Exaaaaaaactly. Theories be they all (gravity, evolution, etc.).
I remember hearing once that "The difference between a new theory and the old theory is that the new theory is wrong in more subtle ways."
So, there's no such thing as a "dissenting" theory. Show me one that's wrong in more subtle ways. Meaning: 1) it explains what the "old" theory explains, just as well; 2) it explains something that the old theory doesn't; and 3) it still is wrong. Admit it. It's best to assume they all are. Then only the religious folks are righteous (but we knew that already).
Of course, it all depends on what one means by "one wiretap". A single order can cover multiple phones... There have been some spectacular cases of abuse when only "one" wiretap was involved.
In this case, one wiretap meant '..twenty-two more telephones and an entire Cellular Telephone Company the first month. Continuing for another 21 months, and adding more telephones with each extension, the wiretap on the Atel Cellular Telephone Company finally ended almost two years later having wiretapped some 250 telephones. That figure does not include the hundred or so telephones intercepted by "spin-off" wiretaps which named the same cellular telephone company as the target...'
The details of the case are pretty shocking, to include the willingness of the police and prosecutor's office to lie under oath and resist every attempt to scrutinize what they were doing. THIS type of activity is why people start to react with understandable concern. "The Horrors" indeed!
Let's say Longhorn has a honking big-ass penguin all over its new GUI.
Do you still say so what?
The trouble, of course, would be that I'm not sure who would have standing to sue. It's not like Linux is a company that owns the mark, and any Linux-associated company that happens to have trademarked a penguin certainly hasn't been going around defending various uses of tux images. It's not generic, but who is the stakeholder (in the legal sense)?
In any case, my point is that for open source institutions/groups/programmers/projects (*particularly* nonprofit ones) the trademark IS the most important asset that the project has. Precisely BECAUSE they don't control things using copyright rights, the trademark rights (which have to do with origin, quality, goodwill, etc.) are all that's left. We may not agree with a particular decision to enforce those rights, but the principle is very important.
FWIW IAAL and IMO this one should be an easy win for a trademark atty if everything is as it appears.
Particularly since nonprofits of the PG variety have little of value OTHER than their marks. PG"2" is stepping in sacred waters.
Any other attys out there want to give Michael Hart (of PG) a buzz? Sounds like a good IP pro-bono.
Chicken-scratch or not, the 12B is *PUBLIC* money, and I'm not interested in using it to provide this corporate welfare, absent some kind of direct *PUBLIC* benefit in return. I.e. things that the market won't provide. (Potential trickle-down benefits of corporate exploitation of technology aren't really what I have in mind.)
It may be starry-eyed and somewhat naive to think that simply spending this money on hunger (for example) would actually wipe out hunger... but it's certainly just as naive to think that giving this money to companies will actually better our society in any tangible way.
Putting aside romantic ideas about space, this is just an announcement of public subsidies for a certain category of industries. The policy discussion should start with that reality and proceed from there.
For argument's sake, assuming some sort of causative correlation here, SO WHAT?
Gee, you mean that suing boatloads of people for doing something, with the help of heavily slanted copyright laws essentially designed to scare people into compliance has... done exactly that?! How AMAZING.
No, wait... next you're going to tell me that after the 9-11 attacks fewer people flew on airplanes, or that after a breakout of mad cow disease fewer people ate beef.
Rational risk avoidance is simply rational risk avoidance. Just because we see some evidence that people may have avoided a perceived risk doesn't mean it was "right" in any way to intentionally create those risks.
Nevertheless, RIAA is trying to imply that the reduction in filesharing somehow morally vindicates its position.
Easy to test, of course: RIAA should publicly announce that now that people have "learned" their lesson, they will no longer sue anyone. Any guesses what would happen?
Impressive etymological lessons aside, maybe we shouldn't stop asking "Why?" just yet.
Why was there "warlordism and... meltdown of Afghan society" after the Afghan war?
When the US (or another super-power) goes in and covertly fuels a war for ideological purposes, it generally sets about destabilizing the country so that it's easier to leverage its grand plans into reality. Often it will intentionally work to create a situation in which society is polarized and the moderates are marginalized or wiped out.
A conquering imperial power like the Soviets would do this too. So both sides probably worked to undermine functioning democratic civilian institutions that would get in their way. Both sides upped the ante and made it worse by not backing off.
The US helped to destroy the functioning civil society, then walked away from the "victory" mess ( like the Soviets, who HAD to walk away). Then, somehow (imagine!) chaos ensued, and after years of that, the Taliban came into power. Somehow I don't think the US is off-the-hook. We may not be able to trace the pedigree, but there's a causal connection, at least to a differentdegree, between the US involvement in Afghanistan and the rise of the Taliban.
True, it may be that the Taliban would have come along even if the US had never been involved in the Afghan war. Pointless to argue too much about that, but let's at least do a reality check...
Massive covert operations, arming & training of religious extremists for guerrilla warfare, funding & construction of training camps, where they were taught all about CIA-developed, time-proven methods for asymmetric warfare MAY have been a FACTOR in what happened in the region, even years later, don't you think?
More to the point, it certainly dwarfs what Mr. Ex-Intel Employee has pleaded guilty to. And that, after all, is the whole point: underscoring the basic hypocrisy of the situation.
This dude is NOT claiming that the standard solutions to these paradoxes aren't right. He's saying that they are mathematical tools that provide the right answer by using infinitesmals, convergent series, etc. He then claims that despite the usefulness of these tools, the world does not work in this way.
This guy's setting forth an alternate way to resolve these paradoxes without depending on the "infinitesmal" idea. Of course, his way happens to chuck calculus and much of analysis, etc., out the window as well, at least as a tool for use in physics.
Still, he's just trying out a different conception of the problem of motion. He shouldn't be castigated for this, as long as he follows it through in a rigorous way (which he hasn't done in his paper).
What he needs to do, though, is find a physical problem that standard methods *don't* work with, and show that his conceptualization does better. This is what earned Einstein (relativity) and Feynman (path integrals) their true geek-laurels.
He does mention that one reflection of this quality of time would be the fact that you can't precisely determine *any* time-dependent quantity. Seems like something testable here somewhere, perhaps. I'm not up on the research, but does anyone know if there has been related work in the area of quantum time?
Slashdot Mirror
Exaaaaaaactly. Theories be they all (gravity, evolution, etc.).
I remember hearing once that "The difference between a new theory and the old theory is that the new theory is wrong in more subtle ways."
So, there's no such thing as a "dissenting" theory. Show me one that's wrong in more subtle ways. Meaning:
1) it explains what the "old" theory explains, just as well;
2) it explains something that the old theory doesn't; and
3) it still is wrong. Admit it. It's best to assume they all are. Then only the religious folks are righteous (but we knew that already).
Of course, it all depends on what one means by "one wiretap". A single order can cover multiple phones... There have been some spectacular cases of abuse when only "one" wiretap was involved.
http://pd.co.la.ca.us/CACJ.htm
In this case, one wiretap meant '..twenty-two more telephones and an entire Cellular Telephone Company the first month. Continuing for another 21 months, and adding more telephones with each extension, the wiretap on the Atel Cellular Telephone Company finally ended almost two years later having wiretapped some 250 telephones. That figure does not include the hundred or so telephones intercepted by "spin-off" wiretaps which named the same cellular telephone company as the target...'
The details of the case are pretty shocking, to include the willingness of the police and prosecutor's office to lie under oath and resist every attempt to scrutinize what they were doing. THIS type of activity is why people start to react with understandable concern. "The Horrors" indeed!
Ba-a-a-a-a-d idea.
And not one of them thought, "Hey, Chief, down the volume on that scream..."
The American Publishing Association declares ASCII files a threat to the publishing industry...
Yep. The Ark's in a warehouse. Everyone knows that. Duh.
Let's say Longhorn has a honking big-ass penguin all over its new GUI.
Do you still say so what?
The trouble, of course, would be that I'm not sure who would have standing to sue. It's not like Linux is a company that owns the mark, and any Linux-associated company that happens to have trademarked a penguin certainly hasn't been going around defending various uses of tux images. It's not generic, but who is the stakeholder (in the legal sense)?
In any case, my point is that for open source institutions/groups/programmers/projects (*particularly* nonprofit ones) the trademark IS the most important asset that the project has. Precisely BECAUSE they don't control things using copyright rights, the trademark rights (which have to do with origin, quality, goodwill, etc.) are all that's left. We may not agree with a particular decision to enforce those rights, but the principle is very important.
FWIW IAAL and IMO this one should be an easy win for a trademark atty if everything is as it appears. Particularly since nonprofits of the PG variety have little of value OTHER than their marks. PG"2" is stepping in sacred waters. Any other attys out there want to give Michael Hart (of PG) a buzz? Sounds like a good IP pro-bono.
>> Anusologist? I believe proctologist is the correct term - google is your friend.
From Google:
Your search - anusologist - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing "anusologist".
Suggestions:
- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.
Also, you can try Google Answers for expert help with your search.
A leak through Robert Novak that benefits the White House agenda?
This sounds just like the Valerie Plame deal. And that leak was supposedly from high-level White House officials.
Very curious where this leads. It could actually be a Watergate...
Chicken-scratch or not, the 12B is *PUBLIC* money, and I'm not interested in using it to provide this corporate welfare, absent some kind of direct *PUBLIC* benefit in return. I.e. things that the market won't provide. (Potential trickle-down benefits of corporate exploitation of technology aren't really what I have in mind.)
It may be starry-eyed and somewhat naive to think that simply spending this money on hunger (for example) would actually wipe out hunger... but it's certainly just as naive to think that giving this money to companies will actually better our society in any tangible way.
Putting aside romantic ideas about space, this is just an announcement of public subsidies for a certain category of industries. The policy discussion should start with that reality and proceed from there.
For argument's sake, assuming some sort of causative correlation here, SO WHAT?
Gee, you mean that suing boatloads of people for doing something, with the help of heavily slanted copyright laws essentially designed to scare people into compliance has... done exactly that?! How AMAZING.
No, wait... next you're going to tell me that after the 9-11 attacks fewer people flew on airplanes, or that after a breakout of mad cow disease fewer people ate beef.
Rational risk avoidance is simply rational risk avoidance. Just because we see some evidence that people may have avoided a perceived risk doesn't mean it was "right" in any way to intentionally create those risks.
Nevertheless, RIAA is trying to imply that the reduction in filesharing somehow morally vindicates its position.
Easy to test, of course: RIAA should publicly announce that now that people have "learned" their lesson, they will no longer sue anyone. Any guesses what would happen?
No, this couldn't be Salon - they are much more current. They had this covered back in January.
a tiana/index.html
http://archive.salon.com/sex/feature/2003/01/27/t
Impressive etymological lessons aside, maybe we shouldn't stop asking "Why?" just yet.
... meltdown of Afghan society" after the Afghan war?
Why was there "warlordism and
When the US (or another super-power) goes in and covertly fuels a war for ideological purposes, it generally sets about destabilizing the country so that it's easier to leverage its grand plans into reality. Often it will intentionally work to create a situation in which society is polarized and the moderates are marginalized or wiped out.
A conquering imperial power like the Soviets would do this too. So both sides probably worked to undermine functioning democratic civilian institutions that would get in their way. Both sides upped the ante and made it worse by not backing off.
The US helped to destroy the functioning civil society, then walked away from the "victory" mess ( like the Soviets, who HAD to walk away). Then, somehow (imagine!) chaos ensued, and after years of that, the Taliban came into power. Somehow I don't think the US is off-the-hook. We may not be able to trace the pedigree, but there's a causal connection, at least to a differentdegree, between the US involvement in Afghanistan and the rise of the Taliban.
True, it may be that the Taliban would have come along even if the US had never been involved in the Afghan war. Pointless to argue too much about that, but let's at least do a reality check...
Massive covert operations, arming & training of religious extremists for guerrilla warfare, funding & construction of training camps, where they were taught all about CIA-developed, time-proven methods for asymmetric warfare MAY have been a FACTOR in what happened in the region, even years later, don't you think?
More to the point, it certainly dwarfs what Mr. Ex-Intel Employee has pleaded guilty to. And that, after all, is the whole point: underscoring the basic hypocrisy of the situation.
This dude is NOT claiming that the standard solutions to these paradoxes aren't right. He's saying that they are mathematical tools that provide the right answer by using infinitesmals, convergent series, etc. He then claims that despite the usefulness of these tools, the world does not work in this way. This guy's setting forth an alternate way to resolve these paradoxes without depending on the "infinitesmal" idea. Of course, his way happens to chuck calculus and much of analysis, etc., out the window as well, at least as a tool for use in physics. Still, he's just trying out a different conception of the problem of motion. He shouldn't be castigated for this, as long as he follows it through in a rigorous way (which he hasn't done in his paper). What he needs to do, though, is find a physical problem that standard methods *don't* work with, and show that his conceptualization does better. This is what earned Einstein (relativity) and Feynman (path integrals) their true geek-laurels. He does mention that one reflection of this quality of time would be the fact that you can't precisely determine *any* time-dependent quantity. Seems like something testable here somewhere, perhaps. I'm not up on the research, but does anyone know if there has been related work in the area of quantum time?