can you explain why ND is bad? As far as I can tell, it just means that you can't make a derivative of the work itself. In research, you're not supposed to change someone else's research into your own; you're supposed to build on it: i.e., take the idea in it, then write your own story of that idea. ND allows for it, because it applies to the exact text of the dissertation, not the idea behind it.
Then again, IANAL, and I would love to get some input from someone with more understanding of these terms.
And what he's probably looking for is CC BY-ND. "This license allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to you."
Not to mention that it is one of the best introductions to the concepts and math behind relativity. The greatest thinkers are often (but not always) the greatest teachers.
Here's the reason why we don't have perfect memory:http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/12/hell_is_a_perfect_memory.php. Perfect memory is great when your job is to tell stories about events, but for every other situation, it's complete overkill with significant downsides. Your bio teacher was right, and he was right when it comes to perfect memory: perfect memory is a hindrance in the vast majority of situations you encounter in life. Do you want to perfectly remember every broken bone? Every disappointment? Every failure? Every disaster that has struck around you?
No. On the contrary, you want to be able to forget a lot of things, so that you can move on and try again.
I don't understand. What product comparisons? Based on what criteria? As far as I can tell, most of those studies were purely subjective assessments of what constituted good. Because if there was an objective assessment of search quality across an entire set of searches.... well, someone could build a better Google right and crush Google I'm its core area: search. But they don't.
Eh, the Palo Alto "HQ" is a shell of a building. I was over there a couple of years ago, and in one long-abandoned cubicle area of the building, they hadn't even cleaned up the coffee cup on one guy's desk. Apparently, coffee left on its own for a few years transforms into a kind of glue. You could hold it upside down, and the spoon wouldn't drop out. It was like a freaky episode of the Twilight Zone.
The buildings that were in heavy use were all in Cupertino.
Things were actually coming together quite nicely under Hurd. I have to say though that the last 6-9 months have been a more fascinating trainwreck than anything Fiorina produced. Quite frankly, I have the strong suspicion that at this point, it's not only the CEO and the executive team that's at fault, but that the board of directors had just as much of a hand in screwing up HP as anybody else. The amount of nonsensical decisions that have come out of Cupertino is just too large to be the product of just one person.
Aww... gotta say though, the Dr. Bob troll was by far the best I've seen in the last 15 years or so. Congrats on a brilliant run. Not surprised it was from an old-timer.
Absolutely. It's a problem that cuts both directions. For me, it cuts in this direction. But the problem is that this type of filtering exists, not what the exact filters are.
It isn't so much about posting illegal stuff. What concerns me far more is that some moronic hiring manager might object to me posting stories about AGW, or that I think it's great that Obama won. I generally wouldn't want to work for him in the first place, but just in case I really, really need that job, I don't want that to be an issue.
And, as always, the devil is in the detail. How do you successfully sue a corporation for polluting your property? First, you need to define property (government intervention), then how property can change hands (government intervention). Then, you need to define pollution (government intervention). Then, you need to define when pollution affects your property (government intervention). For example, can I run a river of hydrochloric acid right next to your property? Technically, it's not touching your property. And that's not even getting into the issue of who gets to write the laws, who gets to enforce them, how much money it takes and where it comes from.
And again, the libertarian utopia falls apart when applied to reality. They're as hopelessly optimistic as the communists who kept talking about how wonderful everything would be once EVERYTHING would be follow TRUE communist ideals.
Or, really not. That's why I have a Facebook account with a believable, but fake name. Good luck to all companies trying to find my social network presence. You get LinkedIn, and that's it. To any company that requires my social network information to hire me: No, you don't. And I'd rather not work for you, if you think you do.
I'm really wondering where this is headed. Dual SN-profiles for the tech-savvy, single profiles for the rest? Mandatory ID check and real name requirements before signing up for a social network? I guess Google is halfway there, but quite frankly, if they ban my profile for not being a real name, I have little use for their social network.
It looks like some of the more distopian Internet futures might be around the corner: especially those with a dark net, where a lot of communication is encrypted, private and only between vetted members of a group.
That's why you have a sales tax on certain products, but not on others. Food, housing and transportation up to a certain level, various house hold items up to a certain level - no tax. It's done like that in plenty of countries.
Yes, it creates a whole new bureaucracy. The advantage is that the income tax bureaucracy can be stripped down to compensate.
True. But they rely far more on working roads, an independent and efficient judicial system and a stable society than the poor. To a guy in the slums of Detroit, it really doesn't matter that the rest of the US isn't like his area. To Warren Buffet, it matters a lot.
That's very true. But I would argue that this is an direct indictment of two positions that tend to go together: "American Medicine is the best in the world" and "We therefore can do no wrong when it comes to medical policies." It's obvious that the standard trope that the rich come to the US for treatment isn't really true anymore. From there, it is also clear that the US medicine isn't the best in the world anymore, and, as a matter of fact, socialist Europe with its nationalized healthcare is actually ahead of the US in certain fields.
Medical tourism is already true for monetary reasons, but that was already an accepted truth in the US. Now the rich engage in medical tourism because the care they receive would be better, which is going to result in some interesting contortions from politicians.
Do I know that the lawsuit is frivolous to the degree required by law to result in an acquittal? No. Do I know that the lawsuit is frivolous based on a variety of heuristics, bullshit meters and slippery slope possibilities? Yes.
In other news, we make lots of decisions based on information that wouldn't stand up in court, because otherwise, we'd make almost no decisions whatsoever (see for example how you pick out socks to buy - there are some fun clinical cases about how people are incapable of going shopping because they are unable to make decisions based on gut feelings).
And that doesn't even touch on the fact that I can stop the suit from being filed, or whether I would do it if I could. But until further evidence presents itself, the people considering a lawsuit over this are basic, back-alley shysters who I wouldn't trust with my laundry.
Slashdot Mirror
can you explain why ND is bad? As far as I can tell, it just means that you can't make a derivative of the work itself. In research, you're not supposed to change someone else's research into your own; you're supposed to build on it: i.e., take the idea in it, then write your own story of that idea. ND allows for it, because it applies to the exact text of the dissertation, not the idea behind it.
Then again, IANAL, and I would love to get some input from someone with more understanding of these terms.
And what he's probably looking for is CC BY-ND. "This license allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to you."
I... I... I don't know. Earth-shattering irony? Ignorance on an epic scale? Someone help me out here.
Not to mention that it is one of the best introductions to the concepts and math behind relativity. The greatest thinkers are often (but not always) the greatest teachers.
That's the thing - emotional experience doesn't exist without memory.
Sadly, no. It was before I had a camera on my cell phone.
Dammit - I already posted. Somebody give this man the funny+insightful mod he deserves.
Or, you can just read one of his books. http://www.bartleby.com/173/
Here's the reason why we don't have perfect memory:http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/12/hell_is_a_perfect_memory.php. Perfect memory is great when your job is to tell stories about events, but for every other situation, it's complete overkill with significant downsides. Your bio teacher was right, and he was right when it comes to perfect memory: perfect memory is a hindrance in the vast majority of situations you encounter in life. Do you want to perfectly remember every broken bone? Every disappointment? Every failure? Every disaster that has struck around you?
No. On the contrary, you want to be able to forget a lot of things, so that you can move on and try again.
I don't understand. What product comparisons? Based on what criteria? As far as I can tell, most of those studies were purely subjective assessments of what constituted good. Because if there was an objective assessment of search quality across an entire set of searches.... well, someone could build a better Google right and crush Google I'm its core area: search. But they don't.
I smell bullshit.
Eh, the Palo Alto "HQ" is a shell of a building. I was over there a couple of years ago, and in one long-abandoned cubicle area of the building, they hadn't even cleaned up the coffee cup on one guy's desk. Apparently, coffee left on its own for a few years transforms into a kind of glue. You could hold it upside down, and the spoon wouldn't drop out. It was like a freaky episode of the Twilight Zone.
The buildings that were in heavy use were all in Cupertino.
Things were actually coming together quite nicely under Hurd. I have to say though that the last 6-9 months have been a more fascinating trainwreck than anything Fiorina produced. Quite frankly, I have the strong suspicion that at this point, it's not only the CEO and the executive team that's at fault, but that the board of directors had just as much of a hand in screwing up HP as anybody else. The amount of nonsensical decisions that have come out of Cupertino is just too large to be the product of just one person.
If you can do all that, why would you ever need to type?
And I'd be really curious what would happen to our brain if we'd get direct 360 vision implanted into our optical nerve. Fun times should abound.
Aww... gotta say though, the Dr. Bob troll was by far the best I've seen in the last 15 years or so. Congrats on a brilliant run. Not surprised it was from an old-timer.
Absolutely. It's a problem that cuts both directions. For me, it cuts in this direction. But the problem is that this type of filtering exists, not what the exact filters are.
It isn't so much about posting illegal stuff. What concerns me far more is that some moronic hiring manager might object to me posting stories about AGW, or that I think it's great that Obama won. I generally wouldn't want to work for him in the first place, but just in case I really, really need that job, I don't want that to be an issue.
Ergo, fake name.
No. But the people in the midwest would sure be pissed that they'd have to move their wheat farming operation to Greenland.
Right?
No, so I can *tell* you why moderates like me don't care.
You misspelled "apathetic cynic".
And, as always, the devil is in the detail. How do you successfully sue a corporation for polluting your property? First, you need to define property (government intervention), then how property can change hands (government intervention). Then, you need to define pollution (government intervention). Then, you need to define when pollution affects your property (government intervention). For example, can I run a river of hydrochloric acid right next to your property? Technically, it's not touching your property. And that's not even getting into the issue of who gets to write the laws, who gets to enforce them, how much money it takes and where it comes from.
And again, the libertarian utopia falls apart when applied to reality. They're as hopelessly optimistic as the communists who kept talking about how wonderful everything would be once EVERYTHING would be follow TRUE communist ideals.
Or, really not. That's why I have a Facebook account with a believable, but fake name. Good luck to all companies trying to find my social network presence. You get LinkedIn, and that's it. To any company that requires my social network information to hire me: No, you don't. And I'd rather not work for you, if you think you do.
I'm really wondering where this is headed. Dual SN-profiles for the tech-savvy, single profiles for the rest? Mandatory ID check and real name requirements before signing up for a social network? I guess Google is halfway there, but quite frankly, if they ban my profile for not being a real name, I have little use for their social network.
It looks like some of the more distopian Internet futures might be around the corner: especially those with a dark net, where a lot of communication is encrypted, private and only between vetted members of a group.
That's why you have a sales tax on certain products, but not on others. Food, housing and transportation up to a certain level, various house hold items up to a certain level - no tax. It's done like that in plenty of countries.
Yes, it creates a whole new bureaucracy. The advantage is that the income tax bureaucracy can be stripped down to compensate.
True. But they rely far more on working roads, an independent and efficient judicial system and a stable society than the poor. To a guy in the slums of Detroit, it really doesn't matter that the rest of the US isn't like his area. To Warren Buffet, it matters a lot.
That's very true. But I would argue that this is an direct indictment of two positions that tend to go together: "American Medicine is the best in the world" and "We therefore can do no wrong when it comes to medical policies." It's obvious that the standard trope that the rich come to the US for treatment isn't really true anymore. From there, it is also clear that the US medicine isn't the best in the world anymore, and, as a matter of fact, socialist Europe with its nationalized healthcare is actually ahead of the US in certain fields.
Medical tourism is already true for monetary reasons, but that was already an accepted truth in the US. Now the rich engage in medical tourism because the care they receive would be better, which is going to result in some interesting contortions from politicians.
And you overestimate the rationality of your own decisions. By about 3-4 orders of magnitude.
Do I know that the lawsuit is frivolous to the degree required by law to result in an acquittal? No. Do I know that the lawsuit is frivolous based on a variety of heuristics, bullshit meters and slippery slope possibilities? Yes.
In other news, we make lots of decisions based on information that wouldn't stand up in court, because otherwise, we'd make almost no decisions whatsoever (see for example how you pick out socks to buy - there are some fun clinical cases about how people are incapable of going shopping because they are unable to make decisions based on gut feelings).
And that doesn't even touch on the fact that I can stop the suit from being filed, or whether I would do it if I could. But until further evidence presents itself, the people considering a lawsuit over this are basic, back-alley shysters who I wouldn't trust with my laundry.