Yes, it sounds like everything is the way it should be. Judges are pretty smart people, at least at that level, and most of them are quite capable to grasp technical concepts and the legally important aspects of it.
If I understand the article correctly, this does only concern TLDs, not your average domain name. Some of this thread's hyperbole thus seems to be misguided. It's also worth noting what the status quo is that is supposed to change: currently, only the US has such veto power. This will expand to a larger group of nations. This seems to be a compromise to a behind-the-scenes-battle. I have no idea what these other governments are threatening, but one could assume that that alternative is worse for the US.
The effect will likely be that only completely innocent new TLDs will be approved - no.sex,.godisgreat etc. I don't see much of a problem with that, but that might just be because I don't see the purpose of new TLDs at all.
Yes, next they should drop that silly government-knows-better requirement of shipping to everyone, everywhere. All those rural farmers cost us far too much. To further increase profits, they should be allowed to discriminate the material you mail. I'm sure there's more money in NOT shipping the ACLU's mail than in shipping it, if you ask the right people. Then, finally, the market will be free and everyone should be better off.
The UN eradicated smallpox. What have you done lately that is comparable?
It's true that the UN isn't really efficient. How could it be? It's 200 countries with vastly different cultures, ideas and goals. Getting all these powers to agree on something is bound to be hard. But that doesn't change the fact that having a common forum to talk in is a fundamentally good thing. There's also no alternative. The US has been trying to impose their will on other countries by force or political/economic power for decades, with decidedly mixed results. It's actually easier to find a compromise and get everyone to act on it.
Politics is hard. Remember that the next time you can't get your family to agree on dinner.
The UN eradicated smallpox. What have you done lately that is comparable, except tying your own shoelaces?
It's true that the UN isn't really efficient. How could it be? It's 200 countries with vastly different cultures, ideas and goals. Getting all these powers to agree on something is bound to be hard. But that doesn't change the fact that having a common forum to talk in is a fundamentally good thing. There's also no alternative. The US has been trying to impose their will on other countries by force or political/economic power for decades, with decidedly mixed results. It's actually easier to find a compromise and get everyone to act on it.
Politics is hard. Remember that the next time you can't get your family to agree on dinner.
To nitpick a bit, your idea might be true, but your arguments don't necessarily hold up. Firstly, the discrimination against immigrants is mostly a social problem, not a political one. The policies in most of Europe are quite liberal, but people seem to be racists. In the US it's the other way around (at least to a certain degree). Reasons for that might be higher experience with immigration, the diversity of immigrants to the US which makes it harder for them form communities closed to the outside, and a positive feedback loop that starts with integration (giving them jobs etc.) leading to wealth and education which then leads to even more willingness to integrate immigrants. The success in the US also seems to be highly divergent for different groups, i. e. asians are much better integrated (at least economically) than blacks, even though the former immigrated more recently and therefore had less time to adjust.
Regarding social security, every EU country spends more (as % of GDP) than the US on welfare, thus making cuts more likely. If unemployment benefits are cut, the unemployed have to switch to cheaper cigarettes. In the US, they die. In numbers: the unemployed in Germany get 60% of their last income (67% with children) for up 36 months. After that, they get about 400$+rent+heating+ electricity. In the US it's 3x% for a few months, and apparently not even food stamps after that.
More importantly, admitting it was a DDoS creates an incentive for more attacks, where otherwise people would just give up. Anyway, I'm hoping they're right and the script kiddies failed. The wikileaks debate should be about the better arguments, not the larger number of nodes.
Using the same think of the children excuse to further my goals that I criticize when used to support privacy invasions and draconic criminal laws just doesn't seem right.
You can enter into a contract in a number of ways. Signing and paying are two of them, but sitting down in a restaurant and eating food also completes a contract without signature or payment. It's more a "meeting of the minds" that's required. If the website has a visible notice one could argue that a contract exists. But people are used to free content and therefore it's highly unlikely that they actually wanted to enter into a contract, thus no meeting of the minds.
That's quite misguided. Both Science and Nature have "magazine" parts written by science journalists that cover current research at a level suitable for a general but well-educated scientific public. The real meat is in the articles that use the traditional scientific publication method (i.e. written by scientists, peer-reviewed). These articles come from all areas of science, but they're not written to be understood by outsiders or anything like that. In essence, if the system works a breakthrough in any field will be covered in these journals (or PNAS), articles of lower importance will find their place in more specialized journals. Thus Nature published papers such as the discovery of X-Rays (physics), plate tectonics (geo) or the structure of DNA (biology).
That's not odd, that's how it's supposed to work. The editorial staff should be independent from the business side of the business. It's only after being exposed to Murdoch-media for too long that you think the owner should be the only one deciding the newspaper's opinions.
It's also possible that the owner is - shock! - able to disagree with someone on one issue but agrees on others. Or maybe he doesn't put his own interest ahead of what he thinks is good for society. OF course if you want to be cynical, maybe he wants the candidate to win so she can pay whatever he's suing for.
I don't want a "range", developed with "partners". MS has repeated that mistake so often now, expecting different results every time. isn't there a witty saying that defines insanity this way?
"How do companies who seek genuine dialogue with this community engage?"
Not by paying Seed/Scienceblogs, that's for sure. How about publishing papers if you have a scientific point to make? Or, if you want to avoid the formality of those, how about a blog at science.pepsi.com? Let the content speak for itself without paying anyone to get a ride on their reputation.
But the real question Seed is faced with is probably "How are we supposed to make money from ScienceBlogs if you won't let us sell out to a company that's probably killing more people than Philip Morris ever did?"
It's actually the other way around, but never mind.
Anyway, I'm not sure what to make of this. On one hand, this will certainly earn a fair amount of ridicule as it sounds like redefining reality to what Apple wants it to be. A fix to the Reality Distortion Field, so to say.
OTOH, I've had some experience with sensors, and there's sometimes ambiguity to how the signals should be evaluated/presented. I'd guess that a logarithmic scale is a better fit for the relationship of absolute signal strength and perceived quality than a linear one. If they previously used a linear scale, this update might be appropriate.
This doesn't change the fact that the signal strength changes with how you hold the phone. If the change manifests itself only in fewer bars, everything will be alright. If actual call quality or reliability is affected, this change won't do anything for that
The people actually using the internet are probably not the ones behind this policy. Denying them information won't solve anything. Nor will mocking them or their religion lead anywhere, even though it's so much fun.
...ever tried improvising on a piano? It's always difficult to find the right way to end, and so you go on and on, frequently repeating yourself. The summary's writer felt the same way.
OF course it's not possible, at least not yet. There isn't really any drug that has been developed starting with a genome sequence as in "oh, so that's the gene. Now I know how to cure x". There seem to be a few drugs like anti-depressant that have been found to work better in people with a certain version of a gene, but these effects were only found after many trials, and the mechanism is not always known.
It'll take about two years for every phone to be a smartphone. And if you think the developing world doesn't have cell phones, you're wrong. Africa isn't little children with big hungry bellies anymore, at least not for the majority. Is simply skipping the landline and going directly for cell phone. Millions of people are using it daily, to a point where prepaid credit has become a substitute for banking. There's at least one cellphone in any group of twenty people, and that would be more than enough to always have one around for medical purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it sounds like everything is the way it should be. Judges are pretty smart people, at least at that level, and most of them are quite capable to grasp technical concepts and the legally important aspects of it.
If I understand the article correctly, this does only concern TLDs, not your average domain name. Some of this thread's hyperbole thus seems to be misguided. It's also worth noting what the status quo is that is supposed to change: currently, only the US has such veto power. This will expand to a larger group of nations. This seems to be a compromise to a behind-the-scenes-battle. I have no idea what these other governments are threatening, but one could assume that that alternative is worse for the US. The effect will likely be that only completely innocent new TLDs will be approved - no .sex, .godisgreat etc. I don't see much of a problem with that, but that might just be because I don't see the purpose of new TLDs at all.
No free lunch,
The sentence is talking about the kid's offspring, i. e. their kids, not the initial subjects of the study.
Yes, next they should drop that silly government-knows-better requirement of shipping to everyone, everywhere. All those rural farmers cost us far too much. To further increase profits, they should be allowed to discriminate the material you mail. I'm sure there's more money in NOT shipping the ACLU's mail than in shipping it, if you ask the right people. Then, finally, the market will be free and everyone should be better off.
The UN eradicated smallpox. What have you done lately that is comparable? It's true that the UN isn't really efficient. How could it be? It's 200 countries with vastly different cultures, ideas and goals. Getting all these powers to agree on something is bound to be hard. But that doesn't change the fact that having a common forum to talk in is a fundamentally good thing. There's also no alternative. The US has been trying to impose their will on other countries by force or political/economic power for decades, with decidedly mixed results. It's actually easier to find a compromise and get everyone to act on it. Politics is hard. Remember that the next time you can't get your family to agree on dinner.
The least they could do is abolish this insane idea of sending around cheques to transfer money.
The UN eradicated smallpox. What have you done lately that is comparable, except tying your own shoelaces?
It's true that the UN isn't really efficient. How could it be? It's 200 countries with vastly different cultures, ideas and goals. Getting all these powers to agree on something is bound to be hard. But that doesn't change the fact that having a common forum to talk in is a fundamentally good thing. There's also no alternative. The US has been trying to impose their will on other countries by force or political/economic power for decades, with decidedly mixed results. It's actually easier to find a compromise and get everyone to act on it.
Politics is hard. Remember that the next time you can't get your family to agree on dinner.
If it ends up in a landfill right now, you're doing something wrong. Some countries (Scandinavia) have recycling quotas >90% already.
To nitpick a bit, your idea might be true, but your arguments don't necessarily hold up. Firstly, the discrimination against immigrants is mostly a social problem, not a political one. The policies in most of Europe are quite liberal, but people seem to be racists. In the US it's the other way around (at least to a certain degree). Reasons for that might be higher experience with immigration, the diversity of immigrants to the US which makes it harder for them form communities closed to the outside, and a positive feedback loop that starts with integration (giving them jobs etc.) leading to wealth and education which then leads to even more willingness to integrate immigrants. The success in the US also seems to be highly divergent for different groups, i. e. asians are much better integrated (at least economically) than blacks, even though the former immigrated more recently and therefore had less time to adjust.
Regarding social security, every EU country spends more (as % of GDP) than the US on welfare, thus making cuts more likely. If unemployment benefits are cut, the unemployed have to switch to cheaper cigarettes. In the US, they die. In numbers: the unemployed in Germany get 60% of their last income (67% with children) for up 36 months. After that, they get about 400$+rent+heating+ electricity. In the US it's 3x% for a few months, and apparently not even food stamps after that.
More importantly, admitting it was a DDoS creates an incentive for more attacks, where otherwise people would just give up. Anyway, I'm hoping they're right and the script kiddies failed. The wikileaks debate should be about the better arguments, not the larger number of nodes.
Wasn't that attack directed at their services at amazon from inside S3? I seem to remember a story about someone bragging about that.
worthless leeching motherfuckers who ought to be deported
Others call them children
Using the same think of the children excuse to further my goals that I criticize when used to support privacy invasions and draconic criminal laws just doesn't seem right.
You can enter into a contract in a number of ways. Signing and paying are two of them, but sitting down in a restaurant and eating food also completes a contract without signature or payment. It's more a "meeting of the minds" that's required. If the website has a visible notice one could argue that a contract exists. But people are used to free content and therefore it's highly unlikely that they actually wanted to enter into a contract, thus no meeting of the minds.
That's quite misguided. Both Science and Nature have "magazine" parts written by science journalists that cover current research at a level suitable for a general but well-educated scientific public. The real meat is in the articles that use the traditional scientific publication method (i.e. written by scientists, peer-reviewed). These articles come from all areas of science, but they're not written to be understood by outsiders or anything like that. In essence, if the system works a breakthrough in any field will be covered in these journals (or PNAS), articles of lower importance will find their place in more specialized journals. Thus Nature published papers such as the discovery of X-Rays (physics), plate tectonics (geo) or the structure of DNA (biology).
That's not odd, that's how it's supposed to work. The editorial staff should be independent from the business side of the business. It's only after being exposed to Murdoch-media for too long that you think the owner should be the only one deciding the newspaper's opinions.
It's also possible that the owner is - shock! - able to disagree with someone on one issue but agrees on others. Or maybe he doesn't put his own interest ahead of what he thinks is good for society. OF course if you want to be cynical, maybe he wants the candidate to win so she can pay whatever he's suing for.
I don't want a "range", developed with "partners". MS has repeated that mistake so often now, expecting different results every time. isn't there a witty saying that defines insanity this way?
Not by paying Seed/Scienceblogs, that's for sure. How about publishing papers if you have a scientific point to make? Or, if you want to avoid the formality of those, how about a blog at science.pepsi.com? Let the content speak for itself without paying anyone to get a ride on their reputation.
But the real question Seed is faced with is probably "How are we supposed to make money from ScienceBlogs if you won't let us sell out to a company that's probably killing more people than Philip Morris ever did?"
It's actually the other way around, but never mind.
Anyway, I'm not sure what to make of this. On one hand, this will certainly earn a fair amount of ridicule as it sounds like redefining reality to what Apple wants it to be. A fix to the Reality Distortion Field, so to say.
OTOH, I've had some experience with sensors, and there's sometimes ambiguity to how the signals should be evaluated/presented. I'd guess that a logarithmic scale is a better fit for the relationship of absolute signal strength and perceived quality than a linear one. If they previously used a linear scale, this update might be appropriate.
This doesn't change the fact that the signal strength changes with how you hold the phone. If the change manifests itself only in fewer bars, everything will be alright. If actual call quality or reliability is affected, this change won't do anything for that
The people actually using the internet are probably not the ones behind this policy. Denying them information won't solve anything. Nor will mocking them or their religion lead anywhere, even though it's so much fun.
...ever tried improvising on a piano? It's always difficult to find the right way to end, and so you go on and on, frequently repeating yourself. The summary's writer felt the same way.
OF course it's not possible, at least not yet. There isn't really any drug that has been developed starting with a genome sequence as in "oh, so that's the gene. Now I know how to cure x". There seem to be a few drugs like anti-depressant that have been found to work better in people with a certain version of a gene, but these effects were only found after many trials, and the mechanism is not always known.
It'll take about two years for every phone to be a smartphone. And if you think the developing world doesn't have cell phones, you're wrong. Africa isn't little children with big hungry bellies anymore, at least not for the majority. Is simply skipping the landline and going directly for cell phone. Millions of people are using it daily, to a point where prepaid credit has become a substitute for banking. There's at least one cellphone in any group of twenty people, and that would be more than enough to always have one around for medical purposes.
Because Africa isn't the cliche poverty you're thinking of, small children with big bellies etc. Here's a nice example how useful information can be in the third world: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/05/22/infoladies-of-bangla.html.