The size of the prison population tells me nothing without other statistics to go with it. Perhaps the population is high because america (unlike many other countries) is full of people from all over the world, and history has shown that ethnic relations are not always amicable. As far as police on my way to work, I have a half hour commute to work in one of the more violent cities in my area, on average I'd say I pass 2 patrol cars and 2 uniformed officers on any given commute, and most of the time the patrol cars are helping clean up accidents. Your point?
You know, I've found that's just not true these days. Look at Dell. Every computer they sell comes bundled with a free monitor because when people go to get a new computer, they go for a new monitor too.
Ah yes, the democratic party. The same party that voted YES for the PATRIOT ACT without even reading the damn thing. The party which brought you such brilliant legislation as the Assault Weapons Ban and the DMCA. The party whose dumbest mouthpiece said "We're going to take things away from you for your own good" and who's collosal corruption was made evident by looking at the hell hole that is New Orleans. Face it pal, the democrats are no better than the republicans. If you want real change you're actualy going to have to vote for people who intend on trying to impliment some change. Try voting third party for once.
They're not. A virus is self replicating, and requires no human interaction to spread (other than sending or giving a potentialy infected file to another or exposing anothers files to your virus). That is, a virus should be able to attach itself to any innocuous file and replicate through the host system. A file specificaly crafted to be malicious and whose purpose is to be malicious which requires a user to actualy attempt to run the file is a Trojan.
She can't afford a lawyer to defend herself in this civil case so there was no point in showing up
Absolutely not. While IANAL, I have looked into law surrounding libel and slander and in all such cases, truth is absolute defence. If she can show her claims to be true, even without a lawer, it's worth showing up in court. Of course, in order to show her claims to be true without a lawyer, she needed to make a statement that can be shown to be true. Calling her a crook and a fraud is much more general than a lousy service serice complaint with specific examples.
I don't know about you, but if I were in the middle of being sued, I'd sure as hell be calling the court if I had to move temporarily. I realize a natural disaster is a lot to deal with, but it's not like being sued is something you forget easily.
I wasn't even talking about constitutionaly questionable things, even something as simple as the (extremely poorly implemented) terror alert system. The truth is, we always have warnings and hints, the trick (and the reason we pay people) is to know which ones are worth following up and trying to stay one step ahead of the disaster.
Action about what? To do what? Where? When? How much action? In case you haven't noticed, the US is a pretty big place. An attack "somewhere in the US" isn't very specific. Do you want martial law declared every time the CIA gets a warning that something is going to happen? I's all well and good to say they were warned, and it's all well and good to say they should have taken action and should have done things differently, but the trick (and the reason why Bush got reelected) is that you need to actualy have a plan and specific actions that you would have done differently that would have made a difference. No one in the great political blame game has done this yet, which is why this country keeps going to shit.
Except he wasn't asking them to deal with a specific threat. He said it himself in TFA that they didn't know how when or where, they just knew something.
He did not know when, where or how, but Tenet felt there was too much noise in the intelligence systems.
So much information, so little to actualy go on. And these days, when the government steps up security measures when they don't know "when, where or how" people cry bloody murder. The problem with security is you never know if it's working until it fails to work.
Right, but the question becomes is that significantly better than holding your providers to a standard and randomly sampling the videos rather than checking them all? IOW, would checking every video give you a 95% catch rate as compare to something like 50% or would it only give you 95% compared to 93% and is that extra 2% worth the expense?
You assume that any such point in the video is representative of the whole video, which is just a finer grain method of just sampling every few videos rather than all of the videos. Just because it transitions from dark to light well doesn't mean the rest of the video is any good. The video could be missing whole parts in the middle, and without watching it all the way through you would never know.
It's perfectly reasonable logic. It's not cost efficient for your or the company to do so. Let's say a cheap QA intern costs $15/hour. In order to ensure that each video is in perfect condition, that means your average QA intern can verify 2 videos per hour, maybe 3. Are you willing to pay an additional $7.50 per $2 episode?
Hardly. Plenty of teachers maintain academic integrity all the time without the use of turnitin.com. The difference is, these teachers actualy care and pay attention to their students so they know when an essay is not the student's own work.
It would be very interesting to see if turnitin could demonstrate that they had no reason to believe their acts constituted copyright infringement. Their entire business revolves around the use of other people's copyrights, to which they have no given right, to turn a profit.
Why would a student not want to contribute to a system that helps to ensure high academic standards?
Because it's my work that I put my sweat and blood into and which I own the copyright to that someone else WITHOUT my express or even implied permission is using to make a profit off of. End of story.
The company is explicitly making money off of the student's copyright materials. Without such materials (as has been noted before) the company is worthless. By making money of the copyright materials they move very quickly outside the bounds of fair use, especialy given that the original author is not even the one submitting the material.
Slashdot Mirror
The size of the prison population tells me nothing without other statistics to go with it. Perhaps the population is high because america (unlike many other countries) is full of people from all over the world, and history has shown that ethnic relations are not always amicable. As far as police on my way to work, I have a half hour commute to work in one of the more violent cities in my area, on average I'd say I pass 2 patrol cars and 2 uniformed officers on any given commute, and most of the time the patrol cars are helping clean up accidents. Your point?
So in the end, you're still winding up with two systems, each with one monitor, just like if you bought 2 iMacs.
You know, I've found that's just not true these days. Look at Dell. Every computer they sell comes bundled with a free monitor because when people go to get a new computer, they go for a new monitor too.
Seems like Apple is making a shitload of cash just fine without being dell.
Why didn't you encode your ripped files as MP3s in the first place if you're using a non iPod?
Ah yes, the democratic party. The same party that voted YES for the PATRIOT ACT without even reading the damn thing. The party which brought you such brilliant legislation as the Assault Weapons Ban and the DMCA. The party whose dumbest mouthpiece said "We're going to take things away from you for your own good" and who's collosal corruption was made evident by looking at the hell hole that is New Orleans. Face it pal, the democrats are no better than the republicans. If you want real change you're actualy going to have to vote for people who intend on trying to impliment some change. Try voting third party for once.
They're not. A virus is self replicating, and requires no human interaction to spread (other than sending or giving a potentialy infected file to another or exposing anothers files to your virus). That is, a virus should be able to attach itself to any innocuous file and replicate through the host system. A file specificaly crafted to be malicious and whose purpose is to be malicious which requires a user to actualy attempt to run the file is a Trojan.
But is it not the reason why Windows maintains is dominance despite multitudes of technically better OSes?
Actually, your statement is not entirely true:
5 48
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=93
She can't afford a lawyer to defend herself in this civil case so there was no point in showing up
Absolutely not. While IANAL, I have looked into law surrounding libel and slander and in all such cases, truth is absolute defence. If she can show her claims to be true, even without a lawer, it's worth showing up in court. Of course, in order to show her claims to be true without a lawyer, she needed to make a statement that can be shown to be true. Calling her a crook and a fraud is much more general than a lousy service serice complaint with specific examples.
I don't know about you, but if I were in the middle of being sued, I'd sure as hell be calling the court if I had to move temporarily. I realize a natural disaster is a lot to deal with, but it's not like being sued is something you forget easily.
I wasn't even talking about constitutionaly questionable things, even something as simple as the (extremely poorly implemented) terror alert system. The truth is, we always have warnings and hints, the trick (and the reason we pay people) is to know which ones are worth following up and trying to stay one step ahead of the disaster.
Action about what? To do what? Where? When? How much action? In case you haven't noticed, the US is a pretty big place. An attack "somewhere in the US" isn't very specific. Do you want martial law declared every time the CIA gets a warning that something is going to happen? I's all well and good to say they were warned, and it's all well and good to say they should have taken action and should have done things differently, but the trick (and the reason why Bush got reelected) is that you need to actualy have a plan and specific actions that you would have done differently that would have made a difference. No one in the great political blame game has done this yet, which is why this country keeps going to shit.
Except he wasn't asking them to deal with a specific threat. He said it himself in TFA that they didn't know how when or where, they just knew something.
He did not know when, where or how, but Tenet felt there was too much noise in the intelligence systems.
So much information, so little to actualy go on. And these days, when the government steps up security measures when they don't know "when, where or how" people cry bloody murder. The problem with security is you never know if it's working until it fails to work.
Right, but the question becomes is that significantly better than holding your providers to a standard and randomly sampling the videos rather than checking them all? IOW, would checking every video give you a 95% catch rate as compare to something like 50% or would it only give you 95% compared to 93% and is that extra 2% worth the expense?
You assume that any such point in the video is representative of the whole video, which is just a finer grain method of just sampling every few videos rather than all of the videos. Just because it transitions from dark to light well doesn't mean the rest of the video is any good. The video could be missing whole parts in the middle, and without watching it all the way through you would never know.
It's perfectly reasonable logic. It's not cost efficient for your or the company to do so. Let's say a cheap QA intern costs $15/hour. In order to ensure that each video is in perfect condition, that means your average QA intern can verify 2 videos per hour, maybe 3. Are you willing to pay an additional $7.50 per $2 episode?
What tasks. I find it extremely difficult to belive you can't find an OSS or shareware program for the mac to do the same thing for less than $50.
But what if you taught freshmen courses at a major university, and routinely taught classes consisting of hundreds of students?
I believe we've found our problem.
Contracts made under duress are not enforceable.
Hardly. Plenty of teachers maintain academic integrity all the time without the use of turnitin.com. The difference is, these teachers actualy care and pay attention to their students so they know when an essay is not the student's own work.
It would be very interesting to see if turnitin could demonstrate that they had no reason to believe their acts constituted copyright infringement. Their entire business revolves around the use of other people's copyrights, to which they have no given right, to turn a profit.
Why would a student not want to contribute to a system that helps to ensure high academic standards?
Because it's my work that I put my sweat and blood into and which I own the copyright to that someone else WITHOUT my express or even implied permission is using to make a profit off of. End of story.
The company is explicitly making money off of the student's copyright materials. Without such materials (as has been noted before) the company is worthless. By making money of the copyright materials they move very quickly outside the bounds of fair use, especialy given that the original author is not even the one submitting the material.