Singh said that the BCA "happily promotes bogus treatments". If he just said that the treatments were bogus, he would probably be okay. But he implied that the chiropractors knowing give phony treatments.
No, you have been misled that the word 'natural' had been previously stricken from the definition. The previous definition was:
Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observations, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena. Science does so while maintaining strict empirical standards and healthy skepticism.
These studies are used by the WSJ and others to promote increases in the quotas for H-1B visas. But the foreigners with the H-1B visas are not the ones starting companies. The H-1B visas are mainly used by big companies to cut their labor costs, and get employees who will not leave to join start-up companies.
It looks to me as if the real culprit is 3rd party cookies. These have almost no legitimate use, and are mainly used by advertisers like doubleclick.net to track users. Third party cookies are turned on by default in the browsers, but you can turn them off. This is another reason to turn them off.
Yau is not a thief. If he were, he would have had his name on the
Cao-Zhu paper as a co-author, and the paper would have claimed to
give the first proof of the Poincare Conjecture. He did not.
The New Yorker article if offensive to many Chinese mathematicians,
not just Yau. See this comment for details.
The article said that the Volcanoes film did not score well on other criteria, such as narration and music. It sounds like this is just a mediocre film that failed a test market, and Christians are being blamed.
I really don't see why a science film about underwater volcanoes needs to offend people. Some people apparently thought it had a blasphemous presentation of human existence. And then the producer stubbornly refuses to make any changes. Why? If the film stuck to scientific facts about underwater life, I doubt that anyone would be offended. If it launched into wild speculation, then a scientific film should recognize that there are alternate views that are widely held.
No, I am not a creationist, but I do get annoyed when scientists unnecessarily pick fights with Christians, and then pretend that they have some sort of right to present offensive speculations. Yes, they have a right to make the film, but no one has to buy it.
No, you are wrong. There is no law against just "intent to deceive". There are laws against fraud, but to commit fraud you have to deceive someone as well as cheat him out of some money. If you are just lying for the purpose of avoiding spam, then it is entirely legal.
IBM lawyers are known to be very about NDAs, and IBM personel are only allowed to sign them if they meet certain conditions. Is there a sample NDA posted anywhere that meets with IBM approval? That would be useful whenever a plain vanilla NDA is needed.
Teller did not say that Oppie was a commie. Oppie lost his security clearance because of repeated lies about his contacts with Communist agents. You can find the official documents here.
That said, Oppie really was a commie. Letters were released last year that prove that he was a member of the Communist Party.
Vonage customers have to agree not to say or listen to anything offensive! No dirty jokes, racist comments, etc. The contract says:
You agree to use the Service and Device only for lawful purposes. This means that you agree not to use them for transmitting or receiving any illegal, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, obscene, sexually explicit, profane, racially or ethnically disparaging remarks or otherwise objectionable material of any kind, including but not limited to any material that encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to a civil liability, or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, national or international law.
The story says that two out of every three adult file traders don't care if they are violating copyright laws or not.
But the poll question actually was:
Do you care whether or not the music you download onto your computer is copyrighted, or isn't that something you care much about?
That is entirely different question. If I were polled, I would certainly say that I don't care whether the downloaded music is copyrighted. That is because all recorded music is copyrighted. Even the music that is authorized for free distribution is still copyrighted. I once downloaded some patriotic songs from the US Air Force marching band thinking that it would be in the public domain, but it even had a copyright notice.
But if you ask me whether I care about violating copyright laws, I would say that I certainly do. I care enough that I have taken measures to avoid detection, to stay within legal safe harbors, to prepare arguments for the legality of my activities, and to lobby for changes in the copyright laws.
This law only lets one govt agency (the FBI) access records from
another govt agency (the Santa Cruz library system) in the case
of a foreign terrorist investigation. The libraries should not
have been keeping long-term records on what books I check out
in the first place. When I check out a book, it only needs to
keep a record of that until I return the book. Then the record
should be deleted from the library database. There is no law
requiring the library to keep the records. The law just says that
if they keep the records and they are subpoenaed, then the library
has to turn them over.
I live in Santa Cruz, and I am glad that this controversy has
resulted in the libraries destroying old records. I am more
concerned about Santa Cruz misusing the old data than about
the FBI misusing its subpoenas. The best solution to privacy
invading databases is to purge the unnecessary info from
the database, and not to rely on controls on who can access
the database. If the data is there, then it can be had by
low-level workers who can be persuaded, bribed, or coerced.
Last year Princeton demoted an admissions dean after he accessed
a Yale web site without authorization, and then reported the
security weaknesses to the Yale admissions dept. It seems to me
that a benign hacker who finds a security weakness and voluntarily
reports it should be rewarded, not punished. What is your opinion
on this? Did you give it to the Princeton president?
The name Lindows sounds like Linux-windows, but so what? When I hear that, I figure that it is running X-windows, not Microsoft windows. The term 'windows' has been used in a generic sense before Microsoft started using the term.
When the experts cannot figure out how to use the export, that tells you something. What is does is very subtle and complicated, and hardly anyone understands it. It appears to be a major C++ design mistake.
You implied that NSA was wrong when it said that Skipjack was a secure cipher. Actually, it was a true statement because no weakness in Skipjack has ever been found. The attack on a 31-round variant of Skipjack is of only academic interest and not the slightest bit embarrassing to the NSA. It shows Skipjack to be very well engineered. You seem to be suffering from some fundamental misconception about cryptology.
NSA did not lie to Congress when it said that Skipjack was secure. Skipjack is secure, and there are no known attacks on it that are faster than brute force search of the key space. Biham's attack is only on a crippled version of Skipjack, and might well have been known to the NSA all along.
> The truth is, education is not important in America
No country values education more than America. Here in California, we have high taxes and about 60% of state taxes goto education. Foreigners come to the USA for education because their home countries do not value education as highly as the USA.
All of which is beside the point that there are plenty of extremely talented American programmers that are available. The H1-B program is just designed to bring in cheap labor.
There are plenty of extremely talented American programmers that are available. You just have to pay the price. If advertise a low salary, then you will get lower-skilled workers. Supply and demand. It is as simple as that.
The H1-B programmers are no better than American programmers, in my experience. They are hired because they can be hired more cheaply, and they are less likely to jump to another company for better pay.
The whole H1-B premise is wrong. The H1-B supporter claim that there is a shortage
of skilled works in areas like programming. It is nonsense. There are lots of
unemployed or underemployed American programmers. Whenever the local newspaper
advertises a job that pays a little more than the going rate, the company gets
swamped with excellent resumes.
A couple of things bother me about this. Why is a federal prosecution needed, when California already has strong laws against trade secret theft? Why did federal prosecutors need high-level approval in DC to apply this law, unless the DoJ knows that the law is overbroad and easily abused? Why did a law firm even have these documents, unless there was already some dispute about them? How are the feds going to prove economic espionage when that entails proving economic benefit, when the Russian did not economically benefit and it is not clear how anyone else might have economically benefitted either?
Slashdot Mirror
Singh said that the BCA "happily promotes bogus treatments". If he just said that the treatments were bogus, he would probably be okay. But he implied that the chiropractors knowing give phony treatments.
These studies are used by the WSJ and others to promote increases in the quotas for H-1B visas. But the foreigners with the H-1B visas are not the ones starting companies. The H-1B visas are mainly used by big companies to cut their labor costs, and get employees who will not leave to join start-up companies.
It looks to me as if the real culprit is 3rd party cookies. These have almost no legitimate use, and are mainly used by advertisers like doubleclick.net to track users. Third party cookies are turned on by default in the browsers, but you can turn them off. This is another reason to turn them off.
Yau is not a thief. If he were, he would have had his name on the Cao-Zhu paper as a co-author, and the paper would have claimed to give the first proof of the Poincare Conjecture. He did not. The New Yorker article if offensive to many Chinese mathematicians, not just Yau. See this comment for details.
The article said that the Volcanoes film did not score well on other
criteria, such as narration and music. It sounds like this is just a
mediocre film that failed a test market, and Christians are being blamed.
I really don't see why a science film about underwater volcanoes needs
to offend people. Some people apparently thought it had a blasphemous
presentation of human existence. And then the producer stubbornly
refuses to make any changes. Why? If the film stuck to scientific
facts about underwater life, I doubt that anyone would be offended.
If it launched into wild speculation, then a scientific film should
recognize that there are alternate views that are widely held.
No, I am not a creationist, but I do get annoyed when scientists
unnecessarily pick fights with Christians, and then pretend that they
have some sort of right to present offensive speculations. Yes, they
have a right to make the film, but no one has to buy it.
No, you are wrong. There is no law against just "intent to deceive". There are laws against fraud, but to commit fraud you have to deceive someone as well as cheat him out of some money. If you are just lying for the purpose of avoiding spam, then it is entirely legal.
The USA has some agencies, like the Postal Service, that are formally private corporations in some respects, but people consider them govt agencies.
IBM lawyers are known to be very about NDAs, and IBM personel are only allowed to sign them if they meet certain conditions. Is there a sample NDA posted anywhere that meets with IBM approval? That would be useful whenever a plain vanilla NDA is needed.
That said, Oppie really was a commie. Letters were released last year that prove that he was a member of the Communist Party.
McCarthy didn't know about the Venona Project, and did well with what he had. He did a great job exposing govt tolerance for disloyal commies.
A lot of left-wing scientists hated Teller for his ambiguous testimony about Oppenheimer, but Oppenheimer really was a security risk.
But the poll question actually was:
That is entirely different question. If I were polled, I would certainly say that I don't care whether the downloaded music is copyrighted. That is because all recorded music is copyrighted. Even the music that is authorized for free distribution is still copyrighted. I once downloaded some patriotic songs from the US Air Force marching band thinking that it would be in the public domain, but it even had a copyright notice.But if you ask me whether I care about violating copyright laws, I would say that I certainly do. I care enough that I have taken measures to avoid detection, to stay within legal safe harbors, to prepare arguments for the legality of my activities, and to lobby for changes in the copyright laws.
I live in Santa Cruz, and I am glad that this controversy has resulted in the libraries destroying old records. I am more concerned about Santa Cruz misusing the old data than about the FBI misusing its subpoenas. The best solution to privacy invading databases is to purge the unnecessary info from the database, and not to rely on controls on who can access the database. If the data is there, then it can be had by low-level workers who can be persuaded, bribed, or coerced.
Last year Princeton demoted an admissions dean after he accessed a Yale web site without authorization, and then reported the security weaknesses to the Yale admissions dept. It seems to me that a benign hacker who finds a security weakness and voluntarily reports it should be rewarded, not punished. What is your opinion on this? Did you give it to the Princeton president?
The name Lindows sounds like Linux-windows, but so what? When I hear that, I figure that it is running X-windows, not Microsoft windows. The term 'windows' has been used in a generic sense before Microsoft started using the term.
When the experts cannot figure out how to use the export, that tells you something. What is does is very subtle and complicated, and hardly anyone understands it. It appears to be a major C++ design mistake.
You implied that NSA was wrong when it said that Skipjack was a secure cipher. Actually, it was a true statement because no weakness in Skipjack has ever been found. The attack on a 31-round variant of Skipjack is of only academic interest and not the slightest bit embarrassing to the NSA. It shows Skipjack to be very well engineered. You seem to be suffering from some fundamental misconception about cryptology.
NSA did not lie to Congress when it said that Skipjack was secure. Skipjack is secure, and there are no known attacks on it that are faster than brute force search of the key space. Biham's attack is only on a crippled version of Skipjack, and might well have been known to the NSA all along.
Bowling For Columbine is an even sillier piece of propaganda than those movies.
No country values education more than America. Here in California, we have high taxes and about 60% of state taxes goto education. Foreigners come to the USA for education because their home countries do not value education as highly as the USA.
All of which is beside the point that there are plenty of extremely talented American programmers that are available. The H1-B program is just designed to bring in cheap labor.
The H1-B programmers are no better than American programmers, in my experience. They are hired because they can be hired more cheaply, and they are less likely to jump to another company for better pay.
The whole H1-B premise is wrong. The H1-B supporter claim that there is a shortage of skilled works in areas like programming. It is nonsense. There are lots of unemployed or underemployed American programmers. Whenever the local newspaper advertises a job that pays a little more than the going rate, the company gets swamped with excellent resumes.
A couple of things bother me about this. Why is a federal prosecution needed, when California already has strong laws against trade secret theft? Why did federal prosecutors need high-level approval in DC to apply this law, unless the DoJ knows that the law is overbroad and easily abused? Why did a law firm even have these documents, unless there was already some dispute about them? How are the feds going to prove economic espionage when that entails proving economic benefit, when the Russian did not economically benefit and it is not clear how anyone else might have economically benefitted either?