Ah, whodathunkit?:P Anyway, I have an itchy feeling some cracker might be able to put out a valid serial generator before MS could fix this problem. Personally I believe in equal opportunity piracy. But, whatever floats your boat...
Also, I'd say that since guerrilla marketing by definition is outside of the normal channels for marketing, Cartoon Network should not be surprised when the book of law is tossed at them.
Yes, because in Soviet America, anything outside normal trains of thought is illegal. Questions of terrorism aside, the GP's point does hold water. Not sure why everyone seems to find it amusing/funny when Aqua Teen does it, yet everyone jumped down Microsoft's neck when they did it.
I don't think Cato likes her in general. They tend to bash her on her big government/big spending issues (which is one of the criteria for their score, among other things). There are other senators that vote more against globalization that have higher scores than her (which seems to suggest that her domestic policies are pulling her down).
Recently, her voting record has swung more towards a protectionist approach. But many of her views have changed as the election season has approached.
One of the top 5 issues that slashdotters are probably concerned about are globalization/free trade/offshoring. Unfortunately, her views on globalization are not too slashdot friendly http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Hillary_C linton_Free_Trade.htm. This is of course assuming that pro-free trade promotes offshoring/offsourcing while protectionism would not. Her views on globalization have been flip-flopping recently, so it will be interesting to see what side she takes when election time comes.
My personal problem with globalization are an escalating trade deficit combined with opening up free-trade to countries with questionable human rights issues-- something Hillary has supported in the past. A good video to check out would be Mardi Gras: Made in China (Caution: There are two trailer options, one is work safe, one is not, choose wisely).
The formal term for that fallacy is: Argumentum ad populum. Basically it assumes that because everyone believes it's true, then it must be true, which is a logical fallacy
Amusingly though, when I was looking it up, I came across argumentum ad verecundiam. Which is an argument of truth based on an authoritative qualified figure believing in it.
Scrolling down, I found this line interesting, which details the proper acceptance of an argument to authority:
A technique is needed to adjudicate disagreements among equally qualified authorities. If scientific testing of the claim is not possible, then the majority of expert opinions is sometimes used to develop a consensus. From the first fallacy we have, that just because everything thinks it's right, doesn't mean it is. The second argues that if the majority of "qualified" people think it's right, then the consensus decides (and therefore it's correct). The question then arises to whether wikipedia is a representation of "qualified people" or just a majority larger community.
Of course, both you and the GP could be arguing that they just happened to be a minority in a group of "qualified people"-- which history has shown to happen quite often.
If you're going to make corrections to someone else's post (which is perfectly fine), try refraining from making direct insults. "Commission" isn't the most appropriate term to use, Quota is more appropriate, but my description of the system is still correct.
And if you don't believe me or "my friend", you can take it from someone else who actually does the work( http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/29/12 30256 -- forum post 1/2 way down)
You are completely wrong. I am a patent examiner. Patent examiners are under continual pressure to approve patents. We all have quotas, set by our payscale and by the area in which we work, and failure to meet the quotas results in being fired. Also, failing to respond to an amendment in time can result in being fired, even if you have been 30% over quota up till now and then three amendments land on your desk in one week that are all due because they were delayed somewhere else along the way. There is no lack of upward mobility - patent examiners can move up all the way to GS-13, I believe, without any competition. Also from the wired article ( http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,62930,00 .html?tw=newsletter_topstories_html ).
"The overriding problem is that patent examiners today, and throughout history, were never able, and never expected, to do a perfect job in examining patents," said Wegner. "The disposal system is one of the biggest evils of the patent-administration system. If the goal is to dispose of as many applications as possible, then that forces you to accept cases. You wouldn't deny patents because you can't force someone to drop their (application) unless their patent is actually invalid."
In other words, examiners are biased toward accepting as many applications as possible in order to meet their quota, according to Wegner.
(emph added).
I know what you mean, I use that "Free Wi-Fi" every time I'm in the airport with no problems. Now I have freewifi.exe process running all the time, even when I'm not in the airport! Haha, take that, suckers!
I asked the same question to a friend a while ago, his response was rather discouraging.
As he explained to me, patent clerks are paid on a commission basis on how many patents they grant, not on how many they review. That, in and of itself, is rather discouraging, but it is compounded by the way that patents are granted or denied. In order for a patent to be granted only one of the claims has to be novel and innovative. Once this has been established, the patent clerk and the applier go through a review process on the remainder of the claims to see which are novel and which aren't. However, as noted above, since the patent clerk is paid on a commission basis on how many patents they grant, spending additional time reviewing a patent that is granted, but is only on a matter of which claims to allow, isn't worth his time. He's granted the patent, he's got his commission, now he just wants it off his desk.
The result of this system is that when one applies for a patent they make one of their claims so blatantly novel that there is no possibility that it could be rejected. For example, I could write a patent for a light bulb that projects light in a angle of 90 to 170 degrees along a horizontal pattern that is perpendicular to the lightning apparatus. Now, there probably is no other light in the world that does this, so this claim is novel. The patent gets initially granted, and the review processes begins on my other claims that could be various natures such as: "A switching mechanism that controls the distribution of lighting patterns", which, should sound an awful lot like a "light switch". This is an extreme example, but you should get the point of how these get through the system.
A key Republican supporter of the Real ID Act said Thursday that the law was just as necessary now as when it was enacted as part of an $82 billion military spending and tsunami relief bill. (Its backers say it follows the recommendations that the 9/11 Commission made in 2004.) Ok, can someone explain to me how bills like these are grouped together (someone with the political knowhow not just knee-jerk "because america sucks" responses)? Seriously, besides saving time and being lazy, I fail to see why military spending and tsunami relief would be put into one bill. But bills like this happen all the time-- and usually it's much worse. I don't understand why there are no restrictions/oversight in place to monitor the grouping of bills.
Not that I blame you (as if you did read the article, it is rather vague), but if you look up the paper they are trying to address the causal relationships and not a simple correlation.
From: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/resear ch/papers/twerp_785.pdf (Emphasis added)
After controlling for other factors -- most significantly the possibility of reverse causation from longevity to winning a Nobel Prize -- the paper's best estimate is that winners live approximately two years longer than do nominees. Tests amongst the winners reveal no relationship between the real value of the Prize and longevity. Status, rather than money, appears to be responsible for our effect.
The sample size is of the Nobel prize nominees that did not win and those that did win-- not against the general population. The question they are asking is: Is there a significant difference in lifespan between the 135 individuals who received a Nobel prize and the 389 nominees (assuming winners were also the nominees) that did not. I don't see anything wrong with that population size for the questions that they are asking.
The parent really is dead on. The same thing happened in academics with journal submissions. Most journals (in my field of research) have a requirement of a "Conflict of Interest" declaration, where they expect authors to list any possible motives that might skew their conclusions (e.g. advocating a specific drug as being effective against cancer even though you received funding from the company that owns the drug). No one likes to bite the hand that feeds them, and people should know if what they are reading could possibly be due to "Conflict of Interest"'s.
Dealth is something we all have to face some day. Whether it be from Cancer, Heart attack, or a car accident. We joke about it because it's our way to relate to something that we know will happen to us.
Me, I'm not worried about death itself, but the way I go. Every 10 years, the average life expectancy increases by 2 1/2 years-- yet very little has been done to increase the quality of life in our later ages. I'd rather die young while my quality of life is good than older stuck in a nursing home having some one take care of me. We can make as many miracule drugs we want that prolong the life of an individual, but if we don't do something to make that life worth living for, then we have defeated the purpose. That's why I view stories like these as bittersweet.
This is what they ended up doing for X-Men 3 on Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen for their 20+ year prior shot. It's actually pretty impressive what they were able to accomplish digitally, check it out: http://www.fxguide.com/article357.html . A little bit different if you had to do it for an entire movie, but the technology is getting there.
Not the first time the company has hindered someone using paypal for a charitable cause. http://www.paypalsucks.com/forums/showthread.php?f id=3&tid=9630&old_block=0. Also is the wired article http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,68788-0.htm l.
I particular find this line a bit unsettling:
Kyanka said he asked PayPal to donate the money directly from the account to the Red Cross.
However, PayPal declined, saying it has an exclusive charity relationship with United Way of America. Umm... I can understand having exclusive relationships with, say, Pepsi or Coca Cola. However, it seems refusing to donate to one charity because you have an exclusive relationship with another charity almost implies that there is some financial benefit for you to donate money to one charity over another. Not to point fingers, but it's a bit of a gray area there...
Parent has a point. I remember a small business owner telling me once that he was actually threatened with a lawsuit when a prospective employer called about a past employee and he told them the truth: that he wasn't a good employee, etc. After that, he went to the lengths of actually having his secretary screen the calls for character references for him. Employees that were good would get a return call, employees that were bad, well, somehow that memo got lost;). Once bitten, twice shy I guess you could say.
This generous act is intended (in classical MIT style) to make knowledge free, open, and available For a university that is "classical for making knowledge free, open and available", they seem to be putting up a lot of barriers by falling into the #2 spot for number of academic patents filled per year http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/06-2 4.htm
You hit the nail on the coffin on why people that should buy this car won't. Every negative situation leaves the driver in position to be easily identified by a police officer, and henceforth, arrested. While it differs in every state, getting arrested for a DUI in Connecticut can be as simple as having the intention of driving-- something that even an active deterrent system as this would not save you from.
Drunk drivers always try and justify their reasoning with some higher purpose for taking the risk. When it comes to drinking and driving,it's not the risk of injury to the driver that you should care about, it's the risks to the innocent other drivers that is of primary concern. Putting an impaired individual in a rushed situation can make things extremely dangerous. As far as I am concerned, if you took the risk of being around an impaired individual, than that is a greater risk than the majority of individuals on the road took. I'm not a lawyer, but I would hope that if an injured/sick person asked his impaired friend to give him a ride to hospital, then he should share in the responsibility of any vehicular manslaughter charges that occur.
All other considerations aside, runtime speed really should be a justification as a bonus to Java. Java isn't that much slower if you actually take the time to compile it to native code first. Using something like a JIT compiler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in-time_compilat ion can greatly increase the speed of your code and put it close in line with C++. I would certainly consider D if both 1 and 2 were better than Java.
...breaking down threats and dangers in to colors like magenta, cyan, mauve, ash, and indigo, rather than actually telling us what the threat is, is a great way to communicate to the populace the danger they should think they are in, and thus keep control over the small minded populace. Agreed, they should definitely adopt this more informative scheme http://www.geekandproud.net/terror/.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because in Soviet America, anything outside normal trains of thought is illegal. Questions of terrorism aside, the GP's point does hold water. Not sure why everyone seems to find it amusing/funny when Aqua Teen does it, yet everyone jumped down Microsoft's neck when they did it.
Somehow the idea of Bush telling North Korea to Bring 'em on is rather unsettling.
I don't think Cato likes her in general. They tend to bash her on her big government/big spending issues (which is one of the criteria for their score, among other things). There are other senators that vote more against globalization that have higher scores than her (which seems to suggest that her domestic policies are pulling her down). Recently, her voting record has swung more towards a protectionist approach. But many of her views have changed as the election season has approached.
One of the top 5 issues that slashdotters are probably concerned about are globalization/free trade/offshoring. Unfortunately, her views on globalization are not too slashdot friendly http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Hillary_C linton_Free_Trade.htm. This is of course assuming that pro-free trade promotes offshoring/offsourcing while protectionism would not. Her views on globalization have been flip-flopping recently, so it will be interesting to see what side she takes when election time comes.
My personal problem with globalization are an escalating trade deficit combined with opening up free-trade to countries with questionable human rights issues-- something Hillary has supported in the past. A good video to check out would be Mardi Gras: Made in China (Caution: There are two trailer options, one is work safe, one is not, choose wisely).
Amusingly though, when I was looking it up, I came across argumentum ad verecundiam. Which is an argument of truth based on an authoritative qualified figure believing in it.
Scrolling down, I found this line interesting, which details the proper acceptance of an argument to authority: A technique is needed to adjudicate disagreements among equally qualified authorities. If scientific testing of the claim is not possible, then the majority of expert opinions is sometimes used to develop a consensus. From the first fallacy we have, that just because everything thinks it's right, doesn't mean it is. The second argues that if the majority of "qualified" people think it's right, then the consensus decides (and therefore it's correct). The question then arises to whether wikipedia is a representation of "qualified people" or just a majority larger community.
Of course, both you and the GP could be arguing that they just happened to be a minority in a group of "qualified people"-- which history has shown to happen quite often.
And if you don't believe me or "my friend", you can take it from someone else who actually does the work( http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/29/1
In other words, examiners are biased toward accepting as many applications as possible in order to meet their quota, according to Wegner. (emph added).
I know what you mean, I use that "Free Wi-Fi" every time I'm in the airport with no problems. Now I have freewifi.exe process running all the time, even when I'm not in the airport! Haha, take that, suckers!
I asked the same question to a friend a while ago, his response was rather discouraging.
As he explained to me, patent clerks are paid on a commission basis on how many patents they grant, not on how many they review. That, in and of itself, is rather discouraging, but it is compounded by the way that patents are granted or denied. In order for a patent to be granted only one of the claims has to be novel and innovative. Once this has been established, the patent clerk and the applier go through a review process on the remainder of the claims to see which are novel and which aren't. However, as noted above, since the patent clerk is paid on a commission basis on how many patents they grant, spending additional time reviewing a patent that is granted, but is only on a matter of which claims to allow, isn't worth his time. He's granted the patent, he's got his commission, now he just wants it off his desk.
The result of this system is that when one applies for a patent they make one of their claims so blatantly novel that there is no possibility that it could be rejected. For example, I could write a patent for a light bulb that projects light in a angle of 90 to 170 degrees along a horizontal pattern that is perpendicular to the lightning apparatus. Now, there probably is no other light in the world that does this, so this claim is novel. The patent gets initially granted, and the review processes begins on my other claims that could be various natures such as: "A switching mechanism that controls the distribution of lighting patterns", which, should sound an awful lot like a "light switch". This is an extreme example, but you should get the point of how these get through the system.
From: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/resea
The sample size is of the Nobel prize nominees that did not win and those that did win-- not against the general population. The question they are asking is: Is there a significant difference in lifespan between the 135 individuals who received a Nobel prize and the 389 nominees (assuming winners were also the nominees) that did not. I don't see anything wrong with that population size for the questions that they are asking.
The parent really is dead on. The same thing happened in academics with journal submissions. Most journals (in my field of research) have a requirement of a "Conflict of Interest" declaration, where they expect authors to list any possible motives that might skew their conclusions (e.g. advocating a specific drug as being effective against cancer even though you received funding from the company that owns the drug). No one likes to bite the hand that feeds them, and people should know if what they are reading could possibly be due to "Conflict of Interest"'s.
Perhaps if the Engineering field becomes more abundant with Technosexuals, it might attract more females.
Who comes up with these terms anyways?
The DA sounds as over-zealous as the Duke Rape DA. Perhaps that DA might be trotting down the same path as Nifong: http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/61-01152007 -1053408.html
Dealth is something we all have to face some day. Whether it be from Cancer, Heart attack, or a car accident. We joke about it because it's our way to relate to something that we know will happen to us.
Me, I'm not worried about death itself, but the way I go. Every 10 years, the average life expectancy increases by 2 1/2 years-- yet very little has been done to increase the quality of life in our later ages. I'd rather die young while my quality of life is good than older stuck in a nursing home having some one take care of me. We can make as many miracule drugs we want that prolong the life of an individual, but if we don't do something to make that life worth living for, then we have defeated the purpose. That's why I view stories like these as bittersweet.
This is what they ended up doing for X-Men 3 on Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen for their 20+ year prior shot. It's actually pretty impressive what they were able to accomplish digitally, check it out: http://www.fxguide.com/article357.html . A little bit different if you had to do it for an entire movie, but the technology is getting there.
Parent has a point. I remember a small business owner telling me once that he was actually threatened with a lawsuit when a prospective employer called about a past employee and he told them the truth: that he wasn't a good employee, etc. After that, he went to the lengths of actually having his secretary screen the calls for character references for him. Employees that were good would get a return call, employees that were bad, well, somehow that memo got lost ;). Once bitten, twice shy I guess you could say.
You hit the nail on the coffin on why people that should buy this car won't. Every negative situation leaves the driver in position to be easily identified by a police officer, and henceforth, arrested. While it differs in every state, getting arrested for a DUI in Connecticut can be as simple as having the intention of driving-- something that even an active deterrent system as this would not save you from.
I think a couple of false positives would be acceptable in helping curb a 99% false negative rate. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm
Drunk drivers always try and justify their reasoning with some higher purpose for taking the risk. When it comes to drinking and driving ,it's not the risk of injury to the driver that you should care about, it's the risks to the innocent other drivers that is of primary concern. Putting an impaired individual in a rushed situation can make things extremely dangerous. As far as I am concerned, if you took the risk of being around an impaired individual, than that is a greater risk than the majority of individuals on the road took. I'm not a lawyer, but I would hope that if an injured/sick person asked his impaired friend to give him a ride to hospital, then he should share in the responsibility of any vehicular manslaughter charges that occur.
All other considerations aside, runtime speed really should be a justification as a bonus to Java. Java isn't that much slower if you actually take the time to compile it to native code first. Using something like a JIT compiler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in-time_compilat ion can greatly increase the speed of your code and put it close in line with C++. I would certainly consider D if both 1 and 2 were better than Java.
...breaking down threats and dangers in to colors like magenta, cyan, mauve, ash, and indigo, rather than actually telling us what the threat is, is a great way to communicate to the populace the danger they should think they are in, and thus keep control over the small minded populace. Agreed, they should definitely adopt this more informative scheme http://www.geekandproud.net/terror/.