True, but it would have to be a lot less than 83% to be useful. Even if only 50% of people without cancer have it, add in the fact that the vast majority of people do not have cancer, and you have a test where almost everyone is a false positive. You'd really need closer to the 3% to have a test that can actually discriminate well.
It's not really an either/or. Most classical liberals were in favor both of freedoms in general and modest social safety nets. When Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, etc., were railing against government, it was against the police-state style of government on the one hand, and distorting interventions into the economy like mercantilism on the other hand. They weren't against government using tax revenue to produce public goods, like roads, bridges, ferries, public fountains, orphanages, public schools, etc.
Which libertarian ideas? Giving strong habeas corpus protections, opposing indefinite detention without trial, prosecuting torturers, and opposing warrantless surveillance?
That doesn't mean that the opposite position---externalities can be ignored---is somehow correct, either. If your product is cheap because you're throwing a bunch of waste product over the fence into your neighbor's yard, it's worth considering whether you ought to have to pay for the waste disposal.
Remember the Bush tax cuts? Remember the Cato-speared attempt by Bush to privatize Social Security? And who do you think is spearheading opposition to public health care at the moment?
Even from that perspective, it might be of some use. I'm not always a big fan of the Cato Institute, but they're influential among free-market conservative politicians. When it comes to entrenched interests with lots of lobbyists, Cato is one of them, so them lining up on this side could be useful. Of course, it remains to be seen how strong the support is--- will Cato actively lobby against software patents, or just publish the occasional article?
Despite its relative obviousness, it took me a bit of reading there to figure out what the cause of the bug was, since I was rusty on my Unix system calls, so here's a short summary.
ioctl(2) is essentially a way of specifying system calls for drivers without actually making a system call API, so drivers can register their own calls in a more decentralized way. A call to ioctl(fd, cmd, args,...) on a special/device file 'fd' gets routed to the driver that owns 'fd', which handles the command. The arguments might be values, or might be pointers to locations in which to return data.
fcntl(2) provides a way to perform operations on open (normal) files, like locking/unlocking them. It has the same parameters as ioctl(), except that there's always a single integer argument.
One way of implementing fcntl is essentially like ioctl -- find who owns the fd, and pass the cmd along to the relevant driver. But, Apple's code did this even for the operations on special devices normally manipulated via ioctl, so you could basically do an ioctl via fcntl. But, this bypasses some of the arg-checking that ioctl does, since fcntl always has one integer argument. So an easy exploit arises: call an ioctl that normally takes one pointer argument to assign something to. ioctl would normally check that the pointer is valid (something the caller is allowed to write to) before writing to it in kernel mode. But you can pass in any memory location at all as an integer via fcntl's argument. Voila, you get data written to arbitrary locations in memory. As an added bonus, some calls let you manipulate what data gets written--- the example exploit uses a "get terminal size" ioctl, so you can vary what gets written by changing your terminal size.
There are alternatives to injunctions if no voluntary agreement is reached, like the court imposing a license. The Supreme Court already held that whether an injunction or some other relief should be issued should be decided based on a number of factors, including relative harms to the parties, availability of alternatives, and harm to nonparties and the general public.
While true, it's also explicitly one of the factors that go into determining whether injunctions should be issued--- they're discretionary relief that is supposed to take into account any hardship the injunction might cause to nonparties.
That's because, while neither we nor they read or investigate anything we write about, the traditional new media has to wait long enough to at least give the impression that they might've plausibly interviewed someone or read a book.
I agree with that, which is precisely why I think attacking News Corp. for it in the public sphere, not legislative changes, is the right course of action. Publishing false news, even knowingly, is legal. But companies that do so should also be widely exposed as doing so, so nobody takes them seriously as news providers.
I don't think anyone's arguing that News Corp. was wrong as a matter of law--- it may indeed have been legal for them to fire an employee for refusing to including knowingly false information in a news broadcast. But it does mean that, as a matter of credibility, News Corp. is now on the record standing up for this right to knowingly provide false information in its news broadcasts. Do you really want to get your news from a news company that is willing to go to court to defend its right to lie?
Disney's the largest media conglomerate just by sheer company size, not necessarily as a measure of its control of news media--- Disney makes a bunch of money from movies, cruises, and theme parks as well.
My impression is that the vast majority of the garbage is actually quite small particles and fragments, not whole plastic bottles and the like that could be scooped up with nets. Would need some sort of high-volume filtration system.
That's true of a lot of tech stuff in general. What the hell is going on at the Oracle website, for example? About 40 links to some random downloads, middleware, etc.; impossible to find anything if you didn't already know exactly what you wanted.
I can see people taking issue with some parts of my post (perhaps this could be defended as non-activist), but it'd be hard to argue that Reagan administration member and Reagan judicial appointee Douglas Ginsburg isn't "a conservative".
Congress clearly empowered---in fact required---the FCC to set subscriber caps on cable operators in the Cable Act (1992). The court striking down these limits appears to be engaging in legislative policy analysis that is Congress's purview, not the D.C. Circuit's. It may be true that non-cable competition, such as from DirecTV, means that horizontal ownership limits within the cable industry itself are no longer as necessary to maintain overall competition as they were in 1992. But that's a decision for Congress, not the D.C. Circuit, to make.
I mean the court pretty brazenly admits as much. From the decision:
Satellite and fiber optic video providers have entered the market and grown in market share since the Congress passed the 1992 Act, and particularly in recent years. Cable operators, therefore, no longer have the bottleneck power over programming that concerned the Congress in 1992.
What they appear to have failed to explain is how the fact that circumstances have changed since Congress passed the 1992 Act, so that the factors that "concerned the Congress in 1992" arguably no longer apply, ought to make any difference as far as the court's job is concerned. Regardless of whether the factors that concerned the Congress in 1992 still apply, the Act remains in force until repealed or amended, and the D.C. Circuit is not empowered to repeal or amend it. Ignoring the text of the statute and substituting this sort of policy analysis --- "we're pretty sure Congress intended to do something with this act that no longer applies, so we're going to assume Congress would've wanted it amended, and we'll just go ahead and amend it right now" --- is lawless judicial activism at its worst.
Only in America do a people believe that there is something akin to morality in the operation of government.
I don't think that's true in either direction. First, a great deal of Americans don't believe there is anything akin to morality in the operation of government, whether they're left-wingers who think the government is the tool of imperialist-capitalist interests, conservatives who think the government is spreading hedonism and immorality via the public schools, or libertarians who don't like any operation of government at all.
And on the flip side, a good many Europeans expect there to be something akin to morality in the operation of government. Italy is not representative of most of Europe, and places like Sweden have very different expectations from their government, which are more positive on the whole, even if there is still plenty of cynicism about politicians.
That really isn't what the story is about, though. Maybe Spotify is great, but "Spotify released for another platform" isn't that exciting and probably wouldn't end up posted on Slashdot, if there weren't some reason that it being released for the iPhone was surprising or at some point in doubt.
Yeah, the article even points out that Apple dropped support for syncing with PowerPC Macs, so it's not like Apple is only dropping support for competitors; they're just weeding out anything non-recent. The argument seems to be that somehow dropping PPC support is acceptable, because they've been discontinued, but PalmOS is still an OS on phones currently sold, so couldn't be explained by the same "it's just being dropped because it's old and dead" logic. But Palm itself basically declared Palm OS dead before Apple dropped support.
You could argue it's a bit premature, but it doesn't take an anticompetitive explanation for that: Apple has a long history of dropping support for stuff that was becoming obsolete in a way that many commentators considered a bit premature, starting with their decision to drop floppy support.
What does this teenage-Randian rant have to do with the parent comment? The article asks what schools were doing all summer, and the comment is that they were not working, because they weren't employed. Your argument that they shouldn't have ever been employed because omg RON PAUL isn't actually relevant to that point.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but it would have to be a lot less than 83% to be useful. Even if only 50% of people without cancer have it, add in the fact that the vast majority of people do not have cancer, and you have a test where almost everyone is a false positive. You'd really need closer to the 3% to have a test that can actually discriminate well.
It's not really an either/or. Most classical liberals were in favor both of freedoms in general and modest social safety nets. When Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, etc., were railing against government, it was against the police-state style of government on the one hand, and distorting interventions into the economy like mercantilism on the other hand. They weren't against government using tax revenue to produce public goods, like roads, bridges, ferries, public fountains, orphanages, public schools, etc.
Considering Ayn Rand hated libertarians, that's an odd juxtaposition!
Which libertarian ideas? Giving strong habeas corpus protections, opposing indefinite detention without trial, prosecuting torturers, and opposing warrantless surveillance?
I didn't imply they were some supernatural force, merely "one cog in the machines" of special-interest lobbies.
That doesn't mean that the opposite position---externalities can be ignored---is somehow correct, either. If your product is cheap because you're throwing a bunch of waste product over the fence into your neighbor's yard, it's worth considering whether you ought to have to pay for the waste disposal.
Remember the Bush tax cuts? Remember the Cato-speared attempt by Bush to privatize Social Security? And who do you think is spearheading opposition to public health care at the moment?
Cato's got the ear of a whole lot of Republicans.
Even from that perspective, it might be of some use. I'm not always a big fan of the Cato Institute, but they're influential among free-market conservative politicians. When it comes to entrenched interests with lots of lobbyists, Cato is one of them, so them lining up on this side could be useful. Of course, it remains to be seen how strong the support is--- will Cato actively lobby against software patents, or just publish the occasional article?
if u no abt txt its the same
Despite its relative obviousness, it took me a bit of reading there to figure out what the cause of the bug was, since I was rusty on my Unix system calls, so here's a short summary.
ioctl(2) is essentially a way of specifying system calls for drivers without actually making a system call API, so drivers can register their own calls in a more decentralized way. A call to ioctl(fd, cmd, args, ...) on a special/device file 'fd' gets routed to the driver that owns 'fd', which handles the command. The arguments might be values, or might be pointers to locations in which to return data.
fcntl(2) provides a way to perform operations on open (normal) files, like locking/unlocking them. It has the same parameters as ioctl(), except that there's always a single integer argument.
One way of implementing fcntl is essentially like ioctl -- find who owns the fd, and pass the cmd along to the relevant driver. But, Apple's code did this even for the operations on special devices normally manipulated via ioctl, so you could basically do an ioctl via fcntl. But, this bypasses some of the arg-checking that ioctl does, since fcntl always has one integer argument. So an easy exploit arises: call an ioctl that normally takes one pointer argument to assign something to. ioctl would normally check that the pointer is valid (something the caller is allowed to write to) before writing to it in kernel mode. But you can pass in any memory location at all as an integer via fcntl's argument. Voila, you get data written to arbitrary locations in memory. As an added bonus, some calls let you manipulate what data gets written--- the example exploit uses a "get terminal size" ioctl, so you can vary what gets written by changing your terminal size.
There are alternatives to injunctions if no voluntary agreement is reached, like the court imposing a license. The Supreme Court already held that whether an injunction or some other relief should be issued should be decided based on a number of factors, including relative harms to the parties, availability of alternatives, and harm to nonparties and the general public.
While true, it's also explicitly one of the factors that go into determining whether injunctions should be issued--- they're discretionary relief that is supposed to take into account any hardship the injunction might cause to nonparties.
That's because, while neither we nor they read or investigate anything we write about, the traditional new media has to wait long enough to at least give the impression that they might've plausibly interviewed someone or read a book.
I agree with that, which is precisely why I think attacking News Corp. for it in the public sphere, not legislative changes, is the right course of action. Publishing false news, even knowingly, is legal. But companies that do so should also be widely exposed as doing so, so nobody takes them seriously as news providers.
I don't think anyone's arguing that News Corp. was wrong as a matter of law--- it may indeed have been legal for them to fire an employee for refusing to including knowingly false information in a news broadcast. But it does mean that, as a matter of credibility, News Corp. is now on the record standing up for this right to knowingly provide false information in its news broadcasts. Do you really want to get your news from a news company that is willing to go to court to defend its right to lie?
Disney's the largest media conglomerate just by sheer company size, not necessarily as a measure of its control of news media--- Disney makes a bunch of money from movies, cruises, and theme parks as well.
My impression is that the vast majority of the garbage is actually quite small particles and fragments, not whole plastic bottles and the like that could be scooped up with nets. Would need some sort of high-volume filtration system.
That's true of a lot of tech stuff in general. What the hell is going on at the Oracle website, for example? About 40 links to some random downloads, middleware, etc.; impossible to find anything if you didn't already know exactly what you wanted.
I can see people taking issue with some parts of my post (perhaps this could be defended as non-activist), but it'd be hard to argue that Reagan administration member and Reagan judicial appointee Douglas Ginsburg isn't "a conservative".
Congress clearly empowered---in fact required---the FCC to set subscriber caps on cable operators in the Cable Act (1992). The court striking down these limits appears to be engaging in legislative policy analysis that is Congress's purview, not the D.C. Circuit's. It may be true that non-cable competition, such as from DirecTV, means that horizontal ownership limits within the cable industry itself are no longer as necessary to maintain overall competition as they were in 1992. But that's a decision for Congress, not the D.C. Circuit, to make.
I mean the court pretty brazenly admits as much. From the decision:
What they appear to have failed to explain is how the fact that circumstances have changed since Congress passed the 1992 Act, so that the factors that "concerned the Congress in 1992" arguably no longer apply, ought to make any difference as far as the court's job is concerned. Regardless of whether the factors that concerned the Congress in 1992 still apply, the Act remains in force until repealed or amended, and the D.C. Circuit is not empowered to repeal or amend it. Ignoring the text of the statute and substituting this sort of policy analysis --- "we're pretty sure Congress intended to do something with this act that no longer applies, so we're going to assume Congress would've wanted it amended, and we'll just go ahead and amend it right now" --- is lawless judicial activism at its worst.
I don't think that's true in either direction. First, a great deal of Americans don't believe there is anything akin to morality in the operation of government, whether they're left-wingers who think the government is the tool of imperialist-capitalist interests, conservatives who think the government is spreading hedonism and immorality via the public schools, or libertarians who don't like any operation of government at all.
And on the flip side, a good many Europeans expect there to be something akin to morality in the operation of government. Italy is not representative of most of Europe, and places like Sweden have very different expectations from their government, which are more positive on the whole, even if there is still plenty of cynicism about politicians.
That really isn't what the story is about, though. Maybe Spotify is great, but "Spotify released for another platform" isn't that exciting and probably wouldn't end up posted on Slashdot, if there weren't some reason that it being released for the iPhone was surprising or at some point in doubt.
A 9-foot vertical won't be enough to clear the university's new 40-foot artificial geyser.
Yeah, the article even points out that Apple dropped support for syncing with PowerPC Macs, so it's not like Apple is only dropping support for competitors; they're just weeding out anything non-recent. The argument seems to be that somehow dropping PPC support is acceptable, because they've been discontinued, but PalmOS is still an OS on phones currently sold, so couldn't be explained by the same "it's just being dropped because it's old and dead" logic. But Palm itself basically declared Palm OS dead before Apple dropped support.
You could argue it's a bit premature, but it doesn't take an anticompetitive explanation for that: Apple has a long history of dropping support for stuff that was becoming obsolete in a way that many commentators considered a bit premature, starting with their decision to drop floppy support.
What does this teenage-Randian rant have to do with the parent comment? The article asks what schools were doing all summer, and the comment is that they were not working, because they weren't employed. Your argument that they shouldn't have ever been employed because omg RON PAUL isn't actually relevant to that point.