Really? Storing evidence in police lockers would be expensive and hard to get right? Should we store all evidence in 1 central national location? C'mon.
Why would they care about those pennies? They have the power to become the all-seeing eyes and they care about the extra pennies they can gather from local police departments? Sounds like they want local tax dollars to pay for their taking of the entire country hostage.
They want all police to store their body cameras data on their services and it's free for a year? I am not sure they could pay enough for all the police to store all their footage on their servers forever. This kind of footage should be stored in police evidence lockers under lock and key. They want become the universal street surveyor without paying for it and they want the people working for them for free to pay them (at some point) to work for them for free? Wow. Just wow. The value of that data is more than the value of all the satellite imagery combined. Oh and spare us the soliloquy about compartmentalization. If they have access to the data, it will be datamined.
It's not embarrassing. It's a fact. And I said "modern usage". The example they gave (of Edgar Allan Poe) is over 150 years old. Even the erasing of the difference between "shall" and "will" is more modern than the death of Edgar Allan Poe. The difference between "affect" and "effect" (as verbs) is arguably artificial even when both are used correctly. It's meant to emphasize the traditional English-language distinction between subjects and objects of a sentence ("itch" vs "scratch", "lend" vs "borrow", etc.).
But it's almost impossible to distinguish those because "affect" is almost always a transitive verb. You can try constructing sentences where "affect" is nontransitive, but they will almost certainly sound artificially concocted to sound overly expressive. Essentially, "you affected change" and "you effected change" is the distinction between whether the emphasis is on "you" or on the "change". But the information communicated is the same. And the emphasis is generally not conveyed unless it is also conveyed but the context in which the sentence exists. So the 2 verbs are used interchangeably.
And while using "affect" as a noun is still odd, this usage is not grammatically wrong if we operate under the assumption that the 2 verbs have the same meaning. Under this assumption, "affect" (the noun) is a nominalization of "affect" (the verb).
Uhm... I don't know where you found your "usb 3" devices, but top speed of usb3.1 is only ~ Gbps. Top speed of usb 3 is 4.8 Gbps. That's a factor of 2 rather than 20. Oh, and if you found memory which can be accessed at 3.2 GHz (twice the bus speed of 1.6 GHz of DDR3), then show me a combination of processor/memory on a desktop setup which can take advantage of it.
It was wrongly stated anyway. Should have said by a golden ratio every year instead of doubles every 18 months (which is only a 4% difference). And it's much more believable that it would grow proportionate to Fibonacci numbers every year (parallel to release cycles) because the rate of tech progress is a recurrence relation to the level of existing tech.
You don't agree to any "terms of service" when you receive something over the air waves. You do when you stream from a website. And if the website forces you to agree to abide by the laws of the state of California, you are most likely subject to the most draconian copyright laws in the country. California is as accommodating to its movie business as Texas is to its beef business.
A much bigger risk someone figuring out a way to live capture it at original frame rate. A broken DRM can be changed. Live capture can happen without the application's knowledge. In fact, it's probably already happening for anyone willing to take the time to set it up and having any desire to do it. And if you can't stop live capture, then drm will only stop the truly law-abiding and the moderately lazy.
Just so we are clear, there is already a lot of the data which is not available for public examination. Insurance companies don't have to justify the data to which they apply their actuarial models, for example. But they carry burden of having to apply the models correctly because they suffer the cost of mistakes (at least in theory). So it maybe overall that some data will not be available for EPA research. But since it's such a large customer, it's more likely that the data will just have to be purchased with re-print rights (and at higher cost). But, since it will restore public confidence in the conclusions, this cost is justified.
Then why would you trust that their methodology leads to the results they claim? If it can't be independently verified, it's not science. This model may be used for commercial purposes because trade secrets are the norm. But it breaks down when it comes to public policy. You can't have public policy based on data you can't verify. There is no way to verify that the data wasn't doctored to fit a model or that the model was not applied erroneously. Garbage-in-garbage-out is ok if you are willing to carry the cost of it. But when the cost is to be carried by the general public, it has the right to see the data. If that means that the payment model for the data has to change, then this has to be accounted-for in the grants.
Sorry, do you really expect to be taken seriously after attaching a slur to a Tea Party? Are you going to slobber insults in response? It was just an opposition to crazy people exercising power. Are you gonna prove them right by proving that you are crazy? Just to save you time, you don't have to. You can just reply with a "yes".
The point is to allow 3rd parties to verify that given data sets can yield the outputs they purport to yield with methodologies listed. Otherwise, they can list methodologies and then not follow them or follow them erroneously in producing stated results.
Some of the climate science relies on non-free information. Since it cannot be released, no regulations that depend on this data can be promulgated.
Aha. So despite the fact that even the summary addresses this, you are still peddling this lie? Here's from the summary:
allow anyone who signs a confidentiality agreement to view redacted personal or trade information in data
The gist of the law is to allow anyone verify that the data on which research is based can actually yield the outputs given the stated methodology. Otherwise, it's garbage-in-garbage-out.
Well, they can (for example) do research based on asthma increases based on environmental factors. But any such research would be statistical and any personal information would be easily anonymized. Someone did make a point that it precludes them from using licensed data, but if their methodology of data processing cannot be independently verified, it can't be deemed to have been scientifically vetted. In other words, it's more important to be able to see the inputs they use for the methods they claim to use in order to see that they get the outputs they claim to generate. Otherwise, it's garbage-in-garbage-out.
I was replying to an oversimplification with a counterexample. That is how logical arguments proceed. I'll put your quote here again to help you remember what I replied to:
Hmm... You aren't logical here. Why there are many people here complaining about cheap labor of H1B?
As for this (the emphasis mine):
Because of human politics, and that already creates a lot more complex relationships than the logic you presented.
Well, yes, and I addressed it in my original argument. Just so you call, here it is.
It's about having people who cannot collectively bargain or say anything about dumb management. Or just walk out the door on a whim because their job sucks. It's about freedom. And guess what people are called when they don't have it? I'll give ya a hint. It's not "employees". Give them green cards, or any arguments you make are lies.
Yes, I am serious. And I am not talking from a personal point of view. I've examined all the implications of my assumptions. And I have observed the behavior I expected to observe in enough tech firms to make my observations statistically significant.
If you own a tech company and want to hire Americans, do you think they want to come to work for you if you can't offer them the salaries+benefits they want?
No, I think they want to come work because they love tech. And I mean really, really love tech. If they are smart enough to compete on equal footing with indentured servants, they do something else (unless they really love what they do and are willing to tolerate much lower social status harsher work conditions in order to do what they love).
Hmm... You aren't logical here. Why there are many people here complaining about cheap labor of H1B?
Because they are stupid or uninformed. A queen bee is the best fed bee in the hive. In many species it also has the most miserable life because it has to carry all the children. See where I am going with this?
Salaries have NOTHING to do with it. It's about having people who cannot collectively bargain or say anything about dumb management. Or just walk out the door on a whim because their job sucks. It's about freedom. And guess what people are called when they don't have it? I'll give ya a hint. It's not "employees". Give them green cards, or any arguments you make are lies.
It won't "end" until H1B visas are substituted for a different type of visa: an alien resident visa (aka a "Green Card"). H1B program is meant to bring skilled workers to the country. If they can't leave their employers on a whim, they are not employees. They are indentured servants. Their path to citizenship is delayed by 4-5 years. Some even feel entitled at the end of that hazing path to pick up the whip to become the "master". Those two are likely the result of this. End their second-class-citizens status or you'll never solve the "not enough people pursue careers in tech" problem. It's not about salaries. It's about endemic lowering of the work-place status of the people in tech. It has all the glory of a mailroom, just with more money.
For the longest time Google Maps showed my house as being in the Atlantic Ocean. I am not sure I trust them quite so much to remember where I parked if I don't check it before walking off.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Storing evidence in police lockers would be expensive and hard to get right? Should we store all evidence in 1 central national location? C'mon.
Why would they care about those pennies? They have the power to become the all-seeing eyes and they care about the extra pennies they can gather from local police departments? Sounds like they want local tax dollars to pay for their taking of the entire country hostage.
They want all police to store their body cameras data on their services and it's free for a year? I am not sure they could pay enough for all the police to store all their footage on their servers forever. This kind of footage should be stored in police evidence lockers under lock and key. They want become the universal street surveyor without paying for it and they want the people working for them for free to pay them (at some point) to work for them for free? Wow. Just wow. The value of that data is more than the value of all the satellite imagery combined. Oh and spare us the soliloquy about compartmentalization. If they have access to the data, it will be datamined.
It's not embarrassing. It's a fact. And I said "modern usage". The example they gave (of Edgar Allan Poe) is over 150 years old. Even the erasing of the difference between "shall" and "will" is more modern than the death of Edgar Allan Poe. The difference between "affect" and "effect" (as verbs) is arguably artificial even when both are used correctly. It's meant to emphasize the traditional English-language distinction between subjects and objects of a sentence ("itch" vs "scratch", "lend" vs "borrow", etc.).
But it's almost impossible to distinguish those because "affect" is almost always a transitive verb. You can try constructing sentences where "affect" is nontransitive, but they will almost certainly sound artificially concocted to sound overly expressive. Essentially, "you affected change" and "you effected change" is the distinction between whether the emphasis is on "you" or on the "change". But the information communicated is the same. And the emphasis is generally not conveyed unless it is also conveyed but the context in which the sentence exists. So the 2 verbs are used interchangeably.
And while using "affect" as a noun is still odd, this usage is not grammatically wrong if we operate under the assumption that the 2 verbs have the same meaning. Under this assumption, "affect" (the noun) is a nominalization of "affect" (the verb).
In modern American usage "affect" and "effect" mean the same thing.
Uhm... I don't know where you found your "usb 3" devices, but top speed of usb3.1 is only ~ Gbps. Top speed of usb 3 is 4.8 Gbps. That's a factor of 2 rather than 20. Oh, and if you found memory which can be accessed at 3.2 GHz (twice the bus speed of 1.6 GHz of DDR3), then show me a combination of processor/memory on a desktop setup which can take advantage of it.
It was wrongly stated anyway. Should have said by a golden ratio every year instead of doubles every 18 months (which is only a 4% difference). And it's much more believable that it would grow proportionate to Fibonacci numbers every year (parallel to release cycles) because the rate of tech progress is a recurrence relation to the level of existing tech.
You don't agree to any "terms of service" when you receive something over the air waves. You do when you stream from a website. And if the website forces you to agree to abide by the laws of the state of California, you are most likely subject to the most draconian copyright laws in the country. California is as accommodating to its movie business as Texas is to its beef business.
A much bigger risk someone figuring out a way to live capture it at original frame rate. A broken DRM can be changed. Live capture can happen without the application's knowledge. In fact, it's probably already happening for anyone willing to take the time to set it up and having any desire to do it. And if you can't stop live capture, then drm will only stop the truly law-abiding and the moderately lazy.
Like I said, you didn't have to prove that you are crazy. You could have just said "yes".
Just so we are clear, there is already a lot of the data which is not available for public examination. Insurance companies don't have to justify the data to which they apply their actuarial models, for example. But they carry burden of having to apply the models correctly because they suffer the cost of mistakes (at least in theory). So it maybe overall that some data will not be available for EPA research. But since it's such a large customer, it's more likely that the data will just have to be purchased with re-print rights (and at higher cost). But, since it will restore public confidence in the conclusions, this cost is justified.
Then why would you trust that their methodology leads to the results they claim? If it can't be independently verified, it's not science. This model may be used for commercial purposes because trade secrets are the norm. But it breaks down when it comes to public policy. You can't have public policy based on data you can't verify. There is no way to verify that the data wasn't doctored to fit a model or that the model was not applied erroneously. Garbage-in-garbage-out is ok if you are willing to carry the cost of it. But when the cost is to be carried by the general public, it has the right to see the data. If that means that the payment model for the data has to change, then this has to be accounted-for in the grants.
Sorry, do you really expect to be taken seriously after attaching a slur to a Tea Party? Are you going to slobber insults in response? It was just an opposition to crazy people exercising power. Are you gonna prove them right by proving that you are crazy? Just to save you time, you don't have to. You can just reply with a "yes".
The point is to allow 3rd parties to verify that given data sets can yield the outputs they purport to yield with methodologies listed. Otherwise, they can list methodologies and then not follow them or follow them erroneously in producing stated results.
Some of the climate science relies on non-free information. Since it cannot be released, no regulations that depend on this data can be promulgated.
Aha. So despite the fact that even the summary addresses this, you are still peddling this lie? Here's from the summary:
allow anyone who signs a confidentiality agreement to view redacted personal or trade information in data
The gist of the law is to allow anyone verify that the data on which research is based can actually yield the outputs given the stated methodology. Otherwise, it's garbage-in-garbage-out.
Well, they can (for example) do research based on asthma increases based on environmental factors. But any such research would be statistical and any personal information would be easily anonymized. Someone did make a point that it precludes them from using licensed data, but if their methodology of data processing cannot be independently verified, it can't be deemed to have been scientifically vetted. In other words, it's more important to be able to see the inputs they use for the methods they claim to use in order to see that they get the outputs they claim to generate. Otherwise, it's garbage-in-garbage-out.
What retribution? Isn't the federal government immune from torts?
Hmm... You aren't logical here. Why there are many people here complaining about cheap labor of H1B?
As for this (the emphasis mine):
Because of human politics, and that already creates a lot more complex relationships than the logic you presented.
Well, yes, and I addressed it in my original argument. Just so you call, here it is.
It's about having people who cannot collectively bargain or say anything about dumb management. Or just walk out the door on a whim because their job sucks. It's about freedom. And guess what people are called when they don't have it? I'll give ya a hint. It's not "employees". Give them green cards, or any arguments you make are lies.
Are you really serious?
Yes, I am serious. And I am not talking from a personal point of view. I've examined all the implications of my assumptions. And I have observed the behavior I expected to observe in enough tech firms to make my observations statistically significant.
If you own a tech company and want to hire Americans, do you think they want to come to work for you if you can't offer them the salaries+benefits they want?
No, I think they want to come work because they love tech. And I mean really, really love tech. If they are smart enough to compete on equal footing with indentured servants, they do something else (unless they really love what they do and are willing to tolerate much lower social status harsher work conditions in order to do what they love).
Hmm... You aren't logical here. Why there are many people here complaining about cheap labor of H1B?
Because they are stupid or uninformed. A queen bee is the best fed bee in the hive. In many species it also has the most miserable life because it has to carry all the children. See where I am going with this?
Salaries have NOTHING to do with it. It's about having people who cannot collectively bargain or say anything about dumb management. Or just walk out the door on a whim because their job sucks. It's about freedom. And guess what people are called when they don't have it? I'll give ya a hint. It's not "employees". Give them green cards, or any arguments you make are lies.
It won't "end" until H1B visas are substituted for a different type of visa: an alien resident visa (aka a "Green Card"). H1B program is meant to bring skilled workers to the country. If they can't leave their employers on a whim, they are not employees. They are indentured servants. Their path to citizenship is delayed by 4-5 years. Some even feel entitled at the end of that hazing path to pick up the whip to become the "master". Those two are likely the result of this. End their second-class-citizens status or you'll never solve the "not enough people pursue careers in tech" problem. It's not about salaries. It's about endemic lowering of the work-place status of the people in tech. It has all the glory of a mailroom, just with more money.
The summary says they are asking to limit the venue to the defendant's location.
For the longest time Google Maps showed my house as being in the Atlantic Ocean. I am not sure I trust them quite so much to remember where I parked if I don't check it before walking off.