Apart from the fact that this is the UK and there would have been no bills. Besides, a moment's thought should tell you it's proably easier to claim against a dead person's estate than to go through the process of bankrupting him when he's still alive. Not to mention the essential point that this was a bug, not some evil beauro-corpocratic decision.
I'm reminded of a Pratchett quote. "Safe? It's not meant to be safe. It's a sword." Really, when you purchase a cutting disc that spins around at several thousand RPM and sticks up out of a flat surface, you should expect to cut the odd minor appendage off occasionally and act accordingly.
It might be frowned upon, but it certainly isn't (in most jurisdictions) illegal. It should be pretty obvious that facts are, in general, not something that should be subject to restriction without a damned good reason, and "waaah" doesn't really cut it, for me.
Basically, this company was publishing the results of various investment bank's research before their clients could read and act upon it. The legal reasoning behind it could equally be applied to Google News republishing other people's headlines, for example. More seriously, it means that effectively, you now have a sort of "copyright" created by the courts on factual information that you possess. I leave it to slashdotters to come up with ways this might be abused....
I once had a conversation with an intelligence type, and this sort of topic came up. He mentioned that historically, only intelligence services with a moral certainty behind their work have been effective in the long term (ie generational plus). Inevitably, if you don't, your people will end up deciding they work for the wrong side, and they are in a position to know what to do about it.
Do bear in mind a lot of smarter trojans now only run when you are not using the PC, for this reason. They also usually install their own AV, as they don't like the competition. I'd say you're screwed:p
On the other hand, it is entirely appropriate while watching Monty Python DVDs. But yes, I've had your problem too. The trick is to recognise the preceding ding and do something distracting while it speaks.
For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.
I'm sick of this bullshit. There is statistics, and there is lies. Statistical operations are mathematical procedures, which may or may not be appropriate. They are not, however, lies. They may be errors, deliberate or accidental. Lies, on the other hand, are what you introduce when the data does not fit the hypothesis you want to put forward. Blame the liar, not his smoke and mirrors.
Actually, I'd disagree with that, to be honest. Many real world applications of statistics are well suited to the standard assumptions. Where people go wrong is understanding the theory behind the assumptions that are made. How many people understand that the efficacy of the central limit theorem depends on the variance of the data? Thirty or forty years ago, probability usually began with some fairly intensive set theory. Nowadays, you're lucky if you get any. The existence of numerical recipes on demand has removed the requirement to think about your data, and hence the abuse.
Indeed. A particular irk of mine is that people often quote a standard deviation when talking about some variable that is not normally distributed, and then make probabilistic claims based on the cumulative distribution of the normal!
On stuff like this, you make damned sure your calculations are verifiable. That said, the dynamics of the sound barrier are so complex that I think the chances are their models will not be good enough and some fool will end up as landscape to prove it.
No, the marketing looks like it speaks to young, fashionable types. That makes it appealling to those of us who are not young and fashionable. All the actual young fashionable types I know are too busy drinking, smoking and having sex to give a toss about Apple.
Because it's a beautiful illustration of the birthday problem at work. Two randomly selected individuals are very unlikely to have matching profiles. Select one person at random (the DNA left behind by the perpetrator) and you only need about a football stadium's worth to find a match.
Voters have never cared about issues, and really, it's not that important that they do. The range and complexity of tasks a government undertakes is far too broad for one citizen to make an informed judgement on, and the nature of voting systems is such that not all votes are equal anyway (Arrow's paradox and so forth). The real point of democracy is it allows the populace to remove the government as and when it wishes. If you stop and think for a second, that's quite something - you run the largest economy in the world, 300 million people, you have armies at your command and a flotilla of support staff - and when the electorate turfs you out, you go quietly.
More because it would be a huge engineering investment for absolutely no military value. Having your submarine wandering around the ocean floor is pretty useless. I think most modern subs have maximum normal operating depths of five hundred metres or so.
The decision to create a monopoly was more due to the fallout from the Depression, in that there were far too many drivers around - consequently, they were driving long hours and skimping on maintenance.
Yes, you're almost certainly right: that's the way it will go. The other thought that occured to me is that the price of noise cancelling headphones is dropping like a rock and they're getting smaller and smaller. And there's no real difference between noise cancelling technology and a hearing aid.
Somebody can, though they may very well not be aware of it. If a company is liquidated, assets that are not sold off or transferred to creditors will be returned to shareholders, or can in theory revert to the state, though this is pretty unusual. I suppose in theory if you consistently over a period of time then acted as if you owned the copyright, and went unchallenged, you could claim title in the same way as with land or abandoned property.
Mmm. No-one is taking it seriously yet, but the iPod generation is putting in train what will be a massive public health issue some twenty-thirty years from now. Huge numbers of people are listening to music levels of 95dB+ on a regular basis and they are damaging their hearing irreversibly.
Slashdot Mirror
Apart from the fact that this is the UK and there would have been no bills. Besides, a moment's thought should tell you it's proably easier to claim against a dead person's estate than to go through the process of bankrupting him when he's still alive. Not to mention the essential point that this was a bug, not some evil beauro-corpocratic decision.
I'm reminded of a Pratchett quote. "Safe? It's not meant to be safe. It's a sword." Really, when you purchase a cutting disc that spins around at several thousand RPM and sticks up out of a flat surface, you should expect to cut the odd minor appendage off occasionally and act accordingly.
It might be frowned upon, but it certainly isn't (in most jurisdictions) illegal. It should be pretty obvious that facts are, in general, not something that should be subject to restriction without a damned good reason, and "waaah" doesn't really cut it, for me.
The UK is blocked off. Anywhere the shows have local licensing deals, I imagine, or at least if your IP is recorded as being from such a place.
Basically, this company was publishing the results of various investment bank's research before their clients could read and act upon it. The legal reasoning behind it could equally be applied to Google News republishing other people's headlines, for example. More seriously, it means that effectively, you now have a sort of "copyright" created by the courts on factual information that you possess. I leave it to slashdotters to come up with ways this might be abused....
I once had a conversation with an intelligence type, and this sort of topic came up. He mentioned that historically, only intelligence services with a moral certainty behind their work have been effective in the long term (ie generational plus). Inevitably, if you don't, your people will end up deciding they work for the wrong side, and they are in a position to know what to do about it.
Do bear in mind a lot of smarter trojans now only run when you are not using the PC, for this reason. They also usually install their own AV, as they don't like the competition. I'd say you're screwed :p
On the other hand, it is entirely appropriate while watching Monty Python DVDs. But yes, I've had your problem too. The trick is to recognise the preceding ding and do something distracting while it speaks.
For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.
Words...they fails me.
I'm sure you've seen this, yes?
I'm sick of this bullshit. There is statistics, and there is lies. Statistical operations are mathematical procedures, which may or may not be appropriate. They are not, however, lies. They may be errors, deliberate or accidental. Lies, on the other hand, are what you introduce when the data does not fit the hypothesis you want to put forward. Blame the liar, not his smoke and mirrors.
Actually, I'd disagree with that, to be honest. Many real world applications of statistics are well suited to the standard assumptions. Where people go wrong is understanding the theory behind the assumptions that are made. How many people understand that the efficacy of the central limit theorem depends on the variance of the data? Thirty or forty years ago, probability usually began with some fairly intensive set theory. Nowadays, you're lucky if you get any. The existence of numerical recipes on demand has removed the requirement to think about your data, and hence the abuse.
Indeed. A particular irk of mine is that people often quote a standard deviation when talking about some variable that is not normally distributed, and then make probabilistic claims based on the cumulative distribution of the normal!
On stuff like this, you make damned sure your calculations are verifiable. That said, the dynamics of the sound barrier are so complex that I think the chances are their models will not be good enough and some fool will end up as landscape to prove it.
No, the marketing looks like it speaks to young, fashionable types. That makes it appealling to those of us who are not young and fashionable. All the actual young fashionable types I know are too busy drinking, smoking and having sex to give a toss about Apple.
Please learn to probability. Also, sometimes when you have bad and stupid ideas it can be easier to attack the stupidness than the badness.
Because it's a beautiful illustration of the birthday problem at work. Two randomly selected individuals are very unlikely to have matching profiles. Select one person at random (the DNA left behind by the perpetrator) and you only need about a football stadium's worth to find a match.
Voters have never cared about issues, and really, it's not that important that they do. The range and complexity of tasks a government undertakes is far too broad for one citizen to make an informed judgement on, and the nature of voting systems is such that not all votes are equal anyway (Arrow's paradox and so forth). The real point of democracy is it allows the populace to remove the government as and when it wishes. If you stop and think for a second, that's quite something - you run the largest economy in the world, 300 million people, you have armies at your command and a flotilla of support staff - and when the electorate turfs you out, you go quietly.
And it backfired, because with a more diverse ecosystem it most likely wouldn't have *been* a news story.
More because it would be a huge engineering investment for absolutely no military value. Having your submarine wandering around the ocean floor is pretty useless. I think most modern subs have maximum normal operating depths of five hundred metres or so.
The decision to create a monopoly was more due to the fallout from the Depression, in that there were far too many drivers around - consequently, they were driving long hours and skimping on maintenance.
Yes, you're almost certainly right: that's the way it will go. The other thought that occured to me is that the price of noise cancelling headphones is dropping like a rock and they're getting smaller and smaller. And there's no real difference between noise cancelling technology and a hearing aid.
Somebody can, though they may very well not be aware of it. If a company is liquidated, assets that are not sold off or transferred to creditors will be returned to shareholders, or can in theory revert to the state, though this is pretty unusual. I suppose in theory if you consistently over a period of time then acted as if you owned the copyright, and went unchallenged, you could claim title in the same way as with land or abandoned property.
That is a very sensible way of doing it which no-one will take any notice of. Thanks, The Universe.
Mmm. No-one is taking it seriously yet, but the iPod generation is putting in train what will be a massive public health issue some twenty-thirty years from now. Huge numbers of people are listening to music levels of 95dB+ on a regular basis and they are damaging their hearing irreversibly.