As per a bolg post I made back in October (What the Wall Street Protestors Should Demand, we need to change the bonus structure so that they are paid out over a long time period - say 4 years.
That way, we can claw it back if their policies bankrupt a company. Also, by doing it that way, we encourage the corporations to think in longer terms -- and to structure the bonuses to pay out depending on longer term results.
Android add-on does not interest me. Make it a Firefox add-on so I can check the pictures I see on facebook/eharmony/j-date/okcupid/match pictures, and you have something interesting.
I am however disappointed in Nook's advertising. They need to step it up a notch, so that people are talking about the Nook not the Kindle.
At the very least, the new tablet will help that.
But honestly, I think the thing they need the most is to open up it's software. Access to the Android App Market would help. But I think the best idea would be to sell it with a Linux OS, and a web browser (firefox/chrome/ whatever) that includes an app for Barnes & Nobles store.
The idea the government would keep aliens secret is incredibly stupid. Their reasons were:
a. Keeping secrets is fun.
b. To avoid having the government get blamed for something they are not responsible for - by doing something bad that would actually make them responsible.
c. It's the sort of thing that governments generally do.
Note I meant a painful, dramatic, balding, PARTIAL cure for Heart Disease, then in 10 years we would cure it entirely - with a new, full cure that was not painful/dramatic/balding.
Anyway, I meant to say that cancer gets way too much press simply because our treatments for it are nasty. We should base funding on that are nasty, not ones that have nasty cures.
The coating goes on both sides of the glass. You might wipe off the top layer, but I bet the bottom one will stay.
So at the very least, I would expect a reduction from 8% glare to 5% glare, as opposed to 0.5%. 8 to 5 is still a over a 37% percent reduction.
What you wrote is true, and honestly, humans can ALWAYS find a use for more energy.
The problem is not finding a use for the energy, but instead having the technology to safely extract it, even if we waste it.
Technology does not just limit how much we can use, but how much we extract. We don't have the science to extract enough energy to affect it, even if we waste 100% of the the energy.
All it needs is a gentle push and a downward slope?
So they made a two legged thing that duplicates what a wheel can do? How about trying to do better than an 6,000 year old invention.
Yes, the engineering to get a two legged machine to duplicate what a wheel can do is interesting, but I would expect a high school kid to be able to do that.
The article says they don't included the 100,000 Ford Motor gave away for free. Nor does that number included the 800,00 paper delivery people that got it for free. Considering that they about 35 million homes get paper deliver, that means over 34 million people get the paper delivery and REFUSED the electronic one.
OK, so 900,000 people got it for free and 324,000 people to actually buy? Out of a potential market of 35 million people? If you give away 9 to get 3 people out of every 350 to buy your product, it is a failure.
The real problem is they don't know what a success is.
I would really like to know how many of their 324,000 paid electronic subscribers are actual individuals living in America, as opposed to libraries, colleges, and people living outside of the US.
It is important to keep politics out of science, but equally important to keep science in politics.
Think of it like a chain of command: Employees don't tell the boss what to do, the boss tells employees what to do.
Science is the boss and should tell politics what to do, not the other way around. We can't have politicians telling scientists what the laws of physics are, it has to be the other way around.
Specifically, that means that no scientist should ever be told which map to use by any country.
That said, a scientist should not use a politically controversial map unless it is essential to the research. Otherwise, you are just asking for trouble.
The quest is - was that line relevant to the study? Being a climate change study, I doubt it was. There should have been no line - not the 9 dash or the 11 dash.
No, they can't. It is easy for an ignorant person to just say "do it privately", but you have no idea what you are talking about. You can run anything privately, but most of the time it is a really bad mistake. That's why it is done by the government, it's not a conspiracy.
Managing the nations power supply for example. The entire point of doing it nationally is to avoid problems of two local areas disagreeing and having compatibility problems.
OK, so you say we can do it with one big corporation, as opposed to multiple ones. Uhm, you just got rid of 90% of the benefit of doing it privately - competition. The only real difference between a single monopolistic corporation managing our power supply and a government agency is that the corporation costs more because it gives it's owners a profit.
OK, lets do national parks separately. Whoops, the corporation that ran it just decided to let them drill for oil, because that is more profitable than visitor fees. Was it a greedy corporation making a profit, or the exact same thing the US government does when it allows oil drilling? When the government does it, the people can rest assured that profit is not the only motive.
This is exactly what every single news show does.
They get other people to say things, then claim they didn't say it, it it just news that some one else said it. News people do not get arrested for slander for reporting that someone else slandered a Senator with claims of adultery - even if the Senator is innocent.
Your method is NOT an easy way to abuse this. If you can set up a website anonymously, then you host your main website there. The crime is still committed, and is still just as hard to do.
The problem is you are confusing the crime with the bragging about the crime. The crime is actually saying something, not talking about the fact that someone said something. Those are two entirely different things.
Criminals often want to do brag about their crime, but that is not itself a crime. In fact it is often how you get caught.
So no, you are entirely wrong. This does not in any way make it easier to abuse the law or commit the crime.
The fact that they charge you a ton of personal data in exchange for their minimal services - email, blog, games.
Most of those things are stuff you can get for free for a lot less information. Probably the worst thing about Facebook is that they aggregate everything together. The whole is more valuable than the parts, yet they don't give you more stuff for that.
I am not paranoid. I will give out my personal data freely - if I get something valuable in exchange for it. I do it all the time with banks and dating websites.
The Irish law that forces corporations to give you the data they have on you is a great idea. I wish America had the same law.
As for exceptions for trade secrets - are they really trade secrets? Did they intentionally mix trade secrets with the data?
1. Masterpiece (Potter/Tolkien/Shakespeare/Jane Austen/Picasso etc.) These usually make a tone of money in the first 5 years - or don't make any till after the author is dead. In either case, there is no point in extending the length of the copyright. It won't affect the author significantly, either way.
2. Profitable, but not masterpieces. These make their money in the first year, and then fade out quick. By the 5th year, it is practically nothing. But they might do a sequel, which can extend profits. Still, 10 years after the first original work, it won't matter. Either the series has made someone very rich, or their new profits come from the new books, not the old ones.
3. Not profitable. Not in 1 year, not in 10, not in 20, not in 70. NEVER profitable.
There is zero reason to extend copyrights past 10 years, let alone 20.
Normal human cells have two complete sets of DNA on how to build a human being.
Eggs have 1 complete set - (sperm has another - when you combine them you get two sets)
What they did was add 2 full complete set of DNA from an adult source.
End result has 3 sets of DNA on how to build a human being.
Two of the sets come from an adult.
So say I have have kidney disease. OUCH.
And my kidneys are now running at 10%.
I could get grow a kidney from that embroy that has 1 set of DNA from say my younger sister's egg and 2 sets of DNA from say my own personal DNA.
The chances are pretty good that I could transplant that kidney and not need to to worry about rejecting it. No need to take anti-rejection drugs. No need to suppress my immune system. In fact, that kidney would probably last till the day I day as opposed to the normal 10 -12 years that they typically last.
Slashdot Mirror
That way, we can claw it back if their policies bankrupt a company. Also, by doing it that way, we encourage the corporations to think in longer terms -- and to structure the bonuses to pay out depending on longer term results.
Android add-on does not interest me. Make it a Firefox add-on so I can check the pictures I see on facebook/eharmony/j-date/okcupid/match pictures, and you have something interesting.
1. Family member was a drug dealer
2. Anonymous tip that about a national security threat. On a guy with a middle eastern name.
At the very least, the new tablet will help that.
But honestly, I think the thing they need the most is to open up it's software. Access to the Android App Market would help. But I think the best idea would be to sell it with a Linux OS, and a web browser (firefox/chrome/ whatever) that includes an app for Barnes & Nobles store.
The little hairs bind to other matter using Van Der Walls forces.
If water does not stick to the little hairs, then dust won't either.
The idea the government would keep aliens secret is incredibly stupid. Their reasons were:
a. Keeping secrets is fun.
b. To avoid having the government get blamed for something they are not responsible for - by doing something bad that would actually make them responsible.
c. It's the sort of thing that governments generally do.
The EPA is willing to spend up to $9 million to save a single human life. And the GOP claims this is too much.
The DOT (cars) and the FAA (plane construction) are willing to spend $6 million to save a single human life.
The Department of Homeland Security is willing to spend $180 million to save a single life (as per the Federal Air Marshall's estimates).
Anyway, I meant to say that cancer gets way too much press simply because our treatments for it are nasty. We should base funding on that are nasty, not ones that have nasty cures.
Deaths caused by cancer (US numbers, 2009): 562,875
Deaths caused by heart disease (US, 2009): 616,067
We know more about Heart Disease, but it gets less press - mainly because the treatments for it are not as painful.
You know, I bet if someone created a painful, dramatic, balding cure for Heart Disease that in 10 years we would cure it entirely.
The coating goes on both sides of the glass. You might wipe off the top layer, but I bet the bottom one will stay. So at the very least, I would expect a reduction from 8% glare to 5% glare, as opposed to 0.5%. 8 to 5 is still a over a 37% percent reduction.
The problem is not finding a use for the energy, but instead having the technology to safely extract it, even if we waste it.
Technology does not just limit how much we can use, but how much we extract. We don't have the science to extract enough energy to affect it, even if we waste 100% of the the energy.
So they made a two legged thing that duplicates what a wheel can do? How about trying to do better than an 6,000 year old invention. Yes, the engineering to get a two legged machine to duplicate what a wheel can do is interesting, but I would expect a high school kid to be able to do that.
Oh, I know, because it is unwieldy and likely an illegal invasion of privacy.
No, you don't have the right to find out what I buy. Not even if I am poor and can only afford second hand stuff.
The article says they don't included the 100,000 Ford Motor gave away for free. Nor does that number included the 800,00 paper delivery people that got it for free. Considering that they about 35 million homes get paper deliver, that means over 34 million people get the paper delivery and REFUSED the electronic one.
OK, so 900,000 people got it for free and 324,000 people to actually buy? Out of a potential market of 35 million people? If you give away 9 to get 3 people out of every 350 to buy your product, it is a failure.
The real problem is they don't know what a success is.
I would really like to know how many of their 324,000 paid electronic subscribers are actual individuals living in America, as opposed to libraries, colleges, and people living outside of the US.
Think of it like a chain of command: Employees don't tell the boss what to do, the boss tells employees what to do.
Science is the boss and should tell politics what to do, not the other way around. We can't have politicians telling scientists what the laws of physics are, it has to be the other way around.
Specifically, that means that no scientist should ever be told which map to use by any country.
That said, a scientist should not use a politically controversial map unless it is essential to the research. Otherwise, you are just asking for trouble.
The quest is - was that line relevant to the study? Being a climate change study, I doubt it was. There should have been no line - not the 9 dash or the 11 dash.
Managing the nations power supply for example. The entire point of doing it nationally is to avoid problems of two local areas disagreeing and having compatibility problems.
OK, so you say we can do it with one big corporation, as opposed to multiple ones. Uhm, you just got rid of 90% of the benefit of doing it privately - competition. The only real difference between a single monopolistic corporation managing our power supply and a government agency is that the corporation costs more because it gives it's owners a profit.
OK, lets do national parks separately. Whoops, the corporation that ran it just decided to let them drill for oil, because that is more profitable than visitor fees. Was it a greedy corporation making a profit, or the exact same thing the US government does when it allows oil drilling? When the government does it, the people can rest assured that profit is not the only motive.
This kind of stuff goes on and on.
Your method is NOT an easy way to abuse this. If you can set up a website anonymously, then you host your main website there. The crime is still committed, and is still just as hard to do.
The problem is you are confusing the crime with the bragging about the crime. The crime is actually saying something, not talking about the fact that someone said something. Those are two entirely different things.
Criminals often want to do brag about their crime, but that is not itself a crime. In fact it is often how you get caught.
So no, you are entirely wrong. This does not in any way make it easier to abuse the law or commit the crime.
Most of those things are stuff you can get for free for a lot less information. Probably the worst thing about Facebook is that they aggregate everything together. The whole is more valuable than the parts, yet they don't give you more stuff for that.
I am not paranoid. I will give out my personal data freely - if I get something valuable in exchange for it. I do it all the time with banks and dating websites.
The Irish law that forces corporations to give you the data they have on you is a great idea. I wish America had the same law.
As for exceptions for trade secrets - are they really trade secrets? Did they intentionally mix trade secrets with the data?
President Obama is going to show up at crime scenes a lot more often. Hm, I may need to get a "Sarah Palin" mask for when I speed through red lights.
What's next, a horse and buggy will be used to cure cancer?
Does the pattern of the grooves affect efficiency? Will "Twist and Shout" beat "Under the Sea"?
I have been using it for a long time now, and it is no longer a pain to use, at all.
Dr. Who will still find a way to get in and plant a video about aliens. And Captain Kirk will transport anyone that meddles with it.
1. Masterpiece (Potter/Tolkien/Shakespeare/Jane Austen/Picasso etc.) These usually make a tone of money in the first 5 years - or don't make any till after the author is dead. In either case, there is no point in extending the length of the copyright. It won't affect the author significantly, either way.
2. Profitable, but not masterpieces. These make their money in the first year, and then fade out quick. By the 5th year, it is practically nothing. But they might do a sequel, which can extend profits. Still, 10 years after the first original work, it won't matter. Either the series has made someone very rich, or their new profits come from the new books, not the old ones.
3. Not profitable. Not in 1 year, not in 10, not in 20, not in 70. NEVER profitable.
There is zero reason to extend copyrights past 10 years, let alone 20.
So I am betting that the manufacturer got hit, and had the virus infect them at the factory, possibly installing itself as an 'update'.
It should not be that hard to remove - wipe and revert to an earlier version.
Unless of course they lost the earlier versiosn.
Eggs have 1 complete set - (sperm has another - when you combine them you get two sets)
What they did was add 2 full complete set of DNA from an adult source.
End result has 3 sets of DNA on how to build a human being.
Two of the sets come from an adult.
So say I have have kidney disease. OUCH.
And my kidneys are now running at 10%.
I could get grow a kidney from that embroy that has 1 set of DNA from say my younger sister's egg and 2 sets of DNA from say my own personal DNA.
The chances are pretty good that I could transplant that kidney and not need to to worry about rejecting it. No need to take anti-rejection drugs. No need to suppress my immune system. In fact, that kidney would probably last till the day I day as opposed to the normal 10 -12 years that they typically last.