I should have know it would just be the same shit, different day.
Did you really think that a man who got his training in politics as a cog in the Chicago Machine would be in favor of weakening government's ability to do whatever it wanted regardless of what the law said? If so, shame on you!
My opinion is that this had nothing to do with Dukakis's defeat. For a long time, only a charismatic Democrat could be elected. (LBJ, of course, rode in on the coat tails of JFK's charisma.) Dukakis, of course, had all the charisma of a dead fish. I might add, BTW, that although it takes charisma to get a Democrat elected, it's not enough to get him re-elected, as Carter found out. Will BO get re-elected? Probably not, if his track record in office is any indications.
I'd leave that for the jury to decide. Trying to fit every possible corner case into the statute makes for a bloated, hard to understand, easy to exploit law. Remember, "Hard cases make bad law."
Plagiarism is a lot harder to prove than you think. And, if you sue somebody for that and lose, you're probably going to end up on the wrong side of another lawsuit, and end up paying out big bucks in damages.
It's quite simple, actually. If a company is actively licensing their patent portfolio and allowing them to be used by other companies, they're using the patents. If, OTOH, they're just sitting on their patents and waiting for a chance to sue somebody for infringement (i.e., acting like a patent troll) they're not making use of the patents, and they can be withdrawn.
In fact, with a slight modification, this would make patent trolling impossible. All you have to do is change the law so that if a company sues for infringement, but is making no effort to use the patent either directly or by licensing, the patent is taken away from them and given to the defendant to develop. I'm not sure, of course, how it would work in reality, but it sounds good in theory.
I live near the Pacific Ocean. There's nothing like sea water inside a drive for making sure they'll never recover the data, especially if the drive's been dropped over the side of a fishing boat. Oops!
I was thinking the same thing. Actually, he wouldn't even need a yacht because all of New York City is near some sort of waterfront. All he had to do was drive to some part of it well away from both his home and his office and toss it off the end of a random pier. Or, if that's not good enough, take a ride on the Staten Island Ferry and drop it over the side.
I can remember when I was in high school, I liked physics and math just because of the mental exercise.
Well, yes, but then you're clearly on the right-hand side of the bell curve. Roughly half of your students are going to be on the left-hand side and will find things like physics and math hard to understand if not incomprehensible. Unless, of course, you live at Lake Woebegone.
Then don't install Ubuntu. Install some other distro such as Fedora, Mint, CentOS, SuSe or whatever other distro floats your boat. Ubuntu != Linux, you know. And, since most, if not all of them can run from a LiveCD, you can find out which one best supports your hardware before you install it.
I don't know where you got that idea, but this section of the Wikipedia article on the battle should demonstrate how wrong you are. The Red Army fought to defend the city right from the beginning, although all they had left was a toe-hold by the time the counter-offensive started. I realize that this is Slashdot, but you should still at least try to get your facts right, especially when they're not in dispute.
So do I, as it happens. However, the average small business doesn't use Linux and isn't about to switch so I decided to point out a solution that would fit into what they're willing to do rather than waste time beating my head against that particular wall.
Yes, it should. I can still remember when it was. But those times are long gone, and you have to check each and every email for viruses, trojans and malware (Oh my!) before opening it if you don't want something like this to happen. If that company had enough money in the bank that scammers could steal $150,000 from their account, they had enough money to afford good virus and malware protection. Granted, it might not protect them from a zero day exploit, but that's not what happened here. They were stung by something that not only could have been prevented, it should have been. If that company had been practicing safe hex, this never would have happened.
And if you read the article, he also argues that the methods for measurement are not reliable.
That's not how I read what he said. My understanding is that comparing modern measurements from orbit with those made on the ground in the 1930s is wrong and that those comparisons are what's wrong, not the way the data was collected. Is he right? Damned if I know; I'm not only not a meteorologist, I don't even play one on Slashdot.
So, just because the email was stolen, you think that we shouldn't pay any attention to it? Do you apply the same standards to the Pentagon Papers, or to almost everything going up on Wikileaks?
...and get it published in a peer reviewed journal.
Yes. After all, we all know that the AGW crowd would never, under any circumstances manipulate the peer review process to prevent contrarian articles from being accepted.
He's said any number of times on his website that before we spend trillions of dollars on remedies that might not work it might be a good idea to spend a few million on learning more about what's actually happening. He's also said that in any case, running an open-ended experiment on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere probably isn't a good idea. You tell me: is that political or not?
I've known him personally for about 30 years now. He's always seemed to be as objective about things (other than politics) as he can manage. Of course, you're entitled to your own opinion of him.
My friend with the Masters also has a Doctorate in Psychology and another Doctorate in Poly Sci. He doesn't think I'm either a liar or paranoid. He's also asked these "climate scientists" for a layman's explanation of how they come up with these things and all they say is, "You wouldn't understand." Frankly, I think the reason that they won't explain isn't because he wouldn't understand, but because he would. YMMV, and probably does.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that I suspect the methodology of this study. I'm also not, by any means, convinced that a warmer climate wouldn't be a Good Thing in and of itself and I'm a tad skeptical about claims of sea level rising that much. (Note: I'm not saying they won't, just that I'm dubious.) Of course, I'm not only not a climate scientist, I don't play one on TV, Slashdot or anywhere else for that matter, so feel free to ignore my opinion if you want to.
Have any of you noticed that every year they use a different set of reporting stations to "show" that it's the hottest year? That means that comparing the numbers from one year with those from another is exactly like comparing apples and oranges. There's no way you can get any meaningful information out of what they're doing. It's not good science, it's not even good pseudo-science, but it's good propaganda and, I'm beginning to believe, that's all this whole thing is about: propaganda by zealots who are determined to make converts whether the facts support their position or not.
Mods, before you mod me down simply because you don't like what I have to say, consider this: I have a friend with, among other things, a Masters in Statistical Inference. I ran this idea past him, recently, and he agreed. I'm not just throwing mud, or trying to confuse the issue, I'm pointing out a legitimate flaw in their methodology.
Neither am I. I live in California and I remember the last time Governor Moonbeam was in office. This is exactly the type of flashy symbolic gesture he's always specialized in to make people think he was doing something. And, please note, before the election the Democrats considered his nickname/reputation an advantage in his campaign, not a disadvantage. This makes more sense once you understand that they also consider Nancy Pelosi to be a middle-of-the-road Liberal.
And here in CA, to change your affiliation, you have to re-register. As I wrote above, registration closes 60 days before any election, preventing last-minute changes. Personally, I like ours better, not because I'm used to it but because I view it as less open to abuse. YMMV, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you really think that a man who got his training in politics as a cog in the Chicago Machine would be in favor of weakening government's ability to do whatever it wanted regardless of what the law said? If so, shame on you!
My opinion is that this had nothing to do with Dukakis's defeat. For a long time, only a charismatic Democrat could be elected. (LBJ, of course, rode in on the coat tails of JFK's charisma.) Dukakis, of course, had all the charisma of a dead fish. I might add, BTW, that although it takes charisma to get a Democrat elected, it's not enough to get him re-elected, as Carter found out. Will BO get re-elected? Probably not, if his track record in office is any indications.
I'd leave that for the jury to decide. Trying to fit every possible corner case into the statute makes for a bloated, hard to understand, easy to exploit law. Remember, "Hard cases make bad law."
Plagiarism is a lot harder to prove than you think. And, if you sue somebody for that and lose, you're probably going to end up on the wrong side of another lawsuit, and end up paying out big bucks in damages.
It's quite simple, actually. If a company is actively licensing their patent portfolio and allowing them to be used by other companies, they're using the patents. If, OTOH, they're just sitting on their patents and waiting for a chance to sue somebody for infringement (i.e., acting like a patent troll) they're not making use of the patents, and they can be withdrawn.
In fact, with a slight modification, this would make patent trolling impossible. All you have to do is change the law so that if a company sues for infringement, but is making no effort to use the patent either directly or by licensing, the patent is taken away from them and given to the defendant to develop. I'm not sure, of course, how it would work in reality, but it sounds good in theory.
Either that, or replace one obsolete reference with a slightly less obsolete reference by replacing the Borg icon with a flying chair.
I live near the Pacific Ocean. There's nothing like sea water inside a drive for making sure they'll never recover the data, especially if the drive's been dropped over the side of a fishing boat. Oops!
I was thinking the same thing. Actually, he wouldn't even need a yacht because all of New York City is near some sort of waterfront. All he had to do was drive to some part of it well away from both his home and his office and toss it off the end of a random pier. Or, if that's not good enough, take a ride on the Staten Island Ferry and drop it over the side.
Well, yes, but then you're clearly on the right-hand side of the bell curve. Roughly half of your students are going to be on the left-hand side and will find things like physics and math hard to understand if not incomprehensible. Unless, of course, you live at Lake Woebegone.
Then don't install Ubuntu. Install some other distro such as Fedora, Mint, CentOS, SuSe or whatever other distro floats your boat. Ubuntu != Linux, you know. And, since most, if not all of them can run from a LiveCD, you can find out which one best supports your hardware before you install it.
I don't know where you got that idea, but this section of the Wikipedia article on the battle should demonstrate how wrong you are. The Red Army fought to defend the city right from the beginning, although all they had left was a toe-hold by the time the counter-offensive started. I realize that this is Slashdot, but you should still at least try to get your facts right, especially when they're not in dispute.
So do I, as it happens. However, the average small business doesn't use Linux and isn't about to switch so I decided to point out a solution that would fit into what they're willing to do rather than waste time beating my head against that particular wall.
Yes, it should. I can still remember when it was. But those times are long gone, and you have to check each and every email for viruses, trojans and malware (Oh my!) before opening it if you don't want something like this to happen. If that company had enough money in the bank that scammers could steal $150,000 from their account, they had enough money to afford good virus and malware protection. Granted, it might not protect them from a zero day exploit, but that's not what happened here. They were stung by something that not only could have been prevented, it should have been. If that company had been practicing safe hex, this never would have happened.
You're posting on Slashdot and expect us to believe that you have either a wife or a personality? Don't be ridiculous!
That's not how I read what he said. My understanding is that comparing modern measurements from orbit with those made on the ground in the 1930s is wrong and that those comparisons are what's wrong, not the way the data was collected. Is he right? Damned if I know; I'm not only not a meteorologist, I don't even play one on Slashdot.
So, just because the email was stolen, you think that we shouldn't pay any attention to it? Do you apply the same standards to the Pentagon Papers, or to almost everything going up on Wikileaks?
I'm sure they do. However, I have my doubts about whether or not they apply it to exactly the same set of stations every year.
Yes. After all, we all know that the AGW crowd would never, under any circumstances manipulate the peer review process to prevent contrarian articles from being accepted.
He's said any number of times on his website that before we spend trillions of dollars on remedies that might not work it might be a good idea to spend a few million on learning more about what's actually happening. He's also said that in any case, running an open-ended experiment on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere probably isn't a good idea. You tell me: is that political or not?
I've known him personally for about 30 years now. He's always seemed to be as objective about things (other than politics) as he can manage. Of course, you're entitled to your own opinion of him.
My friend with the Masters also has a Doctorate in Psychology and another Doctorate in Poly Sci. He doesn't think I'm either a liar or paranoid. He's also asked these "climate scientists" for a layman's explanation of how they come up with these things and all they say is, "You wouldn't understand." Frankly, I think the reason that they won't explain isn't because he wouldn't understand, but because he would. YMMV, and probably does.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that I suspect the methodology of this study. I'm also not, by any means, convinced that a warmer climate wouldn't be a Good Thing in and of itself and I'm a tad skeptical about claims of sea level rising that much. (Note: I'm not saying they won't, just that I'm dubious.) Of course, I'm not only not a climate scientist, I don't play one on TV, Slashdot or anywhere else for that matter, so feel free to ignore my opinion if you want to.
Mods, before you mod me down simply because you don't like what I have to say, consider this: I have a friend with, among other things, a Masters in Statistical Inference. I ran this idea past him, recently, and he agreed. I'm not just throwing mud, or trying to confuse the issue, I'm pointing out a legitimate flaw in their methodology.
Neither am I. I live in California and I remember the last time Governor Moonbeam was in office. This is exactly the type of flashy symbolic gesture he's always specialized in to make people think he was doing something. And, please note, before the election the Democrats considered his nickname/reputation an advantage in his campaign, not a disadvantage. This makes more sense once you understand that they also consider Nancy Pelosi to be a middle-of-the-road Liberal.
And here in CA, to change your affiliation, you have to re-register. As I wrote above, registration closes 60 days before any election, preventing last-minute changes. Personally, I like ours better, not because I'm used to it but because I view it as less open to abuse. YMMV, of course.