Yes, Netflix is public transmitting, but from a licensed archive. Aereo is only transmitting the channel that the customer has requested be transmitted. A customer who joined Aereo this year could not request the 2010 Fall Broadcast Season Premieres, since those premieres (probably) haven't been broadcast this year. Netflix has many of those premieres available to customers who sign up today. Aereo is one antenna, one customer, while Netflix is one copy, many customers.
If Aereo were to edit out the commercials in the broadcasts, then I would side with the plaintiffs.
Because when it began, the internet was not a necessity for the general public and economy, and it didn't have ISPs double-dipping or getting states/towns to sign exclusive contracts. Now, when the Internet is almost as necessary as electricity/shelter/food/water, and when ISPs are preventing competition, many people see the ISP industry as being broken and are trying to get it fixed.
Parroting is the only thing that most of us can do. Both of you are doing it, unless one of you is an actual climate scientist with appropriate degrees and experiences, who has performed his/her own experiments and data collections to research how the earth's environment has behaved in the past.
97 out of 100 scientists are certain that the climate is going to become detrimental to our current society. That's enough for me.
If I didn't trust scientists, my next computer or cell phone purchase would involve the following: redevelop physics from scratch, including semiconductor, RF comms, and information theory. Build a 22nm lithography process. Test it. Otherwise, how do I know I'm not falling for a hoax?
Just because I don't understand something, doesn't mean that something doesn't exist. Yes, on the flip side, if one person tells me something, that person isn't automatically correct. That's where peer review comes in.
For the computer purchase example, I could test a new computer. That's a great solution for that scenario. But from where do we get a second earth to test Climate Change?
Yes, shutting down coal plants overnight is bad: it would cause massive chaos. That's exactly what climatologists are trying to avoid. However, we can work towards getting those plants offline, and work towards zero emission vehicles. On the off-chance all those scientists are wrong about climate change, at least our cities would have better air.
If you found an odd lump on your body one day, what would you do? You could see a licensed doctor, whose knowledge has been gained from mostly objective, clinically tested, and peer reviewed research. You could see an oil tycoon who has made millions by being a wise businessman. You could also just do nothing.
I'd go to the doctor, myself. Yes, there's probably a small percentage that are bad, so I'd probably ask a second, or even a third to see if I get a consistent answer. If I went to 100 doctors, and 97 of them said the same thing, I'd put my money there, simply because they have knowledge from looking at history. If not, I might as well believe the sun still revolves around the earth, and that if I walk too far, I might fall off the edge of the "world".
Or, if astronomers predicted a 97% chance that a meteorite would land in your town, would you take a day trip? Or stay at home? The trip is pretty cheap: drive/take a bus to family or friend in another state.
Yes, fixing CO2 emissions is much more expensive than a day trip; we can't do it all in one day. We can start though, and give future generations a little more time to figure out a good solution.
Same way you hit a running receiver with a football: lead the target.
You would need to change your acceleration such that you never are where you were headed 30 seconds ago.
When I go to the voting booth, the only options I seem to have are "status quo" and "status quo". Corporate profits are at record highs, yet wages are getting lower. Unless the country forms one union, there's nothing stopping Corps and CEOs from bleeding the 99% dry. Right now, the only way I could "fight" this is to do a one-person strike. You can guess far that would go.
Several years ago, I was called by the company providing the extended warranty on my appliances. The were offering me a renewal of the warranty. I said I'd only renew on the dishwasher. They responded that it was the only appliance they wouldn't cover. When I declined the extension, they reminded me that things are more likely to break the older they get.
I didn't feel like pointing out the reason they were declining coverage on the one appliance was probably because it was the only one that needed to be repaired, and twice at that. As such, it would be the most likely to fail again. And it did.
The parents of all three girls failed in my opinion.
One set of parents did not teach their daughter how to deal with bullying, nor did they monitor her social life. Words *do* hurt, if one doesn't know how to handle bullying. We are not born with this ability.
Two sets of parents did not monitor their daughters. Not only could this protect the daughters from abuse/predators, it should've stopped the girls from abusing the victim.
Was "Certainty" their 3 sigma error band on an estimate? Or was "Certainty" their confidence that they know everything about this massive system? It is a black box after all. They can't just open it up and read the source code. They have to allow for the fact that they don't know everything, but are still giving their best model.
Any estimator can be off high or low for a long period of time. "Long" is relative. If for a significant number of samples, more than half the estimates were high and the rest were spot on, then yes, the estimator is probably wrong. The charts from climate audit show the estimates being high for a run as long as 1/7th of the data. The charts also show the estimates being low for other portions of the data. I don't see how that can be used as convincing proof that the estimator is horribly wrong.
Especially since the climate audit chart itself shows a rise in temperature over 110 years.
Doctors and Lawyers shouldn't be searching for you on social media. Doctor-Patient Confidentiality and Attorney-Client Privilege should take priority, no?
The top tier Cool Shot is what the author is saying was pay-to-win. I never used one. I built my mechs to not overheat and thus take advantage of opponents who did.
I've been playing the game for 6 months. It's been fun, but I've just been finding it too repetitive lately. I'd still recommend it to anyone who likes the MechWarrior concept. Just be prepared to spend time on the forums learning how to play, as no tutorial is provided by the developer.
Since this is happening in the city, instead of some huge open field, if Assad uses chemical weapons, he'll greatly increase the number of casualties of civilians who are loyal to him.
When an explosive detonates, those civilians who aren't supporting the rebels have some protection from the shrapnel because they're hiding indoors.
When a chemical is released, it can spread for blocks, seeping into the buildings through existing cracks or new holes made by shrapnel made by conventional ordnance and increasing the number of casualties in those people who aren't supporting the rebels.
If this were happening in an open field where only the two sides of the fight were present, I can't see any difference between explosive and chemical attacks. Here's a guess: Maybe the explosive attacks are more likely to be immediately lethal or have a higher chance of being healed, as opposed to chemicals which may be more likely to burn enough of a person's body that they can't enjoy life again ever, yet don't kill the victim outright.
And then there's the question of how long the environment would take to reach its next steady state. Even if all of humanity went carbon-neutral today, the climate still has to catch up with the 33% change we've made to this massive system.
While I suspect it's fairly easy to determine if a chemical weapon was deployed, I'd love to know how the UN is going to distinguish between who deployed it:
1. The ruling party. (I don't know these people: they might be that murderous and think they won't get accused for the reasons stated by geekymachoman and others.)
2. The rebels used them on themselves to get the UN/US into the conflict.
3. A third party used something known to be in the Syrian arsenal to drag the UN/US into the conflict. (Or just because said third party is a murderous SOB.)
If the UN/US does take action, I hope it is only to destroy chemical weapons stores. Nothing else seems like it might be productive.
Something akin to the following:
"Hello, President Assad. This is $SOMEONE_IMPORTANT. In ten minutes, UN security forces will be dropping ordnance on your chemical weapons storage facilities. Please have these sites evacuated immediately, as we only want to remove your weapons from the world, not your people. We'll pay $N million to restore the buildings. Your ten minutes starts now." Click.
Might even be able to use surveillance to figure out which sites have chemical weapons by watching for evacuations.
The Comcast quote says "public services". If I have a mail server that only has accounts for my family living at this residence, I'm not providing "services to anyone outside of [my] Premises local area network". Wouldn't that be an allowed server?
Of course, Comcast could change the contract without me having any say in the matter.
Yep. God doesn't stop us from committing murder or suicide. God doesn't stop us from dumping thousands of barrels of petroleum into the ocean. What makes one think that God will stop us from committing terracide? God could say something akin to "They didn't appreciate the gifts I have given them" and start over.
I also liked the parable I saw on West Wing. An evacuation order is given for an area due to anticipated flooding. One man stays in his house, believing that God will save him. The waters come up to his front door. A rescue boat stops by, but the man declines. "God will protect me." The waters rise to the roof. A helicopter arrives, but the man stays on his roof. "God will protect me." The man drowns. At the Gates, the man asks Saint Peter, "Why didn't God save me?" Saint Peter replies, "God sent you a warning, a boat, and a helicopter. What were you thinking?"
You may also want to show what alternatives cost, along with pros/cons. For instance, if you use Amazon cloud services, show what the costs would be to switch to two of Amazon's competitors and any performance improvements/losses that would occur. You'll either be able to show that Amazon is the best bang for the buck, or you'll find part of the savings you need.
Pollux was not suggesting people take the paper version home. It gets fed into a separate device before the voter leaves the polling place.
Technically speaking, a voter could take a picture of the paper version before depositing it in the audit device, but then a voter could take a picture of the touchscreen, scantron, punchcard, or levers, whichever type of system is used.
I would have thought the evolution step would be the one when the cockroaches went from all glucophiliacs or all glucophobics to having a mix of the two. That might even have occurred before there were cockroaches for all I know.
The roach motels were more of a gene-ocide, killing the glucophiliacs.
I suspect I should read the article to find out.
I've seen music analysis tools that use an FFT to try to determine pitches performed during a particular window. The bins do not line up. I've been using correlation with the appropriate sinusoids (2 per pitch) and had better results.
Is it enough to keep one's guns locked up? Can one be sure he/she is the only one with access to the key and/or combination? Can one be sure anyone to whom a key/combo is given is sane and going to stay that way?
I don't know if this would have prevented the Newtown shooting. If I understand correctly, the owner of the weapons used in the Newtown shooting kept her weapons locked up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting . If the owner purposefully gave the shooter access to the safe, she would've also programmed the weapons to recognize him. Or, if the shooter stole the key/combo from her, Newtown may not have happened.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, Netflix is public transmitting, but from a licensed archive. Aereo is only transmitting the channel that the customer has requested be transmitted. A customer who joined Aereo this year could not request the 2010 Fall Broadcast Season Premieres, since those premieres (probably) haven't been broadcast this year. Netflix has many of those premieres available to customers who sign up today. Aereo is one antenna, one customer, while Netflix is one copy, many customers.
If Aereo were to edit out the commercials in the broadcasts, then I would side with the plaintiffs.
Because when it began, the internet was not a necessity for the general public and economy, and it didn't have ISPs double-dipping or getting states/towns to sign exclusive contracts. Now, when the Internet is almost as necessary as electricity/shelter/food/water, and when ISPs are preventing competition, many people see the ISP industry as being broken and are trying to get it fixed.
Parroting is the only thing that most of us can do. Both of you are doing it, unless one of you is an actual climate scientist with appropriate degrees and experiences, who has performed his/her own experiments and data collections to research how the earth's environment has behaved in the past.
97 out of 100 scientists are certain that the climate is going to become detrimental to our current society. That's enough for me.
If I didn't trust scientists, my next computer or cell phone purchase would involve the following: redevelop physics from scratch, including semiconductor, RF comms, and information theory. Build a 22nm lithography process. Test it. Otherwise, how do I know I'm not falling for a hoax?
Just because I don't understand something, doesn't mean that something doesn't exist. Yes, on the flip side, if one person tells me something, that person isn't automatically correct. That's where peer review comes in.
For the computer purchase example, I could test a new computer. That's a great solution for that scenario. But from where do we get a second earth to test Climate Change?
Yes, shutting down coal plants overnight is bad: it would cause massive chaos. That's exactly what climatologists are trying to avoid. However, we can work towards getting those plants offline, and work towards zero emission vehicles. On the off-chance all those scientists are wrong about climate change, at least our cities would have better air.
If you found an odd lump on your body one day, what would you do? You could see a licensed doctor, whose knowledge has been gained from mostly objective, clinically tested, and peer reviewed research. You could see an oil tycoon who has made millions by being a wise businessman. You could also just do nothing.
I'd go to the doctor, myself. Yes, there's probably a small percentage that are bad, so I'd probably ask a second, or even a third to see if I get a consistent answer. If I went to 100 doctors, and 97 of them said the same thing, I'd put my money there, simply because they have knowledge from looking at history. If not, I might as well believe the sun still revolves around the earth, and that if I walk too far, I might fall off the edge of the "world".
Or, if astronomers predicted a 97% chance that a meteorite would land in your town, would you take a day trip? Or stay at home? The trip is pretty cheap: drive/take a bus to family or friend in another state.
Yes, fixing CO2 emissions is much more expensive than a day trip; we can't do it all in one day. We can start though, and give future generations a little more time to figure out a good solution.
Same way you hit a running receiver with a football: lead the target.
You would need to change your acceleration such that you never are where you were headed 30 seconds ago.
When I go to the voting booth, the only options I seem to have are "status quo" and "status quo". Corporate profits are at record highs, yet wages are getting lower. Unless the country forms one union, there's nothing stopping Corps and CEOs from bleeding the 99% dry. Right now, the only way I could "fight" this is to do a one-person strike. You can guess far that would go.
Several years ago, I was called by the company providing the extended warranty on my appliances. The were offering me a renewal of the warranty. I said I'd only renew on the dishwasher. They responded that it was the only appliance they wouldn't cover. When I declined the extension, they reminded me that things are more likely to break the older they get.
I didn't feel like pointing out the reason they were declining coverage on the one appliance was probably because it was the only one that needed to be repaired, and twice at that. As such, it would be the most likely to fail again. And it did.
Still don't make it right though.
The parents of all three girls failed in my opinion.
One set of parents did not teach their daughter how to deal with bullying, nor did they monitor her social life. Words *do* hurt, if one doesn't know how to handle bullying. We are not born with this ability.
Two sets of parents did not monitor their daughters. Not only could this protect the daughters from abuse/predators, it should've stopped the girls from abusing the victim.
Now Tootsie can sell a bunch of new lengths: halves, thirds, quarters, fifths, sixths, etc. Schools would just need to go out and buy a few bags.
For adults learning fractions, they could use alcohol instead, but they'd just have one fraction: fifths.
Was "Certainty" their 3 sigma error band on an estimate? Or was "Certainty" their confidence that they know everything about this massive system? It is a black box after all. They can't just open it up and read the source code. They have to allow for the fact that they don't know everything, but are still giving their best model.
Any estimator can be off high or low for a long period of time. "Long" is relative. If for a significant number of samples, more than half the estimates were high and the rest were spot on, then yes, the estimator is probably wrong. The charts from climate audit show the estimates being high for a run as long as 1/7th of the data. The charts also show the estimates being low for other portions of the data. I don't see how that can be used as convincing proof that the estimator is horribly wrong.
Especially since the climate audit chart itself shows a rise in temperature over 110 years.
Doctors and Lawyers shouldn't be searching for you on social media. Doctor-Patient Confidentiality and Attorney-Client Privilege should take priority, no?
The top tier Cool Shot is what the author is saying was pay-to-win. I never used one. I built my mechs to not overheat and thus take advantage of opponents who did.
I've been playing the game for 6 months. It's been fun, but I've just been finding it too repetitive lately. I'd still recommend it to anyone who likes the MechWarrior concept. Just be prepared to spend time on the forums learning how to play, as no tutorial is provided by the developer.
Since this is happening in the city, instead of some huge open field, if Assad uses chemical weapons, he'll greatly increase the number of casualties of civilians who are loyal to him.
When an explosive detonates, those civilians who aren't supporting the rebels have some protection from the shrapnel because they're hiding indoors.
When a chemical is released, it can spread for blocks, seeping into the buildings through existing cracks or new holes made by shrapnel made by conventional ordnance and increasing the number of casualties in those people who aren't supporting the rebels.
If this were happening in an open field where only the two sides of the fight were present, I can't see any difference between explosive and chemical attacks. Here's a guess: Maybe the explosive attacks are more likely to be immediately lethal or have a higher chance of being healed, as opposed to chemicals which may be more likely to burn enough of a person's body that they can't enjoy life again ever, yet don't kill the victim outright.
bah! "33% change to one variable in this massive system".
And then there's the question of how long the environment would take to reach its next steady state. Even if all of humanity went carbon-neutral today, the climate still has to catch up with the 33% change we've made to this massive system.
While I suspect it's fairly easy to determine if a chemical weapon was deployed, I'd love to know how the UN is going to distinguish between who deployed it:
1. The ruling party. (I don't know these people: they might be that murderous and think they won't get accused for the reasons stated by geekymachoman and others.)
2. The rebels used them on themselves to get the UN/US into the conflict.
3. A third party used something known to be in the Syrian arsenal to drag the UN/US into the conflict. (Or just because said third party is a murderous SOB.)
If the UN/US does take action, I hope it is only to destroy chemical weapons stores. Nothing else seems like it might be productive.
Something akin to the following:
"Hello, President Assad. This is $SOMEONE_IMPORTANT. In ten minutes, UN security forces will be dropping ordnance on your chemical weapons storage facilities. Please have these sites evacuated immediately, as we only want to remove your weapons from the world, not your people. We'll pay $N million to restore the buildings. Your ten minutes starts now." Click.
Might even be able to use surveillance to figure out which sites have chemical weapons by watching for evacuations.
The Comcast quote says "public services". If I have a mail server that only has accounts for my family living at this residence, I'm not providing "services to anyone outside of [my] Premises local area network". Wouldn't that be an allowed server?
Of course, Comcast could change the contract without me having any say in the matter.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
That was the Slashdot footer quote earlier today. It would seem to apply to technology as complicated as a lead slug as well.
Yep. God doesn't stop us from committing murder or suicide. God doesn't stop us from dumping thousands of barrels of petroleum into the ocean. What makes one think that God will stop us from committing terracide? God could say something akin to "They didn't appreciate the gifts I have given them" and start over.
I also liked the parable I saw on West Wing. An evacuation order is given for an area due to anticipated flooding. One man stays in his house, believing that God will save him. The waters come up to his front door. A rescue boat stops by, but the man declines. "God will protect me." The waters rise to the roof. A helicopter arrives, but the man stays on his roof. "God will protect me." The man drowns. At the Gates, the man asks Saint Peter, "Why didn't God save me?" Saint Peter replies, "God sent you a warning, a boat, and a helicopter. What were you thinking?"
You may also want to show what alternatives cost, along with pros/cons. For instance, if you use Amazon cloud services, show what the costs would be to switch to two of Amazon's competitors and any performance improvements/losses that would occur. You'll either be able to show that Amazon is the best bang for the buck, or you'll find part of the savings you need.
Pollux was not suggesting people take the paper version home. It gets fed into a separate device before the voter leaves the polling place.
Technically speaking, a voter could take a picture of the paper version before depositing it in the audit device, but then a voter could take a picture of the touchscreen, scantron, punchcard, or levers, whichever type of system is used.
I would have thought the evolution step would be the one when the cockroaches went from all glucophiliacs or all glucophobics to having a mix of the two. That might even have occurred before there were cockroaches for all I know. The roach motels were more of a gene-ocide, killing the glucophiliacs. I suspect I should read the article to find out.
I've seen music analysis tools that use an FFT to try to determine pitches performed during a particular window. The bins do not line up. I've been using correlation with the appropriate sinusoids (2 per pitch) and had better results.
Is it enough to keep one's guns locked up? Can one be sure he/she is the only one with access to the key and/or combination? Can one be sure anyone to whom a key/combo is given is sane and going to stay that way?
I don't know if this would have prevented the Newtown shooting. If I understand correctly, the owner of the weapons used in the Newtown shooting kept her weapons locked up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting . If the owner purposefully gave the shooter access to the safe, she would've also programmed the weapons to recognize him. Or, if the shooter stole the key/combo from her, Newtown may not have happened.
An owner could get distracted or be outright careless, temporarily leaving it where an unauthorized party could access it: http://www.independentmail.com/news/2013/jan/25/lawsuit-accuses-anderson-county-sheriffs-office/?partner=RSS
On the other hand, if one gets dirt/blood on one's hand before the fight is settled, does one's weapon become useless?
Yep. I'd like to see a survey.
How did you learn about the idea of shooting up one's place of work or education?
1) Video Game
2) News
3) Other...?
I didn't learn of this concept until news reports of Columbine, if I recall correctly.