Presumably "contempt of congress," a federal crime. Congressional inquiry is just a fancy way of saying "Bill of attainder" these days. Which is awful. The only time there was a serious attempt in congress to study something and get feedback that I can think of in the past couple decades was the 9/11 commission. And that was far from a success story.
We decided from the start to take a conservative approach in our ratings. For example, a study which takes it for granted that global warming will continue for the foreseeable future could easily be put into the implicit endorsement category; there is no reason to expect global warming to continue indefinitely unless humans are causing it. However, unless an abstract included language about the cause of the warming, we categorized it as 'no opinion'.
A huge swath of that 3% was dealing with non-climate change matters, and didn't take climate change into account for their results. I think what I've heard is that when it comes to peer-reviewed articles explicitly opposed to AGW, there was just one in the past decade. Out of tens of thousands.
The reason it wasn't considered a violation of medical ethics, if I had to guess, is that the voltages and currents involved are ones are brains are naturally exposed to from time to time. Thus if there are side-effects, they are currently widespread and undiagnosed in the population of the first world. It's like how it's not unethical to test(reasonable, non-extraordinary) dietary plans, because people eat anyways.
Yes, but another aspect of the law is that insurance companies(as of late 2012) have to submit explanations to the feds for every increase in premiums. And(in 2013) they cannot make more than 20% profit. And their overhead has to come out of that same 20%. 80 cents out of every dollar you pay for insurance has to go to actual medical providers or medicine.
What that does incentivize is really high premiums, and insurers choosing expensive procedures in order to maximize how big that 20%. What the whole package is predicated on is that the buyers will choose a different plan if insurance companies go too far in that regard(hence the exchanges). It's not perfect, but it's the best we could manage in the political situation.
We had that approach back in the 90s with Metacrawler, which at the time aggregated better search results than, say, DEC's altavista.
Then Google showed up...
Privacy concerns aside, does DDG deliver 'better' search results than what caused Metacrawler to bite the dust?
As a frequent user, I'd say yes. The fact that it provides an automated blurb that at the top that's likely to address your main question in a sentence or two is nice. The !bang syntax they use is almost always convenient for getting the content I want without having to manually change search engine. And there are a number of other search widgets that covers most of the very common tasks I want on the internet.
I have to fall back on google for about 2% of my searches, and half of those don't do any better there.
I honestly think firefox is ticking back up because a lot of technical people are becoming more emotionally distant with google. Google used to be the big cuddly tech buddy who valued clever technical solutions to make life easier. While they still do that, most of our impressions of google have shifted to dark advertising shadow-master seeking mental leverage on us. It's all emotional.
They aren't, more than likely. But it will lack the built in sharability that most-used video sites have. Sometimes enforcement is about doing well-enough.
Failing to submit to an injunction is a serious crime that has recurring penalties. The countries have an interest in maintaining the rule of law, even for bad decisions. I'm not endorsing the judge's decision.
I'm not trying to be "that guy" who's more cynical than everyone else in the thread, but does that surprise you?
There's a poisonous low-attention span, taking everything at face-value thread in the internet, where the end user is expected to the only layer of bullshit detecting that occurs. Content aggregators echo and repeat anything that sounds interesting or will get clicks. Cynical marketers exploit that kind of behavior to spew bullshit over the internet without it looking like its coming from them. None of the sites do anything more than ask their users to filter out the crap. If it's disguised effectively enough to fool 55% of people, the advertiser wins.
I don't have a solution other than avoiding content aggregators, which is far from sufficient.
Believe it or not, google(in Dublin) has assets that the Irish government can act on as a means of enforcing their laws. Facebook doubtless has bank accounts for deals with advertisers based in Ireland too.
There's no international immunity when you act within the nation giving the ruling. They'd probably have a harder time going after vimeo or pirate bay, which are both out of their jurisdiction.
I don't want to give them that power, but they already have it. International injunctions go like this: you can ignore them, but then you face the full legal authority of the issuing nation against all your interests in said country.
Don't like the legal system of a country? Don't operate there.
But that word was invented by every libertarian's second favorite failed-sociologist turned successful science fiction writer. It's much better than letter our entire vocabulary be dictated by Ayn Rand.
But why? It's not like it's some celebrity using the judicial system as a bully. And there's not really any amusing or interesting content to the video. Is it just cause we don't like judicial orders here?
And your motive in doing so was what? I'm not sure what principle you're taking a stand on, but I guess as long as you think you're doing the right thing?
Judges can order this sort of thing. It's effectiveness will come down to whether anyone cares enough to re-upload it multiple times in multiple places. The judge is in the wrong for misunderstanding the source of the slander, but I'm not sure what that means for "my rights online"
You might be a greedy scumbag, regardless of the amount of money you have already accrued. Check for the following symptoms: not wanting to pay taxes on money your employees earned for you, feeling it is totally acceptable to dumb toxic waste from your country off the coast of Somalia, or stealing from babies.
But seriously, this isn't "battling labor laws," this is breaking the law for a higher profit margin.
Eh, inflammatory matches what I said to a reasonable degree. Sure, it matches slashdot's definition of flamebait better, but that mod is basically the forgotten step-child of the slashdot moderating world. Overrated gets more play.
Also the bizarre meta-modding through modding my post is weird. I was honestly just trying to inform the GP of what aspects he could address if he wanted the mods to be less severe in the future. Answering a query about the motives of others isn't substantiating them.
You're damned welcome to the U.S. system instead. I'd trade with you in a heartbeat. We have political parties who are "One issue parties" for 3 or 4 issues, we like to call wedge issues. Tons of 1 issue voters who will repeatedly vote for the party that cares about their one issue regardless of the other terrible positions the party has. We don't get coalitions that are fragile based on the completion of issues. We get deadlock, intentional destruction of working government features, and "taking a stand" on a no-go issue constantly.
You know, I'm thankful for all those long-running political debates that were easily settled with a single sentence of hyperbole, like... um... I'm sure it's happened lots.
I swear someone is going out of their way to down mod my posts recently. how is this troll??
If I had to guess: Because it dramatically simplifies a situation, represents a sarcastically presented political position rather than a cogent point, and fails to delivery an adequate punchline for its overly politicized setup.
Slashdot Mirror
Presumably "contempt of congress," a federal crime. Congressional inquiry is just a fancy way of saying "Bill of attainder" these days. Which is awful. The only time there was a serious attempt in congress to study something and get feedback that I can think of in the past couple decades was the 9/11 commission. And that was far from a success story.
If they did, there's a good chance they'd be letting out trade secrets that other oil companies could use too.
Absolutely not true.
A huge swath of that 3% was dealing with non-climate change matters, and didn't take climate change into account for their results. I think what I've heard is that when it comes to peer-reviewed articles explicitly opposed to AGW, there was just one in the past decade. Out of tens of thousands.
How about you over-energize anything with 6 milliamps.
Where did you get 2%? The article cited take-up speeds 2-5 times faster.
The reason it wasn't considered a violation of medical ethics, if I had to guess, is that the voltages and currents involved are ones are brains are naturally exposed to from time to time. Thus if there are side-effects, they are currently widespread and undiagnosed in the population of the first world. It's like how it's not unethical to test(reasonable, non-extraordinary) dietary plans, because people eat anyways.
Yes, but another aspect of the law is that insurance companies(as of late 2012) have to submit explanations to the feds for every increase in premiums. And(in 2013) they cannot make more than 20% profit. And their overhead has to come out of that same 20%. 80 cents out of every dollar you pay for insurance has to go to actual medical providers or medicine.
What that does incentivize is really high premiums, and insurers choosing expensive procedures in order to maximize how big that 20%. What the whole package is predicated on is that the buyers will choose a different plan if insurance companies go too far in that regard(hence the exchanges). It's not perfect, but it's the best we could manage in the political situation.
We had that approach back in the 90s with Metacrawler, which at the time aggregated better search results than, say, DEC's altavista.
Then Google showed up...
Privacy concerns aside, does DDG deliver 'better' search results than what caused Metacrawler to bite the dust?
As a frequent user, I'd say yes. The fact that it provides an automated blurb that at the top that's likely to address your main question in a sentence or two is nice. The !bang syntax they use is almost always convenient for getting the content I want without having to manually change search engine. And there are a number of other search widgets that covers most of the very common tasks I want on the internet.
I have to fall back on google for about 2% of my searches, and half of those don't do any better there.
I honestly think firefox is ticking back up because a lot of technical people are becoming more emotionally distant with google. Google used to be the big cuddly tech buddy who valued clever technical solutions to make life easier. While they still do that, most of our impressions of google have shifted to dark advertising shadow-master seeking mental leverage on us. It's all emotional.
They aren't, more than likely. But it will lack the built in sharability that most-used video sites have. Sometimes enforcement is about doing well-enough.
Failing to submit to an injunction is a serious crime that has recurring penalties. The countries have an interest in maintaining the rule of law, even for bad decisions. I'm not endorsing the judge's decision.
I'm not trying to be "that guy" who's more cynical than everyone else in the thread, but does that surprise you?
There's a poisonous low-attention span, taking everything at face-value thread in the internet, where the end user is expected to the only layer of bullshit detecting that occurs. Content aggregators echo and repeat anything that sounds interesting or will get clicks. Cynical marketers exploit that kind of behavior to spew bullshit over the internet without it looking like its coming from them. None of the sites do anything more than ask their users to filter out the crap. If it's disguised effectively enough to fool 55% of people, the advertiser wins.
I don't have a solution other than avoiding content aggregators, which is far from sufficient.
Believe it or not, google(in Dublin) has assets that the Irish government can act on as a means of enforcing their laws. Facebook doubtless has bank accounts for deals with advertisers based in Ireland too.
There's no international immunity when you act within the nation giving the ruling. They'd probably have a harder time going after vimeo or pirate bay, which are both out of their jurisdiction.
I don't want to give them that power, but they already have it. International injunctions go like this: you can ignore them, but then you face the full legal authority of the issuing nation against all your interests in said country.
Don't like the legal system of a country? Don't operate there.
But that word was invented by every libertarian's second favorite failed-sociologist turned successful science fiction writer. It's much better than letter our entire vocabulary be dictated by Ayn Rand.
But why? It's not like it's some celebrity using the judicial system as a bully. And there's not really any amusing or interesting content to the video. Is it just cause we don't like judicial orders here?
And your motive in doing so was what? I'm not sure what principle you're taking a stand on, but I guess as long as you think you're doing the right thing?
Judges can order this sort of thing. It's effectiveness will come down to whether anyone cares enough to re-upload it multiple times in multiple places. The judge is in the wrong for misunderstanding the source of the slander, but I'm not sure what that means for "my rights online"
Oh, no, the poisonous bullshit still finds a way through.
You might be a greedy scumbag, regardless of the amount of money you have already accrued. Check for the following symptoms: not wanting to pay taxes on money your employees earned for you, feeling it is totally acceptable to dumb toxic waste from your country off the coast of Somalia, or stealing from babies.
But seriously, this isn't "battling labor laws," this is breaking the law for a higher profit margin.
Eh, inflammatory matches what I said to a reasonable degree. Sure, it matches slashdot's definition of flamebait better, but that mod is basically the forgotten step-child of the slashdot moderating world. Overrated gets more play.
Also the bizarre meta-modding through modding my post is weird. I was honestly just trying to inform the GP of what aspects he could address if he wanted the mods to be less severe in the future. Answering a query about the motives of others isn't substantiating them.
You're damned welcome to the U.S. system instead. I'd trade with you in a heartbeat. We have political parties who are "One issue parties" for 3 or 4 issues, we like to call wedge issues. Tons of 1 issue voters who will repeatedly vote for the party that cares about their one issue regardless of the other terrible positions the party has. We don't get coalitions that are fragile based on the completion of issues. We get deadlock, intentional destruction of working government features, and "taking a stand" on a no-go issue constantly.
I know, we should vote for the zero issue parties that pay lip service to the issues adults actually care about very loudly.
You know, I'm thankful for all those long-running political debates that were easily settled with a single sentence of hyperbole, like ...
um...
I'm sure it's happened lots.
I swear someone is going out of their way to down mod my posts recently. how is this troll??
If I had to guess:
Because it dramatically simplifies a situation, represents a sarcastically presented political position rather than a cogent point, and fails to delivery an adequate punchline for its overly politicized setup.