But taking things down from the internet, tidying up as it were, doesn't sound the least bit questionable. Now if they remove the video, bio, and all his other stuff from their files and destroy it, then there might be a problem.
I think you're on to something about discussing the various genres. I would also add Turtledove and Altnerate History to the SciFi lexicon. I read an essay by Bradbury in which he talked about the defining component about SciFi being answering the question, "What if... ?" I think understanding SciFi's history is as important as discussing the stories.
Public figures do have a higher burden, but that doesn't mean that they cannot sue for defamation, its just harder to win. If it was an anonymous site with pictures of dozens of models, celebrities and the like similarly labeled, then she she would have a much more difficult time since the site could call itself satirical. Since the blog only seemed to exist to insult her, then I think it is more reasonable for the court to allow finding out who the anonymous author was.
The two ideals really are opposite, but I think the court is a decent method of finding a middle ground. Sometimes anonimity is more important, sometimes privacy is.
I would certainly hope and expect that both the F-35 and F-22 would be superior to the F-15. My point was that no one else has anything yet that can compete with an F-15. My thought was that since the F-22 is really only for air to air combat, and there's no real opponent for what we already have, that it is filling a need we don't really have. That the F-35 does both, supports that even more.
I brought up the multiple support levels because the F-22 is extremely expensive for filling a role that isn't actually needed. It was meant to convey how far from supporting the troops its purpose is when compared to toher aircraft.
It's not necessarily a superior craft from a combat standpoint.
My understanding is that the F-22 is much superior as an air-superiority fighter, but the F-35 has more air to ground capabilities. The difficulty with the F-22 is that the F-15 is still the most dominant air superiority fighter in the world, and because of the cost involved in making anythign remotely better, is likely to stay that way for a good long time. The "Super Power" enemies, such as they are, relied on a greater number of less capable aircraft because they couldn't afford the price of the nicer aircraft. So in some ways, the cost of the F-22 making fewer units practical plays into the hypothetical "Super Powers" hand.
The other factor to maintaining air superiority is the AWACS platforms which can direct the air war over very large distances. I think the West, and the US in particular has a huge advantage in that as well. Plus, as far as protecting our airspace goes, mounting air to air missiles on UAVs is just as easy as air to ground. So we would likely use those to counter any numerical superiority that our hypothetical "Super Power" posses as well.
Finally, FWIW, I subscribe to the two level theory of war. The first level is the infantry, the second level is everything else: it exists to support the infantry since only the infantry can take and hold ground. Artillery, sea power, aviation, even tanks can deny the enemy ground, but only the infantry can hold it. So more A-10s putting more ordance where the infantry needs it seems a better deal than F-22's holding air superiority over a non-existant enemy air force. IMHO.
Unfortunately the folks obsessed with "disproving" the Moon landings are doing on the premise that NASA faked the whole thing. So any evidence in support coming from NASA would of course be expected. Logic, reason, and facts are not exactly these peoples strong points, so this will do nothing to curtail their wailings. Indeed, this will just be added to the list of things, "faked."
Exactly. But "fun" can't be captured in a spreadsheet for quarterly reports. Things like polygon count, map size, load speed, and so on, and so forth, are all readily counted and tracked. The constraints on the Wii compared to the 360 or PS3 means that while some games may lose their edge, most will be improved through the deletion of unnecessary cruft.
Think of it like your HD. If all you have is a NetBook with a 4GB SSD, you decide whether or not something is worth saving. If you have dual 1TB HD you save everything whether you need or not, and regardless of whether you will ever, ever look at it again. Then it gets filled with crap but you don't know what's important or not because you never had to choose in the first place. Its the same thing with games. Give too big of a world you can create and everything goes in whether it is actually needed or not. The catch, is that it requires more discipline, and that is also far too nebulous for a spreadsheet.
AFAIK, the bird themselves didn't actually stop the engines on Sully's Airbus. They just took out the engine sensors. Since Airbus' route all pilot inputs through a computer, and the computer is the final arbitrator of whether or not to allow the action, Sully's attempts to add power were nullified by the computer. With the sensors gone the computer interpreted the engines as over-revving, essentially, so it throttled them back to idle. Most likely if the birds had hit a Boeing product, which has simpler, redundant mechanical linkages to the engines, they would have been able to go around and land safely back at the airport.
I wodner if this could be challenged since patents are used, by definition (emphasis added), "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Essentially by making the OS crippled they are actually regressing the useful art of the OS. It'd by like trying to patent a fridge that made its contents warmer.
I would guess that the law enforcements and militaries of the world should just do their jobs and apprehend these criminals.
To go a step further, what happens if it can be determined that the spammers are enemy combatants waging war against the United States infrastructure?
In other news today, US Military Drones attacked 200 hundred spam headquarters in coordinated action last night. Anti-war protestors took the streets by the thousands to show their support...
So... it's harder to get the right answer than previously though, but the previous calculations done the 'easy' way are still correct?
I'm struggling to reconcile this...
I am not a scientist, but I know that you can us eNewtonian mechanics to figure out where a planet is going to be on any given date time. But if ylou want to slide a satellite into orbit around that planet you need to bust out Einstein. I'm guessing it might be something similar in that this doesn't affect the general trend, but it will change the rate of the trend.
The EFF isn't going to take up a fight with a corporate policy.
To be clear I wasn't expecting the EFF to intervene so much as that they would be aware of the type of language being used in these contracts. They may not take up the fight, they may not even try and bring publicity to it, but I'm sure they'd be interested in what is happening with these things.
Also, I've never read a comment and thought to myself, "hmm, that was insightful, maybe we could play together."
That's too bad actually. I've actually made friends on the Dot who I've actually been able to even meet in Real Life(TM) on occasion. There are many here who actively write journals, I do occasionally, but you can actually meet some very cool people through them. So, if you come across a comment that is funny, insightful, or worthy of extra reading, I'd encourage you to see if they journal, too.
/. it for discussing news stories.
True, which is why I think the prohibition on speaking poorly about your company would carry more import here than on on MySpace, Facebook, or Twitter even. If your company ends up in the news for all the wrong reasons, an employee posting negatively about it to slashdot would likely carry more weight than someone doing similarly on MySpace. I'm not saying that slashdotters are automatically credible, just that commentary on a news site will carry more credibility than a message on someone's "Wall."
What actually happens if you would have kept declining? Does that actually impact your salary or continued employment? And do they consider/. to be a "Social Networking" site?
Personally, I think it'd be worthwhile to mail the text to the EFF.
The technical term is FoxNewsism. Extreme cases can also cause aggrevated swelling of the brain as it's shrinkage puts more pressure on the neurons. This, even more severe form of brain disability is known as Rushitis. The only known cure for either is a cranialrectal extraction, a delicate procedure involving the copious consumption of facts and reason. Although MSNBCism and AirAmericaitis are just as prevelant, and require the same cure, their suffers are not nearly as loud.
They mention the Commodore fans, but not the Amiga fans. Newton Fans, but not the Apple Fanbois. That'd be like listing the World's religions and failing to mention Catholicism and Mormons.
What books someone is reading is not necessarily an indicator of how well they can do the job. Maybe they're reading all those big important books because they don't fully grasp the job? Maybe there are DBA's out there who grok it well enough, and enjoy it well enough, that they appreciate a different way of explaining it. To be honest, it sounds like you are less interested in hiring the best person you can so much as hiring someone who thinks the same way you do.
I am seriously suspect of demographic this book is attempting to sell to. I shall put on my list of questions to potential hiree's; have you read this book?
If the answer is yes, it's an automatic no for the job.
If that's how you make your hiring decisions I think most folks are going to be better off not getting the job. I'd think, "Can you do the job well?" would be of far more importance to answer.
Slashdot Mirror
But taking things down from the internet, tidying up as it were, doesn't sound the least bit questionable. Now if they remove the video, bio, and all his other stuff from their files and destroy it, then there might be a problem.
I think you're on to something about discussing the various genres. I would also add Turtledove and Altnerate History to the SciFi lexicon. I read an essay by Bradbury in which he talked about the defining component about SciFi being answering the question, "What if... ?" I think understanding SciFi's history is as important as discussing the stories.
Julian May's Pliocene Exile series is absolutely brilliant
I've never heard about this before, can you give any more details?
Google is simply "embracing and extending" IE's functionality, right?
Public figures do have a higher burden, but that doesn't mean that they cannot sue for defamation, its just harder to win. If it was an anonymous site with pictures of dozens of models, celebrities and the like similarly labeled, then she she would have a much more difficult time since the site could call itself satirical. Since the blog only seemed to exist to insult her, then I think it is more reasonable for the court to allow finding out who the anonymous author was.
The two ideals really are opposite, but I think the court is a decent method of finding a middle ground. Sometimes anonimity is more important, sometimes privacy is.
Beat me to the joke. Dam.
I would certainly hope and expect that both the F-35 and F-22 would be superior to the F-15. My point was that no one else has anything yet that can compete with an F-15. My thought was that since the F-22 is really only for air to air combat, and there's no real opponent for what we already have, that it is filling a need we don't really have. That the F-35 does both, supports that even more.
I brought up the multiple support levels because the F-22 is extremely expensive for filling a role that isn't actually needed. It was meant to convey how far from supporting the troops its purpose is when compared to toher aircraft.
It's not necessarily a superior craft from a combat standpoint.
My understanding is that the F-22 is much superior as an air-superiority fighter, but the F-35 has more air to ground capabilities. The difficulty with the F-22 is that the F-15 is still the most dominant air superiority fighter in the world, and because of the cost involved in making anythign remotely better, is likely to stay that way for a good long time. The "Super Power" enemies, such as they are, relied on a greater number of less capable aircraft because they couldn't afford the price of the nicer aircraft. So in some ways, the cost of the F-22 making fewer units practical plays into the hypothetical "Super Powers" hand.
The other factor to maintaining air superiority is the AWACS platforms which can direct the air war over very large distances. I think the West, and the US in particular has a huge advantage in that as well. Plus, as far as protecting our airspace goes, mounting air to air missiles on UAVs is just as easy as air to ground. So we would likely use those to counter any numerical superiority that our hypothetical "Super Power" posses as well.
Finally, FWIW, I subscribe to the two level theory of war. The first level is the infantry, the second level is everything else: it exists to support the infantry since only the infantry can take and hold ground. Artillery, sea power, aviation, even tanks can deny the enemy ground, but only the infantry can hold it. So more A-10s putting more ordance where the infantry needs it seems a better deal than F-22's holding air superiority over a non-existant enemy air force. IMHO.
Unfortunately the folks obsessed with "disproving" the Moon landings are doing on the premise that NASA faked the whole thing. So any evidence in support coming from NASA would of course be expected. Logic, reason, and facts are not exactly these peoples strong points, so this will do nothing to curtail their wailings. Indeed, this will just be added to the list of things, "faked."
It's probably a shoggoth.
Very close, but it's actually a physical manifestation of Palin's political future. They just happen to look alike.
Wii's are fun.
Exactly. But "fun" can't be captured in a spreadsheet for quarterly reports. Things like polygon count, map size, load speed, and so on, and so forth, are all readily counted and tracked. The constraints on the Wii compared to the 360 or PS3 means that while some games may lose their edge, most will be improved through the deletion of unnecessary cruft.
Think of it like your HD. If all you have is a NetBook with a 4GB SSD, you decide whether or not something is worth saving. If you have dual 1TB HD you save everything whether you need or not, and regardless of whether you will ever, ever look at it again. Then it gets filled with crap but you don't know what's important or not because you never had to choose in the first place. Its the same thing with games. Give too big of a world you can create and everything goes in whether it is actually needed or not. The catch, is that it requires more discipline, and that is also far too nebulous for a spreadsheet.
AFAIK, the bird themselves didn't actually stop the engines on Sully's Airbus. They just took out the engine sensors. Since Airbus' route all pilot inputs through a computer, and the computer is the final arbitrator of whether or not to allow the action, Sully's attempts to add power were nullified by the computer. With the sensors gone the computer interpreted the engines as over-revving, essentially, so it throttled them back to idle. Most likely if the birds had hit a Boeing product, which has simpler, redundant mechanical linkages to the engines, they would have been able to go around and land safely back at the airport.
I wodner if this could be challenged since patents are used, by definition (emphasis added), "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Essentially by making the OS crippled they are actually regressing the useful art of the OS. It'd by like trying to patent a fridge that made its contents warmer.
I would guess that the law enforcements and militaries of the world should just do their jobs and apprehend these criminals.
To go a step further, what happens if it can be determined that the spammers are enemy combatants waging war against the United States infrastructure?
In other news today, US Military Drones attacked 200 hundred spam headquarters in coordinated action last night. Anti-war protestors took the streets by the thousands to show their support...
I am not a scientist, but I know that you can us eNewtonian mechanics to figure out where a planet is going to be on any given date time. But if ylou want to slide a satellite into orbit around that planet you need to bust out Einstein. I'm guessing it might be something similar in that this doesn't affect the general trend, but it will change the rate of the trend.
even while avoiding obnoxious advertising techniques.
There is no more obnoxious advertising technique than masquerading it as an "Ask Slashdot" question.
The EFF isn't going to take up a fight with a corporate policy.
To be clear I wasn't expecting the EFF to intervene so much as that they would be aware of the type of language being used in these contracts. They may not take up the fight, they may not even try and bring publicity to it, but I'm sure they'd be interested in what is happening with these things.
Also, I've never read a comment and thought to myself, "hmm, that was insightful, maybe we could play together."
/. it for discussing news stories.
That's too bad actually. I've actually made friends on the Dot who I've actually been able to even meet in Real Life(TM) on occasion. There are many here who actively write journals, I do occasionally, but you can actually meet some very cool people through them. So, if you come across a comment that is funny, insightful, or worthy of extra reading, I'd encourage you to see if they journal, too.
True, which is why I think the prohibition on speaking poorly about your company would carry more import here than on on MySpace, Facebook, or Twitter even. If your company ends up in the news for all the wrong reasons, an employee posting negatively about it to slashdot would likely carry more weight than someone doing similarly on MySpace. I'm not saying that slashdotters are automatically credible, just that commentary on a news site will carry more credibility than a message on someone's "Wall."
What actually happens if you would have kept declining? Does that actually impact your salary or continued employment? And do they consider /. to be a "Social Networking" site?
Personally, I think it'd be worthwhile to mail the text to the EFF.
The technical term is FoxNewsism. Extreme cases can also cause aggrevated swelling of the brain as it's shrinkage puts more pressure on the neurons. This, even more severe form of brain disability is known as Rushitis. The only known cure for either is a cranialrectal extraction, a delicate procedure involving the copious consumption of facts and reason. Although MSNBCism and AirAmericaitis are just as prevelant, and require the same cure, their suffers are not nearly as loud.
Since it involves stem cells you'd think it'd be FTD...
Yep. It'll be fascinating to see how O'Gara twists this into an SCO victory, and helps further their appeal.
They mention the Commodore fans, but not the Amiga fans. Newton Fans, but not the Apple Fanbois. That'd be like listing the World's religions and failing to mention Catholicism and Mormons.
What books someone is reading is not necessarily an indicator of how well they can do the job. Maybe they're reading all those big important books because they don't fully grasp the job? Maybe there are DBA's out there who grok it well enough, and enjoy it well enough, that they appreciate a different way of explaining it. To be honest, it sounds like you are less interested in hiring the best person you can so much as hiring someone who thinks the same way you do.
If that's how you make your hiring decisions I think most folks are going to be better off not getting the job. I'd think, "Can you do the job well?" would be of far more importance to answer.