There is too many reports citing scientists on global warming doom and gloom and next to nothing being published about our progress in using hydrogen as the source of energy. It almost makes you want to say "Sceintists, stop with the global warming stuff, start working on the renewable energy already!". The reason? Doom is sensational - and guess what the news outlets will publish first?
What you say is true, however I think it misses the big picture. By publishing articles like these, more people will take notice (you know that most people haven't thought through the implications of global warming, right?) and pressure their governments to change their ways or support scientific research, like hydrogen, to solve or mitigate the impending problems.
My point: Articles about scientists working on alternative energy or climate restoration will not catch the general population's notice when presented without a recognized context.
And the XBox 360 showing up in the 'best breakthrough technology' category? Come on (though that it lost to the PSP is still funny. I smell a Sony plot!).
Merrill Lynch is a financial management company/investment bank. They make money by helping other people make money. They help other people make money by finding good investments. They make good investments by performing good analysis.
So, really, if they are wrong (bad analysis), there are indeed consequences for them (they get fired).
I'm not saying this means they know what they are talking about, but rather that it is highly likely they are performing serious analysis and not just pulling these numbers and theories out of their arse. . .
My recollection of high school is that we were lucky to learn what 'separation of powers' meant! But yeah, it is sad. Kids (and adults) these days really need to know how to debate the idea of an imperial presidency.
I don't see where it says POTUS has the authority to authorize a pre-emptive strike
That's because the article isn't about the president's war powers - it is about the president (through the pentagon) announcing when he will engage in pre-emptive nuking. This article assumes that readers have some background knowledge on how this stuff works in the US.
If you want to know more about the president's powers as commander-in-chief, check out the debates before the passage of the "War Powers Act" from the early 1970's. Also, just about every other issue of the various American journals of political science will have an article on the president's war powers.
The president already has the authority to launch a pre-emptive strike.* What the article is about is a new policy statement by the US (i.e. an international "FYI") about when the president will haul off and nuke something
*This, like the policy discussed in the article, depends on the situation being one where the President doesn't have to wait for Congress to declare war.
Heh. You knew I was kidding about using passwords, right?
(But yeah, the core system is for folks who are happy with only having to buy a memory card and don't care about the wireless stuff; I think it will be a while before game developers bring titles out that require the HDD).
He starts off saying they didn't make any compromises in the system, next question he's talking about how they amde compromises and that it wasn't designed for the hardcore gamer.
Right, I should have been more clear; I was trying to say that the answer to the second question doesn't 'revise' so much as reenforce the first answer given (in which he states the lofty goals and then defends the seemingly contradictory 'core system.'
Anyway, I think the problem is that though the 360 may be an 'uncompromising' system with a HDD, by releasing a compromised version with no HD, they are encouraging the development of compromised games. Too bad. I wonder if the first generation of 360 games will have those old NES-style passwords that you would write down (anyone remember the password 'grid' from Mega Man 2?)...
That isn't revisionism, it looks more like he was further explaining the reason for having a 'consol + controller' release - i.e. to attract non-gamers who might be scared off by the $400 'full' system.
Theory: they are puting out the X360 with a 20 gig HD now, so that they come out with the rumoured 'better' HD down the line, they can ship it with increased capacity and tout the higher capacity as a further improvement.
I would think Google has standing in that it hired the guy, giving it a direct interest in the litigation.
Bigger question here, is that why does Google think a California court will toss out a contract validly made under Washington law? That is only going to happen if enforcing it there would violate Cali's public policy (i.e. the NDA/Non-comp is outrageous). (Caveat, I am not familiar with the laws Google is basing its 'restraint of trade' argument off of, so there may be someth ).
From reading the bits of the NDA/Noncomp excerpted in the media and Microsoft's complaint, I don't really buy the 'outrageous contract' argument. (For that matter, Google's 'California' theme seems to be blatant forum-shopping)
Yep, it is called an 'admission'. The 'anything you say can and will be used against you' thing applies to things you say before being arrested and read your rights.
Of course, you have the right to remain silent... As for fibbing about your speed, well, the officer has his radar gun and it it most likely accurate - your chances of talking your way out of the ticket are no doubt decreased if you lie to his face.
You are quite correct about the trade secrets issue - I left it out of the gp because I don't know much about it.
(As for what I do, well, I just prefer to hide behind my silly user name and rely on the strength of my posts for credibility. I have embraced the idea that "on the internet, no one knows you're a dog")
However, that doesn't mean that companies don't try to overreach. Courts tend to look at three factors: type of job; geographic spread of the non-compete clause; and lenght of time it would be in force.
A non-compete clause for a line cook (a common position, not skilled [apologies to slashdot-reading line cooks]) would probably not be enforced, but one for some kind of head chef or software exec. probably would be.
The geographic reach of the clause is a bit job-dependent as well (e.g. 'head chef, you will not open a restaurant within 5 miles of our restaurant'), but I am not sure what kind of reach a court would allow for an internet type industry (you are directly competeing whether you are in Alaska or Florida).
The length of time is fairly straightforward as well (for the law, anyway) - what is a reasonable amount of time to keep the person from competing in that field in that geographic area.
Anyway, if you encounter one of these things, remember that just because they make you sign one doesn't mean it is legally enforceable - Google apparently didn't think MS could enforce this one.
Going 'underground' with the PS3 is probably a good idea, for the simple reason that any exposure right now would be compeletely overshadowed by the XBox 360.
If they keep the hype up while 360 is coming out, the PS3 will be 'familiar' to the public and they won't be as impressed when it actually comes out (i.e. old news = boring). By staying off the front pages now, it leaves them the option of exploding onto the stage after the 360 release-hype has died down.
To answer my own question... Apparently, they had insurance for one of their previous launches, so it is a definite possibility that they had it for this one. Of course, given their last booster rocket failure, you would hope they would have insurance for this go around. http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,45 482,00.html
Did the Planetary Society insure the craft? If they did, this isn't a massive setback and they could more easily build a new one. This is entirely possible, as you can get insurance for just about anything. (Insurance company motto: "There are no bad risks, just bad prices").
Look, let me remind you what discussion we were having - I never said you couldn't sue the US, just that you could only sue it in certain situations. That is, where it has waived its sovereign right to not be sued.
If you want to have more fun with case law, or would just like to get to the point, try grabbing a legal dictionary and looking up sovereign immunity. Alternatively, you could try reading the Federalist Papers (esp. #'s 15 and 39).
Here is the deal with suing the US: the federal tort claims act I mentioned lists the tort areas that can be brought against the US - i.e. the areas in which the US has voluntarily waived sovereign immunity. (oh yeah, and Congress could also pass something by statute giving a right to sue).
We got into this discussion because we were talking about suing the hell out of the US if they dropped a rocket booster on you. Can you sue? I don't know, I haven't memorized the FTCA.
Historically, people who were accidentally killed in the name of 'progress' (i.e. astronauts, even factory workers killed by exploding boilers and what not back during the industrial revolution) did not have an action even against private parties. Here, we are dealing with a pretty dangerous activity being done in the name of science and the technological advancement of the nation and it may be that Congress doesn't want the US to be financially accountable for collateral damage. Can you sue if they drop a booster on your house? I don't know, but it will only happen if they have waived sovereign immunity.
Slashdot Mirror
What you say is true, however I think it misses the big picture. By publishing articles like these, more people will take notice (you know that most people haven't thought through the implications of global warming, right?) and pressure their governments to change their ways or support scientific research, like hydrogen, to solve or mitigate the impending problems.
My point: Articles about scientists working on alternative energy or climate restoration will not catch the general population's notice when presented without a recognized context.
And the XBox 360 showing up in the 'best breakthrough technology' category? Come on (though that it lost to the PSP is still funny. I smell a Sony plot!).
So, really, if they are wrong (bad analysis), there are indeed consequences for them (they get fired).
I'm not saying this means they know what they are talking about, but rather that it is highly likely they are performing serious analysis and not just pulling these numbers and theories out of their arse. . .
My recollection of high school is that we were lucky to learn what 'separation of powers' meant! But yeah, it is sad. Kids (and adults) these days really need to know how to debate the idea of an imperial presidency.
That's because the article isn't about the president's war powers - it is about the president (through the pentagon) announcing when he will engage in pre-emptive nuking. This article assumes that readers have some background knowledge on how this stuff works in the US.
If you want to know more about the president's powers as commander-in-chief, check out the debates before the passage of the "War Powers Act" from the early 1970's. Also, just about every other issue of the various American journals of political science will have an article on the president's war powers.
As for Bush, man, don't get me started...
The president already has the authority to launch a pre-emptive strike.* What the article is about is a new policy statement by the US (i.e. an international "FYI") about when the president will haul off and nuke something
*This, like the policy discussed in the article, depends on the situation being one where the President doesn't have to wait for Congress to declare war.
(But yeah, the core system is for folks who are happy with only having to buy a memory card and don't care about the wireless stuff; I think it will be a while before game developers bring titles out that require the HDD).
Right, I should have been more clear; I was trying to say that the answer to the second question doesn't 'revise' so much as reenforce the first answer given (in which he states the lofty goals and then defends the seemingly contradictory 'core system.'
Anyway, I think the problem is that though the 360 may be an 'uncompromising' system with a HDD, by releasing a compromised version with no HD, they are encouraging the development of compromised games. Too bad. I wonder if the first generation of 360 games will have those old NES-style passwords that you would write down (anyone remember the password 'grid' from Mega Man 2?)...
Bashing on MS is fun, but come on.
Theory: they are puting out the X360 with a 20 gig HD now, so that they come out with the rumoured 'better' HD down the line, they can ship it with increased capacity and tout the higher capacity as a further improvement.
Well, if your submission was rejected, then no, we are not interested in what you have to say!
Right, but that has nothing to do with whether a California court would toss out the contract he made in Washington.
Bigger question here, is that why does Google think a California court will toss out a contract validly made under Washington law? That is only going to happen if enforcing it there would violate Cali's public policy (i.e. the NDA/Non-comp is outrageous). (Caveat, I am not familiar with the laws Google is basing its 'restraint of trade' argument off of, so there may be someth ).
From reading the bits of the NDA/Noncomp excerpted in the media and Microsoft's complaint, I don't really buy the 'outrageous contract' argument. (For that matter, Google's 'California' theme seems to be blatant forum-shopping)
Of course, you have the right to remain silent... As for fibbing about your speed, well, the officer has his radar gun and it it most likely accurate - your chances of talking your way out of the ticket are no doubt decreased if you lie to his face.
Bush and the right will hop into the fray when people discover the mods that allow CJ to have gay sex with Big Smoke and Caesar. . .
(As for what I do, well, I just prefer to hide behind my silly user name and rely on the strength of my posts for credibility. I have embraced the idea that "on the internet, no one knows you're a dog")
However, that doesn't mean that companies don't try to overreach. Courts tend to look at three factors: type of job; geographic spread of the non-compete clause; and lenght of time it would be in force.
A non-compete clause for a line cook (a common position, not skilled [apologies to slashdot-reading line cooks]) would probably not be enforced, but one for some kind of head chef or software exec. probably would be.
The geographic reach of the clause is a bit job-dependent as well (e.g. 'head chef, you will not open a restaurant within 5 miles of our restaurant'), but I am not sure what kind of reach a court would allow for an internet type industry (you are directly competeing whether you are in Alaska or Florida).
The length of time is fairly straightforward as well (for the law, anyway) - what is a reasonable amount of time to keep the person from competing in that field in that geographic area.
Anyway, if you encounter one of these things, remember that just because they make you sign one doesn't mean it is legally enforceable - Google apparently didn't think MS could enforce this one.
Of course, silly, you are thinking of Duke Nukem Forever!
You mean "Bork, bork, bork."
If they keep the hype up while 360 is coming out, the PS3 will be 'familiar' to the public and they won't be as impressed when it actually comes out (i.e. old news = boring). By staying off the front pages now, it leaves them the option of exploding onto the stage after the 360 release-hype has died down.
To answer my own question...5 482,00.html
Apparently, they had insurance for one of their previous launches, so it is a definite possibility that they had it for this one. Of course, given their last booster rocket failure, you would hope they would have insurance for this go around. http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,4
I wasn't able to find anything on this question.
You mean Tom Cruise's fiancee! (Don't you follow the celebrity gossip?)
Again, main point being that the US cannot be sued unless it has waived sovereign immunity.
If you want to have more fun with case law, or would just like to get to the point, try grabbing a legal dictionary and looking up sovereign immunity. Alternatively, you could try reading the Federalist Papers (esp. #'s 15 and 39).
Here is the deal with suing the US: the federal tort claims act I mentioned lists the tort areas that can be brought against the US - i.e. the areas in which the US has voluntarily waived sovereign immunity. (oh yeah, and Congress could also pass something by statute giving a right to sue).
We got into this discussion because we were talking about suing the hell out of the US if they dropped a rocket booster on you. Can you sue? I don't know, I haven't memorized the FTCA.
Historically, people who were accidentally killed in the name of 'progress' (i.e. astronauts, even factory workers killed by exploding boilers and what not back during the industrial revolution) did not have an action even against private parties. Here, we are dealing with a pretty dangerous activity being done in the name of science and the technological advancement of the nation and it may be that Congress doesn't want the US to be financially accountable for collateral damage. Can you sue if they drop a booster on your house? I don't know, but it will only happen if they have waived sovereign immunity.