How does it act as a disincentive when they can pass the cost directly to the consumer with no worry of losing business?? I can think of a few reasons, but keep in mind that I am not an expert in this area.
* Businesses are large consumers of energy, and they definitely consider power costs when they decide where to locate. Excessive power costs can prevent power company growth. * As populations grow, outlying townships/suburbs/whatever will decide to incorporate. At that point they could choose instead of that power company, to form a municipal power company or join a co-op. * The city can decide to dump the power company and form a municipal power utility. I am not sure how this works legally, but my community has put this to a vote a few times over the years. * Additional plants are being built all the time, at which point profit margin comparisons come into play. The more you charge to cover expenses, the less you can take for profit because there is an upper limit to how much you can charge before there is a human cost and the community fights back.
We're being taxed and surcharged into oblivion, and we're passing the savings on to you! You're already being charged for pollution, in fact everyone is, in the costs of having to deal with the problems of pollution. What sucks is that a company can socialize the costs of pollution while privatizing the benefits. Currently I pay less as a polluter by not having to build a new plant, while everyone pays for the pollution cleanup. On the other hand, assessing a penalty according to the amount of pollution coming out of any particular plant has the twin effect of disincentivizing pollution and more fairly distributing the costs of dealing with that pollution (providing the assessed taxes are used for that purpose, which they should be.) This is cheaper and fairer, unless you are looking at it from the perspective of a heavy polluter.
Well, I wasn't precise on what my problem with this is. The word is for the business end, not everyone else. I feel like we're being programmed to buy stuff. American culture is being infused with the language of buying and selling. I think this is a dangerous path.
this single sku offers five complete games at an amazing price. What is an SKU? Is anyone else getting sick of the integration of marketing and sales jargon into regular language? I'm tired of game series being called "franchises." I'm not licensing anything, I'm buying it. It's a franchise to a licensor. To me it's a game.
It is not science, it is a television program. It is constructed for entertainment purposes and they have no obligation to be fair, thorough or even competent. Their obligations are to be entertaining and to fill a time slot and to not offend sponsors or be sued.
OK, maybe they sometimes DO science, but it is bad science with laughable conclusions. They start with a vague hypothesis and little facts and state a shaky hypothesis. They then proceed to create an experiment to test the shaky hypothesis in the flashiest manner that their miniscule budget and episode lead time allows. They then continue, frequently without consultation of any actual expert in the field they are experimenting, to disprove their bad hypothesis with their failed experiment. Generally all they ever prove is that they dont know enough about the myth to ask the right questions or construct a meaningful experiment.
It is hard to take them seriously when you can see the obvious flaws on video. Take the episode where they tested if cell phones could cause a fire at a gas pump. As far as I can tell, they never even bothered to investigate if there have been any documented cases of this happening. If they did, they never said so on the air and it is not written down anywhere. Which tends to make it a little difficult to peer review. Episode where they tested if it was possible for someone to be buried alive in a coffin and live to dig themselves out. So they bury the guy in a titanium hermetically sealed coffin 12 feet underground, which is a far cry from the pine box a foot underground which was common when some of these events allegedly happened. MYTH BUSTED!
I particularly enjoyed the episode where they couldnt build a black powder engine in a few days, so haha those stupid guys in the 1600s were boobs for spending their lives trying to figure it out. I have an experiment for them. Before trying to build that, why not see if you can build a working internal combustion engine from scratch in three days? Cant do it? Internal combustion: MYTH BUSTED!
I am not trying to flame here, but its a damn TV show. It is NOT science.
Also, what exactly is the legal definition of 'viewing HTML'? Does it mean reading it with your own eyes, or does it include using a web browser to read it? I don't think it's terribly ambiguous, you have raw HTML and you have rendered HTML. Rendered HTML may not look consistent or even right, but it's not going to expose markup. Here are the problems with that as I see it:
1. you can't hide it, it's trivial to view it. 2. you don't own HTML or browser technology, so you are completely dependent on developers who may need to see your code to render it properly. Someone somewhere needs to actually look at HTML to make an HTML renderer, so your position is shortsighted. 3. why do you even care, the chance your code contains something worth protecting is almost nil. You web designers probably just cribbed code from webmaster.com anyway. 4. you are making yourselves look like idiots and are goading exactly the people who can embarrass you the most.
They totally understand this, and say as much. This is why they threaten the force of law if you look, because they know they can't actually physically stop you from looking. I believe they even know that their legal argument is false. Knowing that they can litigate you into financial oblivion right or wrong acts as a deterrent here, and I think this is their strategy. I can even tell you why they care. Because they are lawyers, and in their world everything they touch is valuable and the thought of someone using it without permission is highly offensive to them.
It'll be news if they submitted an ad WITHOUT infringing on a trademark, and that was rejected.
Did you read the article, that's what happened! According to the article's quoted intellectual property expert:
Ronald Coleman, a lawyer and leading expert on online intellectual property disputes, noted that, as a private company, Google has the right to treat different advertisers differently.
But he called Google's removal of the Collins ads "troubling." Coleman says that there is no such requirement under trademark law and that Google appears to be selectively enforcing its policy.
"In a recent ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the notion that there is anything like a cause of action under the Lanham Act, the statue governing trademark law in the United States, for so-called 'trademark disparagement,' " Coleman said. The courts have also rejected the notion that the use of a trademark as a search term is a "legally cognizable use" as a trademark use under federal trademark law, he added. Coleman is also general counsel for the Media Bloggers Association. I think it's bullshit that some people think it's a trademark violation to refer to an organization by name while criticizing it. How could you criticize any company then? It would mean trademark law trumps the first amendment.
The overarching problem is that a particular section on Slashdot consistently creates articles that devolve into flame wars. I can tell you two very good reasons why this is a bad idea: it attracts the wrong kind of poster, people who just like to fight; and second, moderators waste mod points modding down the ensuing flamebait and trolling instead of modding up good content in ANY section. Politics section is a mod points black hole and I believe you can see the effects of this today on the entire site. There are other solutions to alleviate problems like this, but by only seeing the problem as being with individual article quality, discussion about that is disallowed.
If you plugged in a cartridge it was instant-on for those apps too. Now there's even a peripheral, the MMC64 that lets you use SD cards on your Commodore 64, so I don't see anything that indicates we couldn't have instant on for writable media either nowadays, which was the point of the original post.
Incidentally, did the 1451 drive have as fast a CPU as the Commodore 64? I know the 1451-II's CPU was actually faster, and you could actually offload CPU processing to it across the serial interface, and some games even did this.
Slippery slopes are not a fallacy. Some are real, obviously. For example, an actual slippery slope. It can be a fallacy if there's no evidence that any escalation is taking place. The fallacy is not the slippery slope, it's seeing a slippery slope where in reality there is just a small change to something.
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"
on
Stalling Cars Via OnStar
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
You know what, after I posted I remembered actually hearing about police wanting something like this to be mandated. I did a little googling and:
UK Police call for remote button to stop cars. So, if you are in the UK at least, no it would not be a slippery slope; they have already asked for this power to be added to all cars once it is safe. Interestingly, some politicians expressed interest in this being used as a way to prevent speeders by forcibly reducing your car's maximum speed around school zones or in bad weather.
Yeah, I made a mistake. You'll notice that I mentioned it was competing with other Greek texts, I was getting it messed up with the Vetus Latina Septuagint, noticed my mistake, and didn't clean up both references to Latin. You are correct, and that would have been worse, being a translation of a translation of a translation.
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"
on
Stalling Cars Via OnStar
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
All you did was restate the slippery slope fallacy? Where is the actual evidence that anyone is pushing to make this mandatory? Just because the government has eventually mandated some recommendations doesn't mean they will eventually mandate all recommendations.
Two points of contention. It is using the word "murder" in a MORAL and not only legal sense. Second, if it's the correct translation then it would also be correct to say that this is what the "original" Christians believed (Jews too obviously.)
Why would one assert that the NIV is a "superiour" translation?
Consider KJV:
1. We know more about Biblical culture now than anyone did in 1611, which affects translation. 2. We know more about Biblical language now than anyone did in 1611, which obviously affects translation. 3. Modern translations take into account hundreds of additional material sources that were not available in 1611, not the least of which are the Dead Sea Scrolls which account for very increased understanding of both 1 and 2. 4. The KJV New Testament was based in large part on the Latin Textus Receptus which meant a) it's a translation of a translation and b) the TR itself was rushed to beat other Greek texts and had hundreds of errors (many of which were corrected by the 3rd edition used for the KJV, but still, consider the source.) 5.. The KJV translation was extremely controversial at the time by the Roman Catholic Church, who would make the very same arguments about the KJV that you are making about the NIV right now. By the standards for controversy it was judged against, the KJV could still be argued to be a bad translation. 6. English has changed since 1611.
I'm not saying NIV it IS better, I'm saying why anyone would assert it's status as a superior translation, as you asked. No one was saying that Christians using the KJV were inferior Christians, but I think a case could be made for Bible translation affecting that. Consider if the (mis)translation said something like "Thou SHALL kill."
Credit card companies do provide such a number. If you don't have to do multiple transactions on the card, you don't have to store the actual card number after it's used. The problem is that companies want to have their cake and eat it too, store the card for repeated transactions or customer convenience, but they don't want to change their systems to store them securely.
That's a bunch of bull. Companies aren't fighting back because the standards are vague and they can't pass auditing. Most of the auditing is automated security scanning and a lot of the rest is a self-audit for which you provide the answers. Companies are fighting back because they don't want to spend the time or money changing their systems. To make them more secure. Or secure at all. Yeah, the standards are terribly vague, but it's basically just a CYA for the credit card company when you lose customer data. You know what, life sucks, I have no sympathy. The standard has been in place for quite some time now. Even before the standard there were minimum practices for storing credit card data, maybe companies should have been following them all along.
Even under Stalin, scientific free thought was encouraged[...]
This is TOTALLY FALSE. First of all, you need to look up Lysenkoism.
but to suggest that Soviet physical scientists were prevented from doing good work under his reign is just claptrap.
Scientists were hated by politicians and because of their advanced knowledge were by default suspected of being a dangerous spy risk. It was almost impossible to do most tasks because work was broken up for security reasons so that no one could know fully what they were working on. Scientists working on secret projects were kept in distant Siberian outposts and treated nearly identically to political and criminal exiles. Scientists were routinely prevented from travelling overseas to important scientific conferences and as a matter of course were obligated to deny all politically inconvenient scientific discoveries made by state enemies.
That any science was accomplished at all during the majority of the Soviet era is a testament to the amazing people actually doing it, the Soviet system was actively against them.
10. Leaving parents basement. The light! The light! 9. People only like me on Slashdot because they cannot smell me on slashdot 8. People will probably bring laptops, and I run Windows Vista 7. People will realize I am not a) an astrophysicist nor b) a hot female astrophysicist 6. While I can get away with visiting Slashdot at work, people will actually notice I am not working if I go to this. 5. Actual, retributive karma likely if my "foes" met me in person 4. I don't remember my password 3. ??? 2. profit!
and finally 1. I don't actually want to be associated with any of you in real life (I keed, I keed!)
It's theorized that birds use the the setting sun to "calibrate" their magnetic direction sense. Scientists have done experiments with visual cues and artificial magnetic fields. What's new here is that these scientists have found direct evidence that the magnetic field is "seen" as opposed to some other sense method (for this type of bird anyway.) Check out this link: geomagnetism and birds migration
Slashdot Mirror
* Businesses are large consumers of energy, and they definitely consider power costs when they decide where to locate. Excessive power costs can prevent power company growth.
* As populations grow, outlying townships/suburbs/whatever will decide to incorporate. At that point they could choose instead of that power company, to form a municipal power company or join a co-op.
* The city can decide to dump the power company and form a municipal power utility. I am not sure how this works legally, but my community has put this to a vote a few times over the years.
* Additional plants are being built all the time, at which point profit margin comparisons come into play. The more you charge to cover expenses, the less you can take for profit because there is an upper limit to how much you can charge before there is a human cost and the community fights back.
Well, I wasn't precise on what my problem with this is. The word is for the business end, not everyone else. I feel like we're being programmed to buy stuff. American culture is being infused with the language of buying and selling. I think this is a dangerous path.
Someone on my staff sent me an Internet about that just the other day. I can't really tell you what it said because it hasn't gotten here yet.
It is not science, it is a television program. It is constructed for entertainment purposes and they have no obligation to be fair, thorough or even competent. Their obligations are to be entertaining and to fill a time slot and to not offend sponsors or be sued.
OK, maybe they sometimes DO science, but it is bad science with laughable conclusions. They start with a vague hypothesis and little facts and state a shaky hypothesis. They then proceed to create an experiment to test the shaky hypothesis in the flashiest manner that their miniscule budget and episode lead time allows. They then continue, frequently without consultation of any actual expert in the field they are experimenting, to disprove their bad hypothesis with their failed experiment. Generally all they ever prove is that they dont know enough about the myth to ask the right questions or construct a meaningful experiment.
It is hard to take them seriously when you can see the obvious flaws on video. Take the episode where they tested if cell phones could cause a fire at a gas pump. As far as I can tell, they never even bothered to investigate if there have been any documented cases of this happening. If they did, they never said so on the air and it is not written down anywhere. Which tends to make it a little difficult to peer review. Episode where they tested if it was possible for someone to be buried alive in a coffin and live to dig themselves out. So they bury the guy in a titanium hermetically sealed coffin 12 feet underground, which is a far cry from the pine box a foot underground which was common when some of these events allegedly happened. MYTH BUSTED!
I particularly enjoyed the episode where they couldnt build a black powder engine in a few days, so haha those stupid guys in the 1600s were boobs for spending their lives trying to figure it out. I have an experiment for them. Before trying to build that, why not see if you can build a working internal combustion engine from scratch in three days? Cant do it? Internal combustion: MYTH BUSTED!
I am not trying to flame here, but its a damn TV show. It is NOT science.
1. you can't hide it, it's trivial to view it.
2. you don't own HTML or browser technology, so you are completely dependent on developers who may need to see your code to render it properly. Someone somewhere needs to actually look at HTML to make an HTML renderer, so your position is shortsighted.
3. why do you even care, the chance your code contains something worth protecting is almost nil. You web designers probably just cribbed code from webmaster.com anyway.
4. you are making yourselves look like idiots and are goading exactly the people who can embarrass you the most.
They totally understand this, and say as much. This is why they threaten the force of law if you look, because they know they can't actually physically stop you from looking. I believe they even know that their legal argument is false. Knowing that they can litigate you into financial oblivion right or wrong acts as a deterrent here, and I think this is their strategy. I can even tell you why they care. Because they are lawyers, and in their world everything they touch is valuable and the thought of someone using it without permission is highly offensive to them.
I've seen this up to even a few years ago. We are now provided with a partial number, either four or six digits depending on the card company.
Did you read the article, that's what happened! According to the article's quoted intellectual property expert: Ronald Coleman, a lawyer and leading expert on online intellectual property disputes, noted that, as a private company, Google has the right to treat different advertisers differently.
But he called Google's removal of the Collins ads "troubling." Coleman says that there is no such requirement under trademark law and that Google appears to be selectively enforcing its policy.
"In a recent ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the notion that there is anything like a cause of action under the Lanham Act, the statue governing trademark law in the United States, for so-called 'trademark disparagement,' " Coleman said. The courts have also rejected the notion that the use of a trademark as a search term is a "legally cognizable use" as a trademark use under federal trademark law, he added. Coleman is also general counsel for the Media Bloggers Association. I think it's bullshit that some people think it's a trademark violation to refer to an organization by name while criticizing it. How could you criticize any company then? It would mean trademark law trumps the first amendment.
And if inventing HTTP had a thing to do with where the first major Internet backbone was built, your post would be on topic.
The overarching problem is that a particular section on Slashdot consistently creates articles that devolve into flame wars. I can tell you two very good reasons why this is a bad idea: it attracts the wrong kind of poster, people who just like to fight; and second, moderators waste mod points modding down the ensuing flamebait and trolling instead of modding up good content in ANY section. Politics section is a mod points black hole and I believe you can see the effects of this today on the entire site. There are other solutions to alleviate problems like this, but by only seeing the problem as being with individual article quality, discussion about that is disallowed.
If you plugged in a cartridge it was instant-on for those apps too. Now there's even a peripheral, the MMC64 that lets you use SD cards on your Commodore 64, so I don't see anything that indicates we couldn't have instant on for writable media either nowadays, which was the point of the original post.
Incidentally, did the 1451 drive have as fast a CPU as the Commodore 64? I know the 1451-II's CPU was actually faster, and you could actually offload CPU processing to it across the serial interface, and some games even did this.
Because it is ON A COMPUTER, which changes EVERYTHING. Luckily, I have patented "dirty tricks, but ON A COMPUTER" so if anyone tries, I will sue them.
Slippery slopes are not a fallacy. Some are real, obviously. For example, an actual slippery slope. It can be a fallacy if there's no evidence that any escalation is taking place. The fallacy is not the slippery slope, it's seeing a slippery slope where in reality there is just a small change to something.
You know what, after I posted I remembered actually hearing about police wanting something like this to be mandated. I did a little googling and:
UK Police call for remote button to stop cars. So, if you are in the UK at least, no it would not be a slippery slope; they have already asked for this power to be added to all cars once it is safe. Interestingly, some politicians expressed interest in this being used as a way to prevent speeders by forcibly reducing your car's maximum speed around school zones or in bad weather.
Yeah, I made a mistake. You'll notice that I mentioned it was competing with other Greek texts, I was getting it messed up with the Vetus Latina Septuagint, noticed my mistake, and didn't clean up both references to Latin. You are correct, and that would have been worse, being a translation of a translation of a translation.
All you did was restate the slippery slope fallacy? Where is the actual evidence that anyone is pushing to make this mandatory? Just because the government has eventually mandated some recommendations doesn't mean they will eventually mandate all recommendations.
Two points of contention. It is using the word "murder" in a MORAL and not only legal sense. Second, if it's the correct translation then it would also be correct to say that this is what the "original" Christians believed (Jews too obviously.)
Why would one assert that the NIV is a "superiour" translation?
Consider KJV:
1. We know more about Biblical culture now than anyone did in 1611, which affects translation.
2. We know more about Biblical language now than anyone did in 1611, which obviously affects translation.
3. Modern translations take into account hundreds of additional material sources that were not available in 1611, not the least of which are the Dead Sea Scrolls which account for very increased understanding of both 1 and 2.
4. The KJV New Testament was based in large part on the Latin Textus Receptus which meant a) it's a translation of a translation and b) the TR itself was rushed to beat other Greek texts and had hundreds of errors (many of which were corrected by the 3rd edition used for the KJV, but still, consider the source.)
5.. The KJV translation was extremely controversial at the time by the Roman Catholic Church, who would make the very same arguments about the KJV that you are making about the NIV right now. By the standards for controversy it was judged against, the KJV could still be argued to be a bad translation.
6. English has changed since 1611.
I'm not saying NIV it IS better, I'm saying why anyone would assert it's status as a superior translation, as you asked. No one was saying that Christians using the KJV were inferior Christians, but I think a case could be made for Bible translation affecting that. Consider if the (mis)translation said something like "Thou SHALL kill."
Note: I am not an expert on ANY of this.
Credit card companies do provide such a number. If you don't have to do multiple transactions on the card, you don't have to store the actual card number after it's used. The problem is that companies want to have their cake and eat it too, store the card for repeated transactions or customer convenience, but they don't want to change their systems to store them securely.
That's a bunch of bull. Companies aren't fighting back because the standards are vague and they can't pass auditing. Most of the auditing is automated security scanning and a lot of the rest is a self-audit for which you provide the answers. Companies are fighting back because they don't want to spend the time or money changing their systems. To make them more secure. Or secure at all. Yeah, the standards are terribly vague, but it's basically just a CYA for the credit card company when you lose customer data. You know what, life sucks, I have no sympathy. The standard has been in place for quite some time now. Even before the standard there were minimum practices for storing credit card data, maybe companies should have been following them all along.
Even under Stalin, scientific free thought was encouraged[...]
This is TOTALLY FALSE. First of all, you need to look up Lysenkoism.
but to suggest that Soviet physical scientists were prevented from doing good work under his reign is just claptrap.
Scientists were hated by politicians and because of their advanced knowledge were by default suspected of being a dangerous spy risk. It was almost impossible to do most tasks because work was broken up for security reasons so that no one could know fully what they were working on. Scientists working on secret projects were kept in distant Siberian outposts and treated nearly identically to political and criminal exiles. Scientists were routinely prevented from travelling overseas to important scientific conferences and as a matter of course were obligated to deny all politically inconvenient scientific discoveries made by state enemies.
That any science was accomplished at all during the majority of the Soviet era is a testament to the amazing people actually doing it, the Soviet system was actively against them.
10. Leaving parents basement. The light! The light!
9. People only like me on Slashdot because they cannot smell me on slashdot
8. People will probably bring laptops, and I run Windows Vista
7. People will realize I am not a) an astrophysicist nor b) a hot female astrophysicist
6. While I can get away with visiting Slashdot at work, people will actually notice I am not working if I go to this.
5. Actual, retributive karma likely if my "foes" met me in person
4. I don't remember my password
3. ???
2. profit!
and finally
1. I don't actually want to be associated with any of you in real life (I keed, I keed!)
It's theorized that birds use the the setting sun to "calibrate" their magnetic direction sense. Scientists have done experiments with visual cues and artificial magnetic fields. What's new here is that these scientists have found direct evidence that the magnetic field is "seen" as opposed to some other sense method (for this type of bird anyway.) Check out this link: geomagnetism and birds migration