I joke but human redundancy is probably your best bet and pretty reassuring considering I've seen Dr. Strangelove twenty times or so. Also I enjoyed this picture. Is it a good idea to store the keys right above the safe to the Emergency War Orders? No matter, if you know the combination to the lock and have a twenty pound sledge, those hastily welded rings holding on the safety padlocks will take a few seconds to remove.
I think it hilarious that you discredit the Russian statements purely on the basis of financial interest,
How about I was pointing out the fact that they are experts in economics, not climatology or any related field?
when there are billions of dollars riding on cap & trade
That's funny. From everything I've heard about cap and trade, it's going to stagnate our economy (read: bad for everybody). Now you're telling me that someone is funding international organizations and peer reviewed journals and leading scientists in the field... so they can slow down the economy with phony climate results? How are they going to profit off that again?
And then you say 'green industry'! That's also hilarious! The companies dumping the most money into green tech are also the ones that are already lead players in the energy and fuel sectors! They are the vast majority of the 'green industry.' And they're cooking scientific findings why? So they can be the leaders in the coming green tech when they're already leading companies in what they do now? Does not compute.
Yeah, way to skip right over the actual allegation. Do their claims, in and of themselves, have merit? Wouldn't take long to find out.
I hate to break it to you but neither side has given me data. Saying so and so skipped over data from here and there does nothing for me when I can't see the data and do my own statistical analysis. If the IAE is so sure and has the data, why don't they publish the adjusted figures to show us just how much we were lied to?
No choice but to listen to those with the data publishing the reports. Does it suck? Yes. But oftentimes that's how studies with empirical data works--especially if it cost a lot of money to acquire that data. We're not talking about a repeatable experiment here to be verified in another lab. And for some reason, we're not demanding they open the sequencing data on the cancer gene we just accepted that story and we trusted those scientists. But suddenly it's about climate change therefor you're now all more qualified experts than those with the data. Why is that? What is it about climate change that suddenly everyone and their dog can tell you how wrong the scientists are?
Welcome to the "new science." Guess we better all just get used to it.
Grow up. Your faux apathy rhetoric is amusing after I listen to you accuse me of an ad hominem attack.
Well, let's see if they have any bias (although this is poorly translated):
Proposed supporters of climate alarmism methods to combat global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions are not only scientifically unfounded - in the absence of extraordinary characteristics of modern climate change, but also incredibly expensive in economic terms. Especially dangerous such measures, if adopted, are for the medium and low levels of economic development, effectively cut off their path to reduce the economic gap with more developed nations of the world.
I'm going to venture out on a limb here and say that the Institute of Economic Analysis is primarily concerned about the economic problems with combatting anthropogenic global warming. Unfortunately, that's not what this is about. This is about what scientific tools we can apply to develop a percentage of how sure we are that such climate change is created by man and -- actually happening. Until we establish it is or isn't, will the economic institutions relax and let the institutions who contain the most appropriate experts publish, release and make conclusions from the data.
Credibility skyrockets when I read the subtext of the blog's heading (that is linked to by the story):
James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com
Oh if you think he might be an unbiased reporter working for the telegraph, please visit his page that he shamelessly plugs.
Unless the IEA produces data it claims is 100% raw uncut, this story is below the threshold of credibility.
The teachers had nothing to do with this. the administration was worried about getting their asses sued if that 0.1% chance that the student acted on the stated impulses.
We must have read different articles then. From the one I read:
Now she's banned from campus because three instructors in the mortuary science program felt threatened after being made aware of her Facebook posts, prompting a police investigation.
Three instructors. Not one but three. I find it amusing how you automatically jump to the defense of the student (those evil teachers!) when none of us know anything else about this case. Could it be that the instructors had questionable experiences in the past with this individual and that added to their hesitation at being comfortable about her showing up for class without police present? Why is it three instructors that are concerned about this and not just the one in the class the student spoke about?
You have about as much an idea as I do and yet you apply 0.1% chance of someone getting a trocar in the throat. If your life was on the line, maybe 0.1% chance would be too high for you. If you knew the student, maybe it would be higher than 0.1% chance?
In the end, it was probably nothing more than dark humor or 'venting' as the student claimed. And she probably only said it because she didn't understand how non-private Facebook is or that when she friends her entire class, they see her status updates. But you are making some serious assumptions about something you could not possibly know. Furthermore you are criticizing those who had--in your words--a 0.1% chance of something bad happening to them when you did not. You are such a brave girlintraining. 'Does not seem like a credible threat'? I sure am curious where you got all the details to make that judgment--details that are probably private to protect the interests of the woman in question.
This shit really gets under my skin. The school had every "right" to do what they did, but the actions they chose were the most destructive ones they had available to them.
Before you let shit get under your skin, you should really read the article:
Police are not filing charges and consider the matter closed, U spokesman Daniel Wolter said by e-mail.
Privacy law prevents the U from commenting on the specifics of Tatro's case, but Wolter said that "in a case such as this, the case is typically referred to our Office for Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, which will interview the student, review evidence and make some kind of finding."
Emphasis mine. Sounds kind of like they're doing what you suggested. She's banned until they're more comfortable with her presence (reasonable) and she was patted down because they couldn't exactly prevent her from showing up for class. The problem was that this isn't like high school, they can't immediately get her into a room with a counselor first thing. So it sounds like they banned her until she undergoes counseling. I suppose she has the option to comply or remain banned.
How is that destructive? If you think that's the "most destructive" you are dead wrong. They could have pressed charges, voided her transcript, not offered to counsel her, etc. In fact they won't even give official word on the counseling to protect her privacy. It really sounds like they have her's and the teacher's best interests and safety in mind.
Surely at some point the judge/judges in that small corner of Texas should, if they're not idiots or in league with these trolls, realize that the reason they're getting so many patent lawsuits filed in their jurisdiction is because they're considered to be overly in favor of the people who are suing?
If I may opine my nonprofessional perspective from the software field, patents (and really the copyrighting/property concept applied to ideas in general) are a fuzzy field of law. Meaning that in most of the cases, the common sense rule doesn't work. I mean that if you approached a large number of citizens, their response could vary depending on their political direction, their previous personal experiences with companies or even how you present the case. You'll notice that I came out in this summary screaming--in a very nonprofessional way--that BetaNet is a patent troll. Makes it obvious who to side with, right? But given the letter of the law, it's not that simple. Given United States legal code, there are cases when patent litigation is the answer (in my opinion rarely if ever in software but that's another topic altogether).
Now, if you can establish that it's a hazy field and outcomes are tied to differences in regions of the United States, you can also establish that there will always be a local maximum for percentages of cases awarded one way or the other. That's why Marshall, TX is so popular for the trolls. And if Marshall, TX had a mission statement tomorrow to shut down patent trolls from the get go then the next statistic maximum would be your preferred place of patent trolling.
What disappoints me most about Eastern Texas' Courts is that they don't say, "What the hell is this doing in my courtroom? Neither of you claim offices here or even do business here so go back to where one of you operate." Sometimes this happens but really I think this needs to be done more often. In my opinion, the solution isn't to stop Marshall, TX; it's to fix the patent system.
The version 0.60.3 of Busybox upon which Mr. Andersen claims copyright registration in the lawsuits is to a great extent my own work and that of other developers. I am not party to the registration. It is not at all clear that Mr. Andersen holds a majority interest in that work.
Perhaps it is high time you looked into the allegations that "every line of code you wrote for Busybox is gone?" It is still GPLed, afterall. Wouldn't your old code diffed against the new code reveal the truth in that statement and set things straight in whose interest the SFLC should be representing?
If you can point me to a version/tag/branch/code repository where you assert your dominance in authorship, I would be more than happy to spend an hour when I get home tonight generating some stats against the current code (assuming that code hasn't been drastically moved around/repackaged/renamed). Even so, it would fairly trivial to script an expensive file-by-file comparison and return a set of the most likely matches based on percentage similarities to establish what work of yours may remain. Might even be a better tool out there than what I know of.
Seems to be some folks attitude to universal healthcare too.
It's a good job that these people usually get overridden in the end.
The key difference between broadband and health care being that with health care, some people absolutely need it to continue to live. I know this is going to be a very unpopular statement on Slashdot but you can live without broadband. It's possible. Some of us old timers did it for many years back in the day. I'm all for my taxpayers helping out people to an extent but there's a line that will be crossed sometime. Your sentiment could be expanded to everyone needing a car so let's setup a plan to make sure everyone has a car via our tax dollars. I mean, we're all buying one anyway, right?
The thing about electricity is that people couldn't see that it would service more than just lights. But there were a few people out there (like Edison's lab and Tesla) that could see innumerable uses awaiting. The people just couldn't comprehend it or were rightfully dubious. I mean, traveling scam artists were well known to people at the time (probably even far before) just look at what Mark Twain was writing a decade before.
If we follow through with this analogy the solution is simple, you merely need to tell us about and convince us that the "inalienable right to broadband" will indeed herald a new era of empowerment--or at least will be easily worth the cost it's going to take getting an infrastructure up that will cover the nation. Unless you have some WAN technology I don't know about or are accepting the issues of broadband over power, I think it's hard to convince someone that a traditional infrastructure covering--say--all of the Ozarks is going to be worth a whole lot more than the few towns and cities in it that are already covered. And you'd be out of your mind to ask a taxpayer in the farmlands to subsidize via tax dollars some infrastructure their not going to gain anything from.
"We could have made 20 Billion if it weren't for all of those pirates!"
Don't worry, they'll simply sue ten thousand people for a million dollars each to get their money back. They may need a government bailout in the meantime. Nearly every single one of your elected officials have enjoyed soft money from the MPAA to ensure that everyone rolls over and sits when the MPAA instructs them to.
Back in college I saw an ad before a movie where a stunt double, key grip and other low paid stagehands were filmed in front of their families, eating and doing things with them. Then they would look up and say something to effect of, "I can't feed my family. Because thieves steal my work online."
Someone should make an anti-anti-piracy ad with the same exact thing except when they look up they say, "I can't feed my family... because even though my employer posts record revenues, the justice system makes you are a perfectly legitimate scapegoat."
Odds that the profits from this revenue make it back to the people who genuinely need it to keep the system healthy? Slim to none. Executive producer gets more executive while life risking stunt double gets poorer.
I'm not a law-talkin' guy but he's suing them under the Lanham Act which seems to be for all things trademark including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising. So way back when this first hit Slashdot, I went poking around for trademarks and patents belonging to Arrington. All I found was the trademark for Crunchpad assigned to Interserve, Inc (I assume that's Arrington). No patents.
So, I'm not saying what they've done is right or moral, but if Fusion Garage steers clear of using 'Crunchpad' and only calls it JooJoo, then what kind of case does Arrington have? False advertising for the news articles calling JooJoo the 'reborn Crunchpad'? I'm a bit confused as to how this is going to work and I think Arrington just got hustled. Or was never doing anything at all but wanted to be a part of it. I guess we'll never know the unadulterated truth. Anyone close to this have more details/proof?
Fusion Garage is, and always has been, a company on the edge of going out of business. Their main shareholder, the guy who wrote the now infamous email telling us that we were no longer part of the project, is a chiropractor named Bruce Lee. The company was constantly raising debt from unsavory investors, borderline loansharks...
... and zombie martial artists infecting people under the guise of 'chiropracty.' Arrington is requesting chainsaws, shotguns and three volunteers from the straggling group of survivors...
Like the Google CEO said a few days ago in a story, " If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide".
Swing and a miss. If you're going to use quotation marks, take the time to look up what he actually said:
'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.'
Of course, we'll remove the 'maybe' and the 'don't want anyone to know' and make it sound more Orwellian and before you know it, 640 kilobytes ought to be enough for anybody!
It's amazing the poster can claim with a stright [sic] face "nothing interesting" was found...
Why don't you read what I wrote?
While nothing interesting was found by most scientific journals
And I linked to one of many journals that--shock of all shocks--didn't publish anything regarding the leak. I didn't say anything about what you, me, Slashdot or blogs found in those leaks. Instead I tried to relay that the general consensus seemed to be, from what I read, that there was nothing to get excited about. The journals might be wrong but I was just trying to tell you what I noticed from them after the leak.
You did a really good job of quoting me out of context. You did an even better job of quoting source code out of context. I'm also pretty certain you probably got that from another site.
Which to me, is pretty damning stuff.
What can I say? We're all entitled to our own opinions. Write a paper on this and submit it to the journal of Nature. See what happens.
Furthermore, the use of this is commented out NOW.
It's pretty damning but it's commented out. If you read the comments of the Slashdot article I linked, you'll see that this source code isn't automatically accepted as the word of god and is actually under heavy debate. But why bother? You've clearly already judged me as having some political agenda by submitting stories to Slashdot. I probably can already be identified as a liberal since I'm posting here, right?
So all the output they have produced is simply not science
I'm supposed to believe you but I'm not supposed to believe the scientific journal of Nature? When digesting second or third hand information, I'll go with the latter, thank you.
For those of you awaking in your tauntaun right now on Hoth (aka Minneapolis), here's the link.
Indeed, from your link:
Film Board director of services Chris Grap is a fan of bad movies. Grap says he "couldn't believe" the "Star Wars Holiday Special" existed.
The plot involves Han Solo trying to get Chewbacca the Wookie back to his home planet to celebrate Life Day. The cast includes original "Star Wars" actors as well as Bea Arthur, Art Carney and Harvey Korman.
Keep in mind that this is the birthplace of MST3K and a great time in Minneapolis is a case of beer and one really bad movie with your friends. Slightly offtopic but five episodes of MST3K are on Hulu now.
Odin's back. And he's pissed. The spiral is his wide brimmed hat. And he's finally got his favorite blue laser back from Loki. Unfortunately he can only use it on one person per night. Huginn and Muninn are doing surveillance right now so it's time to get those shrines up in the backyard, people! Raise your cups of mead and abandon Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. The Norse were right, repent before it's too late! Finally, a reason to worship a deity I can identify with--Loki!
Is this the prelude to a super-strength gene therapy for all of us?
No, the clinical trials will begin but one of the test subjects will realize that they are now stronger than his fellow man and the only thing keeping him a cut above the rest is the drug. So he (or she, both sexes are equally evil) will taint the other subjects' follistatin with cyanide, killing them all. Then the super villain transformation into The Sinister Strength will be complete and they will emerge from the carnage at the clinic to hoard all the remaining follistatin. We have only one hope, that our hero Liam Hoekstra arrives on the scene early enough to put an end to The Sinister Strength... refresh Slashdot next week to find out.
Then we get a voice over and a cutaway. Then the snippet in question is suspiciously selected with nothing preceding it. That's his direct quote and it was stupid to say 'maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place' but what was said before it seems to be edited. If the context is search engines (which I think it is), then what he says is true. As in 'if you're looking for ways to murder your husband, maybe you shouldn't be using the Google Search engine to find that information in the first place.' Here's what follows the inflammatory statement:
But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines--including Google--do retain this information for some time... um... and it's important--for example that we are all subject to the United States Patriot Act--it is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities.
I don't want to sound like a fanboy bending over backwards to absolve Schmidt but I want to point out that the important message people should take away from this is simply that your searches are not private. Your searches leave the premises of your private property. They go to a semi-public resting place where--under the Patriot Act--the government has the ability to access them with little commotion.
I mean, if you enjoy doing something illegal like smoking weed, don't do it in public. You shouldn't be doing it in public in the first place. Do it in the privacy of your own home. If you go to a cafe or place of business and smoke weed, the owner and workers at that cafe might be obligated to call the authorities. Similarly if you're buying weed, don't use the Google search engine to do it.
I would like to hear his whole unedited statement.
A copyrighted work? Performed in public? If I were a lawyer my nipples would explode with joy. The planets have aligned for an orgy of copyright violations! Tell me, in the video were you also photocopying the Harry Potter books with a scanner hooked up to a laptop with a cracked version of Windows 7 on it?
I'm not saying he's wrong... quite possibly he's right, but seriously - how does someone's blog entry that doesn't provide one single data point to back up the claim make it to the front page?
The important thing that he's doing is trying to shift the burden of proof back onto the ISPs and telcos. They just declared that some people are bandwidth hogs and terminated their connection. They didn't give the public any proof that they were ruining the internet experience for anyone else... nor did anyone come forward after the purge and say, "Gee, my internet sure is fast now that the bandwidth hogs are disconnected!"
So he calls for proof since he hasn't seen any. He has to say that there are no bandwidth hogs in order to get a response from the telcos. Saying someone might be wrong is not the same impact as calling someone a liar. Yes, he's basing this on an assumption but it's just the same that everyone assumed there were individuals out there ruining the experience. All of us just let the telcos terminate the service of whoever they wanted to and then we moved on with our lives.
I welcome his opposing viewpoint and challenge to "because we said so." They can release anonymous usage data without harming anyone so why not open it up to a request?
Slashdot Mirror
I joke but human redundancy is probably your best bet and pretty reassuring considering I've seen Dr. Strangelove twenty times or so. Also I enjoyed this picture. Is it a good idea to store the keys right above the safe to the Emergency War Orders? No matter, if you know the combination to the lock and have a twenty pound sledge, those hastily welded rings holding on the safety padlocks will take a few seconds to remove.
I think it hilarious that you discredit the Russian statements purely on the basis of financial interest,
How about I was pointing out the fact that they are experts in economics, not climatology or any related field?
when there are billions of dollars riding on cap & trade
That's funny. From everything I've heard about cap and trade, it's going to stagnate our economy (read: bad for everybody). Now you're telling me that someone is funding international organizations and peer reviewed journals and leading scientists in the field ... so they can slow down the economy with phony climate results? How are they going to profit off that again?
And then you say 'green industry'! That's also hilarious! The companies dumping the most money into green tech are also the ones that are already lead players in the energy and fuel sectors! They are the vast majority of the 'green industry.' And they're cooking scientific findings why? So they can be the leaders in the coming green tech when they're already leading companies in what they do now? Does not compute.
Yeah, way to skip right over the actual allegation. Do their claims, in and of themselves, have merit? Wouldn't take long to find out.
I hate to break it to you but neither side has given me data. Saying so and so skipped over data from here and there does nothing for me when I can't see the data and do my own statistical analysis. If the IAE is so sure and has the data, why don't they publish the adjusted figures to show us just how much we were lied to?
No choice but to listen to those with the data publishing the reports. Does it suck? Yes. But oftentimes that's how studies with empirical data works--especially if it cost a lot of money to acquire that data. We're not talking about a repeatable experiment here to be verified in another lab. And for some reason, we're not demanding they open the sequencing data on the cancer gene we just accepted that story and we trusted those scientists. But suddenly it's about climate change therefor you're now all more qualified experts than those with the data. Why is that? What is it about climate change that suddenly everyone and their dog can tell you how wrong the scientists are?
Welcome to the "new science." Guess we better all just get used to it.
Grow up. Your faux apathy rhetoric is amusing after I listen to you accuse me of an ad hominem attack.
Proposed supporters of climate alarmism methods to combat global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions are not only scientifically unfounded - in the absence of extraordinary characteristics of modern climate change, but also incredibly expensive in economic terms. Especially dangerous such measures, if adopted, are for the medium and low levels of economic development, effectively cut off their path to reduce the economic gap with more developed nations of the world.
I'm going to venture out on a limb here and say that the Institute of Economic Analysis is primarily concerned about the economic problems with combatting anthropogenic global warming. Unfortunately, that's not what this is about. This is about what scientific tools we can apply to develop a percentage of how sure we are that such climate change is created by man and -- actually happening. Until we establish it is or isn't, will the economic institutions relax and let the institutions who contain the most appropriate experts publish, release and make conclusions from the data.
Credibility skyrockets when I read the subtext of the blog's heading (that is linked to by the story):
James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com
Oh if you think he might be an unbiased reporter working for the telegraph, please visit his page that he shamelessly plugs.
Unless the IEA produces data it claims is 100% raw uncut, this story is below the threshold of credibility.
The teachers had nothing to do with this. the administration was worried about getting their asses sued if that 0.1% chance that the student acted on the stated impulses.
We must have read different articles then. From the one I read:
Now she's banned from campus because three instructors in the mortuary science program felt threatened after being made aware of her Facebook posts, prompting a police investigation.
Three instructors. Not one but three. I find it amusing how you automatically jump to the defense of the student (those evil teachers!) when none of us know anything else about this case. Could it be that the instructors had questionable experiences in the past with this individual and that added to their hesitation at being comfortable about her showing up for class without police present? Why is it three instructors that are concerned about this and not just the one in the class the student spoke about?
You have about as much an idea as I do and yet you apply 0.1% chance of someone getting a trocar in the throat. If your life was on the line, maybe 0.1% chance would be too high for you. If you knew the student, maybe it would be higher than 0.1% chance?
In the end, it was probably nothing more than dark humor or 'venting' as the student claimed. And she probably only said it because she didn't understand how non-private Facebook is or that when she friends her entire class, they see her status updates. But you are making some serious assumptions about something you could not possibly know. Furthermore you are criticizing those who had--in your words--a 0.1% chance of something bad happening to them when you did not. You are such a brave girlintraining. 'Does not seem like a credible threat'? I sure am curious where you got all the details to make that judgment--details that are probably private to protect the interests of the woman in question.
This shit really gets under my skin. The school had every "right" to do what they did, but the actions they chose were the most destructive ones they had available to them.
Before you let shit get under your skin, you should really read the article:
Police are not filing charges and consider the matter closed, U spokesman Daniel Wolter said by e-mail. Privacy law prevents the U from commenting on the specifics of Tatro's case, but Wolter said that "in a case such as this, the case is typically referred to our Office for Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, which will interview the student, review evidence and make some kind of finding."
Emphasis mine. Sounds kind of like they're doing what you suggested. She's banned until they're more comfortable with her presence (reasonable) and she was patted down because they couldn't exactly prevent her from showing up for class. The problem was that this isn't like high school, they can't immediately get her into a room with a counselor first thing. So it sounds like they banned her until she undergoes counseling. I suppose she has the option to comply or remain banned.
How is that destructive? If you think that's the "most destructive" you are dead wrong. They could have pressed charges, voided her transcript, not offered to counsel her, etc. In fact they won't even give official word on the counseling to protect her privacy. It really sounds like they have her's and the teacher's best interests and safety in mind.
Surely at some point the judge/judges in that small corner of Texas should, if they're not idiots or in league with these trolls, realize that the reason they're getting so many patent lawsuits filed in their jurisdiction is because they're considered to be overly in favor of the people who are suing?
If I may opine my nonprofessional perspective from the software field, patents (and really the copyrighting/property concept applied to ideas in general) are a fuzzy field of law. Meaning that in most of the cases, the common sense rule doesn't work. I mean that if you approached a large number of citizens, their response could vary depending on their political direction, their previous personal experiences with companies or even how you present the case. You'll notice that I came out in this summary screaming--in a very nonprofessional way--that BetaNet is a patent troll. Makes it obvious who to side with, right? But given the letter of the law, it's not that simple. Given United States legal code, there are cases when patent litigation is the answer (in my opinion rarely if ever in software but that's another topic altogether).
Now, if you can establish that it's a hazy field and outcomes are tied to differences in regions of the United States, you can also establish that there will always be a local maximum for percentages of cases awarded one way or the other. That's why Marshall, TX is so popular for the trolls. And if Marshall, TX had a mission statement tomorrow to shut down patent trolls from the get go then the next statistic maximum would be your preferred place of patent trolling.
What disappoints me most about Eastern Texas' Courts is that they don't say, "What the hell is this doing in my courtroom? Neither of you claim offices here or even do business here so go back to where one of you operate." Sometimes this happens but really I think this needs to be done more often. In my opinion, the solution isn't to stop Marshall, TX; it's to fix the patent system.
The version 0.60.3 of Busybox upon which Mr. Andersen claims copyright registration in the lawsuits is to a great extent my own work and that of other developers. I am not party to the registration. It is not at all clear that Mr. Andersen holds a majority interest in that work.
Perhaps it is high time you looked into the allegations that "every line of code you wrote for Busybox is gone?" It is still GPLed, afterall. Wouldn't your old code diffed against the new code reveal the truth in that statement and set things straight in whose interest the SFLC should be representing?
If you can point me to a version/tag/branch/code repository where you assert your dominance in authorship, I would be more than happy to spend an hour when I get home tonight generating some stats against the current code (assuming that code hasn't been drastically moved around/repackaged/renamed). Even so, it would fairly trivial to script an expensive file-by-file comparison and return a set of the most likely matches based on percentage similarities to establish what work of yours may remain. Might even be a better tool out there than what I know of.
From the BBC.
Seems to be some folks attitude to universal healthcare too.
It's a good job that these people usually get overridden in the end.
The key difference between broadband and health care being that with health care, some people absolutely need it to continue to live. I know this is going to be a very unpopular statement on Slashdot but you can live without broadband. It's possible. Some of us old timers did it for many years back in the day. I'm all for my taxpayers helping out people to an extent but there's a line that will be crossed sometime. Your sentiment could be expanded to everyone needing a car so let's setup a plan to make sure everyone has a car via our tax dollars. I mean, we're all buying one anyway, right?
The thing about electricity is that people couldn't see that it would service more than just lights. But there were a few people out there (like Edison's lab and Tesla) that could see innumerable uses awaiting. The people just couldn't comprehend it or were rightfully dubious. I mean, traveling scam artists were well known to people at the time (probably even far before) just look at what Mark Twain was writing a decade before.
If we follow through with this analogy the solution is simple, you merely need to tell us about and convince us that the "inalienable right to broadband" will indeed herald a new era of empowerment--or at least will be easily worth the cost it's going to take getting an infrastructure up that will cover the nation. Unless you have some WAN technology I don't know about or are accepting the issues of broadband over power, I think it's hard to convince someone that a traditional infrastructure covering--say--all of the Ozarks is going to be worth a whole lot more than the few towns and cities in it that are already covered. And you'd be out of your mind to ask a taxpayer in the farmlands to subsidize via tax dollars some infrastructure their not going to gain anything from.
"We could have made 20 Billion if it weren't for all of those pirates!"
Don't worry, they'll simply sue ten thousand people for a million dollars each to get their money back. They may need a government bailout in the meantime. Nearly every single one of your elected officials have enjoyed soft money from the MPAA to ensure that everyone rolls over and sits when the MPAA instructs them to.
Back in college I saw an ad before a movie where a stunt double, key grip and other low paid stagehands were filmed in front of their families, eating and doing things with them. Then they would look up and say something to effect of, "I can't feed my family. Because thieves steal my work online."
... because even though my employer posts record revenues, the justice system makes you are a perfectly legitimate scapegoat."
Someone should make an anti-anti-piracy ad with the same exact thing except when they look up they say, "I can't feed my family
Odds that the profits from this revenue make it back to the people who genuinely need it to keep the system healthy? Slim to none. Executive producer gets more executive while life risking stunt double gets poorer.
I'm not a law-talkin' guy but he's suing them under the Lanham Act which seems to be for all things trademark including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising. So way back when this first hit Slashdot, I went poking around for trademarks and patents belonging to Arrington. All I found was the trademark for Crunchpad assigned to Interserve, Inc (I assume that's Arrington). No patents.
So, I'm not saying what they've done is right or moral, but if Fusion Garage steers clear of using 'Crunchpad' and only calls it JooJoo, then what kind of case does Arrington have? False advertising for the news articles calling JooJoo the 'reborn Crunchpad'? I'm a bit confused as to how this is going to work and I think Arrington just got hustled. Or was never doing anything at all but wanted to be a part of it. I guess we'll never know the unadulterated truth. Anyone close to this have more details/proof?
Fusion Garage is, and always has been, a company on the edge of going out of business. Their main shareholder, the guy who wrote the now infamous email telling us that we were no longer part of the project, is a chiropractor named Bruce Lee. The company was constantly raising debt from unsavory investors, borderline loansharks ...
... and zombie martial artists infecting people under the guise of 'chiropracty.' Arrington is requesting chainsaws, shotguns and three volunteers from the straggling group of survivors ...
Like the Google CEO said a few days ago in a story, " If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide".
Swing and a miss. If you're going to use quotation marks, take the time to look up what he actually said:
'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.'
Of course, we'll remove the 'maybe' and the 'don't want anyone to know' and make it sound more Orwellian and before you know it, 640 kilobytes ought to be enough for anybody!
It's amazing the poster can claim with a stright [sic] face "nothing interesting" was found ...
Why don't you read what I wrote?
While nothing interesting was found by most scientific journals
And I linked to one of many journals that--shock of all shocks--didn't publish anything regarding the leak. I didn't say anything about what you, me, Slashdot or blogs found in those leaks. Instead I tried to relay that the general consensus seemed to be, from what I read, that there was nothing to get excited about. The journals might be wrong but I was just trying to tell you what I noticed from them after the leak.
You did a really good job of quoting me out of context. You did an even better job of quoting source code out of context. I'm also pretty certain you probably got that from another site.
Which to me, is pretty damning stuff.
What can I say? We're all entitled to our own opinions. Write a paper on this and submit it to the journal of Nature. See what happens.
Furthermore, the use of this is commented out NOW.
It's pretty damning but it's commented out. If you read the comments of the Slashdot article I linked, you'll see that this source code isn't automatically accepted as the word of god and is actually under heavy debate. But why bother? You've clearly already judged me as having some political agenda by submitting stories to Slashdot. I probably can already be identified as a liberal since I'm posting here, right?
So all the output they have produced is simply not science
I'm supposed to believe you but I'm not supposed to believe the scientific journal of Nature? When digesting second or third hand information, I'll go with the latter, thank you.
For those of you awaking in your tauntaun right now on Hoth (aka Minneapolis), here's the link.
Indeed, from your link:
Film Board director of services Chris Grap is a fan of bad movies. Grap says he "couldn't believe" the "Star Wars Holiday Special" existed. The plot involves Han Solo trying to get Chewbacca the Wookie back to his home planet to celebrate Life Day. The cast includes original "Star Wars" actors as well as Bea Arthur, Art Carney and Harvey Korman.
Keep in mind that this is the birthplace of MST3K and a great time in Minneapolis is a case of beer and one really bad movie with your friends. Slightly offtopic but five episodes of MST3K are on Hulu now.
Odin's back. And he's pissed. The spiral is his wide brimmed hat. And he's finally got his favorite blue laser back from Loki. Unfortunately he can only use it on one person per night. Huginn and Muninn are doing surveillance right now so it's time to get those shrines up in the backyard, people! Raise your cups of mead and abandon Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. The Norse were right, repent before it's too late! Finally, a reason to worship a deity I can identify with--Loki!
Is this the prelude to a super-strength gene therapy for all of us?
No, the clinical trials will begin but one of the test subjects will realize that they are now stronger than his fellow man and the only thing keeping him a cut above the rest is the drug. So he (or she, both sexes are equally evil) will taint the other subjects' follistatin with cyanide, killing them all. Then the super villain transformation into The Sinister Strength will be complete and they will emerge from the carnage at the clinic to hoard all the remaining follistatin. We have only one hope, that our hero Liam Hoekstra arrives on the scene early enough to put an end to The Sinister Strength ... refresh Slashdot next week to find out.
Well, I think judgment matters.
Then we get a voice over and a cutaway. Then the snippet in question is suspiciously selected with nothing preceding it. That's his direct quote and it was stupid to say 'maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place' but what was said before it seems to be edited. If the context is search engines (which I think it is), then what he says is true. As in 'if you're looking for ways to murder your husband, maybe you shouldn't be using the Google Search engine to find that information in the first place.' Here's what follows the inflammatory statement:
But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines--including Google--do retain this information for some time ... um ... and it's important--for example that we are all subject to the United States Patriot Act--it is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities.
I don't want to sound like a fanboy bending over backwards to absolve Schmidt but I want to point out that the important message people should take away from this is simply that your searches are not private. Your searches leave the premises of your private property. They go to a semi-public resting place where--under the Patriot Act--the government has the ability to access them with little commotion.
I mean, if you enjoy doing something illegal like smoking weed, don't do it in public. You shouldn't be doing it in public in the first place. Do it in the privacy of your own home. If you go to a cafe or place of business and smoke weed, the owner and workers at that cafe might be obligated to call the authorities. Similarly if you're buying weed, don't use the Google search engine to do it.
I would like to hear his whole unedited statement.
Denialists.
Donny: Are these the Nazis, Walter?
Walter: No, Donny, these men are denialists, there's nothing to be afraid of.
'We sang "Happy Birthday" to her in the theater,'
A copyrighted work? Performed in public? If I were a lawyer my nipples would explode with joy. The planets have aligned for an orgy of copyright violations! Tell me, in the video were you also photocopying the Harry Potter books with a scanner hooked up to a laptop with a cracked version of Windows 7 on it?
Quick, somebody get me to a Kinkos!
I'm not saying he's wrong... quite possibly he's right, but seriously - how does someone's blog entry that doesn't provide one single data point to back up the claim make it to the front page?
The important thing that he's doing is trying to shift the burden of proof back onto the ISPs and telcos. They just declared that some people are bandwidth hogs and terminated their connection. They didn't give the public any proof that they were ruining the internet experience for anyone else ... nor did anyone come forward after the purge and say, "Gee, my internet sure is fast now that the bandwidth hogs are disconnected!"
So he calls for proof since he hasn't seen any. He has to say that there are no bandwidth hogs in order to get a response from the telcos. Saying someone might be wrong is not the same impact as calling someone a liar. Yes, he's basing this on an assumption but it's just the same that everyone assumed there were individuals out there ruining the experience. All of us just let the telcos terminate the service of whoever they wanted to and then we moved on with our lives.
I welcome his opposing viewpoint and challenge to "because we said so." They can release anonymous usage data without harming anyone so why not open it up to a request?