Given that the iPhone is a strictly 2.5G device, it's hard to see any way that 3G coverage could have any positive effect on how well the iPhone works.
Article II, first sentence: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
That's it. Not in "a President of the United States of America and whatever other officials to whom Congress decides to give such power." Just the President. All executive power belongs to the President alone; he can delegate the execution of it, but the buck stops there. The President can accordingly overrule or prohibit any exercise of executive power undertaken by anyone else, no matter how many laws Congress passes to the contrary; the Constitution vests the executive power to the President alone. The power is unitary, vested in a single person.
You don't like the unitary executive? Amend the Constitution. There's a procedure for it in Article V. But we seem to have gotten along with it pretty well for the last 220 years.
Steve Jobs has deliberately been milking the computer business to finance Apple's foray into other businesses. Over the last ten years there's been the steady commoditization of Apple hardware (PCI, IDE, Intel), the switch from free OS upgrades to charging for them, the retreat from a number of market niches (Apple doesn't even try to sell business desktops under Jobs) . . . and then, of course, they dropped "Computer" from the company name.
Doesn't mean Apple will stop selling computers, of course, any more than IBM stopped selling mainframes -- as long, and only as long, as the margins are good. But Apple is being positioned such that if the margins go away, they'll just shut down the Mac division and concentrate on other things, instead of desperately trying to save the computer business. Much like, if the mainframe market evaporated, IBM nowadays would just close the division and concentrate on its other business lines.
Pacifica was out there long before conservative talk radio; the Village Voice predates the Murdoch era of the New York Post. The reason explicitly liberal media is not as successful as explicitly conservative is not somehow because liberals are too even-handed; it's because the statistical center among Americans is somewhat to the right of what liberals perceive as the center. The result is that the "balanced" media fall marginally to the left of the statistically-average American, and the explicitly-conservative media fall rather closer to the center than the openly-progressive media. There are accordingly more people in the market for Rush Limbaugh than Democracy Now or Air America.
Consider the case where both of you know none of the answers. In that case, both of you will have an expected value of 50, right? So over time, you have identical scores.
However, on any single given test, you will both get a random number of them right, ranging from 0-100. You'll almost never score the same on a single test; you'll almost always have different scores on any individual test even though the time series has you have identical average scores.
Now, to make the point the original article writer didn't make well:
Let's consider a test 100 questions long, 4 answers per question, only right answers counted, with 35% as a passing grade.
Now, let's take eight guys of differing levels of ignorance. Arnold knows zero answers; Bob knows 5; Chuck knows 10; Dave knows 15; Ed knows 20; Frank knows 25; George knows 30; and Harry knows 35. On all questions they don't know, they make a completely random guess, since there's no penalty for guessing.
Arnold passes 1.6% of the time. Bob passes 8.9% of the time. Chuck passes 30.8% of the time. Dave? He passes the test 66% of the time. Ed gets by with a pass 92.6% of the time. Frank passes 99.6% of the time. George passes just shy of 100% of the time. Harry, of course, passes 100% of the time.
Now assume each participant is allowed to take the test three times in an effort to pass. In that case: Arnold passes 4.7% of the time. Bob passes 24.4% of the time. Chuck passes 66.9% of the time. Dave passes 96.1% of the time. Ed, Frank, and George all pass just short of 100% of the time. Harry still passes all of the time.
Our implied standard here seems to be that knowing ten of the answers is "good enough", since most people of that standard get admitted. And it seems to be that knowing five of the answers is not "good enough", since most people of that standard get failed. But we still are letting in almost a quarter of the people who know only five answers and keeping out almost a third of the people who know ten -- and we're doing it totally at random. And we're letting one in twenty of test-takers who have no knowledge of the subject pass, while flunking one in twenty-five who can answer fifteen questions reliably.
That's a pretty lousy filter, no?
There are lots of known ways of fixing it, so that it works better. First, you could make the test "easier" and raise the number right needed higher, so knowledge would translate more strongly into passes. If Bob starts with 30 of 100 and Chuck with 60 of 100, chance on a hundred questions will cover the deficit less often. You won't distinguish Ed from Harry very well, but both of them were passing (nearly) all the time anyway. Second, you could add more possible answers, so guessing doesn't work as well -- say, six instead of four. Third, you can add penalty points for wrong answers -- with six, count every wrong answer as -0.2 of a point, so on average completely random guesses work out to zero points (the same as leaving them blank). All will help create a sharp distinction where Bob has little chance and Chuck is almost certain to pass.
To be fair, Arab oil actually is the #1 source, beating out Mexico and Canada individually (but not collectively). Saudi Arabia isn't the only Arab country we get oil from, after all.
Well, yes, if you aggregate all Arabic-speaking countries as a single source, but don't aggregate, say, all the Spanish-speaking countries as a single source, you can argue that the #1 source is "Arab oil". If however, you aggregate all the Spanish-speaking countries, it becomes clear the #1 source is "Hispanic oil". I rather fail to see how aggregating one group and not the other is to "be fair".
Alternatively, we could consider OPEC's influence on our Crude Oil imports,
Yes, if you count decidedly non-Arab countries (Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola, Gabon) as Arab, you can prove Arab oil is a majority source. And if you count a dog's tail as a leg, it has five legs.
The GIMP with that plug-in supports CMYK about as well as Windows NT 3.1's POSIX subsystem supported Unix programs.
The GIMP has no professional-level CMYK support. So from the perspective of a graphics professional, it doesn't have CMYK support, even if you can box-check the feature from a software marketing standpoint.
So you think that NPR should only exist if it's a left-wing mouthpiece?
I think that a public station should be run in the interests of the public, not in the interests of a wealthy elite. So-called public networks like NPR and the BBC have been in strong support for the interests of the executives, board members, and shareholders of convicted criminal corporations such as Microsoft. A public station should be left wing because the left (anarchists, socialists, progressives, etc) really are concerned with the interests of the working class. The working class is the majority in the USA and most of the world. Why can't we have some media that supports us? Why should the news be monopolized by the elite owners of the means of production?
Would have been much simpler if you'd simply answered "yes".
In normal contract situations, the parties can agree that the contract must go to arbitration, not court, in cases of disputes. If you take it to court without going to arbitration, then you're in violation of the terms of the contract, and the court will usually (but not always) require that you take your dispute to the arbitrators specified in the contract. Now, if you're not satisfied with the outcome of the arbitration, you can still sue under the law. However, the courts will usually (but not always) demand that you show evidence the arbitration was flawed before they'll reverse the results of the arbitration, because accepting the arbitration results was implicitly part of the contract.
With the high prices of the various levels of Vista, it is way cheaper, and more of a sure thing, to just buy a new PC with Vista preinstalled, and adequate RAM.
Yes. And where do the computer companies get that "adequate RAM"? The DRAM chipmakers.
No matter how people upgraded to Vista, upgrades to Vista would increase demand for DRAM. So the the chipmakers manufactured DRAM to meet the expected demand . . . and Vista didn't sell well enough to meet their expectations.
what about . . . people who right Un-American things on the internet?
Yeah, I can see how police states would want to persecute people who correct anti-American propaganda. All the more reason to overthrow their governments and hang their despotic leaders.
"If all of the newspapers in America did not allow Google to steal their content, how profitable would Google be?" Sam Zell, the new owner of the Tribune Company, asked reporters during a speech at Stanford University last month. The Tribune Company operates the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune.
Zell didn't wait for the reporters to reply, according to The Washington Post. "Not very," he said.
Uh-huh.
Mr. Zell, have you ever looked at Google News? You'll notice something -- it doesn't run any ads. Not one. How, then, do you think Google is making money off "stealing" your content?
You're a moron, sir.
(Okay, technicality people, yes, now Google is adding news results to their "universal search". Do you really think that Google would take a major revenue hit if it reverted to the business model it had back three weeks ago?)
The moral is obvious. You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself. (Especially code from companies that employ people like me.) No amount of source-level verification or scrutiny will protect you from using untrusted code. In demonstrating the possibility of this kind of attack, I picked on the C compiler. I could have picked on any program-handling program such as an assembler, a loader, or even hardware microcode.
As far as assuming eBay is more trustworthy than a random group of Stanford students, you know, I'd have thought Sony was, too, before the rootkit.
Sure, the next Firefox toolbar might be a particularly clever piece of phishing, but so might microcode in the next Intel processor.
Installing multiple copies of Office without a license constitutes copyright infringement, as you are making copies of a copyrighted work (Office) without permission of the copyright holder.
Now, let's look at the law regarding copyright infringement:
U.S. Code, Title 17, Section 506:
(a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code.
US Code, Title 18, section 2319:
(a) Whoever violates section 506 (a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17 shall be punished as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section and such penalties shall be in addition to any other provisions of title 17 or any other law. (b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1) of title 17-- (1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500; (2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and (3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.
(c) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(2) of title 17, United States Code-- (1) shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more; (2) shall be imprisoned not more than 6 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and (3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000.
You'll note he qualified it by saying "Unless there was some supply chain to Montana from another state or country".
For example, in the case of Iraq, the sources of foreign supply are the governments of Syria and Iran, and private Arabs in other countries. In the case of Afghanistan, foreign supply largely comes from uncontrolled elements in Pakistan's ISI. In both cases, the suppliers also provide safe havens behind the shield of national sovereignty, which makes them undefeatable unless the war is widened to the haven countries.
Not quite. It's a matter of Constitutional law. The Supreme Court has upheld (some types of) laws regulating access to sexually explicit material, but has overturned all efforts at law-established rating systems on other grounds (like violence).
If New York goes ahead, New York will find itself in the same place Louisiana just found itself -- smacked down by the Supreme Court.
Ah, yes. My apologies for leaving my implicit assumption (the locale in the article is New York, so we're talking about American laws when discussing if there's a movie equivalent) implicit.
There are no laws enforcing the movie ratings system. It is perfectly legal to allow a six-year-old to rent or buy a film rated R or NC-17. It is merely social custom and private policies of vendors which restrict such activities.
Laws prohibiting the sale of indecent materials to minors do exist, but they exist independent of the ratings system, and already fully apply to video games.
Er, no, sorry, that was not the topic. Try re-reading Forge's post yourself, this time without leaping to conclusions.
See? Most of his post was about how human society has insulated humans from evolutionary pressure, not individual human intelligence. His only comment about the potential genetic basis of intelligence, which followed the athlete remark, was that people better hope intelligence isn't genetically determined.
Granted, Forge was not perfectly clear in the way he expressed himself. But you have to make a major leap of logic to come to the idea that he was asserting that athletes are smarter than most people, a slightly smaller jump to claim he was asserting intelligence is genetically determined, and then tie both together into a really long jump to come up with your response.
Are you seriously going to suggest that pro athletes don't have physical gifts superior to the average person, or that a significant factor in that superiority is their genes?
Micronesia includes the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Republic of Palau, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of Nauru, the Republic of Kiribati, the Territory of Guam, and the Territory of Wake Island, in the exact same way that America includes the United States of America, the United Mexican States, the Dominion of Canada, etc., etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that the iPhone is a strictly 2.5G device, it's hard to see any way that 3G coverage could have any positive effect on how well the iPhone works.
Article II, first sentence:
"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
That's it. Not in "a President of the United States of America and whatever other officials to whom Congress decides to give such power." Just the President. All executive power belongs to the President alone; he can delegate the execution of it, but the buck stops there. The President can accordingly overrule or prohibit any exercise of executive power undertaken by anyone else, no matter how many laws Congress passes to the contrary; the Constitution vests the executive power to the President alone. The power is unitary, vested in a single person.
You don't like the unitary executive? Amend the Constitution. There's a procedure for it in Article V. But we seem to have gotten along with it pretty well for the last 220 years.
Steve Jobs has deliberately been milking the computer business to finance Apple's foray into other businesses. Over the last ten years there's been the steady commoditization of Apple hardware (PCI, IDE, Intel), the switch from free OS upgrades to charging for them, the retreat from a number of market niches (Apple doesn't even try to sell business desktops under Jobs) . . . and then, of course, they dropped "Computer" from the company name.
Doesn't mean Apple will stop selling computers, of course, any more than IBM stopped selling mainframes -- as long, and only as long, as the margins are good. But Apple is being positioned such that if the margins go away, they'll just shut down the Mac division and concentrate on other things, instead of desperately trying to save the computer business. Much like, if the mainframe market evaporated, IBM nowadays would just close the division and concentrate on its other business lines.
Pacifica was out there long before conservative talk radio; the Village Voice predates the Murdoch era of the New York Post. The reason explicitly liberal media is not as successful as explicitly conservative is not somehow because liberals are too even-handed; it's because the statistical center among Americans is somewhat to the right of what liberals perceive as the center. The result is that the "balanced" media fall marginally to the left of the statistically-average American, and the explicitly-conservative media fall rather closer to the center than the openly-progressive media. There are accordingly more people in the market for Rush Limbaugh than Democracy Now or Air America.
Consider the case where both of you know none of the answers. In that case, both of you will have an expected value of 50, right? So over time, you have identical scores.
However, on any single given test, you will both get a random number of them right, ranging from 0-100. You'll almost never score the same on a single test; you'll almost always have different scores on any individual test even though the time series has you have identical average scores.
Now, to make the point the original article writer didn't make well:
Let's consider a test 100 questions long, 4 answers per question, only right answers counted, with 35% as a passing grade.
Now, let's take eight guys of differing levels of ignorance. Arnold knows zero answers; Bob knows 5; Chuck knows 10; Dave knows 15; Ed knows 20; Frank knows 25; George knows 30; and Harry knows 35. On all questions they don't know, they make a completely random guess, since there's no penalty for guessing.
Arnold passes 1.6% of the time.
Bob passes 8.9% of the time.
Chuck passes 30.8% of the time.
Dave? He passes the test 66% of the time.
Ed gets by with a pass 92.6% of the time.
Frank passes 99.6% of the time.
George passes just shy of 100% of the time.
Harry, of course, passes 100% of the time.
Now assume each participant is allowed to take the test three times in an effort to pass. In that case:
Arnold passes 4.7% of the time.
Bob passes 24.4% of the time.
Chuck passes 66.9% of the time.
Dave passes 96.1% of the time.
Ed, Frank, and George all pass just short of 100% of the time.
Harry still passes all of the time.
Our implied standard here seems to be that knowing ten of the answers is "good enough", since most people of that standard get admitted. And it seems to be that knowing five of the answers is not "good enough", since most people of that standard get failed. But we still are letting in almost a quarter of the people who know only five answers and keeping out almost a third of the people who know ten -- and we're doing it totally at random. And we're letting one in twenty of test-takers who have no knowledge of the subject pass, while flunking one in twenty-five who can answer fifteen questions reliably.
That's a pretty lousy filter, no?
There are lots of known ways of fixing it, so that it works better. First, you could make the test "easier" and raise the number right needed higher, so knowledge would translate more strongly into passes. If Bob starts with 30 of 100 and Chuck with 60 of 100, chance on a hundred questions will cover the deficit less often. You won't distinguish Ed from Harry very well, but both of them were passing (nearly) all the time anyway. Second, you could add more possible answers, so guessing doesn't work as well -- say, six instead of four. Third, you can add penalty points for wrong answers -- with six, count every wrong answer as -0.2 of a point, so on average completely random guesses work out to zero points (the same as leaving them blank). All will help create a sharp distinction where Bob has little chance and Chuck is almost certain to pass.
Well, Saudi Arabia alone is more than twice the size of Venezuela.
Well, yes, if you aggregate all Arabic-speaking countries as a single source, but don't aggregate, say, all the Spanish-speaking countries as a single source, you can argue that the #1 source is "Arab oil". If however, you aggregate all the Spanish-speaking countries, it becomes clear the #1 source is "Hispanic oil". I rather fail to see how aggregating one group and not the other is to "be fair".
Yes, if you count decidedly non-Arab countries (Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola, Gabon) as Arab, you can prove Arab oil is a majority source. And if you count a dog's tail as a leg, it has five legs.
The GIMP with that plug-in supports CMYK about as well as Windows NT 3.1's POSIX subsystem supported Unix programs.
The GIMP has no professional-level CMYK support. So from the perspective of a graphics professional, it doesn't have CMYK support, even if you can box-check the feature from a software marketing standpoint.
Would have been much simpler if you'd simply answered "yes".
In normal contract situations, the parties can agree that the contract must go to arbitration, not court, in cases of disputes. If you take it to court without going to arbitration, then you're in violation of the terms of the contract, and the court will usually (but not always) require that you take your dispute to the arbitrators specified in the contract. Now, if you're not satisfied with the outcome of the arbitration, you can still sue under the law. However, the courts will usually (but not always) demand that you show evidence the arbitration was flawed before they'll reverse the results of the arbitration, because accepting the arbitration results was implicitly part of the contract.
Yes. And where do the computer companies get that "adequate RAM"? The DRAM chipmakers.
No matter how people upgraded to Vista, upgrades to Vista would increase demand for DRAM. So the the chipmakers manufactured DRAM to meet the expected demand . . . and Vista didn't sell well enough to meet their expectations.
Yep, it can back up any claim.
For example, dinosaurs co-existed with humans.
Yeah, I can see how police states would want to persecute people who correct anti-American propaganda. All the more reason to overthrow their governments and hang their despotic leaders.
Uh-huh.
Mr. Zell, have you ever looked at Google News? You'll notice something -- it doesn't run any ads. Not one. How, then, do you think Google is making money off "stealing" your content?
You're a moron, sir.
(Okay, technicality people, yes, now Google is adding news results to their "universal search". Do you really think that Google would take a major revenue hit if it reverted to the business model it had back three weeks ago?)
Except, of course, Google isn't making any money off Google News. Google News runs no ads.
Sure, the next Firefox toolbar might be a particularly clever piece of phishing, but so might microcode in the next Intel processor.
Now, let's look at the law regarding copyright infringement:
U.S. Code, Title 17, Section 506:
US Code, Title 18, section 2319:
it was a brilliant bit of mass-psychology that's been working for over half a century.
Yeah. That Milton Friedman sure knew how to finance a war. Too bad he couldn't uninvent it after Japan surrendered.
You'll note he qualified it by saying "Unless there was some supply chain to Montana from another state or country".
For example, in the case of Iraq, the sources of foreign supply are the governments of Syria and Iran, and private Arabs in other countries. In the case of Afghanistan, foreign supply largely comes from uncontrolled elements in Pakistan's ISI. In both cases, the suppliers also provide safe havens behind the shield of national sovereignty, which makes them undefeatable unless the war is widened to the haven countries.
Not quite. It's a matter of Constitutional law. The Supreme Court has upheld (some types of) laws regulating access to sexually explicit material, but has overturned all efforts at law-established rating systems on other grounds (like violence).
If New York goes ahead, New York will find itself in the same place Louisiana just found itself -- smacked down by the Supreme Court.
Ah, yes. My apologies for leaving my implicit assumption (the locale in the article is New York, so we're talking about American laws when discussing if there's a movie equivalent) implicit.
There are no laws enforcing the movie ratings system. It is perfectly legal to allow a six-year-old to rent or buy a film rated R or NC-17. It is merely social custom and private policies of vendors which restrict such activities.
Laws prohibiting the sale of indecent materials to minors do exist, but they exist independent of the ratings system, and already fully apply to video games.
Er, no, sorry, that was not the topic. Try re-reading Forge's post yourself, this time without leaping to conclusions.
See? Most of his post was about how human society has insulated humans from evolutionary pressure, not individual human intelligence. His only comment about the potential genetic basis of intelligence, which followed the athlete remark, was that people better hope intelligence isn't genetically determined.
Granted, Forge was not perfectly clear in the way he expressed himself. But you have to make a major leap of logic to come to the idea that he was asserting that athletes are smarter than most people, a slightly smaller jump to claim he was asserting intelligence is genetically determined, and then tie both together into a really long jump to come up with your response.
Are you seriously going to suggest that pro athletes don't have physical gifts superior to the average person, or that a significant factor in that superiority is their genes?
Micronesia includes the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Republic of Palau, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of Nauru, the Republic of Kiribati, the Territory of Guam, and the Territory of Wake Island, in the exact same way that America includes the United States of America, the United Mexican States, the Dominion of Canada, etc., etc.