All these financial instruments must be regulated and monitored for our safety.
Yes, I remember the paralyzing fear and chaos of the days of a primarily cash economy, too./sarcasm
If you actually were old enough to remember (or interested enough to have read about) when the printing of the kind of paper currency we now refer to as cash was unregulated, before it first became heavily regulated and then a government monopoly, you probably wouldn't use the sarcasm modifier.
Ditto if you were even older and remembered (or, again, interested enough to have read about) the chaos and dislocations that happened before paper currency with specie currency (which was "cash" before paper currency was) when disruptions (in either the surplus or shortage direction) occurred in the supply of specie.
The "primarily cash economy" with an unregulated money supply was, in fact, a source of not-uncommon paralyzing fear and chaos.
I used to get paid monthly in cash at a job I worked, and the 6500 would be a stack of hundreds about 2" high IIRC.
US bills are 0.0043" thick, so 65 of them are less than a third of an inch thick (2" of $100 bills is $46,500.) Bills which are neither new nor banded won't stack as efficiently, so its not hard to imagine a loose stack of 65 worn, somewhat crumpled $100 bills being 2" high.
They issued the DMCA notice to their ISP - not DigitRev. The ISP folded immediately.
The whole point of the DMCA takedown notice process is that the ISP, in order to remain within the safe harbor vis-a-vis the party issuing the notice, must fold to a valid notice.
Of course, they also must fold the other direction in response to a valid counternotice from the allegedly infringing party, in order to remain within the safe harbor with regard to that party.
But the parties on each side of the notice/counternotice arrangement aren't generally in a symmetric power arrangement, so the importance of staying in the safe harbor with regard to each party isn't the same.
There's a very important reason for caution when prosecuting former executives and political adversaries post-election. It sets a precedent for a pattern of payback trials after every President loses an election or a candidate loses in an ugly campaign.
There's also a very important reason for caution when not prosecuting former executives and political adversaries -- it sets a precedent for a lack of accountability which encourages future abuses by people in similar positions.
I would suggest that the reason that people in positions of power are more likely to cite the grounds for caution you refer to is that they are the beneficiaries of the precedent that favoring that caution over the countervailing one creates.
That's because you are working with hindsight knowledge of what happened after the decision by Humphrey not to expose Nixon. If you remove that knowledge from the picture then Humphrey did the right thing in that he avoided complicating the election at the last minute and throwing the country into further turmoil.
The avoidance of short-term turmoil by avoiding accountability for gross misdeeds by the powerful is a recurring trend that encourages overreach and abuse by politicians (both candidates and officeholders), and is in no way "for the good of the country", though that's the excuse that members of the club of the super-powerful use (perhaps even to themselves) to justify not holding other members of that club accountable.
And it hardly takes specific hindsight to recognize that not holding traitors accountable encourages treason.
At the time, Beltway pundits positively swooned over Powell's air-tight case for war. 'But Twitter could have swarmed journalists with instant analysis about the obvious shortcoming. That kind of accurate, instant analysis of Powell's presentation was posted on blogs but ignored by a mainstream media enthralled by the White House's march to war.'
Actually, many of the claims were debunked by the UN and others prior to Powell's speech (some in the same UN session, some earlier, some both), and had been covered extensively in the news pages of the major media. The "mainstream media" didn't ignore it, though the pro-war commentary in the major media did; the major media just separated the coverage of the "air-tight" case from the coverage of all the holes that had been drilled in it before it was even presented, which was conscious misrepresentation, not accidental ignorance that faster delivery could have addressed.
So, its unlikely Twitter would have changed things in a different way than the blogs did: the people that were paying attention to the sources which debunked Powell would, perhaps, have seen the debunking in a different format, but the people that didn't see it still wouldn't have seen it.
I did. It, as I said before, doesn't say what TFS characterize it as saying (that its a lazy way of preventing spam). It does say its about preventing spam, and it does say that the current implementation is a part of a rapidly-evolving strategy. It also says that (from one side) its bad because some details of the way it has been implemented are not RFC-compliant, and (from the other) that the non-RFC-compliant elements are going to be addressed in the very near term.
What's the significant difference? Isn't refusing jabber messages from non-google account just as bad, and bad for the same reasons, as refusing email from non-google accounts?
It might be, if XMPP's level adoption and central role in online interaction were equivalent to email's. As its not, it might arguably be bad for the same reason (if you don't view the central role of email as part of the reason that it would be bad to do it for email), but its certainly not just as bad.
Many people think that a corporation's Human Resources department is there for the protection of the employees.
Which is silly, because if companies even wanted to expend the slightest effort to pretend that was the case, they would call it "Employee Services". They call it "Human Resources" quite honestly -- its there to manage corporate resources that happen to be human.
In reality, the opposite is the case - to protect the management from the employees.
No, its there to protect the value of the employees (including those that are "management") as corporate assets; protecting the corporation from harm when those assets operate outside of the corporations desired parameters is a part of that, but doesn't define the role. This is much the same role as, say, the department tasked with overseeing factory operations has with respect to heavy machinery.
Sure every once in a while they manage to do the right thing to satisfy the people. My HR department organizes an annual summer picnic.
Manging morale for the purpose of increasing retention and productivity is part of the positive value side of protecting the value of the employees as corporate assets as much as mitigating the harm from dissatisfied employees is on the negative value side. You oil the machine to keep it working while it is working as desired, and you contain the damage and discard it as quickly as possible when it stops doing so and becomes a liability to keep around. All part of the same mission.
That methodology leaves you with a correlation vs causation problem.
No, it doesn't. More precisely, you end up with a potential correlation vs. causation problem if you accept the hypothesis that windfarms caused symptoms based on it, once you have evidence of the correlation in the first place. But you don't have a correlation vs. causation problem if you reject the hypothesis when you fail to find the correlation suggested.
Did the local campaigns trigger the "symptoms", or did they cause people to make a legitimate association between real symptoms and a wind farm
If you reread GP, the methodology it refers to is looking for a correlation between experience of the symptoms and presence of the windfarms, independent of the PR campaigns. Not a correlation between the association of the symptoms with the windfarms.
An even bigger problem is this: would your own survey have the same type of influence on the results as the anti-wind farm campaign?
The survey (accurately, but incompletely) would ideally be presented as a survey on the geographical preponderance of particular health problems. The analysis would correlate the responses with the locations of wind farms. So, in short, no.
But, yes, the description "cybersquatting" refers to both an act and the intent behind, not just an act; just like, e.g., "murder"; but, if it were a crime, it would be no more "thought crime" than murder is. Of course, its not a crime, so its even less a thought crime than murder is.
FYI: There is no Pope Francis I until there is a Pope Francis II.
Not necessarily.
No, this is absolutely true, as the Vatican has made clear because there was some popular confusion.
Pope John Paul I chose to be called "the first" before there was a "the second".
Yes, and when Cardinal Bergoglio was elected Pope, he could have chosen the name "Francis I". But he didn't, so he is not "Francis I" until and unless there is a Francis II.
That doesn't help if they're blocking invites from the entire internet, rather than just from spammy servers or users.
Actually, running your server is a step toward solving that, but not the whole solution. The other parts of the solution are [a] getting people to use your server rather than Google's, and [b] solving the spam problem that Google is addressing by some other, more federation-friendly, means.
And while we did not say "lazy" in the original article, but rather expressed our sympathies for having to grapple with the spam problem, this is not an acceptable solution.
I don't disagree with you that (presuming this is a solution rather than an interim damage control measure) that its not an acceptable solution. My issue was with the summary attributing the summary author's editorializing to the mailing list thread discussing the problem, rather than taking ownership of the editorializing (or, better, leaving the editorializing out entirely and letting readers form their own conclusions.)
According to a public mailing list conversation, Google is doing this as a lazy way to handle a spam problem.
Nothing in that conversation says that Google is doing this (not actually blocking all foreign invites, but sharply limiting the number from each foreign domain) as a lazy way to handle a spam problem; that conversation points to an extremely large spam invite problem, and discusses potentially needing to do it if the operators of the federated domains from which the spam is originating cannot address the problem. It also addresses some of the steps taken by operators of those domains to address the problem (as of the most recent message I can find, it also seems like those methods have not yet been dealt with the problem.)
It very much sounds like the goal is to deal with the problem with the other service operators, but to take immediate steps to stem the flow of spam until an acceptable resolution is attained. The author of TFS may think this is "lazy", but it is not accurate to attribute that description to the email thread.
That said, studying conditions such as this is very difficult since the "symptoms" are so generalized and subject to psychosomatic effects. A symptom that is in a person's head may not be "real" to the researcher, but it's real to the patient and it's very difficult to prove otherwise without putting some ethically questionable and/or logistically impossible controls in the study.
Not really, the usual way of studying this would be self-reported survey research in different places, combined with identification of the time and scale of local campaigns to "inform" people about windfarm sickness in the areas near windfarms; the reality of the reported symptoms to anyone else but the people reporting them isn't an issue, the issue is whether or not there is any evidence that symptoms, even perceived symptoms, are increased by the presence of windfarms, after controlling for propaganda efforts designed to increase the perception of those symptoms around windfarms.
And the fact is, even the head of the wind-farms-cause-health-problems group in TFA admits that there is no evidence supporting the claim that windfarms actually produce the symptoms at issue, and merely shrugs that off with the statement "no evidence doesn't mean no problem".
Of course since this is Slashdot, I have to say that technically, due to the detritus in the sea salt, they may be correct on such a microscopic level that it doesn't matter unless you consume tons and tons of the stuff.
This overlooks the fact that many specialty salts (including, but not limited to, most "sea salts") have less sodium per volume (and less sodium for their impact to taste, when used in a form where they aren't going to be completely dissolved before being eaten) than conventional table salt products because of the size and shape of the crystals, which means that, in many applications (particularly as a finishing salt rather than an ingredient added before cooking) you can use a non-trivially smaller mass of salt for the same effect, which does, in fact, reduce sodium without compromising taste.
Or you could argue that the populace was experiencing negative symptoms from the windmills being nearby, but up until they were made aware that they could cause negative health effects, they attributed the decline to other things. The effect of the information, then, served to give them a list of symptoms that they could validate against, and come to their own conclusions.
You could argue anything. The fact is, though, that if that argument were correct, then, whether or not people attributed the symptoms to the windfarms (that is, whether or people recognized the source of the symptoms), there would still be a correlation between the symptoms themselves and the presence of the windfarms, independently of propaganda efforts about the link between the windfarms and the symptoms. Something for which, as even the physician that is the head of the group pushing the idea that windfarms are a health hazard admits in TFA, there is "no evidence". (Of course, she tosses reason aside says that "no evidence doesn't mean no problem".)
I'll reiterate: science was created so that we no longer need to answer questions by anecdote and supposition.
Having a beautiful, natural view obscured by ugly windmills couldn't possibly cause stress and induce real physical sickness in folks, now could it?!
Maybe it could. If it did you'd expect studying the incidence of the supposed symptoms that it causes would show that they had a correlation with the presence of windfarms independent of propaganda campaigns targeting the local area and attempting to convince people that windfarms are bad for health.
Science was created so that we didn't have to answer question be anecdote and supposition.
BigQuery isn't sold as a replacement for traditional SQL databases, or as "the be all and end all of IT services and methodologies" (or even "...all database-like services and methodologies", as Google also has several other cloud database services for different uses, most notably the MySQL-based CloudSQL), its a data analysis platform for large data sets that uses an SQL-like query syntax.
As a large data set analysis platform, its optimized for that use case, including the focus on large primary tables possibly joined with small auxiliary tables,
It *could* be that he's moving on to some secret project in Google.
There a quite a large number of reports that he (like Jeff Huber, who just stepped down as Senior VP of Geo and Commerce as those two units are being split up and merged with other units -- Geo with Search and Commerce with Advertising) is moving to Google's "X Lab", so "secret project at Google" seems likely.
ically, Linux. Which is the result of the freely given work of thousands of people around the world, beginning with Linus in 1991. Google uses it to run their servers, "for free". Shouldn't Google serve up ads for Linus on every page?
No, see, when you give something away under a particular license, you aren't entitled to other compensation than that specified in the terms you set when giving it away.
Slashdot Mirror
If you actually were old enough to remember (or interested enough to have read about) when the printing of the kind of paper currency we now refer to as cash was unregulated, before it first became heavily regulated and then a government monopoly, you probably wouldn't use the sarcasm modifier.
Ditto if you were even older and remembered (or, again, interested enough to have read about) the chaos and dislocations that happened before paper currency with specie currency (which was "cash" before paper currency was) when disruptions (in either the surplus or shortage direction) occurred in the supply of specie.
The "primarily cash economy" with an unregulated money supply was, in fact, a source of not-uncommon paralyzing fear and chaos.
US bills are 0.0043" thick, so 65 of them are less than a third of an inch thick (2" of $100 bills is $46,500.) Bills which are neither new nor banded won't stack as efficiently, so its not hard to imagine a loose stack of 65 worn, somewhat crumpled $100 bills being 2" high.
The whole point of the DMCA takedown notice process is that the ISP, in order to remain within the safe harbor vis-a-vis the party issuing the notice, must fold to a valid notice.
Of course, they also must fold the other direction in response to a valid counternotice from the allegedly infringing party, in order to remain within the safe harbor with regard to that party.
But the parties on each side of the notice/counternotice arrangement aren't generally in a symmetric power arrangement, so the importance of staying in the safe harbor with regard to each party isn't the same.
There's also a very important reason for caution when not prosecuting former executives and political adversaries -- it sets a precedent for a lack of accountability which encourages future abuses by people in similar positions.
I would suggest that the reason that people in positions of power are more likely to cite the grounds for caution you refer to is that they are the beneficiaries of the precedent that favoring that caution over the countervailing one creates.
The avoidance of short-term turmoil by avoiding accountability for gross misdeeds by the powerful is a recurring trend that encourages overreach and abuse by politicians (both candidates and officeholders), and is in no way "for the good of the country", though that's the excuse that members of the club of the super-powerful use (perhaps even to themselves) to justify not holding other members of that club accountable.
And it hardly takes specific hindsight to recognize that not holding traitors accountable encourages treason.
Actually, many of the claims were debunked by the UN and others prior to Powell's speech (some in the same UN session, some earlier, some both), and had been covered extensively in the news pages of the major media. The "mainstream media" didn't ignore it, though the pro-war commentary in the major media did; the major media just separated the coverage of the "air-tight" case from the coverage of all the holes that had been drilled in it before it was even presented, which was conscious misrepresentation, not accidental ignorance that faster delivery could have addressed.
So, its unlikely Twitter would have changed things in a different way than the blogs did: the people that were paying attention to the sources which debunked Powell would, perhaps, have seen the debunking in a different format, but the people that didn't see it still wouldn't have seen it.
I am explaining the approach, not endorsing it.
No, I'm not.
I did. It, as I said before, doesn't say what TFS characterize it as saying (that its a lazy way of preventing spam). It does say its about preventing spam, and it does say that the current implementation is a part of a rapidly-evolving strategy. It also says that (from one side) its bad because some details of the way it has been implemented are not RFC-compliant, and (from the other) that the non-RFC-compliant elements are going to be addressed in the very near term.
It might be, if XMPP's level adoption and central role in online interaction were equivalent to email's. As its not, it might arguably be bad for the same reason (if you don't view the central role of email as part of the reason that it would be bad to do it for email), but its certainly not just as bad.
Which is silly, because if companies even wanted to expend the slightest effort to pretend that was the case, they would call it "Employee Services". They call it "Human Resources" quite honestly -- its there to manage corporate resources that happen to be human.
No, its there to protect the value of the employees (including those that are "management") as corporate assets; protecting the corporation from harm when those assets operate outside of the corporations desired parameters is a part of that, but doesn't define the role. This is much the same role as, say, the department tasked with overseeing factory operations has with respect to heavy machinery.
Manging morale for the purpose of increasing retention and productivity is part of the positive value side of protecting the value of the employees as corporate assets as much as mitigating the harm from dissatisfied employees is on the negative value side. You oil the machine to keep it working while it is working as desired, and you contain the damage and discard it as quickly as possible when it stops doing so and becomes a liability to keep around. All part of the same mission.
No, it doesn't. More precisely, you end up with a potential correlation vs. causation problem if you accept the hypothesis that windfarms caused symptoms based on it, once you have evidence of the correlation in the first place. But you don't have a correlation vs. causation problem if you reject the hypothesis when you fail to find the correlation suggested.
If you reread GP, the methodology it refers to is looking for a correlation between experience of the symptoms and presence of the windfarms, independent of the PR campaigns. Not a correlation between the association of the symptoms with the windfarms.
The survey (accurately, but incompletely) would ideally be presented as a survey on the geographical preponderance of particular health problems. The analysis would correlate the responses with the locations of wind farms. So, in short, no.
But, yes, the description "cybersquatting" refers to both an act and the intent behind, not just an act; just like, e.g., "murder"; but, if it were a crime, it would be no more "thought crime" than murder is. Of course, its not a crime, so its even less a thought crime than murder is.
No, this is absolutely true, as the Vatican has made clear because there was some popular confusion.
Yes, and when Cardinal Bergoglio was elected Pope, he could have chosen the name "Francis I". But he didn't, so he is not "Francis I" until and unless there is a Francis II.
Actually, running your server is a step toward solving that, but not the whole solution. The other parts of the solution are [a] getting people to use your server rather than Google's, and [b] solving the spam problem that Google is addressing by some other, more federation-friendly, means.
I don't disagree with you that (presuming this is a solution rather than an interim damage control measure) that its not an acceptable solution. My issue was with the summary attributing the summary author's editorializing to the mailing list thread discussing the problem, rather than taking ownership of the editorializing (or, better, leaving the editorializing out entirely and letting readers form their own conclusions.)
Nothing in that conversation says that Google is doing this (not actually blocking all foreign invites, but sharply limiting the number from each foreign domain) as a lazy way to handle a spam problem; that conversation points to an extremely large spam invite problem, and discusses potentially needing to do it if the operators of the federated domains from which the spam is originating cannot address the problem. It also addresses some of the steps taken by operators of those domains to address the problem (as of the most recent message I can find, it also seems like those methods have not yet been dealt with the problem.)
It very much sounds like the goal is to deal with the problem with the other service operators, but to take immediate steps to stem the flow of spam until an acceptable resolution is attained. The author of TFS may think this is "lazy", but it is not accurate to attribute that description to the email thread.
Not really, the usual way of studying this would be self-reported survey research in different places, combined with identification of the time and scale of local campaigns to "inform" people about windfarm sickness in the areas near windfarms; the reality of the reported symptoms to anyone else but the people reporting them isn't an issue, the issue is whether or not there is any evidence that symptoms, even perceived symptoms, are increased by the presence of windfarms, after controlling for propaganda efforts designed to increase the perception of those symptoms around windfarms.
And the fact is, even the head of the wind-farms-cause-health-problems group in TFA admits that there is no evidence supporting the claim that windfarms actually produce the symptoms at issue, and merely shrugs that off with the statement "no evidence doesn't mean no problem".
Untrue. As the link notes, there are plenty of foods besides iodized salts that are good sources of iodine.
Right recommended moderation, but wrong target.
This overlooks the fact that many specialty salts (including, but not limited to, most "sea salts") have less sodium per volume (and less sodium for their impact to taste, when used in a form where they aren't going to be completely dissolved before being eaten) than conventional table salt products because of the size and shape of the crystals, which means that, in many applications (particularly as a finishing salt rather than an ingredient added before cooking) you can use a non-trivially smaller mass of salt for the same effect, which does, in fact, reduce sodium without compromising taste.
You could argue anything. The fact is, though, that if that argument were correct, then, whether or not people attributed the symptoms to the windfarms (that is, whether or people recognized the source of the symptoms), there would still be a correlation between the symptoms themselves and the presence of the windfarms, independently of propaganda efforts about the link between the windfarms and the symptoms. Something for which, as even the physician that is the head of the group pushing the idea that windfarms are a health hazard admits in TFA, there is "no evidence". (Of course, she tosses reason aside says that "no evidence doesn't mean no problem".)
I'll reiterate: science was created so that we no longer need to answer questions by anecdote and supposition.
Maybe it could. If it did you'd expect studying the incidence of the supposed symptoms that it causes would show that they had a correlation with the presence of windfarms independent of propaganda campaigns targeting the local area and attempting to convince people that windfarms are bad for health.
Science was created so that we didn't have to answer question be anecdote and supposition.
No,you don't have it straight.
BigQuery isn't sold as a replacement for traditional SQL databases, or as "the be all and end all of IT services and methodologies" (or even "...all database-like services and methodologies", as Google also has several other cloud database services for different uses, most notably the MySQL-based CloudSQL), its a data analysis platform for large data sets that uses an SQL-like query syntax.
As a large data set analysis platform, its optimized for that use case, including the focus on large primary tables possibly joined with small auxiliary tables,
Sure it does: and your source agrees. Definitions are set by usage, and see the section on "Modern Usage" in the article you cite.
There a quite a large number of reports that he (like Jeff Huber, who just stepped down as Senior VP of Geo and Commerce as those two units are being split up and merged with other units -- Geo with Search and Commerce with Advertising) is moving to Google's "X Lab", so "secret project at Google" seems likely.
No, see, when you give something away under a particular license, you aren't entitled to other compensation than that specified in the terms you set when giving it away.