Oh yeah, and because r is squared. Miniscule changes in r due to the rotation of the earth are not going to have as much of an impact as placing a large mass between the two when considering the overall force.
Quit trolling. The OP was speaking in the context of measuring pendulums during an eclipse. Context creates "they did not study the effects of gravity on a pendulum during a solar eclipse".
then shouldn't they also occur every time the earth is between the pendulum and the sun...say, every night?
I suspect they do see a variation over the course of a day. The scientific article shows only windows from 0900 to 1800 hours but there is a steadily descending trend. Perhaps, over the course of the day, that trend descends at a changing rate as influenced by friction and the distance to the sun.
The timing graphs show a very pronounced spike as the solar eclipse progresses. There's even a ripple effect which I find fascinating.
What about the scientific anomaly called NIGHTTIME?
By the time night hits you the people 30 minutes ahead of you have been cooling and the people 30 minutes ahead of them have been cooling. You're rotating your position into areas which are already cooling. When the moon eclipses the sun, that very sharp band of cooling is rapidly passed over the surface.
If gravity is blocked by mass, this effect would be much easier to measure on the Moon during lunar eclipses than on Earth: the entire Moon is shadowed during many lunar eclipses whereas only part of the Earth is fully shadowed during even total eclipses, and the effect should be easier to measure against the smaller gravity of the Moon.
And the effects of the earth on the forces on the moon will be many times larger due to the mass ratio: the earth should serve as a better gravity insulator. Good one.
What is this, some sort of sick taunting society? They have a product and we want to buy that product. Get the terms of sale down and quit all this nonsense. The product is sold. The product has a new owner. Insurance may be sold on the product. The definition of the insurance is in the fine print. It is common knowledge that nobody reads fine print. The concept of insurance is coverage. Denial of insurance coverage is fraudulent misrepresentation of the concept of insurance. If that misrepresentation relies on the interpretation of a book that nobody reads then it is fraud. You and I both know that nobody reads those things.
Corporations need to grow up. Make a sale. Be done with it. It is obvious that any arguments on the concept of "ownership" or "insurance" after the point of sale are fine print fraudulent claims. A new person owns the product. Companies cannot try to deny insurance claims based upon a document if it is common knowledge that nobody reads the document. Warranties are insurance. Guarantees are insurance. The fine print is a obfuscation of fraudulent (deceitful, misleading) definitions. The only basic bit of the term insurance is the existence of a variable time limit.
It generally doesn't matter. There's no positive option which allows you to disagree with the fraudulent fine print and keep the product.
The reason why nobody knows what's in it is because they don't read it
You know that, I know that, everyone knows that. It's common knowledge that nobody reads the fine print. Why is it legal to disown responsibility because words are written in a context that is common knowledge that nobody reads? This is the very definition of fraud. The truth is misrepresented.
I stand by my statement that he has no excuse for not reading the agreement
It's cruel and unusual punishment. Nobody reads the fine print. Why should he be required to? The company represented that his product would be covered. It's no secret that sales reps are trained to answer affirmative by default when asked questions. Fine print is fraud. For courts to selectively require citizens to delve into the fine print is an exercise in promoting fraud.
Thinking with a caveat emptor mentality only further reinforces that insurance is an art of fraud. How can I sell you a product which protects you from risk if it's accepted that you assume all of the risk?
It certainly is fun to cheer when a big company gets handed a rebuke but let's look at who really pays and who really profits.
Who pays: 1) This isn't going to come out of the personal bank accounts of the people who sit on the executive board. This isn't going to come from the personal bank account of the CEO or VPs. 2) This will probably result in belt-tightening budget cuts which will translate into more money spent on marketing and less money spent on in-store jobs, promotions, or yearly bonuses. 3) This will probably cause Best Buy stock to hiccup which will impact people nationwide as their investments and retirement accounts pay. 4) Best Buy probably has business lawsuit insurance. The insurance company will not be happy about covering the bill. The only way for the insurance company to shore up their profit will be to raise rates on other insurance types: homeowners and car insurance are always beautiful targets as it's a larger base to draw from meaning less raise per policy and a general lack of resistance from the population.
Who profits: 1) The attorneys profit. Whatever settlement the court gives to Ohio the lawyers will take at least 33% of that right off the top. 2) The CEO will profit. The executive board will profit. The insurance company will profit. The VPs will profit. The investment bankers and stock brokers will profit. Companies holding distribution contracts with Best Buy will profit. 3) The customer will not profit. The citizens of Ohio will not profit. 4) Even if one-time disbursements are made to customers or citizens the company is 100% confident of making that back just like any casino which offers promotional packages.
In the end the politics inside Best Buy will use this as an excuse to axe the least favorite VP, replace the two least favorite executive board members, and as an excuse to raise the average price of a CD $0.10 to cover the losses.
It doesn't excuse the guy in question from reading the fine print before blowing his money on one of these worthless "service plans,"
I'd like to point this out as a fallacy and a fraud. It is no secret that no one reads the fine print. There is no such thing as fine print. For the greatest part everything is in the same font size. It's called fine print because it's obfuscated. Obfuscation is deception and is also FRAUD. Fine print is an art of fraud. There is no secret in this.
Is it really nothing more than dishonest greed and graft which prompts the courts to uphold fine print?
Will super-specialization of software development teams help the industry to push out better software faster? Or are we hassled enough without being treated as an assembly line?
Look to your brethren in other industries and just say NO to Redmond style factorization. Okay, maybe it can't be stopped anymore but here's why it SHOULD have been:
Case 1> The automobile industry Case 2> The energy industry Case 3> The pharmaceutical industry Case 4> The music entertainment industry
In all four of these cases the industry sentences itself to achieving a level of maximized profit margin utilizing cookie-cutter schemes. Innovation is stifled, intensely scrutinized, and accepted if and only if a maximum profit can be reaped by the people at the highest executive levels. Innovation which serves no purpose other than to make the job easier for the people actually working is brutally ostricized for fear of laziness. This business model leads to a very politically separated interior corporate structure where political maneuvers outweigh expertise or ability in the consideration of promotions. This system also leads to pigeonholing of the best talent by the extremes to which functions are delineated. One-trick ponies are favored while people with a broad range of knowledge and ability are either tolerated or thrown out as unable to perform in their position.
I understand that you can't fight big industry or big government. I guess this article and my post serve more as a warning for you working in the IT field: your day is coming just like it has come for every other industry in America. Soon you will lose your crazy haircuts and your pierced ears and your odd hours. You will be marginalized, minimized, and subjected to the brutal ego driven politics that those of us in the established professions have always had to deal with.
"How many?", asked Bupu. The gully dwarf in front of her trembled with fear,"One, and one, and one", he counted on his fingers and very soon used them all up. "How many!", shrieked Bupu grabbing him by his torn and ragged lapels. "Two. Not more than two," he quivered. "You sure?" she glared at him authoritatively. "Me sure. Not more than two," he pronounced with conviction very unusual in a gully dwarf. "You go tell Big Highbulb. Me go with wizard," Bupu nearly threw her companion down the corridor as she hauled her bag towards Raistlin.
That's how computer technology should be - I don't need to read a manual to work my other home entertainment devices and I don't see why computer technology should be any different
Hmmmm. I see the problem. You see a computer as a home entertainment device. It's not. That's why you have a stereo, a TV, game consoles, and on. A computer is an entirely different entity. It is a mathematical model of enormous proportions. It has many many functions. You are required to learn how to properly use a game controller before you game. You must properly learn to use a computer before you compute.
But if the manager felt like pressing the issue he could come up with a grand outsourcing plan to make it all work and thus hamstring the friend into being a willing combatant in the forces of spam.
This doesn't make much sense. If you make widgets, and you SPAM your competitors websites, they will be shut down
If spam gets sent which doesn't promote the target it will easily be indentified as a spoof. If you try to spoof a legitimate business you will be dealt with swiftly and severely. If you spam a product which could seriously be relying on spammers then the world is cleaner for it. If you're selling a product which could seriously be aided by spamming and somone spams you competitively then the world is cleaner for it when you get shut down.
They make it to easy to take out a legitimate business.
If you spam a legitimate business you will be dealt with swiftly and severely. Unless you do it properly, as a shake-down, at which point the two parties know each other well enough where it would be a legal issue over real dollars. In that case, why not ask the banks and credit companies to take care of it?
SMTP was developed at a time when "SPAM" wasn't a concept, and it refuses to change.
You cannot create a world-wide system which handles the length and breadth of the load that SMTP handles and still incorporate a perfect delineation between two types: advertising and non-advertising. Unless you favor corporate ownership of e-mail.
Right, of course, if a couple of bits are switched around it is instant profit
You don't know much about security, do you? Even in terms of "click this link to unsubscribe!" it's widely known that they're rigged. Probably in the right to sell the list of people who've unsubscribed.
it *is* profitable
What makes it profitable? Who pays the spammer? Who's his employer? Who funds them? Do they file a business tax return?
Go ask anyone who's been Joe Jobbed (I haven't, but there are those who have
If it was a prevalent concern then it would be mentioned in the media. Everyone talks about their inbox. Few people talk about having an e-mail address shut down. Aggressive attacks against profitable business will be dealt with quickly and severely. Aggressive attacks against questionable businesses will be used as a political weapon or a shake down by the ISPs. I don't think you're guilty if your ISP comes to you with a million incidents of a spam e-mail and your website sells stuffed teddy bears.
There's a lot of fraud on eBay/PayPal
Tiddlywinks. Any fraud against a business entity will result in another 16-year old on the bench because he wrote a nasty java script. It's good PR. Where were his parents?
Because getting everyone you know to use a new account is such fun
Stories are thin about people who have lost an e-mail address more times than they've relocated. It's not fun and it's also not a problem because it doesn't happen.
Slashdot Mirror
say, every night
Oh yeah, and because r is squared. Miniscule changes in r due to the rotation of the earth are not going to have as much of an impact as placing a large mass between the two when considering the overall force.
pay attention now
Quit trolling. The OP was speaking in the context of measuring pendulums during an eclipse. Context creates "they did not study the effects of gravity on a pendulum during a solar eclipse".
then shouldn't they also occur every time the earth is between the pendulum and the sun...say, every night?
I suspect they do see a variation over the course of a day. The scientific article shows only windows from 0900 to 1800 hours but there is a steadily descending trend. Perhaps, over the course of the day, that trend descends at a changing rate as influenced by friction and the distance to the sun.
The timing graphs show a very pronounced spike as the solar eclipse progresses. There's even a ripple effect which I find fascinating.
What about the scientific anomaly called NIGHTTIME?
By the time night hits you the people 30 minutes ahead of you have been cooling and the people 30 minutes ahead of them have been cooling. You're rotating your position into areas which are already cooling. When the moon eclipses the sun, that very sharp band of cooling is rapidly passed over the surface.
If gravity is blocked by mass, this effect would be much easier to measure on the Moon during lunar eclipses than on Earth: the entire Moon is shadowed during many lunar eclipses whereas only part of the Earth is fully shadowed during even total eclipses, and the effect should be easier to measure against the smaller gravity of the Moon.
And the effects of the earth on the forces on the moon will be many times larger due to the mass ratio: the earth should serve as a better gravity insulator. Good one.
The flow of dark towards the Sun interrupted by the Earth causes the side of the Earth away from the Sun to accumulate dark, thus causing Night
Fascinating. That means that the effects of the experiments were adjusted due to the fractional accumulation of dark between the moon and the earth.
There's no requirement that you buy the product
What is this, some sort of sick taunting society? They have a product and we want to buy that product. Get the terms of sale down and quit all this nonsense. The product is sold. The product has a new owner. Insurance may be sold on the product. The definition of the insurance is in the fine print. It is common knowledge that nobody reads fine print. The concept of insurance is coverage. Denial of insurance coverage is fraudulent misrepresentation of the concept of insurance. If that misrepresentation relies on the interpretation of a book that nobody reads then it is fraud. You and I both know that nobody reads those things.
Corporations need to grow up. Make a sale. Be done with it. It is obvious that any arguments on the concept of "ownership" or "insurance" after the point of sale are fine print fraudulent claims. A new person owns the product. Companies cannot try to deny insurance claims based upon a document if it is common knowledge that nobody reads the document. Warranties are insurance. Guarantees are insurance. The fine print is a obfuscation of fraudulent (deceitful, misleading) definitions. The only basic bit of the term insurance is the existence of a variable time limit.
If you actually read what you're agreeing to
It generally doesn't matter. There's no positive option which allows you to disagree with the fraudulent fine print and keep the product.
The reason why nobody knows what's in it is because they don't read it
You know that, I know that, everyone knows that. It's common knowledge that nobody reads the fine print. Why is it legal to disown responsibility because words are written in a context that is common knowledge that nobody reads? This is the very definition of fraud. The truth is misrepresented.
I stand by my statement that he has no excuse for not reading the agreement
It's cruel and unusual punishment. Nobody reads the fine print. Why should he be required to? The company represented that his product would be covered. It's no secret that sales reps are trained to answer affirmative by default when asked questions. Fine print is fraud. For courts to selectively require citizens to delve into the fine print is an exercise in promoting fraud.
Caveat emptor
Thinking with a caveat emptor mentality only further reinforces that insurance is an art of fraud. How can I sell you a product which protects you from risk if it's accepted that you assume all of the risk?
It certainly is fun to cheer when a big company gets handed a rebuke but let's look at who really pays and who really profits.
Who pays:
1) This isn't going to come out of the personal bank accounts of the people who sit on the executive board. This isn't going to come from the personal bank account of the CEO or VPs.
2) This will probably result in belt-tightening budget cuts which will translate into more money spent on marketing and less money spent on in-store jobs, promotions, or yearly bonuses.
3) This will probably cause Best Buy stock to hiccup which will impact people nationwide as their investments and retirement accounts pay.
4) Best Buy probably has business lawsuit insurance. The insurance company will not be happy about covering the bill. The only way for the insurance company to shore up their profit will be to raise rates on other insurance types: homeowners and car insurance are always beautiful targets as it's a larger base to draw from meaning less raise per policy and a general lack of resistance from the population.
Who profits:
1) The attorneys profit. Whatever settlement the court gives to Ohio the lawyers will take at least 33% of that right off the top.
2) The CEO will profit. The executive board will profit. The insurance company will profit. The VPs will profit. The investment bankers and stock brokers will profit. Companies holding distribution contracts with Best Buy will profit.
3) The customer will not profit. The citizens of Ohio will not profit.
4) Even if one-time disbursements are made to customers or citizens the company is 100% confident of making that back just like any casino which offers promotional packages.
In the end the politics inside Best Buy will use this as an excuse to axe the least favorite VP, replace the two least favorite executive board members, and as an excuse to raise the average price of a CD $0.10 to cover the losses.
It doesn't excuse the guy in question from reading the fine print before blowing his money on one of these worthless "service plans,"
I'd like to point this out as a fallacy and a fraud. It is no secret that no one reads the fine print. There is no such thing as fine print. For the greatest part everything is in the same font size. It's called fine print because it's obfuscated. Obfuscation is deception and is also FRAUD. Fine print is an art of fraud. There is no secret in this.
Is it really nothing more than dishonest greed and graft which prompts the courts to uphold fine print?
Will super-specialization of software development teams help the industry to push out better software faster? Or are we hassled enough without being treated as an assembly line?
Look to your brethren in other industries and just say NO to Redmond style factorization. Okay, maybe it can't be stopped anymore but here's why it SHOULD have been:
Case 1> The automobile industry
Case 2> The energy industry
Case 3> The pharmaceutical industry
Case 4> The music entertainment industry
In all four of these cases the industry sentences itself to achieving a level of maximized profit margin utilizing cookie-cutter schemes. Innovation is stifled, intensely scrutinized, and accepted if and only if a maximum profit can be reaped by the people at the highest executive levels. Innovation which serves no purpose other than to make the job easier for the people actually working is brutally ostricized for fear of laziness. This business model leads to a very politically separated interior corporate structure where political maneuvers outweigh expertise or ability in the consideration of promotions. This system also leads to pigeonholing of the best talent by the extremes to which functions are delineated. One-trick ponies are favored while people with a broad range of knowledge and ability are either tolerated or thrown out as unable to perform in their position.
I understand that you can't fight big industry or big government. I guess this article and my post serve more as a warning for you working in the IT field: your day is coming just like it has come for every other industry in America. Soon you will lose your crazy haircuts and your pierced ears and your odd hours. You will be marginalized, minimized, and subjected to the brutal ego driven politics that those of us in the established professions have always had to deal with.
"How many?", asked Bupu.
The gully dwarf in front of her trembled with fear,"One, and one, and one", he counted on his fingers and very soon used them all up.
"How many!", shrieked Bupu grabbing him by his torn and ragged lapels.
"Two. Not more than two," he quivered.
"You sure?" she glared at him authoritatively.
"Me sure. Not more than two," he pronounced with conviction very unusual in a gully dwarf.
"You go tell Big Highbulb. Me go with wizard," Bupu nearly threw her companion down the corridor as she hauled her bag towards Raistlin.
You're an idiot. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thu 19 Aug 05:24PM (#10018244)
Do everyone a favor and kill yourself.
Now, if you were my boss, you would set about trying to make my life so miserable that this would be a viable option.
The intent is clear. This is a death threat.
Now I have to wonder... what's the proper way to deal with this? This would be a nightmare for the SO at work.
Good luck getting Redmond to issue a release admitting to the full scope of that.
That's how computer technology should be - I don't need to read a manual to work my other home entertainment devices and I don't see why computer technology should be any different
Hmmmm. I see the problem. You see a computer as a home entertainment device. It's not. That's why you have a stereo, a TV, game consoles, and on. A computer is an entirely different entity. It is a mathematical model of enormous proportions. It has many many functions. You are required to learn how to properly use a game controller before you game. You must properly learn to use a computer before you compute.
IPSEC is the way to go but my router and older system do not support it
YIKES! I hope you can set up IPSEC within a VPN. Go IPSEC from the satellites to the gateway and let the router do it's job in the middle.
Ummmmm... unless you plugged the router directly into the high speed connection. That's bad.
Do you share your
I think the more appropriate approach is to ask if they were also raised to willingly and knowingly violate business agreements.
I like to promote sharing but not if the result may hinder my ability to share.
But if the manager felt like pressing the issue he could come up with a grand outsourcing plan to make it all work and thus hamstring the friend into being a willing combatant in the forces of spam.
This doesn't make much sense. If you make widgets, and you SPAM your competitors websites, they will be shut down
If spam gets sent which doesn't promote the target it will easily be indentified as a spoof. If you try to spoof a legitimate business you will be dealt with swiftly and severely. If you spam a product which could seriously be relying on spammers then the world is cleaner for it. If you're selling a product which could seriously be aided by spamming and somone spams you competitively then the world is cleaner for it when you get shut down.
They make it to easy to take out a legitimate business.
If you spam a legitimate business you will be dealt with swiftly and severely. Unless you do it properly, as a shake-down, at which point the two parties know each other well enough where it would be a legal issue over real dollars. In that case, why not ask the banks and credit companies to take care of it?
SMTP was developed at a time when "SPAM" wasn't a concept, and it refuses to change.
You cannot create a world-wide system which handles the length and breadth of the load that SMTP handles and still incorporate a perfect delineation between two types: advertising and non-advertising. Unless you favor corporate ownership of e-mail.
Right, of course, if a couple of bits are switched around it is instant profit
You don't know much about security, do you? Even in terms of "click this link to unsubscribe!" it's widely known that they're rigged. Probably in the right to sell the list of people who've unsubscribed.
it *is* profitable
What makes it profitable? Who pays the spammer? Who's his employer? Who funds them? Do they file a business tax return?
Tell your friend to push the mail out through the same smtp server that corporate mail goes outbound from.
It's more in the business model to outsource that part of it. People have companies which will push the mail for you.
The bottom line still is: who makes it profitable? Some bank agent somewhere knows something.
Now, if you were my boss, you would set about trying to make my life so miserable that this would be a viable option.
The intent is clear. This is a death threat.
It just means that the AC doesn't have what it takes to do it themselves.
Editors: Is this some sort of weird death threat? Does this make an AC a terrorist under the PATRIOT Act?
Could you really legally say that to someone in society without being held responsible for it?
Spammers will stop spamming when it stops being profitable
What makes it profitable?
Go ask anyone who's been Joe Jobbed (I haven't, but there are those who have
If it was a prevalent concern then it would be mentioned in the media. Everyone talks about their inbox. Few people talk about having an e-mail address shut down. Aggressive attacks against profitable business will be dealt with quickly and severely. Aggressive attacks against questionable businesses will be used as a political weapon or a shake down by the ISPs. I don't think you're guilty if your ISP comes to you with a million incidents of a spam e-mail and your website sells stuffed teddy bears.
There's a lot of fraud on eBay/PayPal
Tiddlywinks. Any fraud against a business entity will result in another 16-year old on the bench because he wrote a nasty java script. It's good PR. Where were his parents?
Because getting everyone you know to use a new account is such fun
Stories are thin about people who have lost an e-mail address more times than they've relocated. It's not fun and it's also not a problem because it doesn't happen.