and that's all fine and good for the investors who got into trouble, but what about United? Should they be subject to these massive swings in value - which has real impact to things like credit availability - or should they just suck it up as part of the price they pay for being publicly traded?
Serious question. The stakes are much, much higher on wall street, and someone is guaranteed to skirt the rules. Even if you manage to convince the major traders to get rid of scripts executing trades they're going to pile onto the gray edges if they think it gives them a competitive advantage (which they do, or they wouldn't be using them.) Think a person in a chair "reviewing" software recommended purchases, and clicking the buy or sell button every time the software tells them to. It'd be like reverse boting.
Care to elaborate on why the judge screwed up? After reading the groklaw analysis, I'm having a hard time being outraged, as does the defendant's lawyer:
I'm sorry about the result, that the lexicon was not found to be sufficiently transformative, But I am happy the judge endorsed the genre of reference works and companion books as valuable and important and that authors don't have an automatic right to control what's written about their works."
As much as I generally fawn on your analysis of copyright law, I'm finding myself disagreeing on this one. If groklaw is to believed, the defendant copied a lot, especially from the companion books. I don't see why reorganizing original details verbatim should be protected under fair use, but I'd be interested to read why you think they should - or why you don't think that is what the lexicon did.
I disagree. Plenty of people can, and do, believe 100% in the first verse, but don't think we've got all the later details precisely right.
I find it useful to distinguish between a philosophical idea of god who is, at least, omnipotent and eternal, and a religious god who is anthropomorphized in some way.
The first verse simply postulates a philosophical creator god. If you just take the first verse you can make the argument that god was the watchmaker - a position which, if not necessarily useful, isn't particularly problematic either.
I have more issues with god raining brimstone as a result of immorality than I do with, "In the beginning..."
The problem is that some Amazonian countries think deforesting the rainforest is a good idea, while all Saharan countries would welcome a lush desert. If everyone agrees, sovereignty isn't an issue.
Here's the cool thing: this isn't really that big of a project, in fact it's much smaller than the liberty ship project.
It's also not that much money. $5 billion buys you 2 Saturn V launches, a drop in the bucket towards the cost of mining asteroids.
Best case scenario: these ships stave off the worst predictions of global warming, prevent billions of peoples homes being flooded, and help prevent massive global instability.
Worst case scenario: these ships are actively harmful, so we shut them off, the water vapor precipitates in a week or so, and we've wasted the budget equivalent of 12 days in Iraq.
My only concern is that this project does nothing to address the cause, so we'll continue burning fossil fuels until some other side effect becomes critical.
I think you'll find that the times with high (and increasing) CO2 levels correlate to bad things happening, like this, and generally unpleasant weather that would put lots of major cities underwater.
The US most certainly does have minimum building standards, we just haven't seen fit to include efficiency in them. Including efficiency is a difference of kind, not degree, and the only reason not to include it is that it will increase the cost of housing.
I think the big chip with the traces coming out is a replacement for the mag strip, my previous blue w/o rfid had that too. If your amex has a rfid I think it's a tiny little chip right under the big one.
You can also tell if if has RFID if you flip it over and see a "express pay" logo.
There is the problem with liability and litigating everything, but that doesn't address the issue of whether and what hazards the public should be informed of.
If the government doesn't mandate the labeling requirements who will? And if a business' employees all come down with cancer because they didn't know the hazards and weren't provided the proper ppe what is the recourse?
Sorta, but lets not pretend that WB just happened to take a bad shot. They've got plenty of lawyers who have done due diligence on the rights to this property. (In your 9-ball example you and your opponent both have bunch of billiard expert friends looking very carefully at the table and evaluating every shot.) WB no doubt knew this movie would at least pique fox's interest. They evidently decided that they'd come out ahead even if fox sued them, either because they determined fox doesn't have a case, and/or because they'll still make money after paying off fox.
Libertarianism is more like an article of faith which declares that if everyone minds their own business all the worlds problems will work themselves out.
Only if you're running rich, as in old VW Bug rich or really, really, 30ish:1 lean. In the first case you not only have lots of CO emissions you also have lots HC emissions. In the latter, you can't make power with running at 12000 rpm.
I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or just clarifying.
Yes, it is it is illegal to remove a cat from a car equipped with a cat (Clean Air Act I think). No, manufacturers aren't required to install a cat if they can pass emissions checks without them. In reality the only way to pass an emissions check is with a cat, so all cars come with cats.
If there were a technology which could pass emissions without a cat it would be ubiquitous, because any car with a cat would cost at least $500 more (and would probably have worse fuel efficiency.)
Yes, efficiency, as measured by MPG would go up without a cat. However, it's quite a leap of (il)logic to conclude that they'd have better emissions without. Are you really saying that a cat INCREASES emissions? If it were physically possible to get reasonable power and stop the increased NOx formation that happens in lean situations, we'd be doing it. Cats are expensive, and cat's aren't actually required per se, its just that there are no known superior processes for reducing NOx emissions.
Also the bit about the cat not getting hot enough is nonsense. My car has three cats - which is a bit crazy - but the first cat is really only works during start-up until it gets too hot.
"I'm against government regulation because industry is myopic.
Because one guy in Oregon says he will eventually have a kit to turn a civic into a EV it proves that EV's are something consumers want and are willing to pay for. Therefore, industry will necessarily pick up the concept. This proves that the invisible hand of the market will provide whatever the consumer wants in the most efficient manner possible."
Do you think catalytic converters are a good idea? Do you think they'd be installed on cars without government regulation?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah I did, and it was going fine until I tried to figure out how to pronounce "crurotarsans."
Can someone help me out?
Next time: I'm going to short GOOG when my RSS feed reads, "Google Cures Cancer and Harnesses Zero-Point Energy"...
and that's all fine and good for the investors who got into trouble, but what about United? Should they be subject to these massive swings in value - which has real impact to things like credit availability - or should they just suck it up as part of the price they pay for being publicly traded?
Does that work for WoW?
Serious question. The stakes are much, much higher on wall street, and someone is guaranteed to skirt the rules. Even if you manage to convince the major traders to get rid of scripts executing trades they're going to pile onto the gray edges if they think it gives them a competitive advantage (which they do, or they wouldn't be using them.) Think a person in a chair "reviewing" software recommended purchases, and clicking the buy or sell button every time the software tells them to. It'd be like reverse boting.
Care to elaborate on why the judge screwed up? After reading the groklaw analysis, I'm having a hard time being outraged, as does the defendant's lawyer:
As much as I generally fawn on your analysis of copyright law, I'm finding myself disagreeing on this one. If groklaw is to believed, the defendant copied a lot, especially from the companion books. I don't see why reorganizing original details verbatim should be protected under fair use, but I'd be interested to read why you think they should - or why you don't think that is what the lexicon did.
I disagree. Plenty of people can, and do, believe 100% in the first verse, but don't think we've got all the later details precisely right.
I find it useful to distinguish between a philosophical idea of god who is, at least, omnipotent and eternal, and a religious god who is anthropomorphized in some way.
The first verse simply postulates a philosophical creator god. If you just take the first verse you can make the argument that god was the watchmaker - a position which, if not necessarily useful, isn't particularly problematic either.
I have more issues with god raining brimstone as a result of immorality than I do with, "In the beginning..."
The problem is that some Amazonian countries think deforesting the rainforest is a good idea, while all Saharan countries would welcome a lush desert. If everyone agrees, sovereignty isn't an issue.
How to make this project do that:
Put a bunch of these ships in the Red Sea and Easter Mediterranean in order to grow clouds that rain on the Sahara.
Don't know if it would work, but make it rain in the Sahara might be easier than irrigate the Sahara.
Well the takedown notice has to have contact information correct?
Presumably, it wasn't correct, which is why YouTube put it back up - but was it completely fabricated or did they use real names and addresses?
Here's the cool thing: this isn't really that big of a project, in fact it's much smaller than the liberty ship project.
It's also not that much money. $5 billion buys you 2 Saturn V launches, a drop in the bucket towards the cost of mining asteroids.
Best case scenario: these ships stave off the worst predictions of global warming, prevent billions of peoples homes being flooded, and help prevent massive global instability.
Worst case scenario: these ships are actively harmful, so we shut them off, the water vapor precipitates in a week or so, and we've wasted the budget equivalent of 12 days in Iraq.
My only concern is that this project does nothing to address the cause, so we'll continue burning fossil fuels until some other side effect becomes critical.
Either way, I'd say it's worth it.
I think you'll find that the times with high (and increasing) CO2 levels correlate to bad things happening, like this, and generally unpleasant weather that would put lots of major cities underwater.
Ever tried to build a deck?
The US most certainly does have minimum building standards, we just haven't seen fit to include efficiency in them. Including efficiency is a difference of kind, not degree, and the only reason not to include it is that it will increase the cost of housing.
If that's true, then it would seem the perjury bit actually has merit...
I wonder if we can talk anyone into going after the claimants?
I think the big chip with the traces coming out is a replacement for the mag strip, my previous blue w/o rfid had that too. If your amex has a rfid I think it's a tiny little chip right under the big one.
You can also tell if if has RFID if you flip it over and see a "express pay" logo.
There is the problem with liability and litigating everything, but that doesn't address the issue of whether and what hazards the public should be informed of.
If the government doesn't mandate the labeling requirements who will? And if a business' employees all come down with cancer because they didn't know the hazards and weren't provided the proper ppe what is the recourse?
Look under the hood. You'll find your sign(s).
For better or worst the bible is the single most influential work for western culture. It is fitting that it be inscribed on the disc.
Either that, or it might have something to do with comcast's headquarters being located in Philly...
Sorta, but lets not pretend that WB just happened to take a bad shot. They've got plenty of lawyers who have done due diligence on the rights to this property. (In your 9-ball example you and your opponent both have bunch of billiard expert friends looking very carefully at the table and evaluating every shot.) WB no doubt knew this movie would at least pique fox's interest. They evidently decided that they'd come out ahead even if fox sued them, either because they determined fox doesn't have a case, and/or because they'll still make money after paying off fox.
Libertarianism is more like an article of faith which declares that if everyone minds their own business all the worlds problems will work themselves out.
Only if you're running rich, as in old VW Bug rich or really, really, 30ish:1 lean. In the first case you not only have lots of CO emissions you also have lots HC emissions. In the latter, you can't make power with running at 12000 rpm.
I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or just clarifying.
Yes, it is it is illegal to remove a cat from a car equipped with a cat (Clean Air Act I think). No, manufacturers aren't required to install a cat if they can pass emissions checks without them. In reality the only way to pass an emissions check is with a cat, so all cars come with cats.
If there were a technology which could pass emissions without a cat it would be ubiquitous, because any car with a cat would cost at least $500 more (and would probably have worse fuel efficiency.)
Holy cognitive dissonance.
Yes, efficiency, as measured by MPG would go up without a cat. However, it's quite a leap of (il)logic to conclude that they'd have better emissions without. Are you really saying that a cat INCREASES emissions? If it were physically possible to get reasonable power and stop the increased NOx formation that happens in lean situations, we'd be doing it. Cats are expensive, and cat's aren't actually required per se, its just that there are no known superior processes for reducing NOx emissions.
Also the bit about the cat not getting hot enough is nonsense. My car has three cats - which is a bit crazy - but the first cat is really only works during start-up until it gets too hot.
Huh? It sounds to me like you're saying:
"I'm against government regulation because industry is myopic.
Because one guy in Oregon says he will eventually have a kit to turn a civic into a EV it proves that EV's are something consumers want and are willing to pay for. Therefore, industry will necessarily pick up the concept. This proves that the invisible hand of the market will provide whatever the consumer wants in the most efficient manner possible."
Do you think catalytic converters are a good idea? Do you think they'd be installed on cars without government regulation?
you forgot Washington, Jefferson, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower.