I can't believe an editor let that report pass. "Near impossible", ">4", "1/3 of teenagers have... 50% having... 40% with", and "Some teenagers make purchases on the internet but this is only used by a small percentage", to name a few. There's punctuation errors, capitalization mistakes, poor abbreviation, and subject-verb agreement problems. One sentence, leading a paragraph, begins with a numeral. This report is an unreadable mess; the poor phraseology and numerous mistakes draw attention from whatever point the little moron is trying to make.
BMI is a bogus and misleading measure. Try percent body fat instead.
Bogus, no; misleading, sometimes. Someone with a BMI over 40 is always fat, however. Even a 7-foot tall, heavily-muscled man cannot achieve that without huge rolls of fat or a stomach full of ball bearings.
The passport card isn't any good for international flights, a full passport is required (so flights do not explain why these people were carrying their cards).
Huh; I didn't realize that. However, San Francisco to San Diego is not an international flight. There's a lot of folks who fly into SD and hop a trolley into TJ. That, and cruises as you suggest, could explain a few folks wandering around with these cards.
Whatever the reason, I don't find it at all unusual that a small percentage of people in SF are carrying these cards.
Huh; yeah, seems to be in dispute. I see that the articles are specific, however, that this would affect only spin-off products, not the fossil itself. The NHMO is in no danger of being unable to advertise Ida, but they may lose the right to sell products based off it. Which is, I agree, an obvious attempt to misuse trademark laws and so forth.
If Coke puts a commerical out saying 'Pepsi is horrible, drink Coke'
Pepsi doesn't/can't sue Coke for using its trademark... It's that simple, how do these guys think they have a case
This is a bit more as though Pepsi redesigned its packaging to look a bit like Coke's, then started a series of commercials showing that packaging and claiming it's Coke, to trick Coca-Cola fans into buying it. But even that analogy isn't quite on the spot: It's more as though Pepsi registered Coka-Cola.com, and Google suggested and sold ads linking to it when folks search for "Coke" or "Coca-Cola", with a line like "Enjoy delicious Coke here!"
If Google restricted trademarks in their ads to clear comparatives, like the FTC mandates in all advertising media, there would be no problem. From here, it looks like they are indeed encouraging flagrant trademark violations, in clear violation of FTC rules. Similar suits in other media have been successful, and some of the penalties are statutory. I'm no lawyer, but I'd guess these guys and the seven other similar pending suits have viable cases.
The problem with this is that the museum that's is in possession of the fossil can't market it self using the name and picture of the thing...
That's just not right...
That's true; it's just not right. Assuming that by "right" you mean "correct": The Natural History Museum of Oslo can, and does, advertise Ida with the name and picture.
San Francisco is a little farther from Mexico than a simple day trip drive. Over 8 hours one way, and that is just to get to San Diego. Add another hour in line at the border crossing and you easily have a 9 to 10 hour trip one way, sometime encroaching 12 hours depending on a day.
Funny, I've made it from San Francisco to San Diego within a couple of hours many, many times. Is it magic? Am I lying? Or... maybe... I traveled on a plane. Commuter flights are plentiful and cheap, and regular trains run between the cities as well. Also, SF is a common stop on flights going to and from various Vancouvers, including the one in Big Canadia.
I'm sorry to say, no one is reading this thread besides you [alexo] and I, and you're late to the argument with bad information.
Not entirely true; I occasionally poke around old threads to look at followups. In this case, I got a little busy, then abandoned what was an unproductive argument over semantics that largely consisted of simple contradiction. Since we were sitting on the verge of flames, I decided it was best to let it go.
I'd originally intended to highlight that Iraq and Afghanistan are not identical when one evaluates the ethics of our actions there. Obviously, I failed to make that point.
Here we go again! If the materials were published in the US just how can an English court have jurisdiction?
That would be due to the British Nationality Act of 1948, which asserts British criminal jurisdiction over British citizens for crimes committed overseas. The US has a similar law, as do many nations.
Did you study logic? You can't use authority in a deductive argument. However, there's nothing wrong with it outside of formal logic. Law, politics, linguistics, and many other disciplines depend on authority and could not operate without it. If someone argues by authority, you may legitimately argue that the authority is wrong or false. You may not attack the appeal itself, unless you can show that induction is invalid methodology for the argument. To attack the appeal otherwise is a fallacy in both formal and informal logic: The logical fallacy fallacy (really!).
So, yeah, in pointing out a formal logical fallacy, you've committed an informal fallacy. Your fallacy invalidates your argument, but 4D's does not, since this isn't a question of deductive reasoning.
Engineers have just as much education as scientists, but the vast majority of engineers I know are heavily tilted to the Republican side.
This is interesting, and as best as I can tell, sort-of correct. Remove the words "vast" and "heavily", and I think you're on base. The best survey I could get was from 1960, unfortunately - more modern attempts I found had poor methodology or were not cited. However, to varying degrees, there does seem to be a trend: The most liberal group by far is social scientists, followed by hard scientists who tend to be more moderate (but still liberal-leaning), followed by engineers, who tend (slightly) toward conservatism.
It's worth noting that in all disciplines, from science to business to plumbing, folks who earn higher degrees tend to be more moderate. Statistics on political affiliation by education level are badly poisoned - even contemporaneous studies show wildly different results. Anyone can cherry-pick studies showing that higher education favors their party. However, everyone appears to agree that people with little education are the most polarized politically, and that education gradually mitigates this.
They want people with used car salesman skills to shovel their rip-off extended warranties to rubes. Being able to spout techobabble bingo may help, but only as a smokescreen. An actual techie might tell customers the truth. That would be entirely unacceptable.
Obligatory: You know the difference between a used car salesman and a computer salesman? A car salesman knows when he's lying.
Carrying a cellphone isn't displaying any expectation of privacy. By having it, you're explicitly granting permission for people to find you.
The same is true of having a street address, but those of us who live in homes have an expectation of privacy nonetheless. When I hike, I tell folks about where I'll be, but nobody has yet taken that as permission to follow me around with a camera. I have no idea why you think ease of location is the same as permission.
Eh? But they do. Compare the murder rate in, say, Somalia to that of the US. Nations in anarchy or without effective police enforcement consistently have tremendously higher crime rates than countries with stronger police. Deterrents will never put a stop to crime, and I don't know whether there's good evidence that stronger deterrents are more effective, but there's absolutely no question that deterrents have a powerful effect.
It's worth noting that the deterrent in question - civil action for file sharing - is applied pretty inconsistently. Only a tiny percentage of uploaders are targeted and some points of the law are still in question. Someone has probably researched how such things correlate to the effectiveness of the deterrent, but I haven't looked into it. Purely talking out of my ass, I suspect it weakens the social effect considerably.
LOL, please give us a scripture reference for that ludicrous statement. I think you're talking about socialism.
Here's a pretty good place to start. Particularly Jesus' speech in Mark. But please don't think I'm endorsing this stuff; I don't agree that the opinions of invisible fairies are relevant.
Both companies make voluntary deals with everyone involved, to mutual advantage.
I disagree that this deal is totally voluntary. Nobody joined the class expecting this result, and the automatically-opted-in class members certainly didn't agree to it. It's a novel way to handle a class action, in which the infringing party profits, possibly at the expense of some who joined the class, and to the detriment of potential competitors, who were not allowed and will not be allowed to even attempt to compete (since this sort of deal cannot be arrived at through a normal contract - only by breaking the law and hoping for a similar settlement after Google's expires).
The way it currently is, I can get a better experience downloading a less-than-DVD quality movie then going to the movie theater.
Why would you download it first, if you're going to the theater regardless? Wouldn't it make more sense to download it while you're at the theater?
Okay, okay, sorry, but that sentence is a textbook example of why you should care about the difference between "then" and "than". I beg your forgiveness of my little compulsions.
Throw in the stories about how the TSA cannot profile and then how do we expect to have "security". You get it by profiling.
Hm? The TSA is allowed to profile, as long as they don't base it on race. This isn't insecure in and of itself; Timmy McVeigh, for example, scored pretty high on the caucasometer. The TSA has a lot of problems - a lot of problems - but their injunction against racial profiling isn't one of 'em.
Looks like even the folks who wrote TFA didn't read it. At the bottom, the link for "more information on weight" goes directly to a page about how to lose it. Okay, not directly: You have to choose your geographic region (I assume this is because of different levels of gravity at various altitudes and latitudes).
Slashdot Mirror
I can't believe an editor let that report pass. "Near impossible", ">4", "1/3 of teenagers have... 50% having ... 40% with", and "Some teenagers make purchases on the internet but this is only used by a small percentage", to name a few. There's punctuation errors, capitalization mistakes, poor abbreviation, and subject-verb agreement problems. One sentence, leading a paragraph, begins with a numeral. This report is an unreadable mess; the poor phraseology and numerous mistakes draw attention from whatever point the little moron is trying to make.
I think you mean a 5-foot tall, heavily-muscled man.
Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. Just had it turned around backward in m'head.
The FTC has no authority over trademarks.
Yes, they do, if that trademark is used in advertising. See my link above.
BMI is a bogus and misleading measure. Try percent body fat instead.
Bogus, no; misleading, sometimes. Someone with a BMI over 40 is always fat, however. Even a 7-foot tall, heavily-muscled man cannot achieve that without huge rolls of fat or a stomach full of ball bearings.
The passport card isn't any good for international flights, a full passport is required (so flights do not explain why these people were carrying their cards).
Huh; I didn't realize that. However, San Francisco to San Diego is not an international flight. There's a lot of folks who fly into SD and hop a trolley into TJ. That, and cruises as you suggest, could explain a few folks wandering around with these cards.
Whatever the reason, I don't find it at all unusual that a small percentage of people in SF are carrying these cards.
I believe it's an ongoing legal battle.
Huh; yeah, seems to be in dispute. I see that the articles are specific, however, that this would affect only spin-off products, not the fossil itself. The NHMO is in no danger of being unable to advertise Ida, but they may lose the right to sell products based off it. Which is, I agree, an obvious attempt to misuse trademark laws and so forth.
If Coke puts a commerical out saying 'Pepsi is horrible, drink Coke' Pepsi doesn't/can't sue Coke for using its trademark... It's that simple, how do these guys think they have a case
This is a bit more as though Pepsi redesigned its packaging to look a bit like Coke's, then started a series of commercials showing that packaging and claiming it's Coke, to trick Coca-Cola fans into buying it. But even that analogy isn't quite on the spot: It's more as though Pepsi registered Coka-Cola.com, and Google suggested and sold ads linking to it when folks search for "Coke" or "Coca-Cola", with a line like "Enjoy delicious Coke here!"
If Google restricted trademarks in their ads to clear comparatives, like the FTC mandates in all advertising media, there would be no problem. From here, it looks like they are indeed encouraging flagrant trademark violations, in clear violation of FTC rules. Similar suits in other media have been successful, and some of the penalties are statutory. I'm no lawyer, but I'd guess these guys and the seven other similar pending suits have viable cases.
The problem with this is that the museum that's is in possession of the fossil can't market it self using the name and picture of the thing... That's just not right...
That's true; it's just not right. Assuming that by "right" you mean "correct": The Natural History Museum of Oslo can, and does, advertise Ida with the name and picture.
San Francisco is a little farther from Mexico than a simple day trip drive. Over 8 hours one way, and that is just to get to San Diego. Add another hour in line at the border crossing and you easily have a 9 to 10 hour trip one way, sometime encroaching 12 hours depending on a day.
Funny, I've made it from San Francisco to San Diego within a couple of hours many, many times. Is it magic? Am I lying? Or... maybe... I traveled on a plane. Commuter flights are plentiful and cheap, and regular trains run between the cities as well. Also, SF is a common stop on flights going to and from various Vancouvers, including the one in Big Canadia.
I'm sorry to say, no one is reading this thread besides you [alexo] and I, and you're late to the argument with bad information.
Not entirely true; I occasionally poke around old threads to look at followups. In this case, I got a little busy, then abandoned what was an unproductive argument over semantics that largely consisted of simple contradiction. Since we were sitting on the verge of flames, I decided it was best to let it go.
I'd originally intended to highlight that Iraq and Afghanistan are not identical when one evaluates the ethics of our actions there. Obviously, I failed to make that point.
Here we go again! If the materials were published in the US just how can an English court have jurisdiction?
That would be due to the British Nationality Act of 1948, which asserts British criminal jurisdiction over British citizens for crimes committed overseas. The US has a similar law, as do many nations.
Argument from authority is a logical fallacy.
Did you study logic? You can't use authority in a deductive argument. However, there's nothing wrong with it outside of formal logic. Law, politics, linguistics, and many other disciplines depend on authority and could not operate without it. If someone argues by authority, you may legitimately argue that the authority is wrong or false. You may not attack the appeal itself, unless you can show that induction is invalid methodology for the argument. To attack the appeal otherwise is a fallacy in both formal and informal logic: The logical fallacy fallacy (really!).
So, yeah, in pointing out a formal logical fallacy, you've committed an informal fallacy. Your fallacy invalidates your argument, but 4D's does not, since this isn't a question of deductive reasoning.
Engineers have just as much education as scientists, but the vast majority of engineers I know are heavily tilted to the Republican side.
This is interesting, and as best as I can tell, sort-of correct. Remove the words "vast" and "heavily", and I think you're on base. The best survey I could get was from 1960, unfortunately - more modern attempts I found had poor methodology or were not cited. However, to varying degrees, there does seem to be a trend: The most liberal group by far is social scientists, followed by hard scientists who tend to be more moderate (but still liberal-leaning), followed by engineers, who tend (slightly) toward conservatism.
It's worth noting that in all disciplines, from science to business to plumbing, folks who earn higher degrees tend to be more moderate. Statistics on political affiliation by education level are badly poisoned - even contemporaneous studies show wildly different results. Anyone can cherry-pick studies showing that higher education favors their party. However, everyone appears to agree that people with little education are the most polarized politically, and that education gradually mitigates this.
They want people with used car salesman skills to shovel their rip-off extended warranties to rubes. Being able to spout techobabble bingo may help, but only as a smokescreen. An actual techie might tell customers the truth. That would be entirely unacceptable.
Obligatory: You know the difference between a used car salesman and a computer salesman? A car salesman knows when he's lying.
Who wants to hear the same jokes over and over anyways?
Well, Kingdom of Loathing players.
Carrying a cellphone isn't displaying any expectation of privacy. By having it, you're explicitly granting permission for people to find you.
The same is true of having a street address, but those of us who live in homes have an expectation of privacy nonetheless. When I hike, I tell folks about where I'll be, but nobody has yet taken that as permission to follow me around with a camera. I have no idea why you think ease of location is the same as permission.
And when did deterrents ever stop murders
Eh? But they do. Compare the murder rate in, say, Somalia to that of the US. Nations in anarchy or without effective police enforcement consistently have tremendously higher crime rates than countries with stronger police. Deterrents will never put a stop to crime, and I don't know whether there's good evidence that stronger deterrents are more effective, but there's absolutely no question that deterrents have a powerful effect.
It's worth noting that the deterrent in question - civil action for file sharing - is applied pretty inconsistently. Only a tiny percentage of uploaders are targeted and some points of the law are still in question. Someone has probably researched how such things correlate to the effectiveness of the deterrent, but I haven't looked into it. Purely talking out of my ass, I suspect it weakens the social effect considerably.
LOL, please give us a scripture reference for that ludicrous statement. I think you're talking about socialism.
Here's a pretty good place to start. Particularly Jesus' speech in Mark. But please don't think I'm endorsing this stuff; I don't agree that the opinions of invisible fairies are relevant.
Both companies make voluntary deals with everyone involved, to mutual advantage.
I disagree that this deal is totally voluntary. Nobody joined the class expecting this result, and the automatically-opted-in class members certainly didn't agree to it. It's a novel way to handle a class action, in which the infringing party profits, possibly at the expense of some who joined the class, and to the detriment of potential competitors, who were not allowed and will not be allowed to even attempt to compete (since this sort of deal cannot be arrived at through a normal contract - only by breaking the law and hoping for a similar settlement after Google's expires).
Theres a big difference between MS and Google. What part of Google locks you in?
Er... hello? Book deal? Summary? Article? Hello? ... Bueller?
The way it currently is, I can get a better experience downloading a less-than-DVD quality movie then going to the movie theater.
Why would you download it first, if you're going to the theater regardless? Wouldn't it make more sense to download it while you're at the theater?
Okay, okay, sorry, but that sentence is a textbook example of why you should care about the difference between "then" and "than". I beg your forgiveness of my little compulsions.
Throw in the stories about how the TSA cannot profile and then how do we expect to have "security". You get it by profiling.
Hm? The TSA is allowed to profile, as long as they don't base it on race. This isn't insecure in and of itself; Timmy McVeigh, for example, scored pretty high on the caucasometer. The TSA has a lot of problems - a lot of problems - but their injunction against racial profiling isn't one of 'em.
Anyone still using them?
I still have a Yahoo mail account catching spam for me. Does that count?
in the digital age it's hard to justify how something which has unlimited supply can still have a non zero price.
Artists are immortal these days?
Looks like even the folks who wrote TFA didn't read it. At the bottom, the link for "more information on weight" goes directly to a page about how to lose it. Okay, not directly: You have to choose your geographic region (I assume this is because of different levels of gravity at various altitudes and latitudes).