It's not fixing if each actor, basing his actions on his own motivations, performs actions that happen to be beneficial to other actors. I should think that the same rules should certainly still apply.
Ignoring the fact that the algorithm here is broken, why would it matter if it's an algorithm or a person who decides how their product should be priced? In both cases, inputs of other prices of similar goods are used to set the price for yours.
Except that the reason that people (outside of theoreticians) care about the test is because it, as a measure of intelligence, predicts the aptitude for future success. So fine, the test is a failure at measuring a proxy for potential success, and instead directly measures potential success. If anything, this likely makes the test more useful.
This is where marketing comes in, right? Never thought I'd say that with a semi-straight face.
Not to mention which, nothing directly measures anything in the social sciences, because it's completely impossible in almost all cases to measure something without confounding variables. That doesn't mean that IQ and intelligence don't still correlate well. People who aren't scientists don't tend to understand that models aren't 'right' or 'wrong', but have areas of usefulness and applicability. In this case, I'd be willing to wager that if an intelligent person had a conversation for an hour each with two people separated by 15 IQ points, that one could tell the difference. Assuming similar languages, cultures, etc. It's not perfect, but I think it gets in the ballpark.
Further, the article agrees that so-called native intelligence still plays a large role in IQ scores - it doesn't 'fail' to measure intelligence, so your summary of the article is overstated. Additionally, if there's a lesson to be learned, it's that proper incentivization is needed to improve the results of the test, if indeed intelligence is what one wishes to measure and not future success.
For instance, standardized test scores for college-bound students shouldn't suffer as much, since the students know the stakes and have more reason to try. Of course, since we have GPA available - which is a measure much more strongly weighted in motivation than intelligence - we should be able to, with enough data, learn how much each measure contributes to either variable, and derive both motivation and intelligence.
In this case, if you want to measure a more precise IQ, get a pilot program to offer the kids some small amount of money. Interestingly, near where I live schools have started a program to pay kids for good grades. Very controversial, and seemingly successful.
So all in all, there's nothing surprising here. To measure a human subject with a participatory test, you have to make them care. I'm reminded of tests designed to compare the intelligence of cats and dogs. It's hard, because the dog will try to please its owner, and the cat won't give a shit. It doesn't invalidate intelligence testing, or even a specific test. It just means you need to offer a bit more cheese.
The real root of the problem is that it's really hard to ethically gather information on how deadly a flu strain is. The swine flu actually had a relatively low fatality rate(from 'kipedia):The virus is currently less lethal than previous pandemic strains and kills about 0.01â"0.03% of those infected; the 1918 influenza was about one hundred times more lethal...
Of course, a whole lot of things are different about 1918, but that one is definitely the high water mark for flu outbreaks. Swine flu certainly wasn't expected to be that bad, even given the most pessimistic early worst-case predictions.
So when the flu first hit a lot of people warned that it could be incredibly lethal based on the very small amount of data they had at the time, and thus people panicked. However the panic didn't really seem to die down as more data came in.....
Those stats are hard. As I mentioned in my first post, the group normally responsible for a lot of flu deaths actually had some degree of immunity (ie, old people), so it's hard to compare death tolls on an apples to apples basis. After you back out the geezer effect to focus on American younger folks, the lethality for healthy people looked a little worse (if I recall). I will say, I do recall the panic dying down for sure after a couple months. After Thanksgiving, let alone Christmas, people had nearly forgotten about it because it simply wasn't killing throngs of people, due to A) a flu strain that wasn't as bad as claimed, and/or B) effective vaccination and control of infected population. I recall this time acutely, as I had a newborn at the time who was struggling to gain weight. We were in the 'take all precautions' group, but even we started to get more lax by New Year.
Which of course raises an ethical question, at what point should you warn people about a pandemic? You wait for enough data to roll in and it may be too late, you work off too little data, and you get unnecessary panic
That's the canonical problem of detection theory, whatever the field. It's easy(ish) to quantify the number of additional deaths due to late announcement. It's much harder to estimate how many people are killed due to the population getting desensitized due to too frequent warnings.
Remember the swine flu panic? Remember how badly the MSM blew the details out of proportion? Remember how fast the panic died once it was clearly explained that "epidemic" doesn't mean to the CDC what is does to the general populace... and that it was just a new strain of flu, and thus nothing to worry about if you weren't worried about normal flus? People pretty quickly realized it amounted to "if you have a weak immune system or are otherwise abnormally vulnerable, get a flu shot. If not, ignore it
This is a nit for me, because a lot of the above isn't true at all. First, the swine flu was significantly more deadly for the non-AARP generations, due to lack of immunity for people under about 60. It was hitting teenagers and others who weren't immune-compromised far harder than normal. Second, the CDC got hit for 'blowing the details out of proportion' because it enacted a vaccine program that prevented a wide-scale loss of life. In other words, they did a great job. Talk about a no-win situation - either they screwed up and failed to save lives, or they do save lives and blow it out of proportion.
In this case, I do support the notion of getting as much accurate info out as possible. The best way to fight the scare sites is to tell the full truth. If the government gets caught minimizing or hiding anything, they won't be believed again and the ZOMG sites will become the authorities.
It must be noted, they're the ones who changed. It's not like the US invented imperial units, nor did it own the empire that gave them the name.
We in the US generally resist doing things because someone says we have to. We're ornery that way.
Not to mention, the vast majority of people anywhere aren't doing unit conversions, so people have a perceptual concept of units. People know about how much a pound or kilogram of something is. Doesn't have anything to do with the actual system used. As for scientists, we're already using metric at work anyway.
The only ones to be afraid of are those goofball engineers. Whoever came up with kilowatt-hours as a unit of measure should get kicked in the head.
Re:This is not the logic you are looking for
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
Right, at some point, it becomes perverse. I mean, a brick has an LD50 if you drop enough on somebody. Heck, if you want to bring this meme full circle...
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/w0600.htm
The best part is some of the boilerplate in that MSDS. Make sure you use yer goggles and labcoat when handling the dihydrogen monixide, son.
Speaking of textile jobs, the company I work for started out over 100 years ago as a textile mill. Today they make head-mounted "augmented reality" displays. Those who are able to change and adapt will survive over the long term; those who do not will find that they've become obsolete.
Wouldn't be the first textile company that grew a little. You're in good company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkshire_Hathaway
IMO the rise of Wall Street as the dominant force in our economy is a big part of the problem. Putting our "best and brightest" to work figuring out new and creative ways to skim profits off of people moving money around is not a good recipe for remaining an economic superpower in a global economy
I'm of two minds on that. On one hand, it's true that these people aren't creating value. However, their efforts do have the effect of at least creating an insanely efficient market that reacts to stimuli in milliseconds. On the other hand, the error cascade for those systems is so huge that glitches cause crashes. Leverage is too damn high too.
In the end, I think the fact that these graduates go to Wall Street is a symptom more than a problem: namely, industry doesn't have enough of a role for thinkers right now. I went to grad school at a place where the Wall Street companies come to steal talent, and they were probably 30% of the companies represented at career fairs (this was before the crash, though). I didn't work for them because that work isn't for me. But the problem was that there just weren't enough other attractive options to drown those guys out. If you're a mathie/physical scientist and you don't want to become a prof, work for a startup or a national lab, then you have fewer options than you might think, and Wall Street, management consulting (ie, Bain or McKinsey) and defense contractors dominate the remaining options. Sucks, really.
So are you saying that you don't understand a need to keep low skill jobs in the US? Sounds like you need a tour of a local high school to understand that not all students are destined for upper management these days. Maybe if you said the days of high paying low skill jobs are not sustainable anymore, that would make sense. But to say this country doesn't need a lower level working class seems to indicate you have little grasp of what our economy needs.
Even high-tech companies need janitors. OPs point is still sound though he left himself open for confusion. The goal is to fight to stay cutting edge, since every technical job will create a few non-technical jobs. It's not about the class of labor, it's about a constant treadmill of technology that allows one to stay ahead of the game as a country.
For instance, consider textile jobs as a class of job that was once high-tech - during the time of the original Luddites, I believe. Over a couple of hundred years, that industry went from high-tech to relegated to the third world. Mindless factory work has been following the same trend. What we want to do is develop the Next Big Thing and keep the people who invented it here, train more people to do the work, and develop that Thing into a growth industry that provides jobs to people of all skill levels. After all, it still takes people to push the paper, build the buildings, clean the floors, assemble the new technical widgets, etc.
The way to do that is to maintain the things that have kept the US (in my case) prominent in that game: invest lots of cash in higher education, allow students from all over the world to come here, and then let them stay. At the same time, provide an environment in which good ideas can easily find capital. These are the ingredients that create places like Silicon Valley.
Zuckerberg has got to be one of the biggest con-artists of the 21st century, why doesn't he just admit it and give these people 10 billion and move on? What's 10 billion when you already have 50 billion? Still more money than he could spend in his lifetime.
Because it's not about the money to him. To quote a wise man, it's about "winning".
Heck, even in the movie - if it's to be believed - his main motivation was fame, and he seemed almost pathologically addicted to screwing people. Screwing this guy and lying (badly) to cover it would be in keeping with the guy portrayed in the movie.
Interestingly, narcissists - which would apparently describe the Zuckerberg portrayed in the movie - seem to be almost universally bad liars. I'm not a psychologist, just something I've observed over the years. Seems they overestimate their abilities to dupe people, not get caught, their intelligence in general, etc.
Hey, fun! So I suppose Microsoft has Borderline Personality Disorder. Oracle has a thing with spousal abuse (Poor Sun!). Canonical has Asperger's. And Yahoo! was the retarded kid they finally institutionalized in Redmond.
You forgot about actually expanding FISA (which he criticized) and greater use of direct-kill with UAVs (we don't need no steeeenkin' trials). He wants to expand surveillance programs to give the government ever more ability to monitor communications, financial transactions, and other things that one might prefer kept private. TSA has become an even bigger clusterfuck ("hey! free porn on this here monitor thingie!). Essentially, all that stuff he said in the election? Fuck that shit
But on the positive, he's returning to his roots and getting back to what he does best: campaigning.
deep-seated European conviction that there is no art or culture in the US that's worth protecting anyway so Americans should just keep out of these discussions.
The problem, I think, is all the crap that's not Uranium anymore. Uranium in the ground hasn't been enriched and then allowed to chain react for a while. As a result, it likely won't have all the daughter products around, certainly not in the quantities you'll find them in the reactor. That reactor is hot, both thermally and radioactively, at a level that I don't think one would see at a working mine.
I appreciate the creative thinking, but to treat this thing in that manner would require letting the shorter-lived daughters decay so that it more resembles what you'd see naturally occurring in the earth (relatively, at least). And that time scale is a luxury I don't think they have.
Also, mining it would require completely breaching the core, which is most certainly what they don't want right now (see above).
In the end - years down the line - what you describe would be potentially a good idea, assuming they don't go with the concrete casket route as in Chernobyl.
Nowhere do they lift his words in the article. Not even one sentence, not even a half a sentence. So, no copyright infringement (at even the most generous definition of the word) and no plagerism
Direct lifting of actual text isn't required for 'plagerism'. Even half-addled middle school students have the 'copy the article and change all the words' trick down cold. It's still plagiarism.
The news author just did some research and wrote an article.
I'm pretty certain you don't know what 'research' is. Research entails collecting original sources, citing them, and drawing your own conclusions. Taking someone else's work and re-writing it without adding your own thought, and without citing the original is definitely not research. There's another word for taking someone else's ideas and claiming them as your own. Starts with a 'P'.
Verifiable facts do not enjoy copyright protection
Copyright violation and plagiarism aren't equivalent, and copyright isn't the issue here. The definition for plagiarism is looser and focuses on the original thought concept over the 'verifiable facts'.
Considering your response, I think some things are clear. You have no idea what plagiarism is. Certainly if you had ever been involved in original research, your sophomoric take on what it entails would have been corrected by your advisor. Doing what you're defending in an acadamic research environment would certainly result in an ethics violation and potentially dismissal. You also don't have a firm grasp on the boundaries between copyright and plagiarism, nor how they relate to each other, and when it's important to invoke one or the other.
I normally wouldn't respond to a post like this, but apparently a few mods have similar confusion and have promoted it to a level it doesn't deserve.
You can remove it yourself using the normal software uninstallation process
What is this, a comedy tour? Try using the 'normal software uninstallation process' on most of that bloatware and let me know how it goes. I assure you, your chances of having the uninstall process completely remove all that crap is less than zero. Frequently, the uninstall process breaks or hangs. Failing that, you will be left with registry junk if the process does work. In many cases, the bloatware seems to refuse to honor the uninstall process. So no, you're not getting rid of all that crap.
From your use of pronouns, I'm assuming you're employed by the assholes who bring us this crap. On behalf of the rest of us, I'd like to offer you a heartfelt 'fuck you'.
Or he may have been weary of trying to do the least evil thing he could do given a difficult choice, and still getting hammered for it. Google had many critics who often failed to understand that sometimes it's impossible to avoid doing something you don't like when all the choices suck. The China incident is a perfect example.
No, I'm being serious. This is an abusive business practice. In financial circles, similar actions to intentionally mislead clients, especially elderly ones, especially by omission of whether a particular service is needed or not, is a very big deal and results in loss of license to the sales agent and potentially punitive action by the SEC to the employing firm. The scales of money are different, but the sleazy flavor is the same.
The major difference is that your financial advisor typically has a fiduciary responsibility to act in your best interests. It is thus illegal for that person, whom you have hired, to act in any way other than to do what's best for you. Vendors of widgets and purveyors of services that don't constitute personal advice generally have no such responsibility.
That's not to say that outright fraud is ever legal. Any vendor is required to avoid lying about their goods or products. However, unless you've hired them to do so, they're not required to determine whether or not you need a specific level of service.
It's not AOL's job to put themselves out of business by telling customers that they're no longer needed. Some of their practices definitely seem shady (like making it all but impossible to cancel an account). And if reps are actually lying by claiming that their service is mandatory to get email when a broadband connection is present, that would probably be illegal too. But trying to convince customers that their service is desirable (even if the rationale seems nuts to a techie) isn't illegal*.
*I'm not a lawyer, I just impersonate one at parties to bag attractive golddiggers. This post does not constitute legal advice in any jurisdiction outside (and possibly inside) the Pricipality of Sealand.
They're heavy in big media (which most certainly includes sports leagues) for obvious reasons. They also appear to have representation in products that are easily knocked off (ie, the label is all the shitty product is worth). Sports apparel is definitely a category where the label is what you're paying for. But there are many others listed that fall in that bin that aren't sports related - Tiffany, Chanel, etc.
Could be he possesses skills, but is deficient in the 'giving a shit' category. In other words, could be he took the quickest route that got boobies flowing through the intertubes.
I could also see the owner hacking it together and totally blaming it on somebody else.
Slashdot Mirror
If you willingly spend $100/line of code and ASK when it will be done rather than TELLING when it will be done, it'll be near bulletproof.
So how is morale on the Duke Nukem dev team, anyway?
It's not fixing if each actor, basing his actions on his own motivations, performs actions that happen to be beneficial to other actors. I should think that the same rules should certainly still apply.
Ignoring the fact that the algorithm here is broken, why would it matter if it's an algorithm or a person who decides how their product should be priced? In both cases, inputs of other prices of similar goods are used to set the price for yours.
Except that the reason that people (outside of theoreticians) care about the test is because it, as a measure of intelligence, predicts the aptitude for future success. So fine, the test is a failure at measuring a proxy for potential success, and instead directly measures potential success. If anything, this likely makes the test more useful.
This is where marketing comes in, right? Never thought I'd say that with a semi-straight face.
Not to mention which, nothing directly measures anything in the social sciences, because it's completely impossible in almost all cases to measure something without confounding variables. That doesn't mean that IQ and intelligence don't still correlate well. People who aren't scientists don't tend to understand that models aren't 'right' or 'wrong', but have areas of usefulness and applicability. In this case, I'd be willing to wager that if an intelligent person had a conversation for an hour each with two people separated by 15 IQ points, that one could tell the difference. Assuming similar languages, cultures, etc. It's not perfect, but I think it gets in the ballpark.
Further, the article agrees that so-called native intelligence still plays a large role in IQ scores - it doesn't 'fail' to measure intelligence, so your summary of the article is overstated. Additionally, if there's a lesson to be learned, it's that proper incentivization is needed to improve the results of the test, if indeed intelligence is what one wishes to measure and not future success.
For instance, standardized test scores for college-bound students shouldn't suffer as much, since the students know the stakes and have more reason to try. Of course, since we have GPA available - which is a measure much more strongly weighted in motivation than intelligence - we should be able to, with enough data, learn how much each measure contributes to either variable, and derive both motivation and intelligence.
In this case, if you want to measure a more precise IQ, get a pilot program to offer the kids some small amount of money. Interestingly, near where I live schools have started a program to pay kids for good grades. Very controversial, and seemingly successful.
So all in all, there's nothing surprising here. To measure a human subject with a participatory test, you have to make them care. I'm reminded of tests designed to compare the intelligence of cats and dogs. It's hard, because the dog will try to please its owner, and the cat won't give a shit. It doesn't invalidate intelligence testing, or even a specific test. It just means you need to offer a bit more cheese.
The real root of the problem is that it's really hard to ethically gather information on how deadly a flu strain is. The swine flu actually had a relatively low fatality rate(from 'kipedia):The virus is currently less lethal than previous pandemic strains and kills about 0.01â"0.03% of those infected; the 1918 influenza was about one hundred times more lethal...
Of course, a whole lot of things are different about 1918, but that one is definitely the high water mark for flu outbreaks. Swine flu certainly wasn't expected to be that bad, even given the most pessimistic early worst-case predictions.
So when the flu first hit a lot of people warned that it could be incredibly lethal based on the very small amount of data they had at the time, and thus people panicked. However the panic didn't really seem to die down as more data came in.....
Those stats are hard. As I mentioned in my first post, the group normally responsible for a lot of flu deaths actually had some degree of immunity (ie, old people), so it's hard to compare death tolls on an apples to apples basis. After you back out the geezer effect to focus on American younger folks, the lethality for healthy people looked a little worse (if I recall). I will say, I do recall the panic dying down for sure after a couple months. After Thanksgiving, let alone Christmas, people had nearly forgotten about it because it simply wasn't killing throngs of people, due to A) a flu strain that wasn't as bad as claimed, and/or B) effective vaccination and control of infected population. I recall this time acutely, as I had a newborn at the time who was struggling to gain weight. We were in the 'take all precautions' group, but even we started to get more lax by New Year.
Which of course raises an ethical question, at what point should you warn people about a pandemic? You wait for enough data to roll in and it may be too late, you work off too little data, and you get unnecessary panic
That's the canonical problem of detection theory, whatever the field. It's easy(ish) to quantify the number of additional deaths due to late announcement. It's much harder to estimate how many people are killed due to the population getting desensitized due to too frequent warnings.
Remember the swine flu panic? Remember how badly the MSM blew the details out of proportion? Remember how fast the panic died once it was clearly explained that "epidemic" doesn't mean to the CDC what is does to the general populace... and that it was just a new strain of flu, and thus nothing to worry about if you weren't worried about normal flus? People pretty quickly realized it amounted to "if you have a weak immune system or are otherwise abnormally vulnerable, get a flu shot. If not, ignore it
This is a nit for me, because a lot of the above isn't true at all. First, the swine flu was significantly more deadly for the non-AARP generations, due to lack of immunity for people under about 60. It was hitting teenagers and others who weren't immune-compromised far harder than normal. Second, the CDC got hit for 'blowing the details out of proportion' because it enacted a vaccine program that prevented a wide-scale loss of life. In other words, they did a great job. Talk about a no-win situation - either they screwed up and failed to save lives, or they do save lives and blow it out of proportion.
In this case, I do support the notion of getting as much accurate info out as possible. The best way to fight the scare sites is to tell the full truth. If the government gets caught minimizing or hiding anything, they won't be believed again and the ZOMG sites will become the authorities.
It must be noted, they're the ones who changed. It's not like the US invented imperial units, nor did it own the empire that gave them the name.
We in the US generally resist doing things because someone says we have to. We're ornery that way.
Not to mention, the vast majority of people anywhere aren't doing unit conversions, so people have a perceptual concept of units. People know about how much a pound or kilogram of something is. Doesn't have anything to do with the actual system used. As for scientists, we're already using metric at work anyway.
The only ones to be afraid of are those goofball engineers. Whoever came up with kilowatt-hours as a unit of measure should get kicked in the head.
Right, at some point, it becomes perverse. I mean, a brick has an LD50 if you drop enough on somebody. Heck, if you want to bring this meme full circle...
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/w0600.htm
The best part is some of the boilerplate in that MSDS. Make sure you use yer goggles and labcoat when handling the dihydrogen monixide, son.
Speaking of textile jobs, the company I work for started out over 100 years ago as a textile mill. Today they make head-mounted "augmented reality" displays. Those who are able to change and adapt will survive over the long term; those who do not will find that they've become obsolete.
Wouldn't be the first textile company that grew a little. You're in good company. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkshire_Hathaway
IMO the rise of Wall Street as the dominant force in our economy is a big part of the problem. Putting our "best and brightest" to work figuring out new and creative ways to skim profits off of people moving money around is not a good recipe for remaining an economic superpower in a global economy
I'm of two minds on that. On one hand, it's true that these people aren't creating value. However, their efforts do have the effect of at least creating an insanely efficient market that reacts to stimuli in milliseconds. On the other hand, the error cascade for those systems is so huge that glitches cause crashes. Leverage is too damn high too.
In the end, I think the fact that these graduates go to Wall Street is a symptom more than a problem: namely, industry doesn't have enough of a role for thinkers right now. I went to grad school at a place where the Wall Street companies come to steal talent, and they were probably 30% of the companies represented at career fairs (this was before the crash, though). I didn't work for them because that work isn't for me. But the problem was that there just weren't enough other attractive options to drown those guys out. If you're a mathie/physical scientist and you don't want to become a prof, work for a startup or a national lab, then you have fewer options than you might think, and Wall Street, management consulting (ie, Bain or McKinsey) and defense contractors dominate the remaining options. Sucks, really.
So are you saying that you don't understand a need to keep low skill jobs in the US? Sounds like you need a tour of a local high school to understand that not all students are destined for upper management these days. Maybe if you said the days of high paying low skill jobs are not sustainable anymore, that would make sense. But to say this country doesn't need a lower level working class seems to indicate you have little grasp of what our economy needs.
Even high-tech companies need janitors. OPs point is still sound though he left himself open for confusion. The goal is to fight to stay cutting edge, since every technical job will create a few non-technical jobs. It's not about the class of labor, it's about a constant treadmill of technology that allows one to stay ahead of the game as a country.
For instance, consider textile jobs as a class of job that was once high-tech - during the time of the original Luddites, I believe. Over a couple of hundred years, that industry went from high-tech to relegated to the third world. Mindless factory work has been following the same trend. What we want to do is develop the Next Big Thing and keep the people who invented it here, train more people to do the work, and develop that Thing into a growth industry that provides jobs to people of all skill levels. After all, it still takes people to push the paper, build the buildings, clean the floors, assemble the new technical widgets, etc.
The way to do that is to maintain the things that have kept the US (in my case) prominent in that game: invest lots of cash in higher education, allow students from all over the world to come here, and then let them stay. At the same time, provide an environment in which good ideas can easily find capital. These are the ingredients that create places like Silicon Valley.
Zuckerberg has got to be one of the biggest con-artists of the 21st century, why doesn't he just admit it and give these people 10 billion and move on? What's 10 billion when you already have 50 billion? Still more money than he could spend in his lifetime.
Because it's not about the money to him. To quote a wise man, it's about "winning".
Heck, even in the movie - if it's to be believed - his main motivation was fame, and he seemed almost pathologically addicted to screwing people. Screwing this guy and lying (badly) to cover it would be in keeping with the guy portrayed in the movie.
Interestingly, narcissists - which would apparently describe the Zuckerberg portrayed in the movie - seem to be almost universally bad liars. I'm not a psychologist, just something I've observed over the years. Seems they overestimate their abilities to dupe people, not get caught, their intelligence in general, etc.
Apple has OCD. Google has ADD.
Hey, fun! So I suppose Microsoft has Borderline Personality Disorder. Oracle has a thing with spousal abuse (Poor Sun!). Canonical has Asperger's. And Yahoo! was the retarded kid they finally institutionalized in Redmond.
Where in DSM-IV do other tech companies fall?
You forgot about actually expanding FISA (which he criticized) and greater use of direct-kill with UAVs (we don't need no steeeenkin' trials). He wants to expand surveillance programs to give the government ever more ability to monitor communications, financial transactions, and other things that one might prefer kept private. TSA has become an even bigger clusterfuck ("hey! free porn on this here monitor thingie!). Essentially, all that stuff he said in the election? Fuck that shit
But on the positive, he's returning to his roots and getting back to what he does best: campaigning.
deep-seated European conviction that there is no art or culture in the US that's worth protecting anyway so Americans should just keep out of these discussions.
Funny, they keep *buying* it.
The problem, I think, is all the crap that's not Uranium anymore. Uranium in the ground hasn't been enriched and then allowed to chain react for a while. As a result, it likely won't have all the daughter products around, certainly not in the quantities you'll find them in the reactor. That reactor is hot, both thermally and radioactively, at a level that I don't think one would see at a working mine.
I appreciate the creative thinking, but to treat this thing in that manner would require letting the shorter-lived daughters decay so that it more resembles what you'd see naturally occurring in the earth (relatively, at least). And that time scale is a luxury I don't think they have.
Also, mining it would require completely breaching the core, which is most certainly what they don't want right now (see above).
In the end - years down the line - what you describe would be potentially a good idea, assuming they don't go with the concrete casket route as in Chernobyl.
Nowhere do they lift his words in the article. Not even one sentence, not even a half a sentence. So, no copyright infringement (at even the most generous definition of the word) and no plagerism
Direct lifting of actual text isn't required for 'plagerism'. Even half-addled middle school students have the 'copy the article and change all the words' trick down cold. It's still plagiarism.
The news author just did some research and wrote an article.
I'm pretty certain you don't know what 'research' is. Research entails collecting original sources, citing them, and drawing your own conclusions. Taking someone else's work and re-writing it without adding your own thought, and without citing the original is definitely not research. There's another word for taking someone else's ideas and claiming them as your own. Starts with a 'P'.
Verifiable facts do not enjoy copyright protection
Copyright violation and plagiarism aren't equivalent, and copyright isn't the issue here. The definition for plagiarism is looser and focuses on the original thought concept over the 'verifiable facts'.
Considering your response, I think some things are clear. You have no idea what plagiarism is. Certainly if you had ever been involved in original research, your sophomoric take on what it entails would have been corrected by your advisor. Doing what you're defending in an acadamic research environment would certainly result in an ethics violation and potentially dismissal. You also don't have a firm grasp on the boundaries between copyright and plagiarism, nor how they relate to each other, and when it's important to invoke one or the other.
I normally wouldn't respond to a post like this, but apparently a few mods have similar confusion and have promoted it to a level it doesn't deserve.
Don't blame me if you fail at English.
You can remove it yourself using the normal software uninstallation process
What is this, a comedy tour? Try using the 'normal software uninstallation process' on most of that bloatware and let me know how it goes. I assure you, your chances of having the uninstall process completely remove all that crap is less than zero. Frequently, the uninstall process breaks or hangs. Failing that, you will be left with registry junk if the process does work. In many cases, the bloatware seems to refuse to honor the uninstall process. So no, you're not getting rid of all that crap.
From your use of pronouns, I'm assuming you're employed by the assholes who bring us this crap. On behalf of the rest of us, I'd like to offer you a heartfelt 'fuck you'.
Or he may have been weary of trying to do the least evil thing he could do given a difficult choice, and still getting hammered for it. Google had many critics who often failed to understand that sometimes it's impossible to avoid doing something you don't like when all the choices suck. The China incident is a perfect example.
No, I'm being serious. This is an abusive business practice. In financial circles, similar actions to intentionally mislead clients, especially elderly ones, especially by omission of whether a particular service is needed or not, is a very big deal and results in loss of license to the sales agent and potentially punitive action by the SEC to the employing firm. The scales of money are different, but the sleazy flavor is the same.
The major difference is that your financial advisor typically has a fiduciary responsibility to act in your best interests. It is thus illegal for that person, whom you have hired, to act in any way other than to do what's best for you. Vendors of widgets and purveyors of services that don't constitute personal advice generally have no such responsibility.
That's not to say that outright fraud is ever legal. Any vendor is required to avoid lying about their goods or products. However, unless you've hired them to do so, they're not required to determine whether or not you need a specific level of service.
It's not AOL's job to put themselves out of business by telling customers that they're no longer needed. Some of their practices definitely seem shady (like making it all but impossible to cancel an account). And if reps are actually lying by claiming that their service is mandatory to get email when a broadband connection is present, that would probably be illegal too. But trying to convince customers that their service is desirable (even if the rationale seems nuts to a techie) isn't illegal*.
*I'm not a lawyer, I just impersonate one at parties to bag attractive golddiggers. This post does not constitute legal advice in any jurisdiction outside (and possibly inside) the Pricipality of Sealand.
They're heavy in big media (which most certainly includes sports leagues) for obvious reasons. They also appear to have representation in products that are easily knocked off (ie, the label is all the shitty product is worth). Sports apparel is definitely a category where the label is what you're paying for. But there are many others listed that fall in that bin that aren't sports related - Tiffany, Chanel, etc.
I've heard Monster is lobbying to ban coathangers and alligator clips.
The ones in California did. The national ones completely fucked it up, and it took the courts (ie, not our elected representatives) to fix it.
Could be he possesses skills, but is deficient in the 'giving a shit' category. In other words, could be he took the quickest route that got boobies flowing through the intertubes.
I could also see the owner hacking it together and totally blaming it on somebody else.
You ever seen Deliverance?
if YouTube goes WebM IE and Safari will have no choice but to support it as well.
It's a good thing that YouTube can't be perceived to have a monopoly on online video distribution or that might be a dangerous strategy.
That is the case, isn't it?