I think a distinction should be made. A misconception is usually small, but a "world view" is a very entrenched thing that can be hard to force someone to reassess. Creationism deserves a different approach than a failure to grasp valence bond theory. He's not asking that we respect the creationism worldview, just that we acknowledge it as a sprawling mess of study, and take it on appropriately.
He said some really important things about the way we deal with creationism in the classroom, the media and blogosphere misinterpreted, abused and parroted incorrect versions of his comments, and he's got the guts to step down, not only saving the face of the organisation but shouldering blame more rightly levelled at the media, too. I'm sure I speak for all of us when I wish him luck.
I'm not saying it doesn't have health effects, and indeed BPA seems to cause any number of things in vivo (particularly interesting is the subtle role estrogen has on brain function, and the effects estrogen-like chemicals may have in turn). However the health effects in this study are so strongly associated with products likely to be contaminated with BPA, that it seemed worth observing. Contradicting your assumptions doesn't make it an attack on your position!;)
I wouldn't say that ironclad proof of danger is needed, but this study certainly isn't enough evidence on its won. On a case-by-case basis it seems simple enough to phase out a particular reagent, additive, contaminant etc. on the precautionary principle, but there are dozens of studies like these every year, and we'd be obliged to act on all of them. Nothing would get done. And the costs involved are huge. Phasing out soy products until safety could be proven, for example (soy is associated with things like breast cancer and feminisation) would completely destroy that field, and it would probably never recover.
It's time to play the what-is-the-causation game again. Most obvious to me is that junk food, prepared food (microwave meals etc.), and soft drinks are sold in plastic containers, and these foodstuffs are generally associated with heart disease and diabetes one way or another. It'll be interesting to see what the more rigorous studies find, although I'm sure this fine pilot study will be presented as Unarguable Proof That Plastic Makes You Die And We're Not Changing Our Minds On This by the world media before the day is out.
Two and a half millennia ago, the artifact appeared in a remote corner of space, beside a trillion-year old dying sun from a different universe. It was a perfect black body sphere and it did nothing. Then it disappeared. Now it is back.
Actually a better definition of "fittest" is "those with good survival traits". A hardy and fit cow can be killed by a freak drought, while a very feeble cow could survive because of a lucky growing season, but we wouldn't say that the latter was the "fittest" of the two. In this way the focus is on the important aspects of the animal, not "survivors survived" but "animals with better survival traits survived".
Actually, yes, he does seem to suspect that. That is why he's questioning it. He's not engaging in any sort of price control, he's asking for someone to check that there's no foul play. That's how oversight is supposed to work.
Y'know, unlimited-SMS contracts in the UK right now are about £20 ($40) which also come with about 400-600 minutes of calls. (SIM-only plans which aren't subsidising "free" phones, at any rate.) That works out rather reasonably as unlimited texting access (I think the fair use limit is in the tens of thousands of messages), plus 5p/minute (10 cents/minute) for the calls. Quite a few mobile phone companies are offering these sorts of plans now, in a sort of "race to the bottom". I wonder if we're going to get something closer to what it actually costs the network this way.
Rowling herself is a fan and a user of the original Lexicon website (which appears to be dead right now) so clearly it's the commercial aspect of the infringement which irks her.
Google seems to be going in two different directions with these licensing terms, Abrams said. "One thing is to abide by their 'do no evil' creed, but also claim as many rights as possible," he said. "This is a typical corporate response: Try to get as much as you can and back off if forced to."
The terms have said explicitly that no copyright is claimed from the outset. It sounds like a typical journalistic response: make as many inaccurate, sensational, ad-catching claims as possible, and back off if forced to.
Sure, it's had a net zero or small positive benefit outside of the internet, but the internet users are the social group that's pirating music. They RIAA has spent 5 years convincing net users that music isn't worth paying for because it feeds a corrupt monster that takes away your legal rights and sues people at random. I'm not sure that whatever they got back from the offline populace has been worth it.
"Some are wondering if the campaign has shaped up as an utter failure."
Some?! Wondering?! To date they've convinced the internet audience they so desperately wanted that the entire music industry, most telecoms companies, and quite a few governments are a parade of cash-guzzling corporation-fellating litigation-whores, and done absolutely nothing to peer-to-peer file sharing itself. Where is there any room for doubt as to its failure? It's like trying to give a guy CPR, but realising after hours of effort that you've brutally beaten the guy and his entire living bloodline to death with their own shoes instead.
US only, alas, but they're practically giving them away if you order them at the same time as another Dell computer apparently. Pretty damn attractive, IMO.
Given that we have crimes which are commited pretty much entirely via communications (eBay scams, 419 scams, harrasment, extortion, stock mischief, etc. etc.) should it be particularly surprising that some forensic scientists are interested in preserving the evidence that the communications took place?
Precisely, we have a similar thing. Before 6 months it's the retailer's burden to show that it lived long enough, after 6 months it's your burden to show that it died too soon. (Although that would be trivial in small claims court).
Slashdot Mirror
I think a distinction should be made. A misconception is usually small, but a "world view" is a very entrenched thing that can be hard to force someone to reassess. Creationism deserves a different approach than a failure to grasp valence bond theory. He's not asking that we respect the creationism worldview, just that we acknowledge it as a sprawling mess of study, and take it on appropriately.
He said some really important things about the way we deal with creationism in the classroom, the media and blogosphere misinterpreted, abused and parroted incorrect versions of his comments, and he's got the guts to step down, not only saving the face of the organisation but shouldering blame more rightly levelled at the media, too. I'm sure I speak for all of us when I wish him luck.
I'm not saying it doesn't have health effects, and indeed BPA seems to cause any number of things in vivo (particularly interesting is the subtle role estrogen has on brain function, and the effects estrogen-like chemicals may have in turn). However the health effects in this study are so strongly associated with products likely to be contaminated with BPA, that it seemed worth observing. Contradicting your assumptions doesn't make it an attack on your position! ;)
I wouldn't say that ironclad proof of danger is needed, but this study certainly isn't enough evidence on its won. On a case-by-case basis it seems simple enough to phase out a particular reagent, additive, contaminant etc. on the precautionary principle, but there are dozens of studies like these every year, and we'd be obliged to act on all of them. Nothing would get done. And the costs involved are huge. Phasing out soy products until safety could be proven, for example (soy is associated with things like breast cancer and feminisation) would completely destroy that field, and it would probably never recover.
It's time to play the what-is-the-causation game again. Most obvious to me is that junk food, prepared food (microwave meals etc.), and soft drinks are sold in plastic containers, and these foodstuffs are generally associated with heart disease and diabetes one way or another. It'll be interesting to see what the more rigorous studies find, although I'm sure this fine pilot study will be presented as Unarguable Proof That Plastic Makes You Die And We're Not Changing Our Minds On This by the world media before the day is out.
Experience has shown us that the correct way to make money off unexploited patents is to sue people in the Eastern District of Texas.
Two and a half millennia ago, the artifact appeared in a remote corner of space, beside a trillion-year old dying sun from a different universe. It was a perfect black body sphere and it did nothing. Then it disappeared. Now it is back.
Actually a better definition of "fittest" is "those with good survival traits". A hardy and fit cow can be killed by a freak drought, while a very feeble cow could survive because of a lucky growing season, but we wouldn't say that the latter was the "fittest" of the two. In this way the focus is on the important aspects of the animal, not "survivors survived" but "animals with better survival traits survived".
Given that he's actually inside the distortion field, for all we know he could just be a horse. Or a broom.
Unlimited free texting access, at that.
Actually, yes, he does seem to suspect that. That is why he's questioning it. He's not engaging in any sort of price control, he's asking for someone to check that there's no foul play. That's how oversight is supposed to work.
Y'know, unlimited-SMS contracts in the UK right now are about £20 ($40) which also come with about 400-600 minutes of calls. (SIM-only plans which aren't subsidising "free" phones, at any rate.) That works out rather reasonably as unlimited texting access (I think the fair use limit is in the tens of thousands of messages), plus 5p/minute (10 cents/minute) for the calls. Quite a few mobile phone companies are offering these sorts of plans now, in a sort of "race to the bottom". I wonder if we're going to get something closer to what it actually costs the network this way.
Free incoming SMS is the norm in Europe too.
Rowling herself is a fan and a user of the original Lexicon website (which appears to be dead right now) so clearly it's the commercial aspect of the infringement which irks her.
Google seems to be going in two different directions with these licensing terms, Abrams said. "One thing is to abide by their 'do no evil' creed, but also claim as many rights as possible," he said. "This is a typical corporate response: Try to get as much as you can and back off if forced to."
The terms have said explicitly that no copyright is claimed from the outset. It sounds like a typical journalistic response: make as many inaccurate, sensational, ad-catching claims as possible, and back off if forced to.
Does that make transcription JIT compilation?
No it wasn't. I'm not sure where to even begin to find that sort of statement in that text.
Sure, it's had a net zero or small positive benefit outside of the internet, but the internet users are the social group that's pirating music. They RIAA has spent 5 years convincing net users that music isn't worth paying for because it feeds a corrupt monster that takes away your legal rights and sues people at random. I'm not sure that whatever they got back from the offline populace has been worth it.
"Some are wondering if the campaign has shaped up as an utter failure."
Some?! Wondering?! To date they've convinced the internet audience they so desperately wanted that the entire music industry, most telecoms companies, and quite a few governments are a parade of cash-guzzling corporation-fellating litigation-whores, and done absolutely nothing to peer-to-peer file sharing itself. Where is there any room for doubt as to its failure? It's like trying to give a guy CPR, but realising after hours of effort that you've brutally beaten the guy and his entire living bloodline to death with their own shoes instead.
Out of curiosity, just how much of your original Eee is left now? You could probably make a second machine at this stage. :p
US only, alas, but they're practically giving them away if you order them at the same time as another Dell computer apparently. Pretty damn attractive, IMO.
Given that we have crimes which are commited pretty much entirely via communications (eBay scams, 419 scams, harrasment, extortion, stock mischief, etc. etc.) should it be particularly surprising that some forensic scientists are interested in preserving the evidence that the communications took place?
Heck, the article notes that smartphones are used by "enterprise", so that's corporate crime in there as well.
Yeah, after the bean burrito special I really wish I could wipe remotely too.
Precisely, we have a similar thing. Before 6 months it's the retailer's burden to show that it lived long enough, after 6 months it's your burden to show that it died too soon. (Although that would be trivial in small claims court).