The main problem with cryogenics right now is that it is not possible to undo the damage caused by the cryogenic procedure.
No, the main problem with cyrogenics right now is that frozen dead people can't be brought back to life, and there is no evidence this will ever change.
So it would appear indeed that this would be the same for books, movies, music, etc.
I guess I should have been more clear: what I meant to say was I wonder whether book publishers actually use copyright assignment or whether it's all "work for hire" these days. (I did RTFA but it doesn't elaborate on the practical details of how publishing contracts are interpreted in the light of copyright law, for media other than audio).
I did not know about the grant expiration clause written into the 1976 Copyright Act (RTFA to learn more). It's good to know that Congress defined copyrights to actually belong to the artists and they can get them back from the recording companies after 35 years. This sort of restores my confidence in US copyright law. Seriously.
Of course I think 35 years is too long but that's just a matter of degree. I wonder if the same applies to book publishing contracts.
So they say they'll save money on snow removal... *inside* the dome, sure. But what about the first big snowstorm that dumps a foot of snow *on top of* the dome? It will crush flat. Bad news for anyone who's inside.
In September, U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle temporarily barred state officials from releasing the identities of those who signed the referendum petitions. Settle held that releasing the names could chill the First Amendment rights of petition signers.
So what Judge Settle is saying here is that First Amendment rights mean that not only can you say whatever the hell you want, but no one is allowed to dislike you for saying it.
Linux sucks. Software patents are vital to innovation. Comcast provides great service. Long live the RIAA! SCO was right! Don't chill my First Amendment rights!
That said if anyone asks I tell them I'm an equalist NOT a feminist. The goal of feminism is to get women more rights which is at its root sexist.
I have to respectfully disagree with you there. It's not that feminists are trying to get more rights than men, it's that they're trying to get them more rights than they currently have. Totally different.
Actually I would say the issue today is about achieving practical rights... equal rights are "on the books" sure enough but it doesn't mean a whole lot. How come women as a population still own so little wealth compared to men, home come rape and domestic violence are so common, how come there are so few women in high government office, why is it still headline news when a woman wins a Nobel Prize? We're talking about ~50% of the population for crying out loud.
Sure, there are feminists-separatists and man-haters out there but feminism, to many, is about empowerment rather than about acrimony. I believe it's possible to be a feminist and an equalist at the same time. It depends on what books you read, I guess.
I don't predict a good outcome from this. Comcast will be flooded with incoming tech support calls from customers, half panicked about a virus they don't have and the other half angrily denying a virus they do have. And Comcast will discover that the cost of all those calls far outweighs any benefits they receive from the new system.
It's ridiculous that a supposedly rational, enlightened society would permit the existence of these kinds of these blatently political star chambers.
And who supposed that America is rational and enlightened? I'm content that it's democratic. We permit the existence of these blatantly political star chambers, but we don't always let them have their way. Ain't it grand?
In a U.S. criminal case, the requirement is that the jury make a finding "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a civil case, the requirement is to find based on the "preponderance of the evidence."
Is there a reasonable doubt whether humans are the cause of global warming? Well, depends on what you consider "reasonable," but it could go either way. Is there a preponderance of evidence that we're the cause? Hell yes! Unless there is a whole mountain of credible counter-evidence that has somehow been hidden for decades...
is there any way to force a company to erase your SSNs after you cease doing business with them...?
No.
Keep that in mind whenever a company asks for your SSN.
I've been rejected for phone service because I refused to provide it. But most of the time I just leave it blank on the application form, and most of the time nobody bats an eye. If you're applying online and it's a required field on the form, try applying by phone instead.
It seems you share a common misconception that the Bill of Rights protects you from private companies and individuals. It doesn't.
The Constitution is about defining (and, supposedly, constraining) the powers of government, particularly its power to wreak havoc in people's lives. It's not about whether a prospective employer can perform a credit check.
For the TSA case you mention, you might have a point, because there the employer is the government and is obligated to respect due process. A private employer? Nope. Unless you have an employment contract, they can kick you to the curb for whatever reason they like, or for no reason at all. The exception is that there are laws to prevent discrimination, so they can't fire you (or decline to hire) for being Ukranian or Buddhist or whatever. If for instance you get arrested, even if you never get charged with a crime, and your name appears in the paper, you can be fired. That's not discrimination.
Somewhere most Americans picked up this quaint idea that the law requires employers to treat employees fairly. Perhaps because there are a number of laws that do exactly that: anti-discrimination laws, the Americans with Disabilities act, laws regarding workplace safety and overtime pay... But as of today there is no law against discrimination with respect to criminal record, or credit history, or musical tastes, or political activities, or any of a million other criteria that are utterly irrelevant to the performance of the job but for some reason might matter to an unjust employer.
Except as required by law, rights don't enter into it. If you want more rights, talk to your state legislator about outlawing this stupid and offensive practice of reviewing credit reports.
How about these for new liability guidelines: if the vendor knowingly ships buggy software, the customer is entitled to a 100% refund on the license cost.
I would think the usefulness of these OLEDs would be more for brighter (daylight readable) electronic displays than for hugging trees and crunching granola. Eco friendliness is not the only reason to conserve power; consider for example extended battery life as a more tangible benefit.
It is. The CO2 from the coal-fired plant would not go away. It would be converted into ethanol and then released back as CO2 when the ethanol was burned.
The reason some people are so excited about bio-fuels is they are supposedly "carbon neutral." They take CO2 out of the atmosphere, then release it back when burned. If one were to use CO2 from coal combustion instead, then the CO2 stored in the alcohol is coming out of the ground. In other words, inserting algae into the coal -> atmosphere chain does not change the carbon balance, only interrupts it.
It is possible that adding algae into the chain could make energy production more efficient (more joules of energy per ton of total CO2 emissions) and may still be worth doing.
My concern is that the coal plant owner would convince the general public (who by and large do not understand such basic scientific laws as conservation of mass) that their CO2 is a "green energy source" and therefore should not be taxed/capped as a greenhouse gas. In other words, using coal exhaust to feed the algae is basically playing a shell game -- "which one has the CO2 under it now?"
The point to remember is that bio-fuels do not provide a net benefit to CO2 reduction. Ever. They're simply carbon neutral or approximately so.
"Who will help me approve these broadband requests?", said the Big Red Government.
Correction: This is an instance of fascism (government being run by corporations), not communism (corporations being run by the government). If you want a current example of communism, it would be the government takeover of General Motors.
That's right, current U.S. government has elements of both fascism and communism. Just like the rest of the G8.
Let's say the company bills out and makes $100K one year. I pay myself a 'reasonable salary' of say $30K. Now, with this set up, I only have to pay FICA and medicare on that $30K.
OK, makes a certain amount of sense but doesn't that mean your future Social Security benefits will be calculated based on your $30K base salary? That could affect you quite significantly later on.
I guess if you really believe you're better off investing your money yourself than having it in the SS system, you come out ahead. I personally don't subscribe to that belief because I am convinced that the payout everyone receives from Social Security far exceeds their pay-in plus interest -- at least for parasite^H^H^H retirees who are receiving the current lavish rate of benefits.
When it comes to privacy, there are much bigger issues than the pervasive use of tracking cookies. (For example: indefinite data retention after a customer has stopped doing business with a vendor, sale of customer data without explicit opt-in, and let's not forget the pervasive failure of government agencies to encrypt sensitive data like Social Security numbers.) Tracking cookies seem quaint and harmless by comparison... this article reminds me of the privacy issues we used to worry about back in 1999.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the main problem with cyrogenics right now is that frozen dead people can't be brought back to life, and there is no evidence this will ever change.
The summary was just copied-and-pasted from TFA, which is apparently written from a slant that it is bad news.
I guess I should have been more clear: what I meant to say was I wonder whether book publishers actually use copyright assignment or whether it's all "work for hire" these days. (I did RTFA but it doesn't elaborate on the practical details of how publishing contracts are interpreted in the light of copyright law, for media other than audio).
I did not know about the grant expiration clause written into the 1976 Copyright Act (RTFA to learn more). It's good to know that Congress defined copyrights to actually belong to the artists and they can get them back from the recording companies after 35 years. This sort of restores my confidence in US copyright law. Seriously.
Of course I think 35 years is too long but that's just a matter of degree. I wonder if the same applies to book publishing contracts.
So they say they'll save money on snow removal... *inside* the dome, sure. But what about the first big snowstorm that dumps a foot of snow *on top of* the dome? It will crush flat. Bad news for anyone who's inside.
I must have missed that part. Oh, wait, you live in the EU don't you?
So what Judge Settle is saying here is that First Amendment rights mean that not only can you say whatever the hell you want, but no one is allowed to dislike you for saying it.
Linux sucks. Software patents are vital to innovation. Comcast provides great service. Long live the RIAA! SCO was right! Don't chill my First Amendment rights!
I have to respectfully disagree with you there. It's not that feminists are trying to get more rights than men, it's that they're trying to get them more rights than they currently have. Totally different.
Actually I would say the issue today is about achieving practical rights ... equal rights are "on the books" sure enough but it doesn't mean a whole lot. How come women as a population still own so little wealth compared to men, home come rape and domestic violence are so common, how come there are so few women in high government office, why is it still headline news when a woman wins a Nobel Prize? We're talking about ~50% of the population for crying out loud.
Sure, there are feminists-separatists and man-haters out there but feminism, to many, is about empowerment rather than about acrimony. I believe it's possible to be a feminist and an equalist at the same time. It depends on what books you read, I guess.
Now, isn't that by itself enough to get you thinking?
I don't predict a good outcome from this. Comcast will be flooded with incoming tech support calls from customers, half panicked about a virus they don't have and the other half angrily denying a virus they do have. And Comcast will discover that the cost of all those calls far outweighs any benefits they receive from the new system.
Be careful what you wish for ... your credit card company might copyright your personal data and sue _you_ for using your own name!
And who supposed that America is rational and enlightened? I'm content that it's democratic. We permit the existence of these blatantly political star chambers, but we don't always let them have their way. Ain't it grand?
In a U.S. criminal case, the requirement is that the jury make a finding "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a civil case, the requirement is to find based on the "preponderance of the evidence."
Is there a reasonable doubt whether humans are the cause of global warming? Well, depends on what you consider "reasonable," but it could go either way. Is there a preponderance of evidence that we're the cause? Hell yes! Unless there is a whole mountain of credible counter-evidence that has somehow been hidden for decades...
No.
Keep that in mind whenever a company asks for your SSN.
I've been rejected for phone service because I refused to provide it. But most of the time I just leave it blank on the application form, and most of the time nobody bats an eye. If you're applying online and it's a required field on the form, try applying by phone instead.
It seems you share a common misconception that the Bill of Rights protects you from private companies and individuals. It doesn't.
The Constitution is about defining (and, supposedly, constraining) the powers of government, particularly its power to wreak havoc in people's lives. It's not about whether a prospective employer can perform a credit check.
For the TSA case you mention, you might have a point, because there the employer is the government and is obligated to respect due process. A private employer? Nope. Unless you have an employment contract, they can kick you to the curb for whatever reason they like, or for no reason at all. The exception is that there are laws to prevent discrimination, so they can't fire you (or decline to hire) for being Ukranian or Buddhist or whatever. If for instance you get arrested, even if you never get charged with a crime, and your name appears in the paper, you can be fired. That's not discrimination.
Somewhere most Americans picked up this quaint idea that the law requires employers to treat employees fairly. Perhaps because there are a number of laws that do exactly that: anti-discrimination laws, the Americans with Disabilities act, laws regarding workplace safety and overtime pay... But as of today there is no law against discrimination with respect to criminal record, or credit history, or musical tastes, or political activities, or any of a million other criteria that are utterly irrelevant to the performance of the job but for some reason might matter to an unjust employer.
Except as required by law, rights don't enter into it. If you want more rights, talk to your state legislator about outlawing this stupid and offensive practice of reviewing credit reports.
Or very, very small.
How about these for new liability guidelines: if the vendor knowingly ships buggy software, the customer is entitled to a 100% refund on the license cost.
All the space marines in that movie died. Do you still want to be one? Me, I'd rather be a little girl.
I would think the usefulness of these OLEDs would be more for brighter (daylight readable) electronic displays than for hugging trees and crunching granola. Eco friendliness is not the only reason to conserve power; consider for example extended battery life as a more tangible benefit.
It is. The CO2 from the coal-fired plant would not go away. It would be converted into ethanol and then released back as CO2 when the ethanol was burned.
The reason some people are so excited about bio-fuels is they are supposedly "carbon neutral." They take CO2 out of the atmosphere, then release it back when burned. If one were to use CO2 from coal combustion instead, then the CO2 stored in the alcohol is coming out of the ground. In other words, inserting algae into the coal -> atmosphere chain does not change the carbon balance, only interrupts it.
It is possible that adding algae into the chain could make energy production more efficient (more joules of energy per ton of total CO2 emissions) and may still be worth doing.
My concern is that the coal plant owner would convince the general public (who by and large do not understand such basic scientific laws as conservation of mass) that their CO2 is a "green energy source" and therefore should not be taxed/capped as a greenhouse gas. In other words, using coal exhaust to feed the algae is basically playing a shell game -- "which one has the CO2 under it now?"
The point to remember is that bio-fuels do not provide a net benefit to CO2 reduction. Ever. They're simply carbon neutral or approximately so.
Correction: This is an instance of fascism (government being run by corporations), not communism (corporations being run by the government). If you want a current example of communism, it would be the government takeover of General Motors.
That's right, current U.S. government has elements of both fascism and communism. Just like the rest of the G8.
OK, makes a certain amount of sense but doesn't that mean your future Social Security benefits will be calculated based on your $30K base salary? That could affect you quite significantly later on.
I guess if you really believe you're better off investing your money yourself than having it in the SS system, you come out ahead. I personally don't subscribe to that belief because I am convinced that the payout everyone receives from Social Security far exceeds their pay-in plus interest -- at least for parasite^H^H^H retirees who are receiving the current lavish rate of benefits.
When it comes to privacy, there are much bigger issues than the pervasive use of tracking cookies. (For example: indefinite data retention after a customer has stopped doing business with a vendor, sale of customer data without explicit opt-in, and let's not forget the pervasive failure of government agencies to encrypt sensitive data like Social Security numbers.) Tracking cookies seem quaint and harmless by comparison... this article reminds me of the privacy issues we used to worry about back in 1999.
TFA says Obama would be our (the U.S.'s) "first geek president."
Hello? Anybody out there ever heard of Thomas Jefferson?
Oh yeah, you gotta hate those guys who spend their time trying to stop the government from trampling on people's rights.