This is insane. Since when is it okay for me to detain someone who MIGHT have committed a non-violent crime? I cannot stop people from driving just because they run a stop sign. This is crazy to give authorization to a non-governmental group to detain people for what they feel is an infraction.
Your wife missed it at multiple points. First it tells you that it will require a restart before you accept it to install. Second once the install is complete it puts up a big dialog asking if you want to Shutdown or Restart. There is no time limit. I am in fact posting this with the dialog in the background.
Okay so you have showed that some people dislike the results that google provides to is BRANDED websites. First off how much of that is Google and how much is the BRAND? Second what you describe IS NOT SPYWARE!! Where did that claim come from?
So wait you say that if someone can tell that the ID is false when presented and they serve the person presenting the ID alcohol and that person turns out to be underage then neither the server nor the establishment is liable? I think not. Since it is obvious that she could tell that the ID was invalid she would in fact be liable if she served the underage person. As for your assertion that people trying to get around the law should somehow be respected because "we all had to go through it why make it worse for those younger," how does that makes sense? The person was breaking the law, as the server the only thing they can do is not serve the person and try and make sure that that person doesn't try and screw over anyone else.
Re:1st rule of google is you do NOT talk about goo
on
Google's Evil NDA
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Sadly and to the great detriment to my eyesight they were not fake.
Apparently you do not work in a scientific field. The only way to discuss the results of someone else's work in a reasonable way is to show those results. If I were to just say "and this is what their articles says, trust me" without BOTH showing their evidence and citing their work then what I am saying is just a bunch of bull. A scientist cannot ask the reader to trust them on their interpretation of another's work; they need to show it, if possible, or reference it heavily and try to show some of the relevant data.
I think the issue is that there are no legal consequences because it was perfectly legal to do. What people are in a tizzy about is that the principle spent all this time and money in an attempt to punish students who had done something within their rights that he didn't like.
You are just flat wrong: "money is taxed at every step where it changes hands" has not always been the case and it certainly not the case now. There is no sales tax in many states and no income tax in some countries. Income taxes were only instituted in the US to pay for WWI. Taxation in general didn't exist in some cultures, at least not as we know it. So basically it has never and is still not true that money is taxed at every step where it changes hands.
Hum so sure I agree that the University was within its rights to "hack" into his computer since he was on their network and had agreed to their policies. The question, I thought, was if that meant they could give that information to the police who could use it to build a case. I was under the impression that it was not allowed under the current interpretation of the constitution. So while the University was within their rights I am not as certain that the conviction was valid. I will give an example that might help show why I would be hesitant to accept this type of behavior: so lets say that a bank wants to do the "right thing" and starts searching all its records for odd behavior in their customer's records and reporting them to the police. Would this be a valid action? I am sure most banks have some clause in their policy that says they will help law enforcement so . . . ? Just a thought that it might not be so clear as you seem to think.
Perhaps I am wrong but I read it as sarcasm. Most of the people I know feel they must have the second income to live a "comfortable" lifestyle. That being said I know others who have three kids and survive off only one income which is not very good in and of itself. So I guess I can see it both ways: we feel we need the second jobs but we most certainly do not, your family will not starve or be out on the street with only one bread winner but you might not be able to afford two cars and all the crapy in the garage.
Well gosh since it seems to be working for you then we should certainly not look further into those who are using the DMCA inappropriately. Come now why is this anecdotal evidence relevant to the conversation at hand?
The summary makes it sound as though this is an explanation for the DIFFUSE gamma-ray emission seen in our Galaxy. This is not the case, the paper only discuss a source of gamma-rays observed to be spatially coincident with the Galactic center. Gamma-ray telescopes do not have high angular resolution so there is a possibility that the gamma-rays are not actually coming from the Galactic center in the first place. Finally this is not a new proposal. Proton acceleration near black holes is quite commonly discussed and accepted. Furthermore photo-pion production is a well known process that has been well measured in the lab.
I think the real meat of this paper is that they are suggesting observations of emission associated with the black hole that we have observed gravitationally for a while now. This is the big news, not that the gamma-rays in our galaxy have been explained, not that protons make pions which decay into gamma-rays.
What appears to be described in the article could not have been discovered by the peer reviewers since they were being reviewed at roughly the same time. Similarly it is insane to expect anyone to read and remember every graph from all the papers published in any given field. In my field there are at least 50 a day, I would do nothing but read papers if I was going to be familiar with them all.
Do you really think that they should be giving you their hard work for free? I would love to have companies which abandon or otherwise stop supporting a product give it to the open source community instead of having it lost forever. Just because you find the product they are going to release beyond use does not mean that it is useless to us all.
So you are one of those that thinks because I do something wrong I can't see you doing something wrong? This is such a bunch of crap. If Charles Manson was the first to come out and say that Enron was a dirty company with horrible financial records would it make it less true? Politicians are in the business of standing behind curtains making bad deals and telling us all how to live. Sometimes they get it right and sometimes they don't lets hold them accountable for their actions but if they get something right we shouldn't throw it out because they are bad people.
Sure it is funny but it is also true. Funding for science has decreased within NASA with the change in focus towards a manned mission to Mars. While only temporary, hopefully, the US budget being only a continuing resolution means that the people researching technology for James Web will have to spend more time finding funding or not work on the project till funding increases.
With all the people excited about the images that Hubble has given us, let alone the science, hopefully some will begin to realize that the drive to Mars is hurting the science normally performed through NASA.
The tests being proposed by the physicists in this blog would not test string theory, in that it does not test any prediction of string theory but the underlying assumptions. The write up is very misleading since Lorentz invariance has been tested throughout the past 80 years and always stood up to the tests. I suspect that someone wants to get more funding and mentioned testing string theory to a funding agency.
So you think that the user will want to connect their HD-DVD or Blue-ray to the inet so that it can update its firmware just to play a new movie? That doesn't seem likely.
Both the poster's summary and the news release are incorrect. You cannot encode more information than quantum numbers on any quanta, it is not possible. I believe that another poster has a plausible explanation for what is actually going on: that they measure many photons and reconstruct the information by knowing the possible paths which do the encoding of information.
I can only hope that their excuse of "it was too hard to keep our democracy" falls on deaf ears and they are punished for their actions. That said I don't even know how this could be considered a reasonable argument since they had to count the boxes twice if I understand thing correctly.
Come now editors you could at least check and make sure some things are spelled correctly, there are only 100 senators. Barbra Boxer is one of two female senators from California, both Democrats.
You are aware that your condition is not a uniform one correct? I am unsure from your post if you are claiming that because YOU could see it just fine that the statement is incorrect or something else. In any case I can also add a completely irrelevant anecdote to the story: my father in law cannot see red from green in MOST cases. My point is that unless you have some sort of evidence that the statistics mentioned in the article are incorrect then your statement is just as bad if not worse than theirs. Worse in that theirs is at least being published by someone and has some kind of review.
How in the world is this insightful? You are recommending to people who have no clue what the consequences of just going out and taking some medication might be to give it a whirl since it isn't a controlled substance. Regardless of how we would all love to find out that you could just go to the grocery and grab a bottle of "No More Cancer," suggesting that people experiment on themselves is NOT a reasonable suggestion. Science is not the culmination of anecdotal evidence, just because it worked for someone does not mean it will work for you nor that what you think happened is actually what happened (e.g. just because you no longer have cancer after giving it a try doesn't mean that it was what caused the remission)
Giving out advice as you have should be done with great care which you have not displayed.
Slashdot Mirror
This is insane. Since when is it okay for me to detain someone who MIGHT have committed a non-violent crime? I cannot stop people from driving just because they run a stop sign. This is crazy to give authorization to a non-governmental group to detain people for what they feel is an infraction.
I know he does so don't listen to him they are controlling his mind!
US military bases in foreign countries are bound by US law, as they should be.
Your wife missed it at multiple points. First it tells you that it will require a restart before you accept it to install. Second once the install is complete it puts up a big dialog asking if you want to Shutdown or Restart. There is no time limit. I am in fact posting this with the dialog in the background.
Okay so you have showed that some people dislike the results that google provides to is BRANDED websites. First off how much of that is Google and how much is the BRAND? Second what you describe IS NOT SPYWARE!! Where did that claim come from?
So wait you say that if someone can tell that the ID is false when presented and they serve the person presenting the ID alcohol and that person turns out to be underage then neither the server nor the establishment is liable? I think not. Since it is obvious that she could tell that the ID was invalid she would in fact be liable if she served the underage person. As for your assertion that people trying to get around the law should somehow be respected because "we all had to go through it why make it worse for those younger," how does that makes sense? The person was breaking the law, as the server the only thing they can do is not serve the person and try and make sure that that person doesn't try and screw over anyone else.
Sadly and to the great detriment to my eyesight they were not fake.
Apparently you do not work in a scientific field. The only way to discuss the results of someone else's work in a reasonable way is to show those results. If I were to just say "and this is what their articles says, trust me" without BOTH showing their evidence and citing their work then what I am saying is just a bunch of bull. A scientist cannot ask the reader to trust them on their interpretation of another's work; they need to show it, if possible, or reference it heavily and try to show some of the relevant data.
I think the issue is that there are no legal consequences because it was perfectly legal to do. What people are in a tizzy about is that the principle spent all this time and money in an attempt to punish students who had done something within their rights that he didn't like.
You are just flat wrong: "money is taxed at every step where it changes hands" has not always been the case and it certainly not the case now. There is no sales tax in many states and no income tax in some countries. Income taxes were only instituted in the US to pay for WWI. Taxation in general didn't exist in some cultures, at least not as we know it. So basically it has never and is still not true that money is taxed at every step where it changes hands.
Hum so sure I agree that the University was within its rights to "hack" into his computer since he was on their network and had agreed to their policies. The question, I thought, was if that meant they could give that information to the police who could use it to build a case. I was under the impression that it was not allowed under the current interpretation of the constitution. So while the University was within their rights I am not as certain that the conviction was valid. I will give an example that might help show why I would be hesitant to accept this type of behavior: so lets say that a bank wants to do the "right thing" and starts searching all its records for odd behavior in their customer's records and reporting them to the police. Would this be a valid action? I am sure most banks have some clause in their policy that says they will help law enforcement so . . . ? Just a thought that it might not be so clear as you seem to think.
Perhaps I am wrong but I read it as sarcasm. Most of the people I know feel they must have the second income to live a "comfortable" lifestyle. That being said I know others who have three kids and survive off only one income which is not very good in and of itself. So I guess I can see it both ways: we feel we need the second jobs but we most certainly do not, your family will not starve or be out on the street with only one bread winner but you might not be able to afford two cars and all the crapy in the garage.
Well gosh since it seems to be working for you then we should certainly not look further into those who are using the DMCA inappropriately. Come now why is this anecdotal evidence relevant to the conversation at hand?
The summary makes it sound as though this is an explanation for the DIFFUSE gamma-ray emission seen in our Galaxy. This is not the case, the paper only discuss a source of gamma-rays observed to be spatially coincident with the Galactic center. Gamma-ray telescopes do not have high angular resolution so there is a possibility that the gamma-rays are not actually coming from the Galactic center in the first place. Finally this is not a new proposal. Proton acceleration near black holes is quite commonly discussed and accepted. Furthermore photo-pion production is a well known process that has been well measured in the lab. I think the real meat of this paper is that they are suggesting observations of emission associated with the black hole that we have observed gravitationally for a while now. This is the big news, not that the gamma-rays in our galaxy have been explained, not that protons make pions which decay into gamma-rays.
What appears to be described in the article could not have been discovered by the peer reviewers since they were being reviewed at roughly the same time. Similarly it is insane to expect anyone to read and remember every graph from all the papers published in any given field. In my field there are at least 50 a day, I would do nothing but read papers if I was going to be familiar with them all.
Do you really think that they should be giving you their hard work for free? I would love to have companies which abandon or otherwise stop supporting a product give it to the open source community instead of having it lost forever. Just because you find the product they are going to release beyond use does not mean that it is useless to us all.
So you are one of those that thinks because I do something wrong I can't see you doing something wrong? This is such a bunch of crap. If Charles Manson was the first to come out and say that Enron was a dirty company with horrible financial records would it make it less true? Politicians are in the business of standing behind curtains making bad deals and telling us all how to live. Sometimes they get it right and sometimes they don't lets hold them accountable for their actions but if they get something right we shouldn't throw it out because they are bad people.
Sure it is funny but it is also true. Funding for science has decreased within NASA with the change in focus towards a manned mission to Mars. While only temporary, hopefully, the US budget being only a continuing resolution means that the people researching technology for James Web will have to spend more time finding funding or not work on the project till funding increases.
With all the people excited about the images that Hubble has given us, let alone the science, hopefully some will begin to realize that the drive to Mars is hurting the science normally performed through NASA.
The tests being proposed by the physicists in this blog would not test string theory, in that it does not test any prediction of string theory but the underlying assumptions. The write up is very misleading since Lorentz invariance has been tested throughout the past 80 years and always stood up to the tests. I suspect that someone wants to get more funding and mentioned testing string theory to a funding agency.
So you think that the user will want to connect their HD-DVD or Blue-ray to the inet so that it can update its firmware just to play a new movie? That doesn't seem likely.
Both the poster's summary and the news release are incorrect. You cannot encode more information than quantum numbers on any quanta, it is not possible. I believe that another poster has a plausible explanation for what is actually going on: that they measure many photons and reconstruct the information by knowing the possible paths which do the encoding of information.
I can only hope that their excuse of "it was too hard to keep our democracy" falls on deaf ears and they are punished for their actions. That said I don't even know how this could be considered a reasonable argument since they had to count the boxes twice if I understand thing correctly.
Come now editors you could at least check and make sure some things are spelled correctly, there are only 100 senators. Barbra Boxer is one of two female senators from California, both Democrats.
You are aware that your condition is not a uniform one correct? I am unsure from your post if you are claiming that because YOU could see it just fine that the statement is incorrect or something else. In any case I can also add a completely irrelevant anecdote to the story: my father in law cannot see red from green in MOST cases. My point is that unless you have some sort of evidence that the statistics mentioned in the article are incorrect then your statement is just as bad if not worse than theirs. Worse in that theirs is at least being published by someone and has some kind of review.
How in the world is this insightful? You are recommending to people who have no clue what the consequences of just going out and taking some medication might be to give it a whirl since it isn't a controlled substance. Regardless of how we would all love to find out that you could just go to the grocery and grab a bottle of "No More Cancer," suggesting that people experiment on themselves is NOT a reasonable suggestion. Science is not the culmination of anecdotal evidence, just because it worked for someone does not mean it will work for you nor that what you think happened is actually what happened (e.g. just because you no longer have cancer after giving it a try doesn't mean that it was what caused the remission) Giving out advice as you have should be done with great care which you have not displayed.