and with the millions of dollars they are paid, how many of them donated to research?
What? I don't understand why I need to pay for research when my employer endangers me. Example:
and with the millions of dollars coal miners were paid, how many of them donated to research? Coal mining is modern day pyramid building, they are paid to sacrifice their bodies so the industrial revolution can push us forward, not to be coddled. this is a job hazard and you have have to accept that, if it wasn't you wouldn't be paid as much.
There are over one thousand lawsuits by former football players against the league. This was covered by NPR a while ago, and it sounds like players are saying "I got hit here, in this game. I had X symptoms. Coach told me I didn't need to see the medical professional because he needed me back in the game. I now experience Y long term ailments." Regardless of the amount they are each paid, this could be compared to mesothelioma from asbestos exposure while installing installation. The NFL has deep pockets, let these players have their day in court.
Check out Shanahan's suspensions of NHL players. I will tell you right now that this is the NHL attempting to wash their own hands of similar liabilities. Three hockey players killed themselves very recently.
Look, in Roman times, people used to die building the aqueducts... that doesn't mean we accept deaths when companies build dams to service communities. We have technology, engineering, medicine, etc to help us be better than that. We're better than we were thousands of years ago. We don't need the gladiators to die anymore. The NFL is making bank off these players -- even after the players themselves are all millionaires that squander their money within a few years of the end of their career. The courts will decide what liability the NFL must assume.
Try reading the Bill of Rights sometime. The FBI broke the 6th law in that document (also known as the 4th amendment) which requires obtaining a search warrant from a judge prior to entrance.
You mean something like this? The warrant that was linked to not only in the article but also the summary?
And yes sometimes the bad guy gets away.
That would be a hilarious motto for any law enforcement agency! I'd opt for "We do everything within our legal rights to catch the bad guy."
That is preferable to harassing innocent people & treating them like criminals (example: patting down their breasts and crotches)
You are confusing the FBI and TSA.
(example: randomly searching through cars)
You are confusing the FBI and... your local law enforcement? Who require probable cause?
(example: arresting people who publish anti-war pamphlets)
The FBI might have done that in the past during Vietnam but it was probably for other trumped up bogus charges and luckily today we have the EFF/ACLU to take up those cases when that happens. Got any recent examples or really any citations at all for this entire post?
(example: rounding-up asian-Americans & tossing them in jail cause it's world war 2)
Wow, dude, that was six decades ago... yeah it was horrible and I think it's been publicly recognized as horribly racist and is a reason for public shame to the United States. I do not think that's happening today.
(example: assassinating Americans because you SUSPECT they might be terrorists)
Again, I think you're confusing the FBI with some other agency...
(example: strip-searching old people before they can fly)
But you repeat yourself... that's the TSA, not FBI. The TSA definitely has no purpose and needs to be dissolved.
(example: forcing a breast-feeding mom to stand in a glass jail for an hour, rather than let her take her pumping equipment home to her newborn kid)
What the hell? Citation?
INFORM yourself of what's happening in the world.
Yep, I'm the misinformed one here, got it. Hey, since all government actions are from the same people (you cross state and federal levels several times there) why don't you go tell your local county clerk to stop murdering Afghan children? Makes about as much sense as the rest of your rambling post...
As you pointed out, this is a VERY fast turn-around... almost like they hope that people will use it in a "business as usual" fashion... like a honeypot?
Not even telling them that it was back so that the owners could decide if they even wanted to risk leaving it in place? VERY suspicious.
The FBI also left a dolly to move the server. Unfortunately the dolly is filled with microphones and wi-fi packet recorders. The FBI also left a fruit basket as an apology. Unfortunately the fruit is laced with mind control chemicals. The FBI also left an apology note. Unfortunately the text is interlaced with words that activate their sleeper agent inside the company.
I mean I can play the conspiracy game all day, yeah if they installed spyware on it, the FBI are pieces of shit. At least have the decency to request the compliance of the company and let them decide to help you track down a scofflaw. At least you could then tell the parents and students that this company won't comply with your investigation so your hands are tied until further leads.
I mean, come on, you think that the FBI is that savvy? You think that any two bit network or systems engineer wouldn't be able to pick up on weirdness in network traffic or processes running from/on the machine phoning home to the FBI? Any company worth its salt that accepts a server or hardware back from anybody proceeds to rebuild it from scratch. Flash or upgrade the firmware if you want! It's so hilariously convenient that law enforcement is a barrel of bumbling idiots when they're supposed to be helping us and when they're trying to help us they are seventeen steps ahead of us and already have infiltrated my underwear drawer. In this story they go straight from idiots who can't understand that logging is turned off on this server to installing honeypot software/devices in two weeks into a device they just got. Right. VERY suspicious. And let's face it, this bomb threat guy has already moved on to another remailer and he's not going to return to this remailer that he has inconvenienced.
This is sort of awkward since I donate ~$50 to the EFF and wear their shirts around town but... what was the FBI supposed to do? Throw up their hands and say "Nothing can be done" to the parents and students at the University. It's not like they went through an inappropriate channel to seize this server. What law was broken? On top of that, April 18th to May 3rd is a much faster turnaround than what I would credit the FBI.
Sure it was heavy handed -- in about the same way as shutting down traffic for a major accident is heavy handed. You know we have the ability to just plow that wreckage off our highways and get on with our lives but noooo the police want to find out who was at fault and make sure everyone is okay. Even though it inconveniences thousands of people every day and, predictably, the accidents keep happening despite the police officers' efforts.
Predictably, the threats continued even after the server seizure
That's gotta be the stupidest part of this summary. The idea wasn't to stop the threats but to trace them! If logging wasn't turned off on that server, the FBI would have been able to trace it. That being the only thing they could do, they did it. I mean, if I was a student or parent, I would be really upset if the FBI said "Well, we could confiscate that server and mildly interrupt e-mail service for 300 people but it will only tell us who is doing it if logging is turned on and it's probably not so we're just going to go ahead and let this all continue to happen."
Yeah, hundreds of people were inconvenienced when their e-mail was disrupted... with the safety and lives of hundreds of other people at the university in mind when it happened.
Big bad FBI, trying to follow the only lead they have on some sick pervert who gets off to bomb threats. Shame on them! Sometimes I think law enforcement is damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Over time, nearly every one of their arguments has been knocked down by accumulating evidence, and polls say 97 percent of working climate scientists now see global warming as a serious risk.
Despite this large consensus in the peer reviewed scientific community, it doesn't take much searching to find comments like this one modded up as high as it can go that say crap like:
Global Warming/Climate Change may or may not be happening.
Frankly, I avoid these discussions now. There is no reason to try to inform people of what you read like this NY Times article. Ignorance backed by corporations has won. It has won in the mind of the general public, it has even won on the "elite tech site" of Slashdot, even in the minds of those here who hold the moderator points.
More like blank checkbook with every check autographed and when you run out of checks they automatically mail you more signed checks.
'notwithstanding any other provision of law.'
If that's an actual quote from the bill, what the fuck? I mean, aren't laws repealed and modified by further legislation and "provisions of law"? "And this law says you can't ever change this law" sounds like something a two year old would propose... am I incorrect in assuming that with that sort of clause this bill basically ensures that once it is passed it can never be revoked by another bill or law?
and many of us learn more from these publishers than from a Comp Sci curriculum
Not me, man. And, don't get me wrong, I love pragprog and I worship O'Reilly and NoStarch. Hell, I review books for them on Slashdot! But no book would have been able to teach me about automata theory or linear algebra and differential equations like my college courses did. I'm sorry but I must argue that there's a lot of application and implementation to be gleaned from these books -- not so much on the theory and foundational concepts. At least for me there's something really difficult about reading a book about really "far out there" concepts and truly understanding them without human intervention. Maybe I'm just stupid but I find the best tech books show me "little jumps" while my college courses were the only way I could make "the big jumps" in knowledge quickly enough.
Plus, going to a liberal arts college meant general requirements that furthered me along in ethics, philosophy, etc more than these books did. I wouldn't go selling a college education short even though it seems to be the popular thing to bash these days.
several analysts think Apple is just getting started
I find this particularly interesting since I would assume that market penetration should be causing their growth to slow -- hell they did worse than they did last quarter which, although still good, is a sign they're slowing somewhat, right? So I looked it up on this BGR blog site and it appears that only one analyst thinks so, Brian White. Can anyone provide several other analysts who thing "Apple is just getting started"?
I also found some of Brian White's quotes to be less than analytical:
“Apple fever rocks on”
and
"Apple fever is spreading like a wildfire around the world and we see no end in sight to this trend"
I hate to engage in character assassination but that really doesn't sound like any of the analyst reports I've ever read. They're usually dry as hell and stick to the numbers. Numbers numbers numbers, usually that's all that matters. Anyone got numbers on market penetration instead of telling me "Apple fever has no end in sight"?
Well, to be fair he doesn't say how much it increases.
Let's look at examples where this has already worked for me: Bandcamp. From the start they offered music with no DRM at various qualities of lossy and lossless downloads. As a result, for a while I was trying to make it a point to only purchase my music through bandcamp or directly from the little guys. Because the option was there with a large enough volume I could actually do this.
Oddly enough I can stream all the music on Bandcamp when I'm connected to the internet through my computer and phone and I constantly send out links to friends via e-mail and social media sites (free advertising, more goodwill). So you might ask why I would ever pay anything for the music on Bandcamp but I do because sometimes the music is so good that I want something physical as well or I just want this unknown band from Sweden to have enough gas to make it to their next gig.
Am I a typical consumer? Probably not but Bandcamp posts their numbers so I know other people are using it:
To date, artists have made $16,858,713 using Bandcamp, and $1,188,800 in the past 30 days alone. Albums outsell tracks 5 to 1 (in the rest of the music buying world, tracks outsell albums 16 to 1). On name-your-price albums, fans pay an average of 50% more than the minimum. We've driven 2,570,177 paid transactions and served 30,232,263 downloads to happy fans.
Now, does this goodwill offset someone sharing all of Bandcamp's MP3s? Apparently you don't think the goodwill is worth anything compared to that piracy. Maybe you're right but I would be thrilled if there was a Bandcamp site for ebooks where I could read most if not all of the book before purchasing it. Apparently Stross agrees that something less encumbering than the current model will be a better situation than what they have. Unfortunately, there's no sure way to measure this or to speculate if it will work for small time authors but not for big authors nor can you tell if it will be similar to the music anecdote I listed.
So, he actually is serious, it's just the magnitude and trade offs that are unknown and scare publishing executives.
Yes, they should. It should be a separate certification that allows doctors and consumers to chose medical devices with confidence.
Personally I don't trust the FDA with something like this nor do I think it would help to give them funding to expand their expertise in a field like security. I don't even trust the best in the private world with something like this: Microsoft, Apple, Google, IBM, I don't care they all have failed at security at some point. I have to imagine that our government's security agencies already have a generalized form of protection testing and certification within their own systems, why not reuse that process and actually get some use and protection for citizens out of said government money vacuums?
I guess this means I should stop reading the ingredients in my food and trying to eat healthy and balanced. Don't want to be jailed for "practicing nutrition"
He makes money on ad revenue for this advice. And also from the article:
McCullagh said the board may be on more solid ground in its complaint about the telephone support packages Cooksey offers. “But if customers are paying $97 or $149 or $197 a month to have someone listen, that sounds a lot like life coaching, which doesn't require a license.”
So I think the board is trying to do Crooksey a favor because here's what's going to happen. Someone is going to die after telling their family members that they've stopped seeing a regular doctor and went holistic with Crooksey when they should have had their ankle amputated. The family is going to sue Crooksey probably with a number of things like practicing nutrition without a license, etc etc. And since Crooksey is making money off this operation it's going to be hard to tell the court that was just friendly advice over tea. Crooksey isn't going to have malpractice insurance and his first amendment rights aren't going to protect him from the lawsuits that follow regarding the repercussions of his preachings.
Crooksey should be able to say whatever he wants and put it on his blog. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable for what he says. It's wrong for the board to try and shut him down now but if I were them I would just kindly let Crooksey know that the things he is saying might leaving him with serious liabilities in due time.
Curiously, FlatWorld was incorporated on January 2007, just weeks after Apple announced the original iPhone at Macworld Expo.
Why is that curious? What's curious to me is that this patent was issued in 2005 and Apple began releasing infringing devices with massive publicity and advertising in 2007. Now five years later he finally gets around to filing suit? Just after Apple experiences the most profitable quarter in history of any tech company and the news outlets proclaim that Apple has too much money?
Either this lawsuit was timed perfectly or Slavoljub Milekic has been living without human contact for five or more years until recently arbitrarily realizing that Apple has been infringing on his "intellectual property."
Patents wouldn't be so bad if everyone who had them cleared their throat from the beginning and got all this out of the way and agreed upon... right now the patent ecosystem is this mentality of having a huge patent war chest because if you're producing a lot of anything, you're infringing on someone's rights and the odds are you'll pay for it at the time you're making the most money. This is unfair that Apple priced out these devices and sold millions of them with the possibility that they may be paying a hindsight licensing fee for each device.
If you're in a courtroom, you should ALWAYS assume than anyone presenting evidence has an agenda (because they almost always do).
I don't really agree with this. It's the lawyer's jobs to try to find a scientist somewhere who will vouch for their client or could provide evidence for the client. Now, ideally the scientist is from some other place that never heard of this case or knows anything about the case other than what he/she is an expert on. The science has been done long before hand, is sound, has been peer reviewed, etc, etc. The problem that I garnered from this article is when an "expert" is presented yet they are not peer reviewed, their science is not sound, nobody in their community takes them seriously, their degree is a hundred years old or questionable, etc, etc. Or they know a lot about the case and they have stepped forward to voluntarily promote their agenda to back their science by building credibility via high media courtroom cases.
The point is that when scientists come into a courtroom as expert witnesses (or really any expert witness), the only agenda on their mind should be to relate to the court what they have discovered in their research. Not how much more funding they'll get when this hits the papers. Not how much the defense is paying them to say that in their professional opinion the client is insane.
This is about the validity of science presented in trials, not whether or not the defense or prosecution as an agenda. I don't think that's ever been under question or they're a terrible defense/prosecution and the client should move for a mistrial. Psychological testimony has gotten so far out of hand that some states have taken extreme measures.
We saw recently how a project to build a laboratory for the development of controlled thermonuclear power, ITER, was nearly killed by the competition between France and Japan to be the laboratory’s site.
Also, put another way in the article:
What does motivate legislators is the immediate economic interests of their constituents. Big laboratories bring jobs and money into their neighborhood, so they attract the active support of legislators from that state, and apathy or hostility from many other members of Congress. Before the Texas site was chosen, a senator told me that at that time there were a hundred senators in favor of the SSC, but that once the site was chosen the number would drop to two. He wasn’t far wrong. We saw several members of Congress change their stand on the SSC after their states were eliminated as possible sites.
I think the counter argument to your idea of 'pooling' resources is that this isn't really necessary. We have the resources to do this as the United States or as the EU or probably even as China itself. I don't care what country/countries/bordered region does it, I just care that it gets done. It is, however, very easy to point out that the country that Weinberg is residing in has the resources to do it yet fails to do it. Even when bills are passed to fund it, it fails.
Even as the SSC's cost ballooned up from $4 billion it only hit $12 billion in 1993 or about $19 billion in today's money. US defense budget for 1993 was ~$350 billion but it appears that we can't rely on the military to progress particle physics any further.
I'd be far more worried about the water laced with sand and chemicals that is shot down into the Earth to release this gas from the shale. They can't leave it down there for fear of it seeping into the water table and when they suck it up, what do they do with it? And in some US states, it appears that when people think they are affected by it the company responsible doesn't have to tell them what their area was exposed to. It's well known that it contaminates water supply but greed can overpower any environmental problems. Luckily we should be able to watch Pennsylvania screw up their own water and hopefully other states will take a different approach.
I wonder how many laws and regulations UKELA will let slide in order for England to "catapult into the top ranks of global producers."
Leave it to those of us in "flyover country" to actively move society forward, whilst the coastal elites bicker among themselves.
Just thought you might like to know that the company that is building it for Ameren Missouri is Westinghouse, headquartered in Pennsylvania. As in George Westinghouse's corporation from New York. And they are looking for $452 million of investment funds from the U.S. Department of Energy in order to start this project... does your state solely fund the DoE?
Could you describe what bickering is happening on the coasts that isn't happening in your own state?
I'm not saying anything bad about Missouri, I applaud this movement as I don't think Wind or Natural Gas or any single solution is going to save us moving forward so I'm happy to watch this piece of the puzzle be experimented with. Just don't go patting yourself on the back too hard or you'll get me started about the massive wind farms in my home state of Minnesota (that were set up by a largely Californian company selling it to almost anyone within cable laying distance).
Energy-wise, none of us are alone and we all share very similar problems.
With this kind of DNA replication theory tested and proved, we now can use this to facilitate a computer chip that improves itself.
What is the learning environment that defines what "improves" means?
I've studied artificial intelligence extensively and there's a whole lot of effort going into reinforcement learning, genetic annealing, etc. But the key thing to remember with DNA is that the Earth provided this environment for it to be tested in and be given feedback. The feedback was and still is exceptionally harsh in that you either died or adapted. On top of that, the DNA lead to things that eventually competed with each other.
The problem with computer chips is that there is no fundamental death/life reward system unless we as humans implement it. And there will always be a need for us to do this because nature doesn't care about logic gates, we do. If you make a set of chips to provide an environment for incubating and reward or punishing the first set of chips, you merely have another layer where humans must evaluate and instruct the chips as to what it is that we want.
Faithful genetic transmission over successive DNA-to-XNA cycles allowed researchers to select for only those XNAs that...
Unfortunately, in order to impose your will (no matter how lazy you wish to be) you still must define your will. And I think you'll see that it becomes a major effort when trying to set up automated systems like you propose.
Simply said: define "improves." Putting the chips outside and pitting them against each other in nature isn't gonna do it. The ability to direct harmful radiation will probably win out over gigahertz or logic gates per area.
Not sure but I think this is not a filing over how it's done but rather a filing over whether or not the performance is a copy of or derivative of Teller's 1983 copyrighted description. I don't know how this trick works but I'm guessing if Bakardy had chosen a different flower, a different cutting device, a different setting, etc and changed it just superficially enough so that the mechanic is still relayed to the viewer he might escape the copyright. But it seems Teller has written this out like a play and it will be up to the courts to decide if Bakardy is infringing on that copyrighted material. You'll notice that this is about copyright and performance, not a patent and methodology.
If this lawsuit is over how it's done, I agree with you. I see it similar to software patents where I see a program that does something -- say manages all ID3 tags of your library through HTML table interactions -- and I want to make something behave the same way. Even though I don't have the source code, I figure it out one way or the other. Maybe it's the same way your patent describes, maybe it isn't. It doesn't matter, I've never seen your source code and I'm not infringing on the graphics and layout so why should you be able to sue me when I write something that does (perceptually) the same thing? People who are smart enough to figure out their own solutions shouldn't be prohibited from employing that intelligence...
You know, I bet that if you spent as much time learning new languages as you did bitching about duplication in Dart, Julia, $NEW_LANGUAGE then you'd have a pretty powerful array of tools to use in programming. From one of the authors of Machine Learning for Hackers' blog:
In my opinion, the new code in Julia is easier to read than the R code because Julia has fewer syntactic quirks than R. More importantly, the Julia code runs much faster than the R code without any real effort put into speed optimization. For the sample text I tried to decipher, the Julia code completes 50,000 iterations of the sampler in 51 seconds, while the R code completes the same 50,000 iterations in 67 minutes — making the R code more than 75 slower than the Julia code.
That certainly caught my attention!
The XKCD comic you cite is correct for some standards but software languages are much more complex than standards and, in fact, many of them implement common sets of core standards. Once you get specific enough, you're not talking about a standard but rather a specific implementation of how to accomplish something.
Wow you're really quite the shill. You work for these people? A few years ago the Textbook as.... I mean, Publishers tried to make selling used books to students illegal. I'm curious to see how far backwards you can bend to justify that as being "fine and dandy" marketing.
So, this is called a strawman argument where I postulate that publishers are faced with a conundrum in trying to get their works out to third world countries and you open up with making me look like someone who says that resale of textbooks should not be allowed. Well done, I love the quality of discourse and discussion on this site!
Here's a thought: Maybe the textbook publishers should offer TWO copies of their books, just like fiction publishers do: One that is hardcover. And one that is paperbook, with lower-quality paper/binding, but costs 1/3rd to 1/4th as much. (Then we'd not need to import that paperback from India because it would be on U.S. shelves.)
You really failed to even read or comprehend the issue here. The insanity of publishers pricing in the United States is such that 1/3 or 1/4 the cost is nowhere near enough to market it in India! Furthermore, the book's value is in the words. The binding and quality is basically moot, just ask the people who are embracing ebooks at more cost than dead tree books. Why do you (continually) fail to engage me in any meaningful way on this discussion?
Now, carry on with your ad hominem attacks about how I'm a shill...
I don't give a shit if the Megacorp doesn't like that I purchased a cheap paperback Indian copy instead of the overpriced, glossybacked American copy. Sucks to be them. It's not my responsibility to bendover and kiss its ass..... it is not my girlfriend. I have every right as a free citizen (not a megacorp slave) to buy the cheapest copy I can find. It's called free trade.
I like how mod my comments are modded as Troll when I'm trying to explain why the situation is what it is yet your profanity laden brash response without any understanding of the concept is moderated as "Insightful."
So this is my problem with Slashdot and why I come back here only to be constantly reminded to stay away and let the people circle jerk with blinders on. I'll let someone else waist their time explaining how the world works to you folk, you clearly never learned to appreciate someone merely relaying the other side of the issue or another viewpoint to you.
Good luck upsetting the publishing business with your brilliant views! Burst forth, you need only say these words and hundreds of years of international copyright law will crumble!
Let's say Addison Wesley publishes a text book on Modern Evolution and it runs you a steep $90 here in the United States. Unsurprisingly, as the gatekeepers of that copyright, some of us actually shell that out. Well, universities in India are going to want access to this same material but there's a problem and I think you know what it is. That much money means a lot more in India than it does in the United States. So we have publishers wanting to sell textbooks in India to college students but the most anybody can really afford is $9. What's worse, if they don't release a version at that price, they're just going to bootleg it anyway. So the solution is to engage in, as you put it, "price discrimination" or as I might call it distribution values based on localized income since they want to make these materials available but they want to also make a profit in first world countries.
If you want to turn the screws on the publishers and say international trade laws are all bullshit and the books worth what it's worth and you're only paying $9 for the Indian version, I assure you they'll just sell it at $90 everywhere in the world and try to deal with the bootlegging in a much less understanding way than they are right now.
I see you replied to my post in another question about why the end consumer shouldn't be able to resell to another country. In cases of one or two books, I don't think anybody really gives a damn, it's when you're putting yourself through college on a publishers dime that they start to get upset and bring up international trade laws against you. I'm pretty sure with how copyright law works in the states and even abroad by distribution channels that this kid is going to be screwed pretty hard.
it's bullshit, of course. too bad for the publishers that books don't come with drm chips.
No, it's too bad for the publishers that they are trying to sell books cheaper inside poorer countries.
Slashdot Mirror
and with the millions of dollars they are paid, how many of them donated to research?
What? I don't understand why I need to pay for research when my employer endangers me. Example:
and with the millions of dollars coal miners were paid, how many of them donated to research? Coal mining is modern day pyramid building, they are paid to sacrifice their bodies so the industrial revolution can push us forward, not to be coddled. this is a job hazard and you have have to accept that, if it wasn't you wouldn't be paid as much.
There are over one thousand lawsuits by former football players against the league. This was covered by NPR a while ago, and it sounds like players are saying "I got hit here, in this game. I had X symptoms. Coach told me I didn't need to see the medical professional because he needed me back in the game. I now experience Y long term ailments." Regardless of the amount they are each paid, this could be compared to mesothelioma from asbestos exposure while installing installation. The NFL has deep pockets, let these players have their day in court.
... that doesn't mean we accept deaths when companies build dams to service communities. We have technology, engineering, medicine, etc to help us be better than that. We're better than we were thousands of years ago. We don't need the gladiators to die anymore. The NFL is making bank off these players -- even after the players themselves are all millionaires that squander their money within a few years of the end of their career. The courts will decide what liability the NFL must assume.
Check out Shanahan's suspensions of NHL players. I will tell you right now that this is the NHL attempting to wash their own hands of similar liabilities. Three hockey players killed themselves very recently.
Look, in Roman times, people used to die building the aqueducts
Try reading the Bill of Rights sometime. The FBI broke the 6th law in that document (also known as the 4th amendment) which requires obtaining a search warrant from a judge prior to entrance.
You mean something like this? The warrant that was linked to not only in the article but also the summary?
And yes sometimes the bad guy gets away.
That would be a hilarious motto for any law enforcement agency! I'd opt for "We do everything within our legal rights to catch the bad guy."
That is preferable to harassing innocent people & treating them like criminals (example: patting down their breasts and crotches)
You are confusing the FBI and TSA.
(example: randomly searching through cars)
You are confusing the FBI and ... your local law enforcement? Who require probable cause?
(example: arresting people who publish anti-war pamphlets)
The FBI might have done that in the past during Vietnam but it was probably for other trumped up bogus charges and luckily today we have the EFF/ACLU to take up those cases when that happens. Got any recent examples or really any citations at all for this entire post?
(example: rounding-up asian-Americans & tossing them in jail cause it's world war 2)
Wow, dude, that was six decades ago ... yeah it was horrible and I think it's been publicly recognized as horribly racist and is a reason for public shame to the United States. I do not think that's happening today.
(example: assassinating Americans because you SUSPECT they might be terrorists)
Again, I think you're confusing the FBI with some other agency ...
(example: strip-searching old people before they can fly)
But you repeat yourself ... that's the TSA, not FBI. The TSA definitely has no purpose and needs to be dissolved.
(example: forcing a breast-feeding mom to stand in a glass jail for an hour, rather than let her take her pumping equipment home to her newborn kid)
What the hell? Citation?
INFORM yourself of what's happening in the world.
Yep, I'm the misinformed one here, got it. Hey, since all government actions are from the same people (you cross state and federal levels several times there) why don't you go tell your local county clerk to stop murdering Afghan children? Makes about as much sense as the rest of your rambling post ...
As you pointed out, this is a VERY fast turn-around ... almost like they hope that people will use it in a "business as usual" fashion ... like a honeypot?
Not even telling them that it was back so that the owners could decide if they even wanted to risk leaving it in place? VERY suspicious.
The FBI also left a dolly to move the server. Unfortunately the dolly is filled with microphones and wi-fi packet recorders. The FBI also left a fruit basket as an apology. Unfortunately the fruit is laced with mind control chemicals. The FBI also left an apology note. Unfortunately the text is interlaced with words that activate their sleeper agent inside the company.
I mean I can play the conspiracy game all day, yeah if they installed spyware on it, the FBI are pieces of shit. At least have the decency to request the compliance of the company and let them decide to help you track down a scofflaw. At least you could then tell the parents and students that this company won't comply with your investigation so your hands are tied until further leads.
I mean, come on, you think that the FBI is that savvy? You think that any two bit network or systems engineer wouldn't be able to pick up on weirdness in network traffic or processes running from/on the machine phoning home to the FBI? Any company worth its salt that accepts a server or hardware back from anybody proceeds to rebuild it from scratch. Flash or upgrade the firmware if you want! It's so hilariously convenient that law enforcement is a barrel of bumbling idiots when they're supposed to be helping us and when they're trying to help us they are seventeen steps ahead of us and already have infiltrated my underwear drawer. In this story they go straight from idiots who can't understand that logging is turned off on this server to installing honeypot software/devices in two weeks into a device they just got. Right. VERY suspicious. And let's face it, this bomb threat guy has already moved on to another remailer and he's not going to return to this remailer that he has inconvenienced.
Sure it was heavy handed -- in about the same way as shutting down traffic for a major accident is heavy handed. You know we have the ability to just plow that wreckage off our highways and get on with our lives but noooo the police want to find out who was at fault and make sure everyone is okay. Even though it inconveniences thousands of people every day and, predictably, the accidents keep happening despite the police officers' efforts.
Predictably, the threats continued even after the server seizure
That's gotta be the stupidest part of this summary. The idea wasn't to stop the threats but to trace them! If logging wasn't turned off on that server, the FBI would have been able to trace it. That being the only thing they could do, they did it. I mean, if I was a student or parent, I would be really upset if the FBI said "Well, we could confiscate that server and mildly interrupt e-mail service for 300 people but it will only tell us who is doing it if logging is turned on and it's probably not so we're just going to go ahead and let this all continue to happen."
... with the safety and lives of hundreds of other people at the university in mind when it happened.
Yeah, hundreds of people were inconvenienced when their e-mail was disrupted
Big bad FBI, trying to follow the only lead they have on some sick pervert who gets off to bomb threats. Shame on them! Sometimes I think law enforcement is damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Over time, nearly every one of their arguments has been knocked down by accumulating evidence, and polls say 97 percent of working climate scientists now see global warming as a serious risk.
Despite this large consensus in the peer reviewed scientific community, it doesn't take much searching to find comments like this one modded up as high as it can go that say crap like:
Global Warming/Climate Change may or may not be happening.
Frankly, I avoid these discussions now. There is no reason to try to inform people of what you read like this NY Times article. Ignorance backed by corporations has won. It has won in the mind of the general public, it has even won on the "elite tech site" of Slashdot, even in the minds of those here who hold the moderator points.
Yeah that's really funny yet time and time again, I've been downmodded for saying that pesticides actually do increase output and people who have never farmed a day in their life are modded up for saying that "There has been a growing of evidence showing that the overuse of pesticides has led to a *decline* in crop yields, not an increase."
Slashdot is a bastion of technological know-how. Not farming, however.
'notwithstanding any other provision of law.'
If that's an actual quote from the bill, what the fuck? I mean, aren't laws repealed and modified by further legislation and "provisions of law"? "And this law says you can't ever change this law" sounds like something a two year old would propose ... am I incorrect in assuming that with that sort of clause this bill basically ensures that once it is passed it can never be revoked by another bill or law?
and many of us learn more from these publishers than from a Comp Sci curriculum
Not me, man. And, don't get me wrong, I love pragprog and I worship O'Reilly and NoStarch. Hell, I review books for them on Slashdot! But no book would have been able to teach me about automata theory or linear algebra and differential equations like my college courses did. I'm sorry but I must argue that there's a lot of application and implementation to be gleaned from these books -- not so much on the theory and foundational concepts. At least for me there's something really difficult about reading a book about really "far out there" concepts and truly understanding them without human intervention. Maybe I'm just stupid but I find the best tech books show me "little jumps" while my college courses were the only way I could make "the big jumps" in knowledge quickly enough.
Plus, going to a liberal arts college meant general requirements that furthered me along in ethics, philosophy, etc more than these books did. I wouldn't go selling a college education short even though it seems to be the popular thing to bash these days.
several analysts think Apple is just getting started
I find this particularly interesting since I would assume that market penetration should be causing their growth to slow -- hell they did worse than they did last quarter which, although still good, is a sign they're slowing somewhat, right? So I looked it up on this BGR blog site and it appears that only one analyst thinks so, Brian White. Can anyone provide several other analysts who thing "Apple is just getting started"?
I also found some of Brian White's quotes to be less than analytical:
“Apple fever rocks on”
and
"Apple fever is spreading like a wildfire around the world and we see no end in sight to this trend"
I hate to engage in character assassination but that really doesn't sound like any of the analyst reports I've ever read. They're usually dry as hell and stick to the numbers. Numbers numbers numbers, usually that's all that matters. Anyone got numbers on market penetration instead of telling me "Apple fever has no end in sight"?
This guy is saying the sort of things that have been getting me downmodded here on slashdot for years.
Really? There seems to be some discrepancy with your statement:
Global Warming/Climate Change may or may not be happening.
There appears to be no room for that "may not" area in his statements (and largely public sentiment). And the end of the summary:
'Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace.'
I could see how your sentiment would be downmodded, I think the scientific community largely agrees Climate Change is happening, man-made or not.
You can't be serious.
Well, to be fair he doesn't say how much it increases.
Let's look at examples where this has already worked for me: Bandcamp. From the start they offered music with no DRM at various qualities of lossy and lossless downloads. As a result, for a while I was trying to make it a point to only purchase my music through bandcamp or directly from the little guys. Because the option was there with a large enough volume I could actually do this.
Oddly enough I can stream all the music on Bandcamp when I'm connected to the internet through my computer and phone and I constantly send out links to friends via e-mail and social media sites (free advertising, more goodwill). So you might ask why I would ever pay anything for the music on Bandcamp but I do because sometimes the music is so good that I want something physical as well or I just want this unknown band from Sweden to have enough gas to make it to their next gig.
Am I a typical consumer? Probably not but Bandcamp posts their numbers so I know other people are using it:
Now, does this goodwill offset someone sharing all of Bandcamp's MP3s? Apparently you don't think the goodwill is worth anything compared to that piracy. Maybe you're right but I would be thrilled if there was a Bandcamp site for ebooks where I could read most if not all of the book before purchasing it. Apparently Stross agrees that something less encumbering than the current model will be a better situation than what they have. Unfortunately, there's no sure way to measure this or to speculate if it will work for small time authors but not for big authors nor can you tell if it will be similar to the music anecdote I listed.
So, he actually is serious, it's just the magnitude and trade offs that are unknown and scare publishing executives.
Yes, they should. It should be a separate certification that allows doctors and consumers to chose medical devices with confidence.
Personally I don't trust the FDA with something like this nor do I think it would help to give them funding to expand their expertise in a field like security. I don't even trust the best in the private world with something like this: Microsoft, Apple, Google, IBM, I don't care they all have failed at security at some point. I have to imagine that our government's security agencies already have a generalized form of protection testing and certification within their own systems, why not reuse that process and actually get some use and protection for citizens out of said government money vacuums?
I guess this means I should stop reading the ingredients in my food and trying to eat healthy and balanced. Don't want to be jailed for "practicing nutrition"
He makes money on ad revenue for this advice. And also from the article:
McCullagh said the board may be on more solid ground in its complaint about the telephone support packages Cooksey offers. “But if customers are paying $97 or $149 or $197 a month to have someone listen, that sounds a lot like life coaching, which doesn't require a license.”
So I think the board is trying to do Crooksey a favor because here's what's going to happen. Someone is going to die after telling their family members that they've stopped seeing a regular doctor and went holistic with Crooksey when they should have had their ankle amputated. The family is going to sue Crooksey probably with a number of things like practicing nutrition without a license, etc etc. And since Crooksey is making money off this operation it's going to be hard to tell the court that was just friendly advice over tea. Crooksey isn't going to have malpractice insurance and his first amendment rights aren't going to protect him from the lawsuits that follow regarding the repercussions of his preachings.
Crooksey should be able to say whatever he wants and put it on his blog. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable for what he says. It's wrong for the board to try and shut him down now but if I were them I would just kindly let Crooksey know that the things he is saying might leaving him with serious liabilities in due time.
Curiously, FlatWorld was incorporated on January 2007, just weeks after Apple announced the original iPhone at Macworld Expo.
Why is that curious? What's curious to me is that this patent was issued in 2005 and Apple began releasing infringing devices with massive publicity and advertising in 2007. Now five years later he finally gets around to filing suit? Just after Apple experiences the most profitable quarter in history of any tech company and the news outlets proclaim that Apple has too much money?
... right now the patent ecosystem is this mentality of having a huge patent war chest because if you're producing a lot of anything, you're infringing on someone's rights and the odds are you'll pay for it at the time you're making the most money. This is unfair that Apple priced out these devices and sold millions of them with the possibility that they may be paying a hindsight licensing fee for each device.
Either this lawsuit was timed perfectly or Slavoljub Milekic has been living without human contact for five or more years until recently arbitrarily realizing that Apple has been infringing on his "intellectual property."
Patents wouldn't be so bad if everyone who had them cleared their throat from the beginning and got all this out of the way and agreed upon
On the other hand, it's nice to see Apple getting a taste of its own medicine.
If you're in a courtroom, you should ALWAYS assume than anyone presenting evidence has an agenda (because they almost always do).
I don't really agree with this. It's the lawyer's jobs to try to find a scientist somewhere who will vouch for their client or could provide evidence for the client. Now, ideally the scientist is from some other place that never heard of this case or knows anything about the case other than what he/she is an expert on. The science has been done long before hand, is sound, has been peer reviewed, etc, etc. The problem that I garnered from this article is when an "expert" is presented yet they are not peer reviewed, their science is not sound, nobody in their community takes them seriously, their degree is a hundred years old or questionable, etc, etc. Or they know a lot about the case and they have stepped forward to voluntarily promote their agenda to back their science by building credibility via high media courtroom cases.
The point is that when scientists come into a courtroom as expert witnesses (or really any expert witness), the only agenda on their mind should be to relate to the court what they have discovered in their research. Not how much more funding they'll get when this hits the papers. Not how much the defense is paying them to say that in their professional opinion the client is insane.
This is about the validity of science presented in trials, not whether or not the defense or prosecution as an agenda. I don't think that's ever been under question or they're a terrible defense/prosecution and the client should move for a mistrial. Psychological testimony has gotten so far out of hand that some states have taken extreme measures.
We saw recently how a project to build a laboratory for the development of controlled thermonuclear power, ITER, was nearly killed by the competition between France and Japan to be the laboratory’s site.
Also, put another way in the article:
What does motivate legislators is the immediate economic interests of their constituents. Big laboratories bring jobs and money into their neighborhood, so they attract the active support of legislators from that state, and apathy or hostility from many other members of Congress. Before the Texas site was chosen, a senator told me that at that time there were a hundred senators in favor of the SSC, but that once the site was chosen the number would drop to two. He wasn’t far wrong. We saw several members of Congress change their stand on the SSC after their states were eliminated as possible sites.
I think the counter argument to your idea of 'pooling' resources is that this isn't really necessary. We have the resources to do this as the United States or as the EU or probably even as China itself. I don't care what country/countries/bordered region does it, I just care that it gets done. It is, however, very easy to point out that the country that Weinberg is residing in has the resources to do it yet fails to do it. Even when bills are passed to fund it, it fails.
Even as the SSC's cost ballooned up from $4 billion it only hit $12 billion in 1993 or about $19 billion in today's money. US defense budget for 1993 was ~$350 billion but it appears that we can't rely on the military to progress particle physics any further.
After all, the Thames estuary can't be hurt by a few anthropogenic earthquakes, now? Can it?
I'd be far more worried about the water laced with sand and chemicals that is shot down into the Earth to release this gas from the shale. They can't leave it down there for fear of it seeping into the water table and when they suck it up, what do they do with it? And in some US states, it appears that when people think they are affected by it the company responsible doesn't have to tell them what their area was exposed to. It's well known that it contaminates water supply but greed can overpower any environmental problems. Luckily we should be able to watch Pennsylvania screw up their own water and hopefully other states will take a different approach.
I wonder how many laws and regulations UKELA will let slide in order for England to "catapult into the top ranks of global producers."
More importantly, why wouldn't the jerks just start new accounts and buy the game at the entry level pricing instead of the jerk pricing?
Leave it to those of us in "flyover country" to actively move society forward, whilst the coastal elites bicker among themselves.
Just thought you might like to know that the company that is building it for Ameren Missouri is Westinghouse, headquartered in Pennsylvania. As in George Westinghouse's corporation from New York. And they are looking for $452 million of investment funds from the U.S. Department of Energy in order to start this project ... does your state solely fund the DoE?
Also, I might point out to you that recent data shows that in 2005 for every dollar Missouri paid to the federal government you got back $1.32.
whilst the coastal elites bicker among themselves
Could you describe what bickering is happening on the coasts that isn't happening in your own state?
I'm not saying anything bad about Missouri, I applaud this movement as I don't think Wind or Natural Gas or any single solution is going to save us moving forward so I'm happy to watch this piece of the puzzle be experimented with. Just don't go patting yourself on the back too hard or you'll get me started about the massive wind farms in my home state of Minnesota (that were set up by a largely Californian company selling it to almost anyone within cable laying distance).
Energy-wise, none of us are alone and we all share very similar problems.
With this kind of DNA replication theory tested and proved, we now can use this to facilitate a computer chip that improves itself.
What is the learning environment that defines what "improves" means?
I've studied artificial intelligence extensively and there's a whole lot of effort going into reinforcement learning, genetic annealing, etc. But the key thing to remember with DNA is that the Earth provided this environment for it to be tested in and be given feedback. The feedback was and still is exceptionally harsh in that you either died or adapted. On top of that, the DNA lead to things that eventually competed with each other.
The problem with computer chips is that there is no fundamental death/life reward system unless we as humans implement it. And there will always be a need for us to do this because nature doesn't care about logic gates, we do. If you make a set of chips to provide an environment for incubating and reward or punishing the first set of chips, you merely have another layer where humans must evaluate and instruct the chips as to what it is that we want.
Faithful genetic transmission over successive DNA-to-XNA cycles allowed researchers to select for only those XNAs that ...
Unfortunately, in order to impose your will (no matter how lazy you wish to be) you still must define your will. And I think you'll see that it becomes a major effort when trying to set up automated systems like you propose.
Simply said: define "improves." Putting the chips outside and pitting them against each other in nature isn't gonna do it. The ability to direct harmful radiation will probably win out over gigahertz or logic gates per area.
Not sure but I think this is not a filing over how it's done but rather a filing over whether or not the performance is a copy of or derivative of Teller's 1983 copyrighted description. I don't know how this trick works but I'm guessing if Bakardy had chosen a different flower, a different cutting device, a different setting, etc and changed it just superficially enough so that the mechanic is still relayed to the viewer he might escape the copyright. But it seems Teller has written this out like a play and it will be up to the courts to decide if Bakardy is infringing on that copyrighted material. You'll notice that this is about copyright and performance, not a patent and methodology.
...
If this lawsuit is over how it's done, I agree with you. I see it similar to software patents where I see a program that does something -- say manages all ID3 tags of your library through HTML table interactions -- and I want to make something behave the same way. Even though I don't have the source code, I figure it out one way or the other. Maybe it's the same way your patent describes, maybe it isn't. It doesn't matter, I've never seen your source code and I'm not infringing on the graphics and layout so why should you be able to sue me when I write something that does (perceptually) the same thing? People who are smart enough to figure out their own solutions shouldn't be prohibited from employing that intelligence
In my opinion, the new code in Julia is easier to read than the R code because Julia has fewer syntactic quirks than R. More importantly, the Julia code runs much faster than the R code without any real effort put into speed optimization. For the sample text I tried to decipher, the Julia code completes 50,000 iterations of the sampler in 51 seconds, while the R code completes the same 50,000 iterations in 67 minutes — making the R code more than 75 slower than the Julia code.
That certainly caught my attention!
The XKCD comic you cite is correct for some standards but software languages are much more complex than standards and, in fact, many of them implement common sets of core standards. Once you get specific enough, you're not talking about a standard but rather a specific implementation of how to accomplish something.
Wow you're really quite the shill. You work for these people? A few years ago the Textbook as.... I mean, Publishers tried to make selling used books to students illegal. I'm curious to see how far backwards you can bend to justify that as being "fine and dandy" marketing.
So, this is called a strawman argument where I postulate that publishers are faced with a conundrum in trying to get their works out to third world countries and you open up with making me look like someone who says that resale of textbooks should not be allowed. Well done, I love the quality of discourse and discussion on this site!
Here's a thought: Maybe the textbook publishers should offer TWO copies of their books, just like fiction publishers do: One that is hardcover. And one that is paperbook, with lower-quality paper/binding, but costs 1/3rd to 1/4th as much. (Then we'd not need to import that paperback from India because it would be on U.S. shelves.)
You really failed to even read or comprehend the issue here. The insanity of publishers pricing in the United States is such that 1/3 or 1/4 the cost is nowhere near enough to market it in India! Furthermore, the book's value is in the words. The binding and quality is basically moot, just ask the people who are embracing ebooks at more cost than dead tree books. Why do you (continually) fail to engage me in any meaningful way on this discussion?
...
Now, carry on with your ad hominem attacks about how I'm a shill
I don't give a shit if the Megacorp doesn't like that I purchased a cheap paperback Indian copy instead of the overpriced, glossybacked American copy. Sucks to be them. It's not my responsibility to bendover and kiss its ass..... it is not my girlfriend. I have every right as a free citizen (not a megacorp slave) to buy the cheapest copy I can find. It's called free trade.
I like how mod my comments are modded as Troll when I'm trying to explain why the situation is what it is yet your profanity laden brash response without any understanding of the concept is moderated as "Insightful."
So this is my problem with Slashdot and why I come back here only to be constantly reminded to stay away and let the people circle jerk with blinders on. I'll let someone else waist their time explaining how the world works to you folk, you clearly never learned to appreciate someone merely relaying the other side of the issue or another viewpoint to you.
Good luck upsetting the publishing business with your brilliant views! Burst forth, you need only say these words and hundreds of years of international copyright law will crumble!
If you want to turn the screws on the publishers and say international trade laws are all bullshit and the books worth what it's worth and you're only paying $9 for the Indian version, I assure you they'll just sell it at $90 everywhere in the world and try to deal with the bootlegging in a much less understanding way than they are right now.
I see you replied to my post in another question about why the end consumer shouldn't be able to resell to another country. In cases of one or two books, I don't think anybody really gives a damn, it's when you're putting yourself through college on a publishers dime that they start to get upset and bring up international trade laws against you. I'm pretty sure with how copyright law works in the states and even abroad by distribution channels that this kid is going to be screwed pretty hard.
it's bullshit, of course. too bad for the publishers that books don't come with drm chips.
No, it's too bad for the publishers that they are trying to sell books cheaper inside poorer countries.