Yes.
Chances are (at least if you have a good lawyer) testimony about probable future acts would be inadmissable evidence,
Except possibly after conviction, in the penalty phase of the trial.
IANAL, YMMV, etc.
This is not legislation, it is a private standard that some building departments add to their codes by reference or by amending it and republishing it.
This standard does not require you to use specific products or technologies. It does have a "prescriptive" compliance section, which is easier to follow and meet. It does also have "performance" sections which allow you to do whatever you want as long as you meet the efficiency goals.
There is no danger that mandating economizers (which the standard does not do, anyway) would mandate any particular business enterprise - they are a commodity product.
Trying to blacklist stuff is like playing the same game of whack-a-mole 50 times over.
Many municipalities, counties, etc. have their own codes, so it's more like several thousand whack-a-moles. That's why natioanl standards like this are helpful - when adopted locally, they reduce the number of (often irrational) regulations out there.
"Prescriptive" has a very specific meaning in this context. It is one of the methods for showing that you meet the efficiency requirements, by showing that you do certain specific things. There are also performance methods of compliance in the standard that are not "prescribing exactly what measures are required to achieve that efficiency". And it's not a government standard, even though many building departments will adopt it into their codes by reference.
As I posted above, and as stated in ASHRAE's response quoted in TFA, there are also non-prescriptive methods of meeting the standard that allow for all the innovation you want.
Many, many building codes in the US have adopted ASHRAE 90.1 or an amended version of it as an energy code. ASHRAE maintains in on a continuing basis, so it gets at least some revisions every year. Most of the codes refer to a particular dated version of the standard, so the impact of the revised standard will not be immediate. But it's not just a possibility, it will become adopted by many building codes eventually.
I believe that there needs to be a clarification about what "prescriptive" means in the context of energy standards and codes.
ASHRAE's standard 90.1, as well as most energy codes, allows for compliance by meeting either with a "prescriptive" standard or a "performance" standard - your choice.
The prescriptive standard is simpler to design to because it requires specific things to be done, like to use water-side or air-side economizers, rather than requiring you to prove a result. The performance standard requires you to show that you meet a certain level of efficiency, which means the designer has to do a lot of calculations and show their work, but it allows exactly the innovation and creativity that the complaints mistakenly say the standard doesn't allow.
.
Can they identify these tumors with a simple blood test now or do they still have to do an invasive biopsy?
They need to do an invasive biopsy to evaluate how the cells look and whether the cancer is spreading beyond the margins of the tumor. By the time the genes are found in the blood, it probably has already spread.
Since IM chats are typically very informal, records of them could get the company in trouble, so they should not be logged.
However, if anything important gets seriously discussed or decided, that should not be done over IM, as the company is much better off having records of that to defend themselves with. In my opinion e-mails, meeting minutes, etc. should be saved.
If saving those e-mails is bad for the company, the company is doing something wrong.
Sounds like a bad application of math to me. (I admit, though that I only skimmed through the report, so I could be wrong)
There are two sides to a risk analysis, the probabilities and the values being risked. People will play the lottery even when they don't have a reasonable chance, because the thing being risked is not that valuable. But they are not willing to risk their life savings when the odds are slightly in their favor, because they can't repeat the bet 100 times to try and come out ahead on average.
If I'm the owner of a business, and I'm paying my employees X time the minimum wage, and a breach costs me Y dollars, I can live with the math. But if there's even a small chance that a breach will cause the death of my business, then I'm willing to have my employees spend "more than it's worth".
If that gets his/her kicks so that the person can be a normal productive member of society, all's good, or at least should be good - no child is ever harmed, and the person has taken care of his/her urges. 1
This is the man who inherited the mayor-ship from his father.
Considering that this is the man who lost his first try at getting elected to Mayor in the Democratic primary, and that there were 6* different mayors in the time between the father was mayor and the son first got elected, I'd say it's a little more complicated than that. The grain of truth in your statement is that the voters really liked Daley the father (don't know why, I never voted for him) and that did help the son somewhat.
* 3 were elected and 3 were appointed to or rose to the position when the incumbent mayor died. I had only remembered 4 at first - Bilandic, Byrne, Washington, and Sawyer, but Wikipedia reminded me of the very brief tenures of Wilson Frost when Richard J Daley died and David Orr when Harold Washington died.
I am pretty sure if you take the top 10 schools in spending per pupil the majority will be among the bottom 10 schools as far as actually educating students goes.*
And I'm pretty sure you'd be dead wrong.*
The top public schools in the Chicago area are in some of the wealthiest suburbs, and they spend a lot of money per student.
First, let me be clear, I hate the idea of property taxes. If I lostm y job (like I did last year) and didn't get a new job in time, I'd still owe property taxes I couldn't afford and likely lose my house, even though it's fully paid off. That just does not seem right to me.
However, it's not the US government that taxes property, it's the state and local governments.
I say, tax for what people use. The government should be a service provider. Nothing more.
The theory is that society as a whole benefits from government services and everyone in society should help pay for those services (of course assuming corruption and inefficiency are under control).
If the store needs extra police protection have them pay for that.
Anything else is unjust.
I for one am happy to help pay for police protection of that store, as long as such protection is given to everyone. I definitely feel better off if robbers are caught and convicted, even if they didn't rob me.
Your ME example is wrong; ME actually bucks the trend by being a worse version of a previous product.
ME was based on '95/'98 and XP was not based on ME.
. . . we pour gallons of chlorine into the water cycle through laundry bleach, swimming pools, and municipal water. We couldn't let just anyone make freon . . .
You are ignoring the facts. The chlorine in bleach, pools, and municipal water is chemically active and will combine with bacteria etc., rarely making it into the upper atmosphere where the ozone layer is. Refrigerants are designed to be stable, and the chlorine does make it into the stratosphere where it acts as a catalyst that destroys ozone molecules over and over again. Eventually it gets incorporated into a stable molecule and/or rains out.
Besides which, I call bullshit on the Coward's original claim.
I work in the HVAC industry, and I've never met anyone who's business has been substantially harmed by the switch from chlorine-containing refrigerants to chlorine-free refrigerants. Some extra costs are part of switching, but I don't see how they could possibly quadruple overall expenses, and they are not permanent. And there's been plenty of time to adjust to the new refrigerants, more than 20 years; R22 isn't out of the market even yet.
Finally, the changes to refrigerants have been required to protect the ozone layer - so far, their global warming potential has only been a peripheral issue at most. And the ozone layer story has been largely a success!
. . . the judge still has to rule on a few things . . . Even if he did [rule in favor of SCO] SCO would get nothing of significant value.
Not true,
If he rules that Novell must now transfer the Unix copyrights (the specific performance SCO is asking for) then SCO would get something worth millions of dollars, and Novell stock would plummet.
Of course, if 99% of the time your day's work is just good enough, but it results in serious problems for your product on the other 1% of working days, your real world employment is precarious.
Patents require (or at least they're supposed to) that you reveal the ideas, and that you publish how to turn the ideas into practice.
Patents do put up a legal roadblock to making specific novel machines, processes, and materials. But the trade off for that is to encourage the spread of knowledge that otherwise might be kept as trade secrets.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
Chances are (at least if you have a good lawyer) testimony about probable future acts would be inadmissable evidence,
Except possibly after conviction, in the penalty phase of the trial.
IANAL, YMMV, etc.
This is not legislation, it is a private standard that some building departments add to their codes by reference or by amending it and republishing it.
This standard does not require you to use specific products or technologies. It does have a "prescriptive" compliance section, which is easier to follow and meet. It does also have "performance" sections which allow you to do whatever you want as long as you meet the efficiency goals.
There is no danger that mandating economizers (which the standard does not do, anyway) would mandate any particular business enterprise - they are a commodity product.
Trying to blacklist stuff is like playing the same game of whack-a-mole 50 times over.
Many municipalities, counties, etc. have their own codes, so it's more like several thousand whack-a-moles. That's why natioanl standards like this are helpful - when adopted locally, they reduce the number of (often irrational) regulations out there.
And that's how the legislation should have been done
What legislation?
informative
"Prescriptive" has a very specific meaning in this context. It is one of the methods for showing that you meet the efficiency requirements, by showing that you do certain specific things. There are also performance methods of compliance in the standard that are not "prescribing exactly what measures are required to achieve that efficiency". And it's not a government standard, even though many building departments will adopt it into their codes by reference.
As I posted above, and as stated in ASHRAE's response quoted in TFA, there are also non-prescriptive methods of meeting the standard that allow for all the innovation you want.
Many, many building codes in the US have adopted ASHRAE 90.1 or an amended version of it as an energy code. ASHRAE maintains in on a continuing basis, so it gets at least some revisions every year. Most of the codes refer to a particular dated version of the standard, so the impact of the revised standard will not be immediate. But it's not just a possibility, it will become adopted by many building codes eventually.
I believe that there needs to be a clarification about what "prescriptive" means in the context of energy standards and codes.
ASHRAE's standard 90.1, as well as most energy codes, allows for compliance by meeting either with a "prescriptive" standard or a "performance" standard - your choice.
The prescriptive standard is simpler to design to because it requires specific things to be done, like to use water-side or air-side economizers, rather than requiring you to prove a result. The performance standard requires you to show that you meet a certain level of efficiency, which means the designer has to do a lot of calculations and show their work, but it allows exactly the innovation and creativity that the complaints mistakenly say the standard doesn't allow. .
Can they identify these tumors with a simple blood test now or do they still have to do an invasive biopsy?
They need to do an invasive biopsy to evaluate how the cells look and whether the cancer is spreading beyond the margins of the tumor. By the time the genes are found in the blood, it probably has already spread.
Since IM chats are typically very informal, records of them could get the company in trouble, so they should not be logged.
However, if anything important gets seriously discussed or decided, that should not be done over IM, as the company is much better off having records of that to defend themselves with. In my opinion e-mails, meeting minutes, etc. should be saved.
If saving those e-mails is bad for the company, the company is doing something wrong.
Sounds like a bad application of math to me. (I admit, though that I only skimmed through the report, so I could be wrong)
There are two sides to a risk analysis, the probabilities and the values being risked. People will play the lottery even when they don't have a reasonable chance, because the thing being risked is not that valuable. But they are not willing to risk their life savings when the odds are slightly in their favor, because they can't repeat the bet 100 times to try and come out ahead on average.
If I'm the owner of a business, and I'm paying my employees X time the minimum wage, and a breach costs me Y dollars, I can live with the math. But if there's even a small chance that a breach will cause the death of my business, then I'm willing to have my employees spend "more than it's worth".
If that gets his/her kicks so that the person can be a normal productive member of society, all's good, or at least should be good - no child is ever harmed, and the person has taken care of his/her urges. 1
1. Citation needed
Really, mod it "insightful"
This is the man who inherited the mayor-ship from his father.
Considering that this is the man who lost his first try at getting elected to Mayor in the Democratic primary, and that there were 6* different mayors in the time between the father was mayor and the son first got elected, I'd say it's a little more complicated than that. The grain of truth in your statement is that the voters really liked Daley the father (don't know why, I never voted for him) and that did help the son somewhat.
* 3 were elected and 3 were appointed to or rose to the position when the incumbent mayor died. I had only remembered 4 at first - Bilandic, Byrne, Washington, and Sawyer, but Wikipedia reminded me of the very brief tenures of Wilson Frost when Richard J Daley died and David Orr when Harold Washington died.
I am pretty sure if you take the top 10 schools in spending per pupil the majority will be among the bottom 10 schools as far as actually educating students goes.*
And I'm pretty sure you'd be dead wrong.*
The top public schools in the Chicago area are in some of the wealthiest suburbs, and they spend a lot of money per student.
*citation needed
However, it's not the US government that taxes property, it's the state and local governments.
I say, tax for what people use. The government should be a service provider. Nothing more.
The theory is that society as a whole benefits from government services and everyone in society should help pay for those services (of course assuming corruption and inefficiency are under control).
If the store needs extra police protection have them pay for that.
Anything else is unjust.
I for one am happy to help pay for police protection of that store, as long as such protection is given to everyone. I definitely feel better off if robbers are caught and convicted, even if they didn't rob me.
Your ME example is wrong; ME actually bucks the trend by being a worse version of a previous product.
ME was based on '95/'98 and XP was not based on ME.
. . . we pour gallons of chlorine into the water cycle through laundry bleach, swimming pools, and municipal water. We couldn't let just anyone make freon . . .
You are ignoring the facts. The chlorine in bleach, pools, and municipal water is chemically active and will combine with bacteria etc., rarely making it into the upper atmosphere where the ozone layer is. Refrigerants are designed to be stable, and the chlorine does make it into the stratosphere where it acts as a catalyst that destroys ozone molecules over and over again. Eventually it gets incorporated into a stable molecule and/or rains out.
Besides which, I call bullshit on the Coward's original claim.
I work in the HVAC industry, and I've never met anyone who's business has been substantially harmed by the switch from chlorine-containing refrigerants to chlorine-free refrigerants. Some extra costs are part of switching, but I don't see how they could possibly quadruple overall expenses, and they are not permanent. And there's been plenty of time to adjust to the new refrigerants, more than 20 years; R22 isn't out of the market even yet.
Finally, the changes to refrigerants have been required to protect the ozone layer - so far, their global warming potential has only been a peripheral issue at most. And the ozone layer story has been largely a success!
. . . the judge still has to rule on a few things . . . Even if he did [rule in favor of SCO] SCO would get nothing of significant value.
Not true,
If he rules that Novell must now transfer the Unix copyrights (the specific performance SCO is asking for) then SCO would get something worth millions of dollars, and Novell stock would plummet.
I think the problem with Clippy was that he was ten years too early.
Nah, the problem was that it was not very helpful, though it was intrusive.
Of course, if 99% of the time your day's work is just good enough, but it results in serious problems for your product on the other 1% of working days, your real world employment is precarious.
Patents protect the idea.
No, no, no - that is wrong
Patents require (or at least they're supposed to) that you reveal the ideas, and that you publish how to turn the ideas into practice.
Patents do put up a legal roadblock to making specific novel machines, processes, and materials. But the trade off for that is to encourage the spread of knowledge that otherwise might be kept as trade secrets.