No one said the data was wrong. The article explains that this isn't the right data to use. Stop focusing on the date of the data, and focus on what the data is actually telling you.
We simply need to forget the FCC and make this an antitrust issue. If an ISP is so big that they charge companies for the privilege of reaching their customers, then it is anticompetitive. If they start charging backbone providers, well... then the backbone providers will go out of business since their revenue stream will become an expense. I'm not sure how that would ever work.
Fascinating. While I can't comment on all of these points, I did a bit of searching regarding the second LINK about global sea ice: That graph shows the global sea ice area, not the volume. The area slightly increased while the volume has steadily gone down over the same period of time.
This is what makes it impossible for the armchair scientist to understand this. Inevitably, someone will reply telling me why my link is a bunch of dumbutts and how that graph is irrelevant, we should be looking at something else.
Does this work across species? Does this work if you inject young mouse blood into old humans? How about pig blood? As creepy as it sounds, I could imagine an enterprise that harvests animal blood and sells it to humans.
Could you inject old human blood into young people as some sort of punishment? Or to educate them about what it feels like to get older?
It is well-known that once you exceed a certain energy density you create a black hole. This is why the Death Star superlaser consists of multiple small lasers that combine.
In theory (the way OSS evangelists tell you) as a software package gets more popular, it gets reviewed by more and more people of greater and greater competency.
Interesting.
In reality, as a software package gets more popular, the confidence in it increases. While there is some validity in this, often times the confidence increases disproportionally to the code paths being excercised. My employer had a mixed C/C++ library that has been in use in a dozen products and is almost unchanged for 10+ years. Within a week of porting it to a new C++ compiler I found a buffer overwrite. Nobody believed me. I had to show them the code, build it with multiple compilers, disassemble it, cite the C standard, etc. It really wasn't a complex bug, but everyone was so certain that there could not possibly be a bug in something that has been that used. They even wanted to blame the new compiler, even though the compiler was absolutely right.
Suppose I rent an apartment in New York, and I setup an antenna to pick-up New York broadcasts. Then I stream those broadcasts to my TV at home. Have I illegally retransmitted the signal and I need to pay a licensing fee?
Suppose the US was not at war with Country X. Men with guns attacked a US military base in Country X. The US troops fire back, killing the forces of Country X. But aha! One of the enemy was actually a US citizen! So does that mean the US troops cannot shoot at that one person?
Suppose the US was not at war with Country X. Country X had terrorists bombing buildings in Country X. The US send drones to shoot at the men who have been bombing buildings. But aha! One of the bombers was actually a US citizen! So does that mean the US troops cannot send drones to shoot at that one bomber?
Does a declaration of war somehow change the way we treat US citizens acting as terrorists in other nations? I'm not sure it changed the fundamental question.
I am confused on this issue. I'm not sure I even understand the question. Here is my thinking, so please comment:
Suppose the US was at war with Country X. Men with guns attacked a US military base in Country X. The US troops fire back, killing the forces of Country X. But aha! One of the enemy was actually a US citizen! So does that mean the US troops cannot shoot at that one person?
Suppose the US was at war with Country X. Country X had terrorists bombing buildings in Country X. The US send drones to shoot at the men who have been bombing buildings. But aha! One of the bombers was actually a US citizen! So does that mean the US troops cannot send drones to shoot at that one bomber?
I'm unclear why the citizenship of the person has anything to do with the military action used against them. I am also unclear why the method used to fire upon the person changes anything either. Would it make a difference if the person was a US citizen because they were born here but left 2 days after birth? What if they were a naturalized citizen who was a resident for more than 7 years?
Why is it okay to target non-US citizens with drones, but not US citizens? Why is it okay to shoot them, but not with drones?
If there was any real support for it, it would happen
I disagree. Most people don't even know that nuclear "waste" isn't actually waste. People became fearful of nuclear because of the waste. And if nuclear is awful and dangerous and produces waste, why spend R&D efforts on it? US policy neutered the industry. People stopped getting degrees in it. No R&D dollars ever went into reprocessing. So now, we look back and go "oh, we should not have done that" but it is too late. There are no technicians to work on it, no R&D budget, and nobody can seriously propose it without being beaten out of office by the anti-nuclear lobby.
That's what I thought until my son started using those "specialized" pieces to make all kinds of wacky inventions. Most of those "specific" pieces fall into two categories: - A regular piece with different coloring or embossed printing to match the character. - A standard mechanical engineering piece that you've just never seen before.
I am a software guy with little mechanical knowledge, but as I read the Lego Technic Builders Guide I now see many of those "specialized" pieces actually look like nicely-finished versions of standard Technic bricks.
If you only built your Legos one time then you missed the point. Even the ones were kids are like "oh this is awesome I'm never taking it apart" ultimately wind up disassembled and part of something else.
While I don't want this change, I am glad that someone is actually talking about this. Everyone else either wants to ignore the constitution, or reinterpret it in their favor. No one ever talks about amending it any more. Even when that is clearly what is necessary to proceed.
This problem extends to issues beyond gun control. Politicians are constantly weasel-wording laws to avoid constitutional issues. Instead, if we really want the government to be able to take images of us through our clothes at airports, read our email, detain suspected terrorists indefinitely without charges, grant copyrights that extend nearly forever, allow same-sex couples to marry, establish a national healthcare system, regulate marijuana, etc... then we should amend the constitution to say these things. Instead, we just pass the laws anyway, then spend decades fighting over them.
This increases my desire to make a faux Google Glass. It would look just like one, except when someone asks if they can try it, it squirts water in their eye when they put it on.
So, if something has been published 1000 times in works of fiction, can I still get a patent on it if I write it up in a thoughtful way and define specific details that are only hinted at in the work of fiction? Ex: Contact lenses with cameras aren't new, but maybe nobody ever described how the camera tracks eye movement to adjust the image or focus. Does including such detail make it patentable?
I tried to visit the link but it didn't work for me. Since the Supreme Court ruled on this last year, and since the article shows that the police didn't actually make any claims of wiretapping (only the principal did), and since the DOJ has repeatedly asserted that this kind of recording is okay, I don't think that statute could really apply. By "electronic or oral" they probably mean "bits of data or sound" but they still meant something that was transmitted.
You provided a population-energy ratio. I would love to know what pollution-energy ratio, and a GDP per capita/energy ratio. Do you have a source I can peruse?
Actually, I'm reading this article with a critical eye now, and I realize that the police never said anything about wiretapping. Only the principal did:
The defendant testified before Judge McGraw-Desmet that he was forced to play the audio for the group and then delete it.
The "group" is the principal and a police officer. So who forced him to delete it?
Mr. Milburn told me to delete it, and I just felt, like, really pressured to do it.
So the school principal made him delete it. Probably because it embarrassed the school.
The officer said, “He believed he had a wiretapping incident."
So the officer says that the principal is the one who thought he had a wiretapping incident.
Principal Milburn advised her that her son was “facing felony wiretapping charges” because he made a recording in a place with an expectation of privacy, and that Officer Kurta agreed.
The only mention about the officer is the statement that the officer agreed, and it isn't a quote from anyone.
This further indicates that it was the school trying to hide their shame:
...the administrators gave the student a Saturday detention
Probably to pressure him into thinking it was all his fault.
So what legal trouble did he actually get it?
the magistrate pronounced him guilty of disorderly conduct.
No mention as to why that was. But the "magistrate" said nothing about wiretapping.
Now, the doozy:
The officer then admitted he did not hear the audio file in question or do an investigation into the recording, presumably because the student was ordered to erase it prior to his arrival at the school.
So the officer claims he wasn't even there for the recording!
Now it sounds like the principal pressured a student into a cover-up of his own teacher's discipline failures, and destroyed evidence in an investigation! Wow, I would *love* to see the ACLU get involved in this one!
Stop posting about wiretapping laws when this wasn't a phone conversation! This is such an obvious flaw in the entire story I'm not sure if I believe it at all.
Slashdot Mirror
It does not matter how RECENT the data is, if it is measuring the wrong thing.
No one said the data was wrong. The article explains that this isn't the right data to use. Stop focusing on the date of the data, and focus on what the data is actually telling you.
We simply need to forget the FCC and make this an antitrust issue. If an ISP is so big that they charge companies for the privilege of reaching their customers, then it is anticompetitive. If they start charging backbone providers, well... then the backbone providers will go out of business since their revenue stream will become an expense. I'm not sure how that would ever work.
Fascinating. While I can't comment on all of these points, I did a bit of searching regarding the second LINK about global sea ice: That graph shows the global sea ice area, not the volume. The area slightly increased while the volume has steadily gone down over the same period of time.
This is what makes it impossible for the armchair scientist to understand this. Inevitably, someone will reply telling me why my link is a bunch of dumbutts and how that graph is irrelevant, we should be looking at something else.
Unfortunately, so has Congress.
The web browser should not be sending the ESN.
Does this work across species? Does this work if you inject young mouse blood into old humans? How about pig blood? As creepy as it sounds, I could imagine an enterprise that harvests animal blood and sells it to humans.
Could you inject old human blood into young people as some sort of punishment? Or to educate them about what it feels like to get older?
It is well-known that once you exceed a certain energy density you create a black hole. This is why the Death Star superlaser consists of multiple small lasers that combine.
In theory (the way OSS evangelists tell you) as a software package gets more popular, it gets reviewed by more and more people of greater and greater competency.
Interesting.
In reality, as a software package gets more popular, the confidence in it increases. While there is some validity in this, often times the confidence increases disproportionally to the code paths being excercised. My employer had a mixed C/C++ library that has been in use in a dozen products and is almost unchanged for 10+ years. Within a week of porting it to a new C++ compiler I found a buffer overwrite. Nobody believed me. I had to show them the code, build it with multiple compilers, disassemble it, cite the C standard, etc. It really wasn't a complex bug, but everyone was so certain that there could not possibly be a bug in something that has been that used. They even wanted to blame the new compiler, even though the compiler was absolutely right.
Suppose I rent an apartment in New York, and I setup an antenna to pick-up New York broadcasts. Then I stream those broadcasts to my TV at home. Have I illegally retransmitted the signal and I need to pay a licensing fee?
The question is "Why does the citizenship of the person matter?"
ok. But it doesn't change anything.
Suppose the US was not at war with Country X. Men with guns attacked a US military base in Country X. The US troops fire back, killing the forces of Country X. But aha! One of the enemy was actually a US citizen! So does that mean the US troops cannot shoot at that one person?
Suppose the US was not at war with Country X. Country X had terrorists bombing buildings in Country X. The US send drones to shoot at the men who have been bombing buildings. But aha! One of the bombers was actually a US citizen! So does that mean the US troops cannot send drones to shoot at that one bomber?
Does a declaration of war somehow change the way we treat US citizens acting as terrorists in other nations? I'm not sure it changed the fundamental question.
I am confused on this issue. I'm not sure I even understand the question. Here is my thinking, so please comment:
Suppose the US was at war with Country X. Men with guns attacked a US military base in Country X. The US troops fire back, killing the forces of Country X. But aha! One of the enemy was actually a US citizen! So does that mean the US troops cannot shoot at that one person?
Suppose the US was at war with Country X. Country X had terrorists bombing buildings in Country X. The US send drones to shoot at the men who have been bombing buildings. But aha! One of the bombers was actually a US citizen! So does that mean the US troops cannot send drones to shoot at that one bomber?
I'm unclear why the citizenship of the person has anything to do with the military action used against them. I am also unclear why the method used to fire upon the person changes anything either. Would it make a difference if the person was a US citizen because they were born here but left 2 days after birth? What if they were a naturalized citizen who was a resident for more than 7 years?
Why is it okay to target non-US citizens with drones, but not US citizens? Why is it okay to shoot them, but not with drones?
No more spontaneous meetups, no more random happenings. Everything orderly, predictable and uploadable for facebook to make money with.
Umm.... the entire point of the app is to encourage spontaneous random meetups.
If there was any real support for it, it would happen
I disagree. Most people don't even know that nuclear "waste" isn't actually waste. People became fearful of nuclear because of the waste. And if nuclear is awful and dangerous and produces waste, why spend R&D efforts on it? US policy neutered the industry. People stopped getting degrees in it. No R&D dollars ever went into reprocessing. So now, we look back and go "oh, we should not have done that" but it is too late. There are no technicians to work on it, no R&D budget, and nobody can seriously propose it without being beaten out of office by the anti-nuclear lobby.
That's what I thought until my son started using those "specialized" pieces to make all kinds of wacky inventions. Most of those "specific" pieces fall into two categories:
- A regular piece with different coloring or embossed printing to match the character.
- A standard mechanical engineering piece that you've just never seen before.
I am a software guy with little mechanical knowledge, but as I read the Lego Technic Builders Guide I now see many of those "specialized" pieces actually look like nicely-finished versions of standard Technic bricks.
If you only built your Legos one time then you missed the point. Even the ones were kids are like "oh this is awesome I'm never taking it apart" ultimately wind up disassembled and part of something else.
Check out my follow-up post. Reading the article further, the only person who said anything about wiretapping was the principal.
While I don't want this change, I am glad that someone is actually talking about this. Everyone else either wants to ignore the constitution, or reinterpret it in their favor. No one ever talks about amending it any more. Even when that is clearly what is necessary to proceed.
This problem extends to issues beyond gun control. Politicians are constantly weasel-wording laws to avoid constitutional issues. Instead, if we really want the government to be able to take images of us through our clothes at airports, read our email, detain suspected terrorists indefinitely without charges, grant copyrights that extend nearly forever, allow same-sex couples to marry, establish a national healthcare system, regulate marijuana, etc... then we should amend the constitution to say these things. Instead, we just pass the laws anyway, then spend decades fighting over them.
This increases my desire to make a faux Google Glass. It would look just like one, except when someone asks if they can try it, it squirts water in their eye when they put it on.
"Ok glass take a picture"
*splort*
*laughter*
So, if something has been published 1000 times in works of fiction, can I still get a patent on it if I write it up in a thoughtful way and define specific details that are only hinted at in the work of fiction? Ex: Contact lenses with cameras aren't new, but maybe nobody ever described how the camera tracks eye movement to adjust the image or focus. Does including such detail make it patentable?
I tried to visit the link but it didn't work for me. Since the Supreme Court ruled on this last year, and since the article shows that the police didn't actually make any claims of wiretapping (only the principal did), and since the DOJ has repeatedly asserted that this kind of recording is okay, I don't think that statute could really apply. By "electronic or oral" they probably mean "bits of data or sound" but they still meant something that was transmitted.
You provided a population-energy ratio. I would love to know what pollution-energy ratio, and a GDP per capita/energy ratio. Do you have a source I can peruse?
Actually, I'm reading this article with a critical eye now, and I realize that the police never said anything about wiretapping. Only the principal did:
The defendant testified before Judge McGraw-Desmet that he was forced to play the audio for the group and then delete it.
The "group" is the principal and a police officer. So who forced him to delete it?
Mr. Milburn told me to delete it, and I just felt, like, really pressured to do it.
So the school principal made him delete it. Probably because it embarrassed the school.
The officer said, “He believed he had a wiretapping incident."
So the officer says that the principal is the one who thought he had a wiretapping incident.
Principal Milburn advised her that her son was “facing felony wiretapping charges” because he made a recording in a place with an expectation of privacy, and that Officer Kurta agreed.
The only mention about the officer is the statement that the officer agreed, and it isn't a quote from anyone.
This further indicates that it was the school trying to hide their shame:
...the administrators gave the student a Saturday detention
Probably to pressure him into thinking it was all his fault.
So what legal trouble did he actually get it?
the magistrate pronounced him guilty of disorderly conduct.
No mention as to why that was. But the "magistrate" said nothing about wiretapping.
Now, the doozy:
The officer then admitted he did not hear the audio file in question or do an investigation into the recording, presumably because the student was ordered to erase it prior to his arrival at the school.
So the officer claims he wasn't even there for the recording!
Now it sounds like the principal pressured a student into a cover-up of his own teacher's discipline failures, and destroyed evidence in an investigation! Wow, I would *love* to see the ACLU get involved in this one!
Stop posting about wiretapping laws when this wasn't a phone conversation! This is such an obvious flaw in the entire story I'm not sure if I believe it at all.