Yes, but there you still have to accept the safari license agreement Yeah, but how many people are going to click through it? It may not be illegal, but it's pretty damn shady in my book. I'd consider myself pretty computer literate and I was just about to click the update button out of automatic behavior, until the word "Safari" popped out at me. I'm fine with coupling downloads together if you are giving people notice (like itunes and quicktime), but stashing a completely unrelated product in as part of an update crosses the line.
To an extent that's true, but science is science and sooner or later the facts will win out over dogma. Eventually someone is going to do the experiment that incontrovertibly proves that said underdog theory is true. Look at the prion guy. He took all kinds of shit for years, because *nobody* believed you could have an infectious protein, but eventually he won out. He can now send the haters a picture of his Noble prize.
Re:Verizon and high pressure tactics
on
Verizon, Fiber Or Die?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
my combination all-you-can-talk phone, basic television, and 20/5 internet is $105/year
Did you mean per month? $105 a year would be insanely good for DSL just by itself (that's under $10 month).
Which is why that kind of power should never be in the hands of any one person or group. To be done properly, it requires multiple checks by people who are independent entities. Which is why the old system with independent oversight by the FISA court or by the requirement to get a court warrant for a domestic wiretap actually worked. When you have the government spying on Americans with essentially no oversight, you're setting up a system that can readily be abused.
If you're lucky, you get the retroactive "oops our bad!" like this one, which frankly doesn't make me feel any better about it. If they actually named the specific people who were spied on improperly, then those individuals could at least file a lawsuit. However the current judicial rulings seem to suggest that you can't file a suit unless you have evidence that you were spied on, which they're obviously not going to release anytime soon. Sadly this has become rather prophetic: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Once they feel confident enough to openly acting that way, then it's already too late.
You should seriously spend some time learning about the principles this country was founded on, because the concept of monitoring interpersonal communications of American citizens would have been an appalling affront to the people who founded it and gave their blood and lives for it. Frankly I find it shameful that so many Americans are willing (if not overjoyed) to hand over their Constitutional rights.
The rest of us were taught the difference when we were children, maybe someday you'll learn.
Well it's good to know you learned something as a child, because apparently it wasn't social skills. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that people find it difficult to work for you or with you, likely because you're the same kind of douchebag who keeps the pencils under lock and key and raves about theft when someone uses more than 4-5 squares of toilet paper.
That IS NOT a salary, and as such, NOT out of Jimmy Wales' pocket.
The guy donated his entire stake in Wikipedia with an estimated worth of 3 billion dollars to the Foundation at not cost. The least they could do is buy the freaking guy dinner. He still serves as a member of the board and does a variety of talks and fund raising events for wikipedia and doesn't collect a dime in salary for it.
That's really a common misinterpretation of his findings. His discussion was specifically referring to areas of science like epidemiology and genetic epidemiology (the field he works in) that report positive findings based almost exclusively on probability scores using statistical tests like chi-square or the various t-tests. To illustrate, if you are using p=0.05 as your threshold for significance and you do 20 tests, then 1/20 will on average be significant by chance alone. However, that does not apply to all science! If I publish a paper showing an electron microscope image of a virus capsid, a mathematical proof, or report a supernova in some far off galaxy, it isn't somehow wrong 1/2 the time. I keep seeing people rattle that claim off and it's not true.
I'm at one of the top 10 universities for NIH funding and every single PhD student I know (from bio, genetics, epidemiology, biostats, IDM) are making below 25k per year. Obviously their are cost of living differences from city to city, but I'd imagine the amounts you're talking are at the very far end of the spectrum.
Yeah, they need to add reduced power consumption as well. Would make a great environmentally friendly advertising slogan though "Windows Vista: Now with 100% less energy use!".
No problem... Just make a metric-imperial conversion error, and the problem solves itself. Damn it Jenkins, what the hell do you mean this chart was in log base 10?!
I was going to include something to the effect of "don't give me the bullshit about linux and bsd isos", but I assumed no one would even dare try that stale, simple defense. Seems I was wrong. hm.
Uh how is that a "stale, simple defense"? Look, I pay a networking fee as part of my tuition, so why the hell shouldn't I be able to download legitimate content over bittorrent?
I don't think it is that absurd for a college CS major to be downloading a linux ISO from bittorrent. I don't mind Universities helping copyright holders protect their works, but denying all P2P traffic is a ham-fisted way of doing it. If they want to filter based on content, that's fine, but even that isn't fool-proof. You have to be very careful in how you legislate this because its people who can't afford to go to college without university support that are going to be paying the price.
I think examples such as the DMCA should make us wary of how well-intentioned legislation can go wrong when you have technologically illiterate politicians guided by industry lobbyists doing the writing.
Not in particular. There are a lot of conserved pathways and genes but not more than any other fish. They're nice because they're a more convenient model organism to use than mice or chimps. You can fit a lot more of them in a tank, they're relatively inexpensive, they have a short generation time, and they're more of less transparent so you can observe internal structures (particularly for developmental bio purposes) and use luminescent/colorimetric techniques with out having to do any dissections. So they do make a good model, in fact one of the genes involved in determining skin color in humans was recently identified using Zebrafish.
From the US Copyright law:
"Audiovisual works" are works that consist of a series of related images which are intrinsically intended to be shown by the use of machines or devices such as projectors, viewers, or electronic equipment, together with accompanying sounds, if any, regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as films or tapes, in which the works are embodied.
"A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is "fixed" for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission."
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101
After I posted, the first thing that popped into my mind was that crazy ass story about how the CIA cooked up that scheme involving Howard Hughes constructing that giant deep sea drilling platform the Glomar Explorer that was really a cover to raise a sunken Russian sub. If you would have came up with that theory, I would have seriously wondered if you were insane. So who the hell knows, maybe they are just hiding it in plain site.
Why would they do all 3 at the same time so as to make it absurdly obvious? They have the technology, both in terms of a specialized submarine with that capability and the ability to tap a fiber optic line. They could easily have done so with minor disruptions so that no one notices. To take down all 3 at the same time for several days would be idiotic. I think Occam's Razor wins here for me.
What does the sub have on it, a giant pair of scissors sticking out of the front? Actually it was fitted with a gigantic ear. In fact, the sub gets its name from the comically over-sized ears of Jimmy Carter.
Yet, somehow we've managed to have life on earth... That is largely due to the technique by which we synthesize DNA in the laboratory. It's actually done using a series of chemical reactions rather than by utilizing the specialized enzymes found in cells. It's an extremely artificial process where the DNA strand is physically held on a microscopic bead, and as a result of the chemistry we use, it's actually more convenient to synthesize it backwards which makes it a slow and cumbersome process. In a cell, your natural DNA replication machinery are replicating DNA orders of magnitude longer and faster. However, that's *replicating*, where your cells are simply copying DNA from a template rather than truly synthesizing anything novel. So technically it takes evolution millions of years to do what we can do in the lab in a few hours.
You should keep in mind that Christianity was often considered to be a messianic Judaic cult in its early days. So its certainly relative when you look down on other fringe groups and lump them together as "cults".
Is that really that shocking? Obviously companies anywhere in the world are going to be trying to peddle their wares to anyone willing to buy them. Much of the equipment used in uranium enrichment and preparation of a nuclear weapon is for the most part multi-purpose and could be used for completely innocuous purposes, such as a gas centrifuge. Most of it is extremely expensive as well, so vendors would be jumping over themselves to make a sale. So I don't find his quote all that inflammatory and you have to be careful in how you read into it.
Yeah, I wasn't really surprised by this either. It would seem that this is just standard game-theory taking place in a physical environment rather than a computer simulation. As soon as you add in punishment for lying then you can get other steady-state outcomes.
I'm not sure how true that's going to be. How much innovation is coming out of China? Surprisingly little considering its population size. I think having relaxed IP laws have stifled that even further...why would you want to move to China with your new cool technology, if a competitor can simply copy it.
Slashdot Mirror
To an extent that's true, but science is science and sooner or later the facts will win out over dogma. Eventually someone is going to do the experiment that incontrovertibly proves that said underdog theory is true. Look at the prion guy. He took all kinds of shit for years, because *nobody* believed you could have an infectious protein, but eventually he won out. He can now send the haters a picture of his Noble prize.
Did you mean per month? $105 a year would be insanely good for DSL just by itself (that's under $10 month).
Which is why that kind of power should never be in the hands of any one person or group. To be done properly, it requires multiple checks by people who are independent entities. Which is why the old system with independent oversight by the FISA court or by the requirement to get a court warrant for a domestic wiretap actually worked. When you have the government spying on Americans with essentially no oversight, you're setting up a system that can readily be abused.
If you're lucky, you get the retroactive "oops our bad!" like this one, which frankly doesn't make me feel any better about it. If they actually named the specific people who were spied on improperly, then those individuals could at least file a lawsuit. However the current judicial rulings seem to suggest that you can't file a suit unless you have evidence that you were spied on, which they're obviously not going to release anytime soon. Sadly this has become rather prophetic: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Once they feel confident enough to openly acting that way, then it's already too late.
You should seriously spend some time learning about the principles this country was founded on, because the concept of monitoring interpersonal communications of American citizens would have been an appalling affront to the people who founded it and gave their blood and lives for it. Frankly I find it shameful that so many Americans are willing (if not overjoyed) to hand over their Constitutional rights.
Well it's good to know you learned something as a child, because apparently it wasn't social skills. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that people find it difficult to work for you or with you, likely because you're the same kind of douchebag who keeps the pencils under lock and key and raves about theft when someone uses more than 4-5 squares of toilet paper.
The guy donated his entire stake in Wikipedia with an estimated worth of 3 billion dollars to the Foundation at not cost. The least they could do is buy the freaking guy dinner. He still serves as a member of the board and does a variety of talks and fund raising events for wikipedia and doesn't collect a dime in salary for it.
That seating chart is EPIC.
That's really a common misinterpretation of his findings. His discussion was specifically referring to areas of science like epidemiology and genetic epidemiology (the field he works in) that report positive findings based almost exclusively on probability scores using statistical tests like chi-square or the various t-tests. To illustrate, if you are using p=0.05 as your threshold for significance and you do 20 tests, then 1/20 will on average be significant by chance alone. However, that does not apply to all science! If I publish a paper showing an electron microscope image of a virus capsid, a mathematical proof, or report a supernova in some far off galaxy, it isn't somehow wrong 1/2 the time. I keep seeing people rattle that claim off and it's not true.
I'm at one of the top 10 universities for NIH funding and every single PhD student I know (from bio, genetics, epidemiology, biostats, IDM) are making below 25k per year. Obviously their are cost of living differences from city to city, but I'd imagine the amounts you're talking are at the very far end of the spectrum.
Yeah, they need to add reduced power consumption as well. Would make a great environmentally friendly advertising slogan though "Windows Vista: Now with 100% less energy use!".
Damn it Jenkins, what the hell do you mean this chart was in log base 10?!
Ugh, I don't even want to think about where he keeps his American Express card.
Uh how is that a "stale, simple defense"? Look, I pay a networking fee as part of my tuition, so why the hell shouldn't I be able to download legitimate content over bittorrent?
I don't think it is that absurd for a college CS major to be downloading a linux ISO from bittorrent. I don't mind Universities helping copyright holders protect their works, but denying all P2P traffic is a ham-fisted way of doing it. If they want to filter based on content, that's fine, but even that isn't fool-proof. You have to be very careful in how you legislate this because its people who can't afford to go to college without university support that are going to be paying the price.
I think examples such as the DMCA should make us wary of how well-intentioned legislation can go wrong when you have technologically illiterate politicians guided by industry lobbyists doing the writing.
Not in particular. There are a lot of conserved pathways and genes but not more than any other fish. They're nice because they're a more convenient model organism to use than mice or chimps. You can fit a lot more of them in a tank, they're relatively inexpensive, they have a short generation time, and they're more of less transparent so you can observe internal structures (particularly for developmental bio purposes) and use luminescent/colorimetric techniques with out having to do any dissections. So they do make a good model, in fact one of the genes involved in determining skin color in humans was recently identified using Zebrafish.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5055391
From the US Copyright law: "Audiovisual works" are works that consist of a series of related images which are intrinsically intended to be shown by the use of machines or devices such as projectors, viewers, or electronic equipment, together with accompanying sounds, if any, regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as films or tapes, in which the works are embodied. "A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is "fixed" for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission." http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101
After I posted, the first thing that popped into my mind was that crazy ass story about how the CIA cooked up that scheme involving Howard Hughes constructing that giant deep sea drilling platform the Glomar Explorer that was really a cover to raise a sunken Russian sub. If you would have came up with that theory, I would have seriously wondered if you were insane. So who the hell knows, maybe they are just hiding it in plain site.
Why would they do all 3 at the same time so as to make it absurdly obvious? They have the technology, both in terms of a specialized submarine with that capability and the ability to tap a fiber optic line. They could easily have done so with minor disruptions so that no one notices. To take down all 3 at the same time for several days would be idiotic. I think Occam's Razor wins here for me.
You should keep in mind that Christianity was often considered to be a messianic Judaic cult in its early days. So its certainly relative when you look down on other fringe groups and lump them together as "cults".
Is that really that shocking? Obviously companies anywhere in the world are going to be trying to peddle their wares to anyone willing to buy them. Much of the equipment used in uranium enrichment and preparation of a nuclear weapon is for the most part multi-purpose and could be used for completely innocuous purposes, such as a gas centrifuge. Most of it is extremely expensive as well, so vendors would be jumping over themselves to make a sale. So I don't find his quote all that inflammatory and you have to be careful in how you read into it.
Yeah, I wasn't really surprised by this either. It would seem that this is just standard game-theory taking place in a physical environment rather than a computer simulation. As soon as you add in punishment for lying then you can get other steady-state outcomes.
I'm not sure how true that's going to be. How much innovation is coming out of China? Surprisingly little considering its population size. I think having relaxed IP laws have stifled that even further...why would you want to move to China with your new cool technology, if a competitor can simply copy it.