It makes my chuckle that there is a "RECOMMENDED: Are you scientifically literate? Take the quiz" link imbedded into the article, as this 'evidence' from TIGHAR is exactly the opposite of good science. They have been pushing this nonsense for a while. They've decided she was on this island and continue to look only for confirming information to support their hypothesis, rather than attempting to falsify it.
They could start by admitting that there have been a lot of people who traveled to and briefly lived on that island throughout the years, particularly many, many pearl divers, and that finding various pieces of junk on the island is completely and entirely consistent with this, and not even slightly compelling evidence that Earhart left this junk.
Read the quote you cited again. He didn't say there was no law covering it. He said there was no *criminal* law covering it. Now go actually read the white paper. The question is whether it is "distribution" or "unauthorized performance". Either way it is copyright infringement (in his estimation, at least), which is illegal. But only distribution is criminally punishable. Unauthorized performance only carries civil punishment.
Sad to say, no amount of explaining that a 1 is a 1 is a 1 on a hard drive and the MP3 read will be identical on any brand
Hmm, I think I'm with the audiophile with this one. On a Western Digital hard drive all my MP3s sound different. They all sound like "click, click, click".
Yeeesh, some of you people just don't want your content producers to make money, do you?
I don't really care if they make money or not. I don't watch anything NBC has to offer anyway. My point was solely that they shouldn't claim to be acknowledging that the viewers should watch the way the want to watch, and then put restrictions on how those viewers can watch. It's hypocritical.
"With the creation of this new service, we are acknowledging that now, more than ever, viewers want to be in control of how, when and where they consume their favorite entertainment,"
...
Commercials will be embedded in the programs and viewers will not be able to skip through them.
Police, fire trucks, and ambulances are all legal to run red lights under the condition that they run their lights and/or siren to indicate their intent.
At least here in Massachusetts, this is true only if they are responding to an emergency and they are on duty. If they do it for any other reason, it's illegal. Link
Manufacturers don't keep [...] which addresses they've used.
We most certainly do.
Re:Not an acronym
on
Define - /etc?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
/sbin and/usr/sbin are for binaries used by the super-user (root, rather than normal users) - they aren't statically linked.
Yeah, that's how it seems to be used today. But back in the dark ages/sbin was for statically linked binaries. The idea being that these were critical tools that could be used even if only the root file system was mounted.
I'm not complaining that I think that Randi has cooked up an unfair system for winning his "contest"
That's exactly what you're doing.
it is clearly a promotional stunt disguised as a "contest"
Ok, I'll bite. What is Randi 'promoting'? I'll tell you what he's promoting, he's promoting reason and rational thought. I'll give you that he's a little too brash in his style compared to others with the same goal (e.g. Shermer) but you cannot suggest he has some other agenda to promote without stating what you think that agenda is and backing it up with evidence.
to claim that "mutually agreed upon" is the same as being equal or fair is ridiculous.
I put it to you again- if you think that is unfair, show me something more fair. I'm not being confrontational, it's a serious question. I, unlike you, think Randi is being complete on the level. But like you I think his challenge is easy to filibuster. Our disagreement is which side is doing the filibustering. It's the challengers who squirm and squeal when asked to have their claims nailed down to something testable.
Considering what Randi has to lose from being proven wrong
First off, Randi can't be "proven wrong". He's not claiming anything. Second, Randi has nothing to lose. Not the money- The $1M was donated to his foundation for this express purpose. It's not Randi's personal money. He can't use it for something else. Not his reputation- He'd go down in history as the guy who weeded out the cranks and helped find the first 'real' evidence paranormal activity.
from what I've read the criteria that you have to meet and tests that you have to pass to win are set by Randi, and that he is the sole judge of whether you have proven anything or passed any of the tests.
This is just simply false. The tests that you have to pass are mutually agreed upon by both sides, and you both agree beforehand what would indicate passing or not passing. You obviously can't have the situation you state above, where Randi gets to be the sole judge. But you also just as obviously can't have it the other way where the person being tested gets to decide. You could have a third party decide, but who chooses the third party? No, I think the way he has it set up where you both have to come to an agreement beforehand is the only fair way to do it. If you can think of a more fair way, I'd love to hear it.
I can do you one better. I got some crappy spam with no unsubscribe link from the USPS about their "new and improved" online services, which I have never used. When I sent a complaint to postmaster@usps.com along with a copy of their own message they sent to me, it got bounced back as "We believe this message contains spam and will not process it". Any of the dozen or so other email addresses I tried to complain to failed in various different ways.
Let me advise you that this is not as good a defense as you think. I did the same thing, and a company that I tried to quit from sent the "debt" (that I did not renew and tried to cancel) into collection
This is not a bad outcome (assuming you're in the right and don't owe the debt). As soon as it goes to the collection agency, you can send them a letter asking for any and all evidence the collection agency has to back up their claim they have a valid debt so that you can begin your lawsuit against them. Once you do that, they are legally obligated to furnish you with the information within 30 days, and they are not allowed to touch your credit report until after the lawsuit is finished. Unless it's some huge debt, they'd waste more money trying to prove it then it's worth to them, and so they'll fail to respond within 30 days and you're all done, credit report intact.
I've done this on several occasions after companies tried to bully my into paying a fraudulent debt. Works like a charm. They only annoying part is that it's the innocent collection agency who loses here, as they've already paid the original company for the debt. But I guess that's a buyer beware situation for them.
10. Yes: modern search engines. (Although possibly not as 'intelligent' as was hoped.)
I'd say they're about as intelligent as hoped; At least as expressed in #10. Google pretty much nails it.
"What is the population of Fiji?" Google's reply: Fiji -- Population: 905,949 (July 2006 Est.)
"How far is Saturn from the Sun?" Google's reply: Saturn -- Distance From the Sun: Mean: 1427 million KM (9.539 au.) Max: 1507 million KM (10.069 au.) Min: 1347 KM (9.008 au.)
Deep link all you want, this decision doesn't change anything. What it DOES change is that now I get to ask you not to, and you'll be fined if you don't comply. It's basically "don't be a jerk" codified into law. I fail to see the problem.
Ok, let me try the analogy game. It's like somebody is on the street corner handing out packets of information. Some jerk just down the street is telling people, "Just ask for page 7, the rest is all ads". The guy handing out the information doesn't like this and yells at the other guy to stop telling people this, but still gives just page 7 to anybody who asks!
Yelling at the guy is not the solution. Not giving people only page 7 is the solution.
Most establishments in this area will only accept state ID from this state and the one across the border 10 miles from here, as well as military ID or a passport.
In Massachusetts at least, the state law says out of state IDs are not proof of age, period. Only MA licenses, MA Liquor IDs, and Military IDs are. It's rather annoying for me personally, as I own a liquor store near the Rhode Island border and so I get a lot of RI customers. If any of them are even close to looking underage I have to deny them the sale, even if they've got ID.
've worked in the USA, Europe and the UK. I've never had a bank account with more than 2 decimal places. What's more, I work on business & accounting software, and the only times I've seen that use a resolution finer than what's available in the local currency is for highly specialised functions - and even then, it's only for internal, intermediate calculations.
You really need to get out more. Gasoline, cheap electronics parts like resistors, mutual fund values... lots of stuff is accounted for at greater than 2 decimal point accuracy.
you are picking argument with the wording not the thrust of the argument. Probably makes you feel good, but doesn't help.
This was exactly my point. You can make any negative into a positive by twisting the wording of the argument, and vice-versa. So it's a useless distinction. What you cannot prove is that something is universally true/not-true. What you CAN prove is that something is true/not-true at any given instance. Given enough instances of something being true/not-true you can then make a more and more likely case that it is PROBABLY true/not-true universally, but you cannot ever prove it.
The reason 'you cannot prove a negative' came about is because the usual time this sort of argument comes up is when someone is challenging someone else to prove something doesn't exist. This is a special case of the above discussion because non-existence (the negative) is always a universal, where as existence (the positive) is always an instantiation. So when discussing existence specifically, you cannot ever prove the negative.
Sure you can. I can easily prove that I'm not in Fiji right now. The oft touted axiom that "you can't prove a negative" is a bad short hand for "you can't prove the universal non-existence of something". The key word is really 'universal' not 'negative'.
Reminds me of being 'detained' as a teenager, back in the '60s, because the car we were in had a small American flag on the antenna that was upside down...
Well, you can't blame a cop for that. According to Federal law, flying the flag upside-down is a recognized sign of distress. So he was just doing his job. Of course, if he was a prick once he stopped you, that's another story.
US Code Title 4, Sec. 8. (a) states "The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property."
Some of us American's find American accents irritating. When I come back from a trip to the UK, hearing American accents again is like salt in my ears.
Slashdot Mirror
It makes my chuckle that there is a "RECOMMENDED: Are you scientifically literate? Take the quiz" link imbedded into the article, as this 'evidence' from TIGHAR is exactly the opposite of good science. They have been pushing this nonsense for a while. They've decided she was on this island and continue to look only for confirming information to support their hypothesis, rather than attempting to falsify it. They could start by admitting that there have been a lot of people who traveled to and briefly lived on that island throughout the years, particularly many, many pearl divers, and that finding various pieces of junk on the island is completely and entirely consistent with this, and not even slightly compelling evidence that Earhart left this junk.
Read the quote you cited again. He didn't say there was no law covering it. He said there was no *criminal* law covering it. Now go actually read the white paper. The question is whether it is "distribution" or "unauthorized performance". Either way it is copyright infringement (in his estimation, at least), which is illegal. But only distribution is criminally punishable. Unauthorized performance only carries civil punishment.
Sad to say, no amount of explaining that a 1 is a 1 is a 1 on a hard drive and the MP3 read will be identical on any brand
Hmm, I think I'm with the audiophile with this one. On a Western Digital hard drive all my MP3s sound different. They all sound like "click, click, click".
The U.S. has (and has had) plenty of great writers. ... Nabokov
Can you really call Nabokov an American writer? He only spent 20 of his 78 years in the US.
Actually he was refering to the fact that this model is not scheduled
If he'd not included the "how" I'd agree with you. But he says, "control of how, when and where".
Yeeesh, some of you people just don't want your content producers to make money, do you?
I don't really care if they make money or not. I don't watch anything NBC has to offer anyway. My point was solely that they shouldn't claim to be acknowledging that the viewers should watch the way the want to watch, and then put restrictions on how those viewers can watch. It's hypocritical.
...
Commercials will be embedded in the programs and viewers will not be able to skip through them.
You've GOT to be kidding me. Zapp Brannigsn is the most fucking annoying Futurama character.
You're obviously confused and aroused.
Police, fire trucks, and ambulances are all legal to run red lights under the condition that they run their lights and/or siren to indicate their intent.
At least here in Massachusetts, this is true only if they are responding to an emergency and they are on duty. If they do it for any other reason, it's illegal. Link
Manufacturers don't keep [...] which addresses they've used.
We most certainly do.
/sbin and /usr/sbin are for binaries used by the super-user (root, rather than normal users) - they aren't statically linked.
/sbin was for statically linked binaries. The idea being that these were critical tools that could be used even if only the root file system was mounted.
Yeah, that's how it seems to be used today. But back in the dark ages
I'm not complaining that I think that Randi has cooked up an unfair system for winning his "contest"
That's exactly what you're doing.
it is clearly a promotional stunt disguised as a "contest"
Ok, I'll bite. What is Randi 'promoting'? I'll tell you what he's promoting, he's promoting reason and rational thought. I'll give you that he's a little too brash in his style compared to others with the same goal (e.g. Shermer) but you cannot suggest he has some other agenda to promote without stating what you think that agenda is and backing it up with evidence.
to claim that "mutually agreed upon" is the same as being equal or fair is ridiculous.
I put it to you again- if you think that is unfair, show me something more fair. I'm not being confrontational, it's a serious question. I, unlike you, think Randi is being complete on the level. But like you I think his challenge is easy to filibuster. Our disagreement is which side is doing the filibustering. It's the challengers who squirm and squeal when asked to have their claims nailed down to something testable.
Considering what Randi has to lose from being proven wrong
First off, Randi can't be "proven wrong". He's not claiming anything. Second, Randi has nothing to lose. Not the money- The $1M was donated to his foundation for this express purpose. It's not Randi's personal money. He can't use it for something else. Not his reputation- He'd go down in history as the guy who weeded out the cranks and helped find the first 'real' evidence paranormal activity.
from what I've read the criteria that you have to meet and tests that you have to pass to win are set by Randi, and that he is the sole judge of whether you have proven anything or passed any of the tests.
This is just simply false. The tests that you have to pass are mutually agreed upon by both sides, and you both agree beforehand what would indicate passing or not passing. You obviously can't have the situation you state above, where Randi gets to be the sole judge. But you also just as obviously can't have it the other way where the person being tested gets to decide. You could have a third party decide, but who chooses the third party? No, I think the way he has it set up where you both have to come to an agreement beforehand is the only fair way to do it. If you can think of a more fair way, I'd love to hear it.
If you think that's bad try open magazine
I can do you one better. I got some crappy spam with no unsubscribe link from the USPS about their "new and improved" online services, which I have never used. When I sent a complaint to postmaster@usps.com along with a copy of their own message they sent to me, it got bounced back as "We believe this message contains spam and will not process it". Any of the dozen or so other email addresses I tried to complain to failed in various different ways.
Let me advise you that this is not as good a defense as you think. I did the same thing, and a company that I tried to quit from sent the "debt" (that I did not renew and tried to cancel) into collection
This is not a bad outcome (assuming you're in the right and don't owe the debt). As soon as it goes to the collection agency, you can send them a letter asking for any and all evidence the collection agency has to back up their claim they have a valid debt so that you can begin your lawsuit against them. Once you do that, they are legally obligated to furnish you with the information within 30 days, and they are not allowed to touch your credit report until after the lawsuit is finished. Unless it's some huge debt, they'd waste more money trying to prove it then it's worth to them, and so they'll fail to respond within 30 days and you're all done, credit report intact.
I've done this on several occasions after companies tried to bully my into paying a fraudulent debt. Works like a charm. They only annoying part is that it's the innocent collection agency who loses here, as they've already paid the original company for the debt. But I guess that's a buyer beware situation for them.
10. Yes: modern search engines. (Although possibly not as 'intelligent' as was hoped.)
I'd say they're about as intelligent as hoped; At least as expressed in #10. Google pretty much nails it.
"What is the population of Fiji?"
Google's reply: Fiji -- Population: 905,949 (July 2006 Est.)
"How far is Saturn from the Sun?"
Google's reply: Saturn -- Distance From the Sun: Mean: 1427 million KM (9.539 au.) Max: 1507 million KM (10.069 au.) Min: 1347 KM (9.008 au.)
I think we can all agree that the technical solution is the best one. However, if you ask the guy to stop telling everyone, he should.
So you think there should be laws against being a jerk? I think we'll have to agree to disagree there.
Deep link all you want, this decision doesn't change anything. What it DOES change is that now I get to ask you not to, and you'll be fined if you don't comply. It's basically "don't be a jerk" codified into law. I fail to see the problem.
Ok, let me try the analogy game. It's like somebody is on the street corner handing out packets of information. Some jerk just down the street is telling people, "Just ask for page 7, the rest is all ads". The guy handing out the information doesn't like this and yells at the other guy to stop telling people this, but still gives just page 7 to anybody who asks!
Yelling at the guy is not the solution. Not giving people only page 7 is the solution.
Most establishments in this area will only accept state ID from this state and the one across the border 10 miles from here, as well as military ID or a passport.
In Massachusetts at least, the state law says out of state IDs are not proof of age, period. Only MA licenses, MA Liquor IDs, and Military IDs are. It's rather annoying for me personally, as I own a liquor store near the Rhode Island border and so I get a lot of RI customers. If any of them are even close to looking underage I have to deny them the sale, even if they've got ID.
've worked in the USA, Europe and the UK. I've never had a bank account with more than 2 decimal places. What's more, I work on business & accounting software, and the only times I've seen that use a resolution finer than what's available in the local currency is for highly specialised functions - and even then, it's only for internal, intermediate calculations.
You really need to get out more. Gasoline, cheap electronics parts like resistors, mutual fund values... lots of stuff is accounted for at greater than 2 decimal point accuracy.
you are picking argument with the wording not the thrust of the argument. Probably makes you feel good, but doesn't help.
This was exactly my point. You can make any negative into a positive by twisting the wording of the argument, and vice-versa. So it's a useless distinction. What you cannot prove is that something is universally true/not-true. What you CAN prove is that something is true/not-true at any given instance. Given enough instances of something being true/not-true you can then make a more and more likely case that it is PROBABLY true/not-true universally, but you cannot ever prove it.
The reason 'you cannot prove a negative' came about is because the usual time this sort of argument comes up is when someone is challenging someone else to prove something doesn't exist. This is a special case of the above discussion because non-existence (the negative) is always a universal, where as existence (the positive) is always an instantiation. So when discussing existence specifically, you cannot ever prove the negative.
You Can't Prove A Fucking Negative!
Sure you can. I can easily prove that I'm not in Fiji right now. The oft touted axiom that "you can't prove a negative" is a bad short hand for "you can't prove the universal non-existence of something". The key word is really 'universal' not 'negative'.
Reminds me of being 'detained' as a teenager, back in the '60s, because the car we were in had a small American flag on the antenna that was upside down...
Well, you can't blame a cop for that. According to Federal law, flying the flag upside-down is a recognized sign of distress. So he was just doing his job. Of course, if he was a prick once he stopped you, that's another story.
US Code Title 4, Sec. 8. (a) states "The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property."
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States [...]
[...] So help me God."
Heh, an oath you break just by reciting it. Cool.
Alot of Brits find American accents irritating.
Some of us American's find American accents irritating. When I come back from a trip to the UK, hearing American accents again is like salt in my ears.