That depends on your point of view. Ford turned down the loan from the TARP program, which most people are referring to as bailout money.
But Ford did accept a $5.9 billion dollar loan from the Department of Energy and has asked for another $5.1 billion.
Some people argue that the DOE money is not bailout money because it is part of a program to get automakers to build cars that are 25% more fuel efficient. Some people say that this view is bullshit and it is all bailout money.
You are not that far off. From TFA: Volunteer reviewers will be required to have some connection to the broadband industry, although the volunteers will have to comply with rules from NTIA parent agency the U.S. Department of Commerce on conflicts of interest and confidentiality, the NTIA document said. Reviewers must have "significant expertise and experience" in either designing and building broadband networks, educating or training consumers about broadband, or working in programs to increase demand for broadband, the NTIA document said.
Typically, the SCOTUS does not comment when it denies a petition.
But there is an opinion to read, that of the lower court which last heard the case. By denying, the SCOTUS is saying that the lower court got it right.
Although I think that in this case you may have to recurse through several court levels to find one that actually rendered an opinion. I think that all of the appeals by TDS were just rejected as being a waste of everybody's time.
From TFA: He expects the journey to take 50 days, but at night (weather and sea conditions and giant sea monsters permitting) the sub will float on the surface and he will be sleeping in a tent erected on top of the sub.
To me, the source code for the breathalyzer machines would be quite useless.
Your statement assumes that the company that makes the breathalyzer has an interest in producing a fair and reliable product (which may be true).
However, these products are sold to law enforcement, so what if there is a small bias towards high results? For example, what if the machine takes three samples and returns the highest value? If I was on a jury and that information was uncovered during testimony it would impact my decision.
The summary claims that the charges against the defendants will likely be lowered, but why?
The summary is poorly written, but I think that the point is not that the court is compelling the manufacturer to reveal their trade secrets, the court is telling the prosecutor that the only way to introduce the testimony of the machine is to allow the defense to cross examine the machine, i.e. read the source code. The summary writer (reasonably) expects that the manufacturer will not reveal their source code, so the prosecutor will not have the breathalyzer results as evidence. The case will come down to a cop saying that the driver was weaving, and the driver saying that he was tired from driving all day, and the charge will be reduced to unsafe lane change or whatever.
It depends on where you live. Here in Chicago we get the local channels, but most of them have extra feeds:
CBS & FOX - no extra channel
NBC - weather channel and sports channel (but not the good kind of sports)
ABC - weather channel and news channel
WGN - The Tube Music Network
PBS - Who cares? We have 3 PBS channels and each has 3 feeds, so I guess we get 9 PBS channels now that nobody watches
And the best is WCIU, which is our local independent station that shows repeats of old shows. They have 3 feeds for the old shows (which is like having 3 oldies channels) plus they have one channel for old movies. They also have one channel that is for international programs.
Credit Suisse did something like that, by giving their executives bonuses that are in effect tied to the illiquid MBSes that are causing so much trouble.
I am sorry, but this is a horrible idea (not that the current executive bonus situation is not also horrible).
The article does not give the full details, but for the sake of argument let us pretend that the bonus is equal to the return on the set of opaque assets mentioned in the article. Because we are talking about bonuses, the minimum bonus is $0.
If the assets have -100% return or 0% return, the bonus is $0. If the assets have 3% return the bonus is 3%, etc. This situation encourages risk taking by removing most of the penalty for risk taking, which is losing money. With a safety net in place (the safety net is that in some years the executive bonus will be $0), higher risks can be taken each year because fewer of the years need to pay off for the multi year return to be better than playing it safe.
If the executive's salaries were tied to these assets, then it would mean something.
In general the argument against most of these proposals seems to follow the line of, 'it wont stop me so why bother.'
That is not the general argument. The general argument is that it will not stop someone who is sufficiently motivated because the effort to circumvent the restriction is trivial. This goes for gun control, child pornography, DRM, abortion, prostitution, border fences, drinking ages, etc.
if stopping or impeding 50% perhaps it could be labeled a success
Stopping or impeding 50% (of anything) would be the greatest success in the history of government. Do gun control laws reduce gun crime by 50%? Did raising the drinking age from 18 to 21 reduce the number of 20 year olds who drink by 50%? Is the fence between Mexico & the US going to reduce illegal immigration by 50%?
Wow, are you cereal? There is a lot of sophomoric stupidity in your posts. My stats were pulled out of my ass.
If you think about your own post, you could probably figure out that "reported" already has a meaning. In your follow up you say that reported means reported to the police but then in the same paragraph you contradict that definition by saying that a person can report through surveys.
So before you make such stupid posts, maybe you should think about what you are saying first, you know, to avoid looking like an idiot, eh?
of all sexual assaults, only about 1 in 10 are even reported.
If they are not reported, how do you know that this is true? I heard it was 1 in 1,000. My dog says it is 1 in 1,000,000. Which means you are probably a rapist. You make me sick.
Perfect image recognition + perfect handwriting recognition all decoded and read out in real time AND doing the maths too?
How is this insightful? TFS and TFA never said that the robot had image or handwriting recognition. The article just says that the robot reads the headlines.
The robot could just be reading the headlines from CNN's RSS feed. I think Slashdot used to have a button you could push to hear the headlines read out by our robotic overlord. Does our robotic overlord have image and handwriting recognition?
And here is another thought - the robot does not actually read street signs to determine location and then reference a map to get directions. It probably has a GPS receiver sewed up in its head.
it's linked in the news article. It was well written, not off topic, and expressed a reasonable concern about the time period students have to get to know the school apparently. It was not "spam" at all.
Spam is unsolicited bulk email, regardless of whether or not it is well written, relevant, or reasonable.
It sounds like the professors are more butthurt she got their email addresses
That is the whole point, she got their email addresses and sent them spam.
They simply should have redirected her appeal to the right people if it was not appropriate to be sent via that email list. Instead they are being punative.
I agree with you here, but according to TFA, when they did this she refused and vowed to repeat her actions. TFA did not mention why she refused, so it is possible that the system in place would not be timely enough or would dilute her message, so I will give her the benefit of the doubt. I think that her actions do not merit suspension. Just take away her email privileges.
I don't understand how this could be a problem. He didn't falsely claim the store poisoned him or anything, he just simply stated out of the stores he's seen, it was one of the most dirty. That's just an opinion, and as far as I know we're still allowed to voice our opinion.
The case is not about whether or not a person is allowed to state an opinion. The case is about whether or not somebody can use the power of the courts to find out who is "hiding" behind a nom de plume on the internet.
This is the part where I am speculating: Presumably the person who was hurt by the opinion wants to attempt to bully the opinion writer (probably by having a lawyer send some kind of threatening letter) into deleting the opinion or perhaps revising it. But if the bully cannot find out the name and address of the opinion writer, the bully is stymied. The bully cannot get the host of the forum to reveal the necessary information, but perhaps the courts have the power to do so.
From Wikipedia:
Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes--27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes--within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages.
also:
There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business or property" can sue one or more "racketeers." The plaintiff must prove the existence of a "criminal enterprise." The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise. A civil RICO action, like many lawsuits based on federal law, can be filed in state or federal court.
Is what do these all these "expert" witnesses contribute to the case before the court?
The plaintiff will try to convince the judge that Tenenbaum downloaded 7 songs and owes them $1 million. The expert witnesses will try to convince the judge that Tenenbaum downloaded 7 songs and owes the plaintiffs nothing (or maybe $6.93).
In the 1925 Scopes "Monkey Trial," the issue before the trial court wasn't evolution, it was the teaching of evolution in the public schools in violation of Tennessee state law.
That was the position of the prosecution. The position of the defense was that the law was unconstitutional because it violated the teacher's (Scopes) constitutional rights (the law benefited a particular religious group). But at some point the trial became a media circus full of the celebrities of the age and the defense just made speeches (that as you point out were irrelevant).
I started with:
"monty python" list of skits
The first hit was a website with a list of 59 Monty Python Skits and links to them on YouTube (all of which have been taken down).
One of the sketches listed was "French Sketch" so I Googled with:
"monty python" "french sketch"
The third hit was the sketch on YouTube
Search on "outlet switch" to find a plug with an on/off switch that plugs into the wall outlet.
I was watching "Living With Ed" and he showed a system called Green Switch which retrofits US homes with the technology you are used to in Europe. They modify some of the existing outlets so that they can be activated / deactivated wirelessly by a controller that is mounted in the wall and looks like a regular light switch.
Plug the Tivo into the always on outlet and plug everything else into the switchable outlet. Then when you leave the house you turn off the power to the unnecessary appliances.
the example shows how that even a reasonably accurate system can look unreliable when searching for a needle in a haystack.
I went ahead and read TFA to get the actual numbers: 160,000 flags, 1,266 arrests for a 0.79125% "success" rate.
Your example illustrates your point well, however there is another possible conclusion. Imagine that 0.79125% of people at airports have drugs or fake IDs (or whatever else people can be arrested for) and the system is a scam and is just randomly selecting people. Then of a random sample of 160,000 people at airports, we would expect 1,266 arrests.
Sorry for my ignorance, but what exactly about this family makes them nuclear? Did they have glowing laser eyes, or some other superpowers?
Only if their laser eyes and other superpowers came from some kind of nuclear accident. If someone can run really fast because his chemical lab was struck by lightning, it does not count.
Otherwise, a nuclear family is one that consists of 2 parents and their children living in a self sufficient manner. This is to contrast with the extended family, which contains several sets of parents and their offspring over multiple generations all living together and sharing the work.
I don't want to go too far out on a limb, but I think it is generally believed that the extended family is necessary for a primitive or agrarian society, but as societies move towards industrialization the nuclear family emerges. So finding a nuclear family in what is clearly a primitive society would challenge this belief.
UGH! Am I the ONLY one on this planet that sees BEYOND the whole financial benefits of this!
No, although you may be the ONLY one on this planet who does not UNDERSTAND what a publicly traded company is.
When Yahoo went public (by selling stock to the public) they no longer own the business outright. The owners (the shareholders) will appoint a board of directors who will act on behalf of the owners (the shareholders) and select executives to run the company on a day to day basis.
Your points are all valid for a privately held company, but the executives of a publicly held company are expected to act in a way that maximizes shareholder value. The Yahoo CEO did not do that, and therefore he is no longer the CEO.
First, the ruling preserved the right exercised by the USN to use sonar as it saw fit in training. It overturned a judicial order by a lower court, rather than setting regulations.
Nowhere in TFS or TFA does it say that the ruling set any regulations, so what are you quibbling about?
Second, it is President Bush, the honorific goes to the office he holds. Dropping the title makes the BBC sound petty.
This is an inherent problem with reading TFS instead of TFA. In English grammar a person is referred to by title when first introduced, i.e. President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, but then subsequent references are to Mr Bush and Mr Blair. TFA follows this convention, but because TFS comes from a later part of the article, it doesn't contain the initial references.
Slashdot Mirror
That depends on your point of view. Ford turned down the loan from the TARP program, which most people are referring to as bailout money.
But Ford did accept a $5.9 billion dollar loan from the Department of Energy and has asked for another $5.1 billion.
Some people argue that the DOE money is not bailout money because it is part of a program to get automakers to build cars that are 25% more fuel efficient. Some people say that this view is bullshit and it is all bailout money.
You are not that far off. From TFA:
Volunteer reviewers will be required to have some connection to the broadband industry, although the volunteers will have to comply with rules from NTIA parent agency the U.S. Department of Commerce on conflicts of interest and confidentiality, the NTIA document said. Reviewers must have "significant expertise and experience" in either designing and building broadband networks, educating or training consumers about broadband, or working in programs to increase demand for broadband, the NTIA document said.
I went to the sniffing page linked from the summary and it stayed on 0% for 5 minutes so I guess it does not work for me.
NoScript (I presume) saves the day again!
Sorry to reply to myself, but on further reading I realize that I should have said MSC, not SCOTUS. But I think the process is the same.
Typically, the SCOTUS does not comment when it denies a petition.
But there is an opinion to read, that of the lower court which last heard the case. By denying, the SCOTUS is saying that the lower court got it right.
Although I think that in this case you may have to recurse through several court levels to find one that actually rendered an opinion. I think that all of the appeals by TDS were just rejected as being a waste of everybody's time.
From TFA: He expects the journey to take 50 days, but at night (weather and sea conditions and giant sea monsters permitting) the sub will float on the surface and he will be sleeping in a tent erected on top of the sub.
To me, the source code for the breathalyzer machines would be quite useless.
Your statement assumes that the company that makes the breathalyzer has an interest in producing a fair and reliable product (which may be true).
However, these products are sold to law enforcement, so what if there is a small bias towards high results? For example, what if the machine takes three samples and returns the highest value? If I was on a jury and that information was uncovered during testimony it would impact my decision.
The summary claims that the charges against the defendants will likely be lowered, but why?
The summary is poorly written, but I think that the point is not that the court is compelling the manufacturer to reveal their trade secrets, the court is telling the prosecutor that the only way to introduce the testimony of the machine is to allow the defense to cross examine the machine, i.e. read the source code. The summary writer (reasonably) expects that the manufacturer will not reveal their source code, so the prosecutor will not have the breathalyzer results as evidence. The case will come down to a cop saying that the driver was weaving, and the driver saying that he was tired from driving all day, and the charge will be reduced to unsafe lane change or whatever.
It depends on where you live. Here in Chicago we get the local channels, but most of them have extra feeds:
CBS & FOX - no extra channel
NBC - weather channel and sports channel (but not the good kind of sports)
ABC - weather channel and news channel
WGN - The Tube Music Network
PBS - Who cares? We have 3 PBS channels and each has 3 feeds, so I guess we get 9 PBS channels now that nobody watches
And the best is WCIU, which is our local independent station that shows repeats of old shows. They have 3 feeds for the old shows (which is like having 3 oldies channels) plus they have one channel for old movies. They also have one channel that is for international programs.
Credit Suisse did something like that, by giving their executives bonuses that are in effect tied to the illiquid MBSes that are causing so much trouble.
I am sorry, but this is a horrible idea (not that the current executive bonus situation is not also horrible).
The article does not give the full details, but for the sake of argument let us pretend that the bonus is equal to the return on the set of opaque assets mentioned in the article. Because we are talking about bonuses, the minimum bonus is $0.
If the assets have -100% return or 0% return, the bonus is $0. If the assets have 3% return the bonus is 3%, etc. This situation encourages risk taking by removing most of the penalty for risk taking, which is losing money. With a safety net in place (the safety net is that in some years the executive bonus will be $0), higher risks can be taken each year because fewer of the years need to pay off for the multi year return to be better than playing it safe.
If the executive's salaries were tied to these assets, then it would mean something.
In general the argument against most of these proposals seems to follow the line of, 'it wont stop me so why bother.'
That is not the general argument. The general argument is that it will not stop someone who is sufficiently motivated because the effort to circumvent the restriction is trivial. This goes for gun control, child pornography, DRM, abortion, prostitution, border fences, drinking ages, etc.
if stopping or impeding 50% perhaps it could be labeled a success
Stopping or impeding 50% (of anything) would be the greatest success in the history of government. Do gun control laws reduce gun crime by 50%? Did raising the drinking age from 18 to 21 reduce the number of 20 year olds who drink by 50%? Is the fence between Mexico & the US going to reduce illegal immigration by 50%?
Wow, are you cereal? There is a lot of sophomoric stupidity in your posts. My stats were pulled out of my ass.
If you think about your own post, you could probably figure out that "reported" already has a meaning. In your follow up you say that reported means reported to the police but then in the same paragraph you contradict that definition by saying that a person can report through surveys.
So before you make such stupid posts, maybe you should think about what you are saying first, you know, to avoid looking like an idiot, eh?
of all sexual assaults, only about 1 in 10 are even reported.
If they are not reported, how do you know that this is true? I heard it was 1 in 1,000. My dog says it is 1 in 1,000,000. Which means you are probably a rapist. You make me sick.
Perfect image recognition + perfect handwriting recognition all decoded and read out in real time AND doing the maths too?
How is this insightful? TFS and TFA never said that the robot had image or handwriting recognition. The article just says that the robot reads the headlines.
The robot could just be reading the headlines from CNN's RSS feed. I think Slashdot used to have a button you could push to hear the headlines read out by our robotic overlord. Does our robotic overlord have image and handwriting recognition?
And here is another thought - the robot does not actually read street signs to determine location and then reference a map to get directions. It probably has a GPS receiver sewed up in its head.
it's linked in the news article. It was well written, not off topic, and expressed a reasonable concern about the time period students have to get to know the school apparently. It was not "spam" at all.
Spam is unsolicited bulk email, regardless of whether or not it is well written, relevant, or reasonable.
It sounds like the professors are more butthurt she got their email addresses
That is the whole point, she got their email addresses and sent them spam.
They simply should have redirected her appeal to the right people if it was not appropriate to be sent via that email list. Instead they are being punative.
I agree with you here, but according to TFA, when they did this she refused and vowed to repeat her actions. TFA did not mention why she refused, so it is possible that the system in place would not be timely enough or would dilute her message, so I will give her the benefit of the doubt. I think that her actions do not merit suspension. Just take away her email privileges.
I don't understand how this could be a problem. He didn't falsely claim the store poisoned him or anything, he just simply stated out of the stores he's seen, it was one of the most dirty. That's just an opinion, and as far as I know we're still allowed to voice our opinion.
The case is not about whether or not a person is allowed to state an opinion. The case is about whether or not somebody can use the power of the courts to find out who is "hiding" behind a nom de plume on the internet.
This is the part where I am speculating: Presumably the person who was hurt by the opinion wants to attempt to bully the opinion writer (probably by having a lawyer send some kind of threatening letter) into deleting the opinion or perhaps revising it. But if the bully cannot find out the name and address of the opinion writer, the bully is stymied. The bully cannot get the host of the forum to reveal the necessary information, but perhaps the courts have the power to do so.
So what happens if the RICO action succeeds?
From Wikipedia:
Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes--27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes--within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages.
also:
There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business or property" can sue one or more "racketeers." The plaintiff must prove the existence of a "criminal enterprise." The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise. A civil RICO action, like many lawsuits based on federal law, can be filed in state or federal court.
Is what do these all these "expert" witnesses contribute to the case before the court?
The plaintiff will try to convince the judge that Tenenbaum downloaded 7 songs and owes them $1 million. The expert witnesses will try to convince the judge that Tenenbaum downloaded 7 songs and owes the plaintiffs nothing (or maybe $6.93).
In the 1925 Scopes "Monkey Trial," the issue before the trial court wasn't evolution, it was the teaching of evolution in the public schools in violation of Tennessee state law.
That was the position of the prosecution. The position of the defense was that the law was unconstitutional because it violated the teacher's (Scopes) constitutional rights (the law benefited a particular religious group). But at some point the trial became a media circus full of the celebrities of the age and the defense just made speeches (that as you point out were irrelevant).
What did you google for?
I started with:
"monty python" list of skits
The first hit was a website with a list of 59 Monty Python Skits and links to them on YouTube (all of which have been taken down).
One of the sketches listed was "French Sketch" so I Googled with:
"monty python" "french sketch"
The third hit was the sketch on YouTube
I am looking for a specific sketch. It might or might not have been called "French Art Film".
My Google-Fu is strong. It is called "French Subtitled Film" and is on YouTube, but not in the Monty Python section (yet).
Search on "outlet switch" to find a plug with an on/off switch that plugs into the wall outlet.
I was watching "Living With Ed" and he showed a system called Green Switch which retrofits US homes with the technology you are used to in Europe. They modify some of the existing outlets so that they can be activated / deactivated wirelessly by a controller that is mounted in the wall and looks like a regular light switch.
Plug the Tivo into the always on outlet and plug everything else into the switchable outlet. Then when you leave the house you turn off the power to the unnecessary appliances.
the example shows how that even a reasonably accurate system can look unreliable when searching for a needle in a haystack.
I went ahead and read TFA to get the actual numbers: 160,000 flags, 1,266 arrests for a 0.79125% "success" rate.
Your example illustrates your point well, however there is another possible conclusion. Imagine that 0.79125% of people at airports have drugs or fake IDs (or whatever else people can be arrested for) and the system is a scam and is just randomly selecting people. Then of a random sample of 160,000 people at airports, we would expect 1,266 arrests.
Sorry for my ignorance, but what exactly about this family makes them nuclear? Did they have glowing laser eyes, or some other superpowers?
Only if their laser eyes and other superpowers came from some kind of nuclear accident. If someone can run really fast because his chemical lab was struck by lightning, it does not count.
Otherwise, a nuclear family is one that consists of 2 parents and their children living in a self sufficient manner. This is to contrast with the extended family, which contains several sets of parents and their offspring over multiple generations all living together and sharing the work.
I don't want to go too far out on a limb, but I think it is generally believed that the extended family is necessary for a primitive or agrarian society, but as societies move towards industrialization the nuclear family emerges. So finding a nuclear family in what is clearly a primitive society would challenge this belief.
UGH! Am I the ONLY one on this planet that sees BEYOND the whole financial benefits of this!
No, although you may be the ONLY one on this planet who does not UNDERSTAND what a publicly traded company is.
When Yahoo went public (by selling stock to the public) they no longer own the business outright. The owners (the shareholders) will appoint a board of directors who will act on behalf of the owners (the shareholders) and select executives to run the company on a day to day basis.
Your points are all valid for a privately held company, but the executives of a publicly held company are expected to act in a way that maximizes shareholder value. The Yahoo CEO did not do that, and therefore he is no longer the CEO.
I have two quibbles with the story:
First, the ruling preserved the right exercised by the USN to use sonar as it saw fit in training. It overturned a judicial order by a lower court, rather than setting regulations.
Nowhere in TFS or TFA does it say that the ruling set any regulations, so what are you quibbling about?
Second, it is President Bush, the honorific goes to the office he holds. Dropping the title makes the BBC sound petty.
This is an inherent problem with reading TFS instead of TFA. In English grammar a person is referred to by title when first introduced, i.e. President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, but then subsequent references are to Mr Bush and Mr Blair. TFA follows this convention, but because TFS comes from a later part of the article, it doesn't contain the initial references.
TFS refers to watt hours
Watt = joule / sec
Watt hours = Watts * hours, not Watts / hour
1 watt hour = 3600 joules