For example, to say something is associate with a 240% increase in risk can be technically accurate, but horribly misleading to most readers. If one in a billion people get a disease, a 240% increase makes your chance of getting it 2.4/1000000000. That is absolutely nothing to worry about.
Unless they've come up with an interesting way for two people in disparate locations to observe the same quasar and both independently observe the same random phenomena in a way which reliably and securely gives them access to the pad with no communication channel between them, this just isn't interesting.
And when they come up with a way for two people to do it, without a third person also being able to do it, then it will be really interesting.
You can use a search engine to find a prostitute or drugs and other forms of illegal "entertainment"
You mean you have the ability to do those things, but are you sure it's legal to do so? After all, if you ask google for information on how to commit a crime, and google gives you lots of information on how to commit that crime, could a prosecutor argue that that constitutes conspiracy?
Anyway, the real reason why copyright infringement is the "online law violation" (note avoidance of the word "crime") which gets the attention is because there's a victim with a financial interest in stopping it. The same can not be said for prostitution or drugs.
Difference to whom? Him? No, he believes in software ownership, and always has.
Your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking. The person you're replying to never said there was a difference in Gate's opinion on software ownership. In fact, he explicitly said there was no difference on that front. The difference he pointed out was a difference in how much influence Gates has. I think Gates would agree that he has more influence now.
Your argument is based on a logical fallacy known as ad hominem. Some examples of other such arguments (from Wikipedia that I linked):
* "You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well."
* "You feel that abortion should be legal, but I disagree because you are uneducated and poor."
* "He's physically addicted to nicotine. Of course he defends smoking!"
* "Tobacco company representatives are wrong when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."
I disagree with your usage of this term, as well as wikipedia's usage. An ad-hominem would be something like, "Yeah, well who cares what an idiot like you thinks?". Instead, the examples you cite from Wikipedia are all cases of legitimately pointing out biases in your opponent that are likely to influence your opponent's position. And the GP post was pointing out hypocrisy in his opponent (Gates).
And I suppose in your fantasy would, any conceivable right, whether mentioned or not, and whether denied by statute or not, is protected by the constitution?
Say it with me now! Correlation does not imply causation!
Yes, but the GP didn't imply any causation, it only pointed out the correlation. Nobody suggested that being liberal causes people to run out and earn advanced degrees. Nor has anybody suggested that getting a degree changes people from conservative to liberal.
That used to be true, but I believe the Republicans rammed through a bill that makes credit card debt very hard to escape.
If you're going to try to vilify the Republicans for making it harder for people to welch on their debts, you're not going to gain the support of Democrats like me.
under FISA the domestic spying program is illegal. FDR wasn't really subject to FISA because FISA was passed in 1978
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the domestic spying program was even *more* illegal before FISA. FISA gave the gov't authority it didn't previously have. It didn't take away their previous (non-existant) right to wiretap any american citizen.
I would argue that jail time does not work as a deterrent (there are studies that back this up,
I call bullshit. Why do you think criminals try not to get caught? Why do criminals run from the police? Why do the police need to engage in high speed pursuit at times? Are you saying that the bad guys don't mind jail, but rather they just don't like being fingerprinted?
Are you suggesting that the theory of evolution is anywhere near as well proven as the round earth theory, atomic theory and special relativity?
As well proven? No. Anywhere NEAR as well proven? Actually, yes.
Hint: You can see the earth is round if you just get into a plane
Actually, I can't. I can see a horizon, which is not inconsistent with a flat earth. And besides, The Great Illusionist can bend light and provide all kinds of false evidence for a round earth, just as He created 6000 year old fossils that appear by carbon dating to be millions of years old. And by the way, he can also grab the occasional alpha particle and toss them back when they're being shot at a sheet of gold foil.
[...]see a photograph taken from a space shuttle, watch other planets through the telescope etc. Contrast this with evolution - have you personally observed anything even remotely resembling macro-evolution?
Um, I haven't personally taken a photograph from a space shuttle. I assume you haven't either. I also haven't seen my twin take off on a space ship at near c and return practically un-aged either. I assume you haven't either. But since you seem ready to accept the evidence observed and reported by others, it's unclear to me why the extremely well confirmed notion of evolution by natural selection doesn't deserve the same.
Theories are supposed to be treated with skepticism,
Yes, but for scientific reasons, not religious ones. I wonder if he has the same level of skepticism for the atomic theory of matter, special relativity, and the round-earth theory.
Why does no one view god as the collected set of mechanics that the universe runs under? That certainly fits the bill for omnicient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.
No, the correct answer is 10000000. Each term has only one significant figure,
No, the correct answer was 10000000.00000001. The concept of significant figures is only relevant when dealing with scientific quantities, i.e. measurements and computations involving them, because they have inherent uncertainties associated with them. It's not the calculator's job to decide when that is applicable.
If you take a DVD, you cannot actually get to the point that you can exercise your fair use rights, not without violating a different law[...]
Well, actually, you can. Let's say you're a teacher in an elementary school. You can point a camcorder at your TV screen while a disc is playing, record an excerpt onto tape, bring the tape to the class and play it there in order to prompt student discussion about the scene in question. That's fair use, and no violation of DMCA.
Pay attention to the context. The original poster wanted to know if the content provider's control over his media and device constituted a "violation of [his] fair use [rights]". It's not, because there's no way a content provider can violate his fair use rights, since "Fair Use" does not impose constraints on what a content provider may do.
Slashdot Mirror
The shell does a great job of protecting the backpack.
How good a job does it do of protecting the laptop?
For example, to say something is associate with a 240% increase in risk can be technically accurate, but horribly misleading to most readers. If one in a billion people get a disease, a 240% increase makes your chance of getting it 2.4/1000000000. That is absolutely nothing to worry about.
Actually, that would be 3.4 per billion.
Unless they've come up with an interesting way for two people in disparate locations to observe the same quasar and both independently observe the same random phenomena in a way which reliably and securely gives them access to the pad with no communication channel between them, this just isn't interesting.
And when they come up with a way for two people to do it, without a third person also being able to do it, then it will be really interesting.
It's times like these that I wish I could spend karma to mod something up beyond +5.
a version of the Crypt Keeper who looks like Justice Rehnquist,
I imagine that Rehnquist looks a bit like the Crypt Keeper too right about now.
Did this post get a (5, Funny) because of the remark about throwing stuff at Darl? Or because he misspelled "speech" three times?
You can use a search engine to find a prostitute or drugs and other forms of illegal "entertainment"
You mean you have the ability to do those things, but are you sure it's legal to do so? After all, if you ask google for information on how to commit a crime, and google gives you lots of information on how to commit that crime, could a prosecutor argue that that constitutes conspiracy?
Anyway, the real reason why copyright infringement is the "online law violation" (note avoidance of the word "crime") which gets the attention is because there's a victim with a financial interest in stopping it. The same can not be said for prostitution or drugs.
Difference to whom? Him? No, he believes in software ownership, and always has.
Your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking. The person you're replying to never said there was a difference in Gate's opinion on software ownership. In fact, he explicitly said there was no difference on that front. The difference he pointed out was a difference in how much influence Gates has. I think Gates would agree that he has more influence now.
I disagree with your usage of this term, as well as wikipedia's usage. An ad-hominem would be something like, "Yeah, well who cares what an idiot like you thinks?". Instead, the examples you cite from Wikipedia are all cases of legitimately pointing out biases in your opponent that are likely to influence your opponent's position. And the GP post was pointing out hypocrisy in his opponent (Gates).
And I suppose in your fantasy would, any conceivable right, whether mentioned or not, and whether denied by statute or not, is protected by the constitution?
Say it with me now! Correlation does not imply causation!
Yes, but the GP didn't imply any causation, it only pointed out the correlation. Nobody suggested that being liberal causes people to run out and earn advanced degrees. Nor has anybody suggested that getting a degree changes people from conservative to liberal.
That used to be true, but I believe the Republicans rammed through a bill that makes credit card debt very hard to escape.
If you're going to try to vilify the Republicans for making it harder for people to welch on their debts, you're not going to gain the support of Democrats like me.
under FISA the domestic spying program is illegal. FDR wasn't really subject to FISA because FISA was passed in 1978
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the domestic spying program was even *more* illegal before FISA. FISA gave the gov't authority it didn't previously have. It didn't take away their previous (non-existant) right to wiretap any american citizen.
I would argue that jail time does not work as a deterrent (there are studies that back this up,
I call bullshit. Why do you think criminals try not to get caught? Why do criminals run from the police? Why do the police need to engage in high speed pursuit at times? Are you saying that the bad guys don't mind jail, but rather they just don't like being fingerprinted?
I, for one, welcome our old avian overlords.
Testing the system?
Are you asking us?
spam has passed its peak and is now declining.
For me the peak was two weeks ago when I received 30 emails a day from the FBI and the CIA telling me I visit illegal websites.
Are you suggesting that the theory of evolution is anywhere near as well proven as the round earth theory, atomic theory and special relativity?
As well proven? No. Anywhere NEAR as well proven? Actually, yes.
Hint: You can see the earth is round if you just get into a plane
Actually, I can't. I can see a horizon, which is not inconsistent with a flat earth. And besides, The Great Illusionist can bend light and provide all kinds of false evidence for a round earth, just as He created 6000 year old fossils that appear by carbon dating to be millions of years old. And by the way, he can also grab the occasional alpha particle and toss them back when they're being shot at a sheet of gold foil.
[...]see a photograph taken from a space shuttle, watch other planets through the telescope etc. Contrast this with evolution - have you personally observed anything even remotely resembling macro-evolution?
Um, I haven't personally taken a photograph from a space shuttle. I assume you haven't either. I also haven't seen my twin take off on a space ship at near c and return practically un-aged either. I assume you haven't either. But since you seem ready to accept the evidence observed and reported by others, it's unclear to me why the extremely well confirmed notion of evolution by natural selection doesn't deserve the same.
Theories are supposed to be treated with skepticism,
Yes, but for scientific reasons, not religious ones. I wonder if he has the same level of skepticism for the atomic theory of matter, special relativity, and the round-earth theory.
"PUMP YOUR BLOOD" SONG - VERSE ONE
Pump, pump, pumps your Blood.
The right atrium's where the process begins, where the CO2 Blood enters the heart.
Through the tricuspid valve, to the right ventricle, the pulmonary artery, and lungs.
Once inside the lungs, it dumps its carbon dioxide and picks up its oxygen supply.
Then it's back to the heart through the pulmonary vein, through the atrium and left ventricle.
Pump, pump, pumps your Blood.
"PUMP YOUR BLOOD" SONG - VERSE TWO
Pump, pump, pumps your Blood.
The aortic valve's, where the Blood leaves the heart, then it's channeled to the rest of the bod.
The arteries, arterioles, and capillaries too bring the oxygenated Blood to the cells.
The tissues and the cells trade off waste and CO2, which is carried through the venules and the veins
Through the larger vena cava to the atrium and lungs, and we're back to where we started in the heart.
Pump, pump, pumps your Blood
Why does no one view god as the collected set of mechanics that the universe runs under? That certainly fits the bill for omnicient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.
Because it also renders God deterministic.
No, the correct answer is 10000000. Each term has only one significant figure,
No, the correct answer was 10000000.00000001. The concept of significant figures is only relevant when dealing with scientific quantities, i.e. measurements and computations involving them, because they have inherent uncertainties associated with them. It's not the calculator's job to decide when that is applicable.
there is nothing like books when it comes to learning; it's not easy to highlight, markup and take notes on a public computer or a loaned out laptop
And maybe that's why they did it: They got tired of people like you highlighting, marking-up, and taking notes on THEIR books.
If you take a DVD, you cannot actually get to the point that you can exercise your fair use rights, not without violating a different law[...]
Well, actually, you can. Let's say you're a teacher in an elementary school. You can point a camcorder at your TV screen while a disc is playing, record an excerpt onto tape, bring the tape to the class and play it there in order to prompt student discussion about the scene in question. That's fair use, and no violation of DMCA.
Pay attention to the context. The original poster wanted to know if the content provider's control over his media and device constituted a "violation of [his] fair use [rights]". It's not, because there's no way a content provider can violate his fair use rights, since "Fair Use" does not impose constraints on what a content provider may do.