To prevent banks to tell you what to do with your money.
The rule applies to credit card transactions, not debit card transactions. It's their money - you've only pinky-promised to pay back the debt.
Since pretty much every ATM card functions as a debit card, there is probably nobody preventing you from buying cryptocurrency with your money. But yes, your bank feels entitled to dictate how you spend their money.
If they are not exclusive routes, feel free to suggest others.
I did.
First, I allowed for the possibility I was wrong. Second, "peer review" is a process - not a stamp of quality.
Yet you reject that possibility at every turn. Also, peer review is a stamp a quality -- it is a process designed to establish a threshold of quality through the input of the reviewers. Journals may do so well or poorly -- TACL is fairly selective.
My opinion is based on my experience and the information I have at hand.
Logical fallacy -- appeal to authority. Also, what experience, pray tell? I've looked at what you've disclosed about yourself -- 0 involvement in academic publishing.
You hit up people you know to see if they know any, or anyone who might know any. You ask around the faculty at the university you're associated with. You reach out to other researchers in the same field to see if they know someone or someone who might know someone. You hit Google and find scholars and reach out to them via email. Etc... etc...
All of these are professional methods used routinely by serious researchers across any number of fields.
Those are not the exlusive routes, especially when the intersection between computer science, the Univerversity of Alberta, and classical Hebrew scholarship is approximately 0.
You publish your intermediate results and hope that it tickles a suitable person's interest such that they join in the effort.
This is exactly what you don't do unless and until all other approaches have failed to bear fruit. And even then, you plainly mark the results are preliminary and tentative.
The current publication proves that your statement is false. And they did mark their results so.
I lack access to the relevant journal, so I have no way to ascertain if they did so. I would not be surprised to find that they did, and the "journalist" that wrote the Gizmodo article or the original University of Alberta press release (that Gizmodo copy-pasted from and failed to credit) simply left it out.
And now you've invalidated your own thesis. TACL is a peer reviewed journal, and the article passed their publication standards. You're free to start your own journal and set your own publication standards, but do not pretend that your opinion is representative, authoritative, or otherwise based upon sufficient information to constitute valid criticism.
Obviously employers can largely do whatever they want - they don't need to wait until allegations are proven. The kowtow to social media pressure when nothing has been proven, because people are JERKS and don't wait to reserve judgement, there are huge outcries just from an allegation, it can't possibly be that someone is lying or exaggerating.
I'm confused -- employers can largely do whatever they want, why? On the other hand, people who do whatever they want (such as apply social pressure) are jerks, why? Are the employers jerks? Are people to be held to a more stingent standard than employers?
You do realize that the legal system is only at play when the government wants to criminally punish or fine someone, or coerce the payment of compensatin in a civil judgement? The entire rest of society has this pesky freedom of association thing that means that they can "largely do what they want."
I disagree. How do you recruit a classical Hebrew scholar to validate your hypothesis and assist with additional work? Not i the Yellow Pages. You publish your intermediate results and hope that it tickles a suitable person's interest such that they join in the effort.
You may as will declare Linus' work a joke. It's not as if Linux 0.12 was useful for much. It took a boatload of domain experts to bring it up to the capabilities that made people find it useful.
I thought the entire point of Anthropomorphic Global Climate Change was to scare us?
Surely the entire point of Anthropomorphic Global Climate Change is to scare us (away from dealing with climate change), if only because you made the term up.
The point of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is to measure and describe that portion of observe change that might attributed to manmade greenhouse gas emissions such as CO2 from burning fuels and methane from agricultural practices.
Whether you find that scary or not is up to you. The increasing degree and frequency of saltwater flooding in Miami should be scary to some, but I live far away from there in a region that probably will be minimally affected by your nonsense. Meanwhile, I'll continue to buy efficient technologies as needed and update my home, and utter "meh" at the rapid decline of coal and oil as sources of electrical power.
Again - "intrinsically wrong". What leads you to this determination?
Ignoring the argument because you dislike it does not mean that the argument was not made. "The UK court system does not want the accused to self-help by jumping bail so long as they merely feel that the charges are unjust."
It's silly to brand someone "intrinsically wrong" for someone not rolling over and walking into the gas chamber.
Hyperbole. Try "I'm so innocent, I need not even permit a trial."
The already must have confiscated his bail guarantee, and achieved years and years of house arrest
The suckers who put up his bail have been been punished, while he resides at a place of his own choosing at liberty to do as he pleases. That is not house arrest, it's at most self-imposed exile.
If he was to go to court on the bail skipping charge he'd be sentenced to time served, while at the same time the prosecutors are risking having to return the bail guarantee if somehow he was found "not guilty."
No. That's over with. There's no possibility that his is found "not guilty" of failing to appear at court hearings that were to be held years ago, especially since there would be no jury involved.
Hence continuing this process is a needless tax payer expense that achieves nothing.
Says you. The UK courts and prosecutors probably hold a different opinion because otherwise you may as well throw out the concept of bail and bail jumping -- you need simply buy your freedom and never appear for trial.
That is, nothing unless they extradite him to the US, thus proving Assange right and this being an abuse of power, rather than justice.
Don't forget the secret warrant issued by the Illuminati. Assange should just shoot his way out of the embassy, carjack a ride to the shore, and steal a board to head for international waters. It'd all be obviously defensible because "they're out to get him."
And I for one at least, don't believe victims of abuse of power should ever be punished before their abusers.
I don't agree with your implied premise here either.
The only reason the bail jumping charges have not been dropped, because the US wants to extradite him, and the UK wants to oblige, but can't do that without arresting him first - and anyone with half a brain knows that.
Anyone with the other half of a brain knows that jumping bail is intrinsically wrong, so that bail jumping charges probably have not been dropped because the UK court system does not want the accused to self-help by jumping bail so long as they merely feel that the charges are unjust.
How it is just to punish someone for skipping bail when the charges have been withdrawn?
The end of the previous post was too abrupt, so let me clarify:
1. The charges for jumping bail have not been withdrawn, so I deny the stated premise of your question ("the charges have been withdrawn").
2. The Swedish "charges" were not withdrawn when Assange jumped bail, so I deny the intended premise ofyour question as well. Sweden's withdraw from their process cannot retroactively justify jumping bail years earlier.
Jumping bail is an independent crime and is independently wrong -- living under the rule of law also means that citizens must follow the process of the law, not simply take the law into their own hands by jumping bail, escaping, resisting arrest, or some more severe action. Assange only did the first action in that continuum, but if you're going to permit self help, where do you draw the line? Can I knock out an arresting officer so long as the charges that the officer attempts to arrest me on are eventually withdrawn?
He still breached bail which in itself is a crime.
Yes, and the charges he breached bail on have been withdrawn by prosecutors who passed up multiple opportunities to question him, on the basis that they could not question him. How it is just to punish someone for skipping bail when the charges have been withdrawn? If the charges were legitimate, why did the prosecutors pass up multiple opportunities to question him?
Umm, he's charged with jumping bail in the UK, the UK prosecutors have not withdrawn those charges, and you're confusing Sweden's requirement that Assange be questioned in connection with the Swedish issues before he is charged with the UK situation. In the UK Assange has been charged with bail jumping and there is an arrest warrant for him -- no questioning required.
How it is just to punish someone for skipping bail when the charges have been withdrawn?
The supreme court of the United States has definitively ruled that patentable items can no longer be protected by copyright once the patent has been expired.
I'd like to see that alleged ruling, particularly since "patentable" and "patented" mean two quite different things, you've linked to prior art that would show that any subsequent devices producing those sounds may not be "patentable," and you haven't shown that the sounds were produced by a device that was "patented."
That's even before reaching the problem that a particular recording of sound is not a patentable item.
The end result is the same: Public universities do all the work, private companies get all the profits; and to top it off poor and lower working class people lose access to life changing medicine. It's a corrupt system and rotten at its core.
The University of Pennsylvania is a private university.
the basic research that underpinned this (e.g. all the hard work) was done at public University on the public dime.
So the not-hard-work includes the Phase I, II, and III clinical trials required to gain approval of a drug that genetically modifies a human being, as well as the mountain of documentation required for marketing approval and the manufacturing process?
Now where does "on the public dime" come in? Do you have any evidence that the project used NIH grants? Even if you apply a generic contribution of 1/3rd of some fraction of costs, that is not exactly grounds for nationalizing the product.
Yes, I certainly cannot buy electronics online from anywhere else without extraordinary effort. Ebay.com, Newegg.com, Walmart.com, Bestbuy.com, Target.com... that monopoly of 45% of online sales in fall 2017 is -- wait, only 45%?
By that definition, Google is using its YouTube monopoly to try to expand power into the same market (streaming devices) and we should bend them over as well.
Then we can bend them over for their search monopoly, advertising monopoly, phone OS monopoly...
So, you utterly and completely fail to refute any arguments I made. "B-B-But Fox News!" does not excuse the New York Times and all of the other highly credible mainstream media outlets from publishing fake news.
It does not. It demonstrates that the problem that you complain about is neither limited to "highly credible mainstream media outlets" nor exclusive to an MSM that you appear to insinuate is out to get Trump. It demonstrates that the same problem existed back in say, 2008, when the right lost its shit over the election of Obama. Which begs the question, why are you so compelled to apply a one-sided political narrative to a far more general problem?
CNN is further to the left than Fox is to the right, and it's less accurate, and the reason for that is pretty simple. Media liberals needn't interact with conservatives or take any notice of what they say. They literally cannot even tell you the other side's argument. That's not true of conservatives.
As a formerly consistent conservative that gave up on the party in 2012, the last sentence made me throw up a bit in my mouth. The first sentence is hogwash. Prove it.
Also, if you get things wrong at Fox, you get called on it by dozens and dozens of liberal journalists. That's not true of anything but the most egregious errors of the NYT or CNN.
Certainly not true -- conservative AM radio and talk show empires never look for errors in the NYT or CNN. Jones, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Carlson, and innumberable others simply talk sports all day.
The national media really does work in a bubble, something that wasn't true as recently as 2008. And the bubble is growing more extreme.
No Fox bubble -- just "fair and balanced."
Concentrated heavily along the coasts, the bubble is both geographic and political. If you're a working journalist, odds aren't just that you work in a pro-Clinton county-odds are that you reside in one of the nation's most pro-Clinton counties.
It really burns you that the cities, college-educated whites, and "Republican establishment" don't buy into Trump's demagoguery, doesn't it?
Why is it your only counter argument is to bring up two news sources that are not at all relevant and unmentioned?
Because I do not wish to be limited by your selection bias?
You're not disproving the point, which is that our credible, mainstream media staffed by highly educated, erudite journalists, regularly produces fake news.
So Fox News and Breitbart are staffed by uneducated, mouth breathing monkeys, and that excuses their well-documented tendency for producing fake news? Selection bias.
It's a simple matter of psychology: post misleading news, wait for people to react, it's something known as "impression formation". Once an impression has been formed, it sticks. This is how they psyop the masses.
The greatest danger to our nation comes from a free press that chooses sides in the political process. And that has openly and unapologetically taken place.
I am genuinely interested because the only part of fake news Breitbart was accused of turned out to be a trivial mistake where they said "church" to refer to a cathedral.
Yes, if you completely ignore the "absent an inside job" phrase in the material that you failed to quote, then you you can claim that I "forget the inside man job."
In Vietnam they fight wrongful views, we're fighting fake news, can someone tell me what the difference is?
We don't permit government employees, particularly the military, to do it on the people's dime?
But by all means, let's allow Trump to order US Cyber Command (yes, it's actually called that) to counterpunch all of the Fake News that he identifies...
Slashdot Mirror
The rule applies to credit card transactions, not debit card transactions. It's their money - you've only pinky-promised to pay back the debt.
Since pretty much every ATM card functions as a debit card, there is probably nobody preventing you from buying cryptocurrency with your money. But yes, your bank feels entitled to dictate how you spend their money.
I did.
Yet you reject that possibility at every turn. Also, peer review is a stamp a quality -- it is a process designed to establish a threshold of quality through the input of the reviewers. Journals may do so well or poorly -- TACL is fairly selective.
Logical fallacy -- appeal to authority. Also, what experience, pray tell? I've looked at what you've disclosed about yourself -- 0 involvement in academic publishing.
Those are not the exlusive routes, especially when the intersection between computer science, the Univerversity of Alberta, and classical Hebrew scholarship is approximately 0.
The current publication proves that your statement is false. And they did mark their results so.
And now you've invalidated your own thesis. TACL is a peer reviewed journal, and the article passed their publication standards. You're free to start your own journal and set your own publication standards, but do not pretend that your opinion is representative, authoritative, or otherwise based upon sufficient information to constitute valid criticism.
I'm confused -- employers can largely do whatever they want, why? On the other hand, people who do whatever they want (such as apply social pressure) are jerks, why? Are the employers jerks? Are people to be held to a more stingent standard than employers?
You do realize that the legal system is only at play when the government wants to criminally punish or fine someone, or coerce the payment of compensatin in a civil judgement? The entire rest of society has this pesky freedom of association thing that means that they can "largely do what they want."
I disagree. How do you recruit a classical Hebrew scholar to validate your hypothesis and assist with additional work? Not i the Yellow Pages. You publish your intermediate results and hope that it tickles a suitable person's interest such that they join in the effort.
You may as will declare Linus' work a joke. It's not as if Linux 0.12 was useful for much. It took a boatload of domain experts to bring it up to the capabilities that made people find it useful.
Surely the entire point of Anthropomorphic Global Climate Change is to scare us (away from dealing with climate change), if only because you made the term up.
The point of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is to measure and describe that portion of observe change that might attributed to manmade greenhouse gas emissions such as CO2 from burning fuels and methane from agricultural practices.
Whether you find that scary or not is up to you. The increasing degree and frequency of saltwater flooding in Miami should be scary to some, but I live far away from there in a region that probably will be minimally affected by your nonsense. Meanwhile, I'll continue to buy efficient technologies as needed and update my home, and utter "meh" at the rapid decline of coal and oil as sources of electrical power.
No. You don't let that pass for accusations against Kaspersky; thus there's not reason to let that pass here.
Who? What? When? How? Be specific.
You can't even name the accounts doing the modding. Instead, it's simply "trust me." Well, having learned from you, I won't. Provide proof.
Where's the evidence of this?
Wow, downmodding and replying with unsupportable bullshit. A perfect example of why dealing ACs is a complete waste of time.
Tired of debating with ACs. It's not moral to jump bail in a liberal democracy. Deal with it.
Ignoring the argument because you dislike it does not mean that the argument was not made. "The UK court system does not want the accused to self-help by jumping bail so long as they merely feel that the charges are unjust."
Hyperbole. Try "I'm so innocent, I need not even permit a trial."
The suckers who put up his bail have been been punished, while he resides at a place of his own choosing at liberty to do as he pleases. That is not house arrest, it's at most self-imposed exile.
No. That's over with. There's no possibility that his is found "not guilty" of failing to appear at court hearings that were to be held years ago, especially since there would be no jury involved.
Says you. The UK courts and prosecutors probably hold a different opinion because otherwise you may as well throw out the concept of bail and bail jumping -- you need simply buy your freedom and never appear for trial.
Don't forget the secret warrant issued by the Illuminati. Assange should just shoot his way out of the embassy, carjack a ride to the shore, and steal a board to head for international waters. It'd all be obviously defensible because "they're out to get him."
I don't agree with your implied premise here either.
Anyone with the other half of a brain knows that jumping bail is intrinsically wrong, so that bail jumping charges probably have not been dropped because the UK court system does not want the accused to self-help by jumping bail so long as they merely feel that the charges are unjust.
The end of the previous post was too abrupt, so let me clarify:
1. The charges for jumping bail have not been withdrawn, so I deny the stated premise of your question ("the charges have been withdrawn").
2. The Swedish "charges" were not withdrawn when Assange jumped bail, so I deny the intended premise ofyour question as well. Sweden's withdraw from their process cannot retroactively justify jumping bail years earlier.
Jumping bail is an independent crime and is independently wrong -- living under the rule of law also means that citizens must follow the process of the law, not simply take the law into their own hands by jumping bail, escaping, resisting arrest, or some more severe action. Assange only did the first action in that continuum, but if you're going to permit self help, where do you draw the line? Can I knock out an arresting officer so long as the charges that the officer attempts to arrest me on are eventually withdrawn?
Umm, he's charged with jumping bail in the UK, the UK prosecutors have not withdrawn those charges, and you're confusing Sweden's requirement that Assange be questioned in connection with the Swedish issues before he is charged with the UK situation. In the UK Assange has been charged with bail jumping and there is an arrest warrant for him -- no questioning required.
I deny the premise of the question.
I'd like to see that alleged ruling, particularly since "patentable" and "patented" mean two quite different things, you've linked to prior art that would show that any subsequent devices producing those sounds may not be "patentable," and you haven't shown that the sounds were produced by a device that was "patented."
That's even before reaching the problem that a particular recording of sound is not a patentable item.
The University of Pennsylvania is a private university.
So the not-hard-work includes the Phase I, II, and III clinical trials required to gain approval of a drug that genetically modifies a human being, as well as the mountain of documentation required for marketing approval and the manufacturing process?
So done "at public University" means done at a private university and private hospital? Ones that are licensing the treatment in exchange for royalties?
Now where does "on the public dime" come in? Do you have any evidence that the project used NIH grants? Even if you apply a generic contribution of 1/3rd of some fraction of costs, that is not exactly grounds for nationalizing the product.
Yes, I certainly cannot buy electronics online from anywhere else without extraordinary effort. Ebay.com, Newegg.com, Walmart.com, Bestbuy.com, Target.com... that monopoly of 45% of online sales in fall 2017 is -- wait, only 45%?
By that definition, Google is using its YouTube monopoly to try to expand power into the same market (streaming devices) and we should bend them over as well.
Then we can bend them over for their search monopoly, advertising monopoly, phone OS monopoly...
It does not. It demonstrates that the problem that you complain about is neither limited to "highly credible mainstream media outlets" nor exclusive to an MSM that you appear to insinuate is out to get Trump. It demonstrates that the same problem existed back in say, 2008, when the right lost its shit over the election of Obama. Which begs the question, why are you so compelled to apply a one-sided political narrative to a far more general problem?
As a formerly consistent conservative that gave up on the party in 2012, the last sentence made me throw up a bit in my mouth. The first sentence is hogwash. Prove it.
Certainly not true -- conservative AM radio and talk show empires never look for errors in the NYT or CNN. Jones, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Carlson, and innumberable others simply talk sports all day.
No Fox bubble -- just "fair and balanced."
It really burns you that the cities, college-educated whites, and "Republican establishment" don't buy into Trump's demagoguery, doesn't it?
Because I do not wish to be limited by your selection bias?
So Fox News and Breitbart are staffed by uneducated, mouth breathing monkeys, and that excuses their well-documented tendency for producing fake news? Selection bias.
Scary how well the description fits.
Openly, with fanfare, and long before you portray it to have happened.
No fake news at Breitbart. No sir.
Only part, eh?
Selection bias on your part. If you think that Fox News and Breitbart have been error free in their reporting, then you're simply delusional.
Yes, if you completely ignore the "absent an inside job" phrase in the material that you failed to quote, then you you can claim that I "forget the inside man job."
But I didn't.
We don't permit government employees, particularly the military, to do it on the people's dime?
But by all means, let's allow Trump to order US Cyber Command (yes, it's actually called that) to counterpunch all of the Fake News that he identifies...