Heath.
I've gotten those, hell I think RMS got one from Microsoft. The recruiter just wants to get you applying, it's no indication that you're good for the job.
There was a technical telephone interview that, as described in this lawsuit, appears to have been handled oddly. The interviewer was 10 minutes late to the call, "barely fluent in English," and "used a speaker phone that did not function well." Heath politely asked him, repeatedly, to use the phone's headset but the request was declined
Alright it was a crappy interview, does he think Google was deliberately throwing the interview? Why not just give him some really difficult problems so he fails and thinks he wasn't good enough? If they really wanted to avoid old people it would be simpler just to direct their recruiters to avoid them.
Maybe there is some age discrimination going on at Google, but if so this article is hardly evidence of that fact.
I'm tired of these security experts holding these sites hostage. They should disclose these vulnerabilities to build a safer Internet, not to line their pockets.
If they really wanted to line their pockets, they'd sell them to the black hats.
Blindly disclosing the security holes to the internet at large makes the internet less safe in the short term since the bad guys can exploit the vulnerabilities before the good guys can fix them.
Groupon could hire people themselves to find the vulnerabilities, but they chose not to, instead they offer a bounty for security bugs, which apparently is very cost effective when they don't pay up, so it's a double win - no need to pay money to hire security experts when a community of bug hunters will do the work for a token bounty, and no reason to actually pay the bounty when you can find a technicality (if one out of 30 bugs were released in violation of their guidelines, why aren't they paying their promised bounty for the others?)
I'm sure they do have their own people looking for vulnerabilities, but if outsiders also find vulnerabilities they'd like to know.
As for the non-payout I doubt Groupon's motive is financial. Far more likely they really want to discourage people from disclosing the bugs publicly before they have a chance to fix them.
Whether Groupon is being reasonable is the question here.
I'm personally skeptical that the expert found 32 separate issues but suspect he found 32 variations on the same issue (he says 32 sites affected, which leads me to believe this is the case). If so the description of one issue could give an attacker enough of a clue to find the other 31 issues.
Then again it could be 32 legitimately unique issues, and the one vague disclosure might not have been enough to help an attacker. In that case Groupon should probably pay him out.
And you're saying that everyone at Apple that featured her app on the Apple Watch knew they were showing a snake oil app on their brand new shiny device?
The extra irony here is that it's quite likely that Steve Jobs is dead because of BS cancer treatments.
So anything I produce at the beginning of my career, say 21 years old, is good when I am still performing at age 70? Am I the Rolling Stones? 35 years should be plenty.
Being a musician is a job. You don't have to be the Rolling Stones to have a 50+ year career, particularly if you don't have the cash to retire early.
Though I do agree that 35 years would probably be decent as well though I'm not sure how much shorter I'd want to go. Note the comment I was responding to said 3 to 5 years.
The thing is that most art can be divided into 3 categories - a) crap that no one would copy even without copyrights, b) pretty good work that need copyright protection for 5 years, but no one would copy after that anyway and c) mega-hits that earn so much money in the first 5 years that the original creators might quit and never do anything again unless we found a way to encourage them to create again - hence the copyright extension ONLY if they make a sequel.
What about d) moderate successes that build a slower success.
The release dates for the last 5 albums I bought were 1993, 1994, 2012, 2013, and 2014. The 1994 purchase was from a band with moderate success but nowhere near a mega-hit. I think there's a lot of groups like that, essentially middle class musicians who do need the income from from older releases (though I can't find any numbers to suggest how significant or insignificant that income might be).
50 years is already way too long. They should reduce it to 3-5 years. That would give the artist plenty of time to make a profit. Unfortunately, copyright as it is now implemented and enforced is entirely for the benefit of large corporate interests. It stifles creativity rather than promoting it.
This sounds like a horrible thing for smaller artists or labels. The only way to make record sales income under that term is to have a major promoter backing you. Good records that slowly build an audience? Not viable.
I actually think 50 years is appropriate, for a lifelong artist the stuff from the start of their career starts going public domain at the end of their career. If parts of their catalogue go public domain while they're still active then things start getting weird because the status is changing while they're still performing and tinkering with it.
They're a company that wants to stay in business. TV's about as locked in as can be and even they're draining audiences in one form or another. The internet is an amazing levelling field, and even if terrestrial TV packed up and quit tomorrow, there'd be no firm reason NetFlix alone would dominate the internet markets. They're playing the same game by locking up good content behuind their platform so that if/when the sh hits the fan, they'll have something to keep loyal customers paying well for their services.
I might phrase it differently as adapting to the eventual market.
Netflix isn't going to be the only big web distributor for long. Not only are cable companies putting out their own distribution networks but so are the Networks who produce content. When there's 10 services available people are going to go to the service with the hit shows, if each service is also a content provider they can create the exclusive hit show that preserves part of the audience, if not they wither away and die as their audience is slowly siphoned away.
If Netflix wants to survive they need to produce a show so they can control the distribution. Hopefully this leads to cross licensing so you can watch everything by choosing among competing services, but even if not a fragmented market is better than a monopoly.
I'm ashamed that vi vs. emacs never ended in a knife fight. The youngens are showing us up!!
No offence to Vi users but have you ever tried using Emacs? With those kinds of finger gymnastics the Emacs user would win a knife fight in a heartbeat.
I'm ashamed that vi vs. emacs never ended in a knife fight. The youngens are showing us up!!
Years back I heard a rumour that at a conference in Australia that Theo de Raadt and a relatively big name Linux contributor got in an argument over autoconf which ended with them being physically restrained.
I don't know if it's true but it's one of the more awesome things I've heard.
Are you so mentally deranged that you claim a blog post is evidence? No, it's not! Instead of wallowing in your pathetic OPINION step back and review FACTS.
Uhh, the blog post was by a medical doctor, and it was filled with facts.
Was he reprimanded in any way by any medical board? NO
Was he found guilty of any form of malpractice? NO
Probably because his actions on a talk show aren't covered by malpractice.
If the doctors want to claim he is a quack they must provide evidence. If you claim he's a quack YOU must provide evidence. No evidence == delusional opinion.
Fine:
For recommendations in The Dr Oz Show, evidence supported 46%, contradicted 15%, and was not found for 39%.
We should not have to register vehicles, obtain drivers licenses, social security numbers, license plates, or submit to other forms of identification. It's not impossible to arrest someone for committing murder in a system without driver licenses or taxi licenses. Such licensing doesn't stop or reduce the murder rate either. All it does is add costs to running a business.
Just last month I watched a truck rear end a minivan at a stop light then decide to make a run for it. In the process he forced a girl to jump out of the way (or get run over) then flew over a sidewalk around a blind corner (if anyone had been walking there he could have killed them).
Fortunately several people caught the license plate, he had a record already and with this latest infraction he'll likely be off the roads for a while. That most definitely could save lives.
you do have a right to drive people without being licensed. At the same time people have the right to refuse business with unlicensed drivers. Uber I imagine actually reduces risk to drivers and passengers alike by enabling individuals to select safer drivers.
What you don't have it the right to arbitrarily declare the laws we don't like to be unjust. There are times when there's real rights involved and civil disobedience is justified, I don't think a novel way of running a taxi service qualifies.
Should the law be changed to allow Uber-like services? Probably.
But that doesn't mean Uber can simply ignore the current laws.
And yet, there is one thing - one single bit of information - that the chemical industry has spent billions making sure never gets on that package.
That doesn't mean they know it's dangerous, it just means that they know it will make people think it's dangerous.
I've already stated that the health concerns are not what's driving my opinion on GMOs.
I don't think your concerns are the factor that's pushing the GMO labelling movement. And there are other regulatory ways to address your concerns that have nothing to do with labelling.
Shall we have a little conversation about which chemicals "Science" has told us are completely safe? And especially the FDA? You really wanna go down that road with me?
http://www.thalidomide.ca/the-... [thalidomide.ca]
That's the question of a chemical designed to have a pharmacological effect that they didn't know how to properly test at the time.
With GMOs we're talking about chemicals that we're already ingesting as part of other foods.
And yes it's possible that it will contain some compound that will turn out to be harmful, but that's absolutely true of any food. It could even be safer since we're going to know a lot more about the chemicals in a GMO apple than the chemicals in the countless varieties of normal apples.
Or my personal favorite in the category of "Scientist who tells you something is completely safe but runs away when it comes near him":
Meh, there's a lot of things that wouldn't harm me but I really wouldn't want to drink (particularly when handed to me by a hostile interviewer). He was stupid and a bit misleading in how he brought up the drinking example since he implied it wasn't just non-toxic but actually drinkable, but he was fundamentally truthful.
There's also the question of what he means by harm, it might not cause hospitalization or serious side effects, but it might cause him to throw up and have a horrible taste in his mouth for days.
And, I'm also more than a little offended by people who say that consumers don't have a right to know the provenance of the food they eat. As if you've become some new arbiter of what information consumers may be allowed to base their purchasing decisions on. If I don't want to buy green socks, I don't have to buy green socks, even though they are every bit as safe as the grey socks I prefer. Does that mean that sock consumers must now not be allowed to see the color of the fucking socks in the package, because after all, green socks are functionally the same as grey socks?
[...]
So knock if off before you get someone hurt. And just put the goddamn label on the package, OK? If you're so ashamed of where that food comes from, well that tells me something, too.
Lets look at those socks. You can see the colour, what about the cotton? Was the cotton from a GMO cotton plant? Did it come from an organic farm? Which pesticides did they use? Were the trucks used to transport it carbon neutral? Was the farmer independent or part of a conglomerate? Did they use dye X that some random blog claimed was a carcinogen? etc
There are thousands of things the consumer might want to know but they can't all possibly fit on the package. Instead the government mandates a few pieces of information they think you need to know, if the government puts GMO labelling on foods then the government is suggesting that the GMO status is so important (ie potentially dangerous) that the consumer needs to be informed.
Yes I know a lot of people want to know if the food is GMO, but their desire to know is based on faulty science.
Also, the studies on GMO safety have been extremely narrow, looking for toxicity and certain types of cancer-causing effects. There have been no studies at all on people who've eaten GMOs for 20 years, because they've only been selling GMOs to people for 20 years. Further, no studies on the overall health of people eating GMOs or life expectancy of people eating GMOs or effect of GMOs on developing children or senior citizens. Not a fucking one. And I don't know what's up where you live, but judging from the people I see walking the streets who eat the foods most likely to come from GMOs (ie: prepared foods), I would say it's not a shining endorsement of the health-giving benefits of GMOs.
I've got concerns about the corporate influence or the monoculture that GMOs create. But the health concerns are bogus.
What's the difference between a GMO and non-GMO food? The GMO food can potentially create a slightly different set of chemicals. We can assess it's safety the same way we assess the safety of any piece of food, look at what those chemicals are and see if any are dangerous. Pretending the GMO origin of the food creates some mysterious threat without any plausible mechanism is anti-science.
There's a billion links on Google but as a quick specific piece of evidence here's a blog post by a doctor from 2011 that among other things covers Dr Oz's dalliances with reiki, Deepak Chopra, and the endorsement of a quack who claims baking soda cures cancer.
So yes, Dr Oz endorses quackery and he's been known to do it for years.
I see no substance to the claims of quackery, just empty claims. Yeah, he pissed off Monsanto or Bayer or one of those, because that is the only thing they will firmly claim.
Ask the important question: How long has he been on TV and just now someone want's to claim he's a quack? Sorry, his format has not changed, nor the advice he is giving out. Then look at cui bono, and it's obvious what is going on.
People have been calling him a quack for years, even before he got his own show.
The astounding thing is it took his colleagues this long to really call him out.
They shouldn't have said it for the reason that it was a bad PR tactic which let him spin it back at them.
If I were to guess why they included that line it's because the claimed health effects of GMO's are probably a frustrating topic. If I talk to someone and they start going on about homeopathy I know they're probably going to buy into all the alternative medicine BS. But a lot of otherwise scientifically minded people buy into the idea that GMO's have a lot of harmful health effects. They probably wanted to get in the message that there's no evidence and it's just another pile of quackery.
Quackery they could tolerate. But how dare he question the nutritious yummy GMOs whose manufacturers are pumping millions of dollars into endowments for those other Columbia University medical faculty. While he's enriching himself, those poor souls may lose out on lucrative $$$. Can't have that.
(That's not to say dr. Oz is not a quack - he certainly is a snake oil salesman, but these guys have an agenda that's as clear as day)
Rather Dr. Oz has an agenda in spinning his response so it looks like his accusers have an agenda.
Police: Joe robbed a grocery store last week and shot five people this week!
Joe: It's not fair to say I robbed the grocery store. The owner was greedy and ripping people off!
As long as he was peddling magical dietary supplements and weight loss pills he was a lovable scamp and was allowed to carry on with his mischief. But as soon as he dared cross Monsanto, he is a quack that must be squashed.
Here's the relevant portions of the letter in question:
As described here and here, as well as in other publications, Dr. Oz has repeatedly shown disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine, as well as baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops. Worst of all, he has manifested an egregious lack of integrity by promoting quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial gain.
Thus, Dr. Oz is guilty of either outrageous conflicts of interest or flawed judgements about what constitutes appropriate medical treatments, or both. Whatever the nature of his pathology, members of the public are being misled and endangered, which makes Dr. Oz's presence on the faculty of a prestigious medical institution unacceptable.
I see one reference to GMO opposition and two or three references to quack science and conflicts of interest. Dr. Oz's rebuttal on the other hand only specifically mentions the GMO's.
It's a clever PR ploy on Dr. Oz's part, focus on the milder part of the accusation and suggest a conspiracy. Meanwhile ignore the more serious accusations that are much harder to defend.
Nothing like releasing your review the day after units start shipping, ie when it's too late to find out the unit's faults.
Goddammit I hate embargos...the only reason they exist is to hide flaws and problems from people who could get a refund. Ray, stop being the industry's bitch. You have a ton of readers, tell gadget makers to pound sand if they tell you that you can't release a review before it ships.
More likely it's a PR thing, you want the biggest media splash when the device is available for purchase, not before when you only have a handful of people willing to preorder.
Seems they have an issue with truth here, Google does not stop them indexing Youtube, see the Robots.txt below.
The Robots.txt is just a suggestion, if the blocking was in there MS could just ignore it. I suspect the issue is that Google is detecting and blocking Microsoft's web crawlers, either deliberately or as collateral damage from trying to stop hostile bots.
Duckduckgo uses youtube
Duckduckgo is a meta search engine, they don't actually build their own index but create an index based on results from other search engines. Besides, I'm guessing the issue isn't that engines can't index Youtube at all, but they can't build a good index because they keep getting blocked.
It is junk science, some creatures can indeed be frozen and revived because of unique properties of their physiology. Humans cannot.
In fact, by decapitating this girl and digging her brain out of her skull, they've guaranteed she is forever dead.
So we're very unlikely to be able thaw her brain and have it work again.
But that's not the only option. Even in a brain frozen and turned into mush there will still be a lot of information preserved, how do you know that preserved information is insufficient to recreate a human consciousness?
Remember we're potentially talking about hundreds of years in the future, it's entirely plausible to assume we're talking a full theory of consciousness with nanites and a brains uploaded into computers. Are you really so certain consciousness couldn't be extracted from those brains?
I can remember reading several articles which stated that cryonics doesn't work because the freezing process is not perfect - it does not stop decomposition, which older frozen specimens were starting to show. Why do people still spend money on this?
Disregard cost and even at the worst their outcomes won't be any worse than the control group.
They *should*, if their goal of legitimizing Open Source video drivers is true.
Legitimizing Linux gaming is not really dependent on having open source the drivers. It is dependent on having good drivers. Valve does not have a stated goal of supporting open source. Their goal is to sell games.
Decent open source drivers might even contradict their goal of legitimizing Linux gaming.
Anyone using Steam is obviously open to running proprietary code on their computer, the only question is how much proprietary code.
If there's decent open source drivers then a subset of the Linux user base is going to use those and they've got to be supported. That's more work for Valve and game publishers since there's another driver to test against. Costs go up, bugs go up, and fewer people develop games for Linux.
The best thing for Linux gaming on Steam is everyone using the same high quality driver, I wouldn't expect Valve to fight for something else.