Something I've noticed is that "Decades" are often defined by what happened in the last few years of that decade. The Sixties is remembered for Woodstock (68). The 70's for disco (late 70's/early 80's), Iranian hostages (79-80), etc.
How much do you want to bet that this decade will be remembered as the Social Networking decade (when was Myspace started?)
"They should keep these sort of 'warning' labels to items that have solid, reproducible evidence of significant increases in risks of cancer -- like cigarettes. If they start slapping them on everything that they (in their position as 'a legislator') think might cause cancer, these sort of warnings will lose all meaning."
You mean like in California? Since they passed a law that says that anything that may cause cancer must be labeled, EVERYTHING is getting a label. Why? Because with the sensitivity of current analytical instruments you can find a cancer causeing substance anywhere, even if it's less than micrograms.
The last time I visited, I parked my car in a garage with a big sign on it that says "Warning: this building may contain substances known in the State of California to cause cancer." Really? No shit.
"Perhaps it was simply the same bloated bureacracy that fail before 9/11, which got warning signs but the signals got lost in the chain of command because they're too busy spying on the emails of millions of others."
The GP was referring to the fact that Hasan's medical supervisors treated him differently because he was a Muslim and gave him third, fourth, and fifth chances that they would not have given other students.
You are aware that local space IS pretty two dimensional, at least where it counts? Nearly all of the objects in the near solar system are on the ecliptic, so they generally WOULD come "straight in".
That being said, the earth IS tilted, and for about half the year the Antarctic is pointing "out".
Besides which, those penguin movies were starting to get pretty damned irritating.
"Why is there such a focus on AGW? Do the environmentalists need to justify their existence in the current post-no-nukes world? (yes, "Inconvenient Truth", I'm looking at you). Climate change is not rare, climate change capable of destroying humanity is. It is very unlikely that the consequences will hit us in next 100 years, and after that, we'll probably have completely different means available for trying to avert climate change.
I'm not saying that research in this area is wrong, but it should be low priority and the risks must not be overestimated. We already have something threatening human (and animal) existence on earth, it's called asteroids. Unlike AGW, it's happened before, and will happen again, even if we triple NASA's budget right now (which we nevertheless should strive after to maximize our ability to affect asteroid impacts). This is a much more serious threat to our existence than AGW."
I'd say FTFY, but I didn't - BOTH are ridiculous statements. It's not an either/or choice, you know. And the problem with BOTH is international cooperation and human nature, not technology.
"2. Finally, given the amount of noise in the signal and the number of years it takes to make a statistical difference show up, it is impossible to make any determination of current trends using only a few years. Climate trends need to be taken over decades, not a few years. The shorter the time period, the more likely you are just measuring differences in weather and not necessarily climate."
Really? That didn't stop AGW proponents from declaring that the Katrina hurricane season was due to the warming of the oceans. We had a few bad hurricane years, and it's "proof" of the direct consequences of AGW. Of course, the fact that the past 2 years have been relatively light is brushed off as "statistically insignificant".
The problem with the science of climatology is not that climatologists say "the earth is getting warmer, and we're pretty sure CO2 is the problem"; the heartache starts when that scientific statement is immediately followed by "OMFG! End of the World! Bush's Fault! Carbon Offsets!". Those are not scientific conclusions, but rather social/political advocacy. And if one is going to play that game, one can't bitch when the rules (or lack thereof) are applied back against you.
You are confusing blame, responsibility, and rights.
You have the right to be secure in your domicile and a woman in her body. Therefore, when someone violates those rights, they are to blame for that violation.
You also have the responsibility to protect your domicile, and a woman to protect her body, in the face of the sure knowledge that others will try to violate them. And when people do not act responsibly, they are at blame for the consequences.
The former is a legal position; modern law is generally rights based, and therefor sanction is levelled by the authorities for the violation of another's rights. The latter is a moral/ethical position, and governs how we function and live in society. While there may be no legal repercussions for irresponsiblity, social repercussions can and SHOULD exist.
Being a victim and being a fool are not mutually exclusive. The woman in The Accuseddid not "deserve" to be raped, but I dare anyone to assert that she was acting responsibly by getting drunk and flirty in a miniskirt in a seedy bar. I can feel sorry for her ordeal, but I cannot feel admiration for her actions.
R2.0's Ratio: The more times a Slashdot poster mentions how intelligence agencies are infiltrating everything, the less likely it is that said agencies have any interest in the poster.
"The press is allowed to post anything newsworthy, no matter how the information got into their hands, even if it was acquired via illegal actions. So long as the press organization and it's agents have not done anything illegal to get it.The press is allowed to post anything newsworthy, no matter how the information got into their hands, even if it was acquired via illegal actions. So long as the press organization and it's agents have not done anything illegal to get it."
That's not exactly true. If documents are an *actual* security risk, the publication can be suppressed. The Pentagon Papers case wasn't about the ability of the government to prevent the publication of material that threatened national security; it was about how the government classifies such information. The court found that the government cannot simply declare document "Top Secret" for no reason, or because the are embarrassing.
In practice, the press can get away with a lot because they use the Pentagon Papers case as an invincible shield, when it's not. In the Valerie Plame case, Bob Novak KNEW she had a TS clearance and was still under cover, and he published anyway. He should have been prosecuted along with Armitage. And if that lead to the VP and others, so be it. Instead we got Scooter Libby for lying to the FBI. Lots of justice there, yessiree.
In addition, "doing it" was a reference to searching for information on the activity that you want to keep hidden. Considering that ALL search engines of any magnitude keep that information, and they are ALL subject to subpoena (which was edited out of the quotes", it's probably a good rule to follow.
Oh, the irony: it sounds like you're recommending Bing over Google for the same reasons we recommend Linux or Apple over Windows - the biggest user base attracts the most bad guys.
Two items. One, Schmidt's quote was taken out of context. He was referring to "do"-ing a search something you'd rather not be known, because ALL the search engines keep records and ALL of them are subject to subpoena.
Two, "Firefox" isn't making a change - this is one person expressing an opinion. If the organization was that concerned, they'd drop Google as the default browser.
As one of those who actually saw the Christmas special when broadcast, I believe I should point out a factor in the show's defense: in 1978, ALL television oriented toward kids was execrable. The golden years of animation were long gone, and Sid and Marty Croft were churning out stuff like "Electra-Woman and Dyna-Girl". And guess what? We kids loved it all. That's why there is such nostalgia for that crap, but it's based on memories of happiness, not of the shows. For most people who say "I LOVED that show when I was a kid!", they haven't seen the show with adult eyes. I once tried watching the original Speed Racer and I couldn't make it 5 minutes.
That's why the Star Wars special has such a bad rap - because it's, well, Star Wars, a lot more people have sought it out to watch it. So it's not that the Christmas Special was any worse or better than its contemporaries, but that so many more people have seen how awful it is and assume it's unique - believe me, it wasn't.
What part of "push the update" didn't you get? The PHONES were shipped legally; it was the software on the phone that was distributed illegally. Having distributed the code in violation of the license, Palm must take steps to mitigate the damage.. If you force the offending code to be deleted, you have rectified the situation. The question of damages for the initial infraction would still be open, but Artifex couldn't claim damages for an ongoing violation.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll pass - I was only 1 year old at the time, so my memory's a little fuzzy.
Whoops, I stand corrected. I think it was the "Summer of Love" that was 1968.
Something I've noticed is that "Decades" are often defined by what happened in the last few years of that decade. The Sixties is remembered for Woodstock (68). The 70's for disco (late 70's/early 80's), Iranian hostages (79-80), etc.
How much do you want to bet that this decade will be remembered as the Social Networking decade (when was Myspace started?)
According to the article, that shouldn't be too hard:
"They were used in vehicles including the Corvair, the Corvette (for a time) and the Impala."
I mean, if the factory could get it into a Corvair...
"They should keep these sort of 'warning' labels to items that have solid, reproducible evidence of significant increases in risks of cancer -- like cigarettes. If they start slapping them on everything that they (in their position as 'a legislator') think might cause cancer, these sort of warnings will lose all meaning."
You mean like in California? Since they passed a law that says that anything that may cause cancer must be labeled, EVERYTHING is getting a label. Why? Because with the sensitivity of current analytical instruments you can find a cancer causeing substance anywhere, even if it's less than micrograms.
The last time I visited, I parked my car in a garage with a big sign on it that says "Warning: this building may contain substances known in the State of California to cause cancer." Really? No shit.
"For the last time: Europe isn't a country!"
Yet.
"Perhaps it was simply the same bloated bureacracy that fail before 9/11, which got warning signs but the signals got lost in the chain of command because they're too busy spying on the emails of millions of others."
The GP was referring to the fact that Hasan's medical supervisors treated him differently because he was a Muslim and gave him third, fourth, and fifth chances that they would not have given other students.
You are aware that local space IS pretty two dimensional, at least where it counts? Nearly all of the objects in the near solar system are on the ecliptic, so they generally WOULD come "straight in".
That being said, the earth IS tilted, and for about half the year the Antarctic is pointing "out".
Besides which, those penguin movies were starting to get pretty damned irritating.
Per Lucifer's Hammer, learn to surf.
I'd say FTFY, but I didn't - BOTH are ridiculous statements. It's not an either/or choice, you know. And the problem with BOTH is international cooperation and human nature, not technology.
Really? That didn't stop AGW proponents from declaring that the Katrina hurricane season was due to the warming of the oceans. We had a few bad hurricane years, and it's "proof" of the direct consequences of AGW. Of course, the fact that the past 2 years have been relatively light is brushed off as "statistically insignificant".
The problem with the science of climatology is not that climatologists say "the earth is getting warmer, and we're pretty sure CO2 is the problem"; the heartache starts when that scientific statement is immediately followed by "OMFG! End of the World! Bush's Fault! Carbon Offsets!". Those are not scientific conclusions, but rather social/political advocacy. And if one is going to play that game, one can't bitch when the rules (or lack thereof) are applied back against you.
"You can gain access to more datasets once you exhibit certain basic qualifications (like a relevant degree)."
Martin Luther called - he wants his Reformation back.
You are confusing blame, responsibility, and rights.
You have the right to be secure in your domicile and a woman in her body. Therefore, when someone violates those rights, they are to blame for that violation.
You also have the responsibility to protect your domicile, and a woman to protect her body, in the face of the sure knowledge that others will try to violate them. And when people do not act responsibly, they are at blame for the consequences.
The former is a legal position; modern law is generally rights based, and therefor sanction is levelled by the authorities for the violation of another's rights. The latter is a moral/ethical position, and governs how we function and live in society. While there may be no legal repercussions for irresponsiblity, social repercussions can and SHOULD exist.
Being a victim and being a fool are not mutually exclusive. The woman in The Accuseddid not "deserve" to be raped, but I dare anyone to assert that she was acting responsibly by getting drunk and flirty in a miniskirt in a seedy bar. I can feel sorry for her ordeal, but I cannot feel admiration for her actions.
R2.0's Ratio: The more times a Slashdot poster mentions how intelligence agencies are infiltrating everything, the less likely it is that said agencies have any interest in the poster.
"The press is allowed to post anything newsworthy, no matter how the information got into their hands, even if it was acquired via illegal actions. So long as the press organization and it's agents have not done anything illegal to get it.The press is allowed to post anything newsworthy, no matter how the information got into their hands, even if it was acquired via illegal actions. So long as the press organization and it's agents have not done anything illegal to get it."
That's not exactly true. If documents are an *actual* security risk, the publication can be suppressed. The Pentagon Papers case wasn't about the ability of the government to prevent the publication of material that threatened national security; it was about how the government classifies such information. The court found that the government cannot simply declare document "Top Secret" for no reason, or because the are embarrassing.
In practice, the press can get away with a lot because they use the Pentagon Papers case as an invincible shield, when it's not. In the Valerie Plame case, Bob Novak KNEW she had a TS clearance and was still under cover, and he published anyway. He should have been prosecuted along with Armitage. And if that lead to the VP and others, so be it. Instead we got Scooter Libby for lying to the FBI. Lots of justice there, yessiree.
In addition, "doing it" was a reference to searching for information on the activity that you want to keep hidden. Considering that ALL search engines of any magnitude keep that information, and they are ALL subject to subpoena (which was edited out of the quotes", it's probably a good rule to follow.
Oh, the irony: it sounds like you're recommending Bing over Google for the same reasons we recommend Linux or Apple over Windows - the biggest user base attracts the most bad guys.
Two items. One, Schmidt's quote was taken out of context. He was referring to "do"-ing a search something you'd rather not be known, because ALL the search engines keep records and ALL of them are subject to subpoena.
Two, "Firefox" isn't making a change - this is one person expressing an opinion. If the organization was that concerned, they'd drop Google as the default browser.
"1. If they can't support the low end stuff, wouldn't I be insane to plop down a quarter of a million dollars on something from them?"
That's like saying you paid Eliot Spitzer's escort $50 and the quality of the blowjob wasn't what you'd expect.
As one of those who actually saw the Christmas special when broadcast, I believe I should point out a factor in the show's defense: in 1978, ALL television oriented toward kids was execrable. The golden years of animation were long gone, and Sid and Marty Croft were churning out stuff like "Electra-Woman and Dyna-Girl". And guess what? We kids loved it all. That's why there is such nostalgia for that crap, but it's based on memories of happiness, not of the shows. For most people who say "I LOVED that show when I was a kid!", they haven't seen the show with adult eyes. I once tried watching the original Speed Racer and I couldn't make it 5 minutes.
That's why the Star Wars special has such a bad rap - because it's, well, Star Wars, a lot more people have sought it out to watch it. So it's not that the Christmas Special was any worse or better than its contemporaries, but that so many more people have seen how awful it is and assume it's unique - believe me, it wasn't.
What part of "push the update" didn't you get? The PHONES were shipped legally; it was the software on the phone that was distributed illegally. Having distributed the code in violation of the license, Palm must take steps to mitigate the damage.. If you force the offending code to be deleted, you have rectified the situation. The question of damages for the initial infraction would still be open, but Artifex couldn't claim damages for an ongoing violation.
"Mars Farts"
Your bias is showing through. You are identifying one group by religion and one by nationality. It should either be:
"You can blame the Israelis for persecuting the Palestinians".
Or
"You can blame the Jews for persecuting the Muslims"
Now a user only needs to sort through 99,000 cheap knockoffs.
"But regardless of the results, the US is still the world's worst place to be for freedom of the press. Or for anything, really."