Not every hydrocarbon is exclusively hydrogen and carbon - other elements can be present too.
Well, sure, if you are inventing your own language. Otherwise, "hydrocarbon" refers to compounds that contain only the elements hydrogen and carbon.
Compounds that include hydrogen, carbon, and other things are not hydrocarbons. (Note that naming conventions may confuse some people on this, as, e.g., compounds containing chlorine, flourine, hydrogen, and carbon are called "chloroflourohydrocarbons", but are not a subset of hydrocarbons but a disjoint set.)
From the way I see it, if these politicians actually had the will to put their foot down on net neutrality then Google wouldn't even have to compromise and cut deals.
Yes, because four members of one house of Congress can, by sheer willpower, dictate the law.
They're finally realizing that you can't let corporations have their way with the internet?
I'm guessing the four House Democrats that wrote the letter have been on the side of neutrality for some time, rather than "finally realizing" anything. While their hasn't been a clear Congressional majority in favor of neutrality (in part because of differences over details, and in part because many members don't even want to address the issue and want to leave it in the FCCs court without directly dealing with it), there have been quite a few members who have favored it since it became an issue.
Actually, I'm kinda hoping somone will come up with a Prolog query engine.
Any Prolog implementation is a query engine, by definition. I suspect what you are really looking for is a Prolog implementation where the store of facts is persistent rather than transitory. I'm not sure that such a thing exists, though many rules engines are conceptually generally similar (though I think that the search strategy used in Rete-based engines is different than that used in Prolog.)
Non-relational databases -- which existed before relational databases -- remain databases. (No-SQL usually refers to non-relational databases, though it could also, I suppose, encompass relational databases that don't use SQL, like anything that uses a Tutorial or Industrial D.)
(Of course, using a query language called "SQL", even if it is almost a subset of standard SQL, doesn't mean a database adheres to the relational model -- and MySQL using MyISAM tables to maximize performance, while sacrificing some of the essential elements of the relational model, is certainly an example of that. So its not really surprising that so-called "No-SQL" non-relational DBs would displace MySQL in certain uses, and it certainly isn't an "insult" to databases to call them databases any more than it was an insult to databases to call MySQL one.)
Neither SQL nor the relational model is the be-all, end-all of databases.
Which would you rather have - choice, or net neutrality?
Net neutrality.
I favor "open access" over net neutrality. Open access means telecom providers have to allow other ISPs to use their infrastructure.
Which acheives nothing. The problem net neutrality addresses is backbone providers (who may not even be end-user-facing ISPs) discriminating in service based on where data is coming from or going to. This problem is not addressed by enabling alternative end-user-facing ISPs to use the local dominant provider's infrastructure.
In fact, I would really prefer de-integrating (disintegrating?) telecom service from telecom infrastructure. I would have no problem with comcast, shitty company that it is, owning half of the cable infrastructure in the US, if all of the content services were run by competing companies.
All net neutrality does is prevent providers of internet service from leveraging their position to dominate internet content. Which seems to be exactly what you are looking for.
The form of open access for alternative ISPs you suggest does not acheive that goal.
Or we could do it even easier, just stop giving ISPs money and legal monopolies.
ISPs generally don't have legal monopolies as ISPs. Some of them have legal monopolies as cable providers, and most of them inherit big advantages (in terms of a higher barrier to competitors entering the market) from their past position as legal, regulated monopolies in either the cable or local telco area, even if they aren't currently holders of a legal monopoly in either area.
As long as those practical barriers to competition exist, internet service will be a de facto oligopoly whether or not any of the providers continue to hold legal monopolies (either as ISPs or in related fields.)
Companies will agree all they want - someone who isn't party to that agreement will be happy to exploit the competitive advantage.
Yes, in an ideal Econ 101 world where you assume away all the imperfections in the real world to get to the pure, unfiltered rational choice model in a perfectly competitive environment, that's exactly how things would work.
In the real world of internet service, just laying cables to begin compete without a public entity using eminent domain to secure the necessary property rights (whether actual property or easements) to do so -- the way that the monopoly telcos and cable companies that are now also the dominant ISPs got much of their infrastructure set up -- makes a pretty effective barrier to entry.
But that really wouldn't change anything vs. your estate suing after your death (which is already possible), except for perhaps accelerating the legal proceedings, which seems to be the goal here.
Actually, the damages to which survivors are entitled in wrongful death, because they are based on the losses to the survivors, are often less than the damages to which the injured party would have been entitled based on the losses to them (often, far less than the losses that the injured party would have received if they had survived the injuries.)
So, if you could pre-sue parties unknown at the time of the lawsuit for fatal injuries, based on the harms that you would suffer rather than the harm to the survivors, so that your survivors would inherit your claim rather than merely having a right to claim for harm to them for your wrongful death, you'd probably improve the potential payout.
Its after the fact, witnesses or not, there is no absolute proof of it.
Its most common for crimes to be charged after the fact, based on witness testimony and other evidence that falls short of "absolute proof", which is not, in any country's legal system that I've heard of, required for a conviction.
Sounds like an easy case for a first time lawyer, to me.
Based on your extensive understanding of and experience with the Canadian criminal justice system?
Why shouldn't it swing both ways? Doesn't the policeman have to make sure that there's actually a dead person? Or say instead, I told a policeman that you just stabbed me in the face. Doesn't the policeman have to make sure that actually happened before he arrests you?
No, in the US at least, the police only need probable cause (a very low threshold) to believe that you committed an offense to arrest you.
The state needs to prove to the trier of fact (usually, a jury, though the right to trial by jury may be waived) beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the offense to convict you, if you are charged with the offense, and if you contest the charges.
At no point is it necessary to eliminate all possible doubt that you committed the offense, or even that an offense occurred.
Plus, you're making a circular argument, by assuming we already know the person did it - here the question is whether he is guilty or not.
I'm not sure why this is a question since he was convicted based on his guilty plea. The entire debate seems to center around the supposition, that:
1. The only evidence the police had was the report of the online forum post, and 2. He was convicted at trial based on that evidence alone.
#1 seems an unreasonable inference from what is reported in TFA, which reports that an investigation was launched based on the report, and has the police characterizing the behavior of other drivers on the road at the time.
#2 is directly contrary to what is reported in TFA, which is that he entered a plea of guilty to the charges.
Yes I have no sympathy for people actually speeding, but it's not clear that online confessions amount to proof in general.
Since, AFAICT, there is no published report that the police treated the online confession as anything other than a trigger to begin an investigation, I don't see why that is even relevant.
Note, even if people confess in a police interview - and even for crimes such as murder, as you suggest - a confession is not necessarily sufficient proof.
That's true, but its much less likely that a court will set aside a guilty plea made with cognizance of the charges. Since he was convicted not based on the online forum post, or even a confession in a police interview, but a guilty plea entered in response to the charges, your statement, though true, is again not obviously relevant to the case at issue.
What if it was another crime - someone claiming they'd taken drugs, or drunk when they were under age, or describing their first sexual experience which was under age? Okay for the police to charge all of them, too?
Well, no, at least to the last, which isn't a crime for the person in the position described in your hypothetical (it indicates that someone else has committed a crime.)
Also, not relevant, as neither TFA nor anything posted upthread indicates that the police charged based on the forum post alone, only that the forum post triggered the investigation which led to the charges.
Statements made online are neither the equivalent of testifying in court nor expected to be 100% TRUE. If the only "evidence" the cops had was his online statement, they had no evidence at all.
If that was the only evidence they had (which seems unlikely, given that TFA refers to them launching an investigation prompted by the online statement, and has them characterizing the behavior of others on the road at the time), then the suspects decisions to plead guilty was ill advised.
However, the conviction is based on the guilty plea, not the forum post.
Hearsay is when one person testifies that another party made a claim.
A forum post that is verified to be from the person is not hearsay.
Just because I said I was doing 150 down the interstate doesn't mean I actually did.
That's actually true of all evidence used in court -- no court system sets a standard of proof that requires evidence that logically excludes alternative explanations. At any rate, the conviction here was not based on the forum post, it was based on the suspect's guilty plea. All the forum post and the report of it did was lead the police to initiate the investigation, the investigation led to charges, and the guilty plea was entered in response to the charges.
This is, of course, easy to prevent. All you need is not to accept anonymous analyses of the information published as a basis of a complaint: any such complaint must be from a verifiable source that can be held accountable for false reporting.
SEC failed to catch Bernie Madoff because the system is corrupt, they have enough people, the problem is what KIND of people they have. You can increase their manpower by a factor of a million and if they still get the kind of people they have there now, they will not end up catching any Madoffs.
Crowdsourcing means they get whatever kind of people are present in the public that are concerned about the issue. That would seem to mean two people: 1. Competitors scrutinizing each other, 2. Concerned citizens that understand the field scrutinizing everyone.
Group #2 may consist of some people who would otherwise seek employment at the SEC, but if your characterization is correct, its not who the SEC would employ.
So, I think crowdsourcing would, in fact, address the problem you raise with the KIND of people they have, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that that complaint is valid.
Well, if the problem is, as suggested, that the SEC actively ignored and hid well-formed and filed complaints and warnings about his activities, one would think that this might work. With more data publicly published, it becomes much harder for the SEC to hide anything. They can, of course, still ignore complaints, though politically, the more of the supporting information that is exposed to the public, being analyzed in the public, and being commented on in the public, the less politically viable ignoring it becomes.
Hit the nail right on it's head. Google is a company, which is owned by its shareholders who solely want profit.
I think the word you are looking for is "corporation" not "company"; any business entity is a company. And even then, its not really right -- its true that the sole common interest of the voting shareholders of most widely-held corporations is often financial returns (and, because of the fact that its easy to move money around between different investments, often short-term profit.) But that's less true in Google's case than it is in the case of most large, public companies, because Google's establishment of stock classes and the structure of its IPO were designed to keep disproportionate control with a narrow group of founders with a particular shared vision.
Most people don't keep their car for 3 years, let alone 5. 5 is a perfect number for the study.
Most people who don't keep a new car that long use its residual value as part of a down payment on a new car, and the difference in depreciation between different models (which, in the real world, varies considerably from model to model) is a huge factor, then, in the "real cost" of owning the car.
But the study assumes that there is no difference in absolute value of depreciation in the compared vehicles after 5 years.
I test-drove the Prius back in 2002 when I bought my Jetta Diesel, and my wife currently owns a Pontiac Vibe (Toyota Matrix with a badge change). The new Prius models look a tad roomier, but they don't look nearly as roomy as even my Jetta is today, 8 years later.
The 2001-2003 Prius was a 4-door compact sedan, the subsequent two generations of Prius's have been midsize hatchbacks. They are much roomier(I've ridden quite a bit in the 2001-2003 models, and own a 2008.)
The 2002 Prius you test drove was smaller than the contemporary Corolla, 2004 and later models are larger than the Corolla.
The Prius and the Matrix might both be built on the Corolla frame
Except that the Prius isn't built on the Corolla frame (or any shared frame, to the best of my knowledge.)
The British Columbia Automobile Association projected the fuel costs of 16 hybrids over five years against their purchase price and financing fees. In a study released in late July, only a single one of the 16 hybrids cost less to buy and run than its gasoline counterpart.
The first obvious problem is that while most of their comparisons seem superficially, at least, apples-to-apples comparisons (comparing hybrid and conventional versions of the same base vehicle), the Prius-to-Matrix comparison is apples-to-grapes. OR, specifically, "midsize to compact".
The second obvious problem is they combine a short time window (5 years) with the assumption that the depreciation will be equal for all vehicles over the time period. There's actually two problems with that: 5 years is an artificially short term to consider fuel cost differences over, and 5 years is definitely a term of which depreciation will vary significantly vehicle-to-vehicle, and make a huge difference in terms of total cost. The only reason a 5 year comparison of fuel costs would be the right term is if the assumption is that the car will be flipped for a new one in that time period, in which case the depreciation in resale value is critical.
This means that for the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition. Meaning that centralized agencies can shut down - or degrade access - to "unlawful" (defined by US government) content such as wikileaks, etc.
Um, but the "bad" side of this isn't new. ISPs, government agencies, and all kinds of players can already shut down, degrade access to, disconnect service to people providing, arrest people for providing or accessing, etc., "unlawful" content.
The only change in the "lawful" content plank is that with it, ISPs and backbone providers can't -- as they can now -- discriminate against (or kick you off their service for) hosting legal content, attaching legal devices, or using legal software that transmits over the connection.
This is equivalent to writing your representative and saying "This is how I think this issue should be handled". I'd rather see companies doing this and trying to put forward workable compromises than throwing hundreds of millions of dollars into lobbyists.
Um, whether or not they are selling things you would find to be "workable compromises", the people employed by companies like Google and Verizon to sell their public policy ideas to policymakers are, in fact, lobbyists.
If you had the money to hire people to do that for you instead of just writing a letter to your representative on your own, that person would be lobbying on your behalf, too.
forget about whether its evil/not evil, why in the world these two mega corps about public policy?
As corporations are creatures of law that are products of public policy, whose behavior is constrained by public policy, and whose relationships to other entities (shareholders, employees, customers), etc., are all bound up in public policy, I can't imagine anything a corporation would be more concerned about.
Who the fuck gave them the right to provide a "legislative framework for consideration by lawmakers."?
Everyone in the U.S. has such a right, whether their interest is motivated by business interest or otherwise. This is expressly guaranteed by the first Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Even worse, if they are using wires to shore (for reasonable latency, high bandwidth) they will be hostage to just as many (and perhaps worse) failures due to network connectivity (worse than a well designed ground based facility, as few... if any... ports were designed around notions of data redundancy.
In San Francisco Bay, they could probably get reasonable latency and high bandwidth with microwave transmitters pointed at one or more shore stations (possibly on opposites sides of the Bay, to provide redundancy against problems affecting either San Francisco or the East Bay.) A major disaster that killed the shore stations would cause an interruption in service, but would require less to recover from than destroying the data center itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, sure, if you are inventing your own language. Otherwise, "hydrocarbon" refers to compounds that contain only the elements hydrogen and carbon.
Compounds that include hydrogen, carbon, and other things are not hydrocarbons. (Note that naming conventions may confuse some people on this, as, e.g., compounds containing chlorine, flourine, hydrogen, and carbon are called "chloroflourohydrocarbons", but are not a subset of hydrocarbons but a disjoint set.)
Yes, because four members of one house of Congress can, by sheer willpower, dictate the law.
Indeed.
I'm guessing the four House Democrats that wrote the letter have been on the side of neutrality for some time, rather than "finally realizing" anything. While their hasn't been a clear Congressional majority in favor of neutrality (in part because of differences over details, and in part because many members don't even want to address the issue and want to leave it in the FCCs court without directly dealing with it), there have been quite a few members who have favored it since it became an issue.
Any Prolog implementation is a query engine, by definition. I suspect what you are really looking for is a Prolog implementation where the store of facts is persistent rather than transitory. I'm not sure that such a thing exists, though many rules engines are conceptually generally similar (though I think that the search strategy used in Rete-based engines is different than that used in Prolog.)
Non-relational databases -- which existed before relational databases -- remain databases. (No-SQL usually refers to non-relational databases, though it could also, I suppose, encompass relational databases that don't use SQL, like anything that uses a Tutorial or Industrial D.)
(Of course, using a query language called "SQL", even if it is almost a subset of standard SQL, doesn't mean a database adheres to the relational model -- and MySQL using MyISAM tables to maximize performance, while sacrificing some of the essential elements of the relational model, is certainly an example of that. So its not really surprising that so-called "No-SQL" non-relational DBs would displace MySQL in certain uses, and it certainly isn't an "insult" to databases to call them databases any more than it was an insult to databases to call MySQL one.)
Neither SQL nor the relational model is the be-all, end-all of databases.
Net neutrality.
Which acheives nothing. The problem net neutrality addresses is backbone providers (who may not even be end-user-facing ISPs) discriminating in service based on where data is coming from or going to. This problem is not addressed by enabling alternative end-user-facing ISPs to use the local dominant provider's infrastructure.
All net neutrality does is prevent providers of internet service from leveraging their position to dominate internet content. Which seems to be exactly what you are looking for.
The form of open access for alternative ISPs you suggest does not acheive that goal.
ISPs generally don't have legal monopolies as ISPs. Some of them have legal monopolies as cable providers, and most of them inherit big advantages (in terms of a higher barrier to competitors entering the market) from their past position as legal, regulated monopolies in either the cable or local telco area, even if they aren't currently holders of a legal monopoly in either area.
As long as those practical barriers to competition exist, internet service will be a de facto oligopoly whether or not any of the providers continue to hold legal monopolies (either as ISPs or in related fields.)
Yes, in an ideal Econ 101 world where you assume away all the imperfections in the real world to get to the pure, unfiltered rational choice model in a perfectly competitive environment, that's exactly how things would work.
In the real world of internet service, just laying cables to begin compete without a public entity using eminent domain to secure the necessary property rights (whether actual property or easements) to do so -- the way that the monopoly telcos and cable companies that are now also the dominant ISPs got much of their infrastructure set up -- makes a pretty effective barrier to entry.
Actually, the damages to which survivors are entitled in wrongful death, because they are based on the losses to the survivors, are often less than the damages to which the injured party would have been entitled based on the losses to them (often, far less than the losses that the injured party would have received if they had survived the injuries.)
So, if you could pre-sue parties unknown at the time of the lawsuit for fatal injuries, based on the harms that you would suffer rather than the harm to the survivors, so that your survivors would inherit your claim rather than merely having a right to claim for harm to them for your wrongful death, you'd probably improve the potential payout.
Its most common for crimes to be charged after the fact, based on witness testimony and other evidence that falls short of "absolute proof", which is not, in any country's legal system that I've heard of, required for a conviction.
Based on your extensive understanding of and experience with the Canadian criminal justice system?
No, in the US at least, the police only need probable cause (a very low threshold) to believe that you committed an offense to arrest you.
The state needs to prove to the trier of fact (usually, a jury, though the right to trial by jury may be waived) beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the offense to convict you, if you are charged with the offense, and if you contest the charges.
At no point is it necessary to eliminate all possible doubt that you committed the offense, or even that an offense occurred.
I'm not sure why this is a question since he was convicted based on his guilty plea. The entire debate seems to center around the supposition, that:
1. The only evidence the police had was the report of the online forum post, and
2. He was convicted at trial based on that evidence alone.
#1 seems an unreasonable inference from what is reported in TFA, which reports that an investigation was launched based on the report, and has the police characterizing the behavior of other drivers on the road at the time.
#2 is directly contrary to what is reported in TFA, which is that he entered a plea of guilty to the charges.
Since, AFAICT, there is no published report that the police treated the online confession as anything other than a trigger to begin an investigation, I don't see why that is even relevant.
That's true, but its much less likely that a court will set aside a guilty plea made with cognizance of the charges. Since he was convicted not based on the online forum post, or even a confession in a police interview, but a guilty plea entered in response to the charges, your statement, though true, is again not obviously relevant to the case at issue.
Well, no, at least to the last, which isn't a crime for the person in the position described in your hypothetical (it indicates that someone else has committed a crime.)
Also, not relevant, as neither TFA nor anything posted upthread indicates that the police charged based on the forum post alone, only that the forum post triggered the investigation which led to the charges.
If that was the only evidence they had (which seems unlikely, given that TFA refers to them launching an investigation prompted by the online statement, and has them characterizing the behavior of others on the road at the time), then the suspects decisions to plead guilty was ill advised.
However, the conviction is based on the guilty plea, not the forum post.
Hearsay is when one person testifies that another party made a claim.
A forum post that is verified to be from the person is not hearsay.
That's actually true of all evidence used in court -- no court system sets a standard of proof that requires evidence that logically excludes alternative explanations. At any rate, the conviction here was not based on the forum post, it was based on the suspect's guilty plea. All the forum post and the report of it did was lead the police to initiate the investigation, the investigation led to charges, and the guilty plea was entered in response to the charges.
This is, of course, easy to prevent. All you need is not to accept anonymous analyses of the information published as a basis of a complaint: any such complaint must be from a verifiable source that can be held accountable for false reporting.
Crowdsourcing means they get whatever kind of people are present in the public that are concerned about the issue. That would seem to mean two people:
1. Competitors scrutinizing each other,
2. Concerned citizens that understand the field scrutinizing everyone.
Group #2 may consist of some people who would otherwise seek employment at the SEC, but if your characterization is correct, its not who the SEC would employ.
So, I think crowdsourcing would, in fact, address the problem you raise with the KIND of people they have, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that that complaint is valid.
Well, if the problem is, as suggested, that the SEC actively ignored and hid well-formed and filed complaints and warnings about his activities, one would think that this might work. With more data publicly published, it becomes much harder for the SEC to hide anything. They can, of course, still ignore complaints, though politically, the more of the supporting information that is exposed to the public, being analyzed in the public, and being commented on in the public, the less politically viable ignoring it becomes.
I think the word you are looking for is "corporation" not "company"; any business entity is a company. And even then, its not really right -- its true that the sole common interest of the voting shareholders of most widely-held corporations is often financial returns (and, because of the fact that its easy to move money around between different investments, often short-term profit.) But that's less true in Google's case than it is in the case of most large, public companies, because Google's establishment of stock classes and the structure of its IPO were designed to keep disproportionate control with a narrow group of founders with a particular shared vision.
Most people who don't keep a new car that long use its residual value as part of a down payment on a new car, and the difference in depreciation between different models (which, in the real world, varies considerably from model to model) is a huge factor, then, in the "real cost" of owning the car.
But the study assumes that there is no difference in absolute value of depreciation in the compared vehicles after 5 years.
The 2001-2003 Prius was a 4-door compact sedan, the subsequent two generations of Prius's have been midsize hatchbacks. They are much roomier(I've ridden quite a bit in the 2001-2003 models, and own a 2008.)
The 2002 Prius you test drove was smaller than the contemporary Corolla, 2004 and later models are larger than the Corolla.
Except that the Prius isn't built on the Corolla frame (or any shared frame, to the best of my knowledge.)
The first obvious problem is that while most of their comparisons seem superficially, at least, apples-to-apples comparisons (comparing hybrid and conventional versions of the same base vehicle), the Prius-to-Matrix comparison is apples-to-grapes. OR, specifically, "midsize to compact".
The second obvious problem is they combine a short time window (5 years) with the assumption that the depreciation will be equal for all vehicles over the time period. There's actually two problems with that: 5 years is an artificially short term to consider fuel cost differences over, and 5 years is definitely a term of which depreciation will vary significantly vehicle-to-vehicle, and make a huge difference in terms of total cost. The only reason a 5 year comparison of fuel costs would be the right term is if the assumption is that the car will be flipped for a new one in that time period, in which case the depreciation in resale value is critical.
Um, but the "bad" side of this isn't new. ISPs, government agencies, and all kinds of players can already shut down, degrade access to, disconnect service to people providing, arrest people for providing or accessing, etc., "unlawful" content.
The only change in the "lawful" content plank is that with it, ISPs and backbone providers can't -- as they can now -- discriminate against (or kick you off their service for) hosting legal content, attaching legal devices, or using legal software that transmits over the connection.
Um, whether or not they are selling things you would find to be "workable compromises", the people employed by companies like Google and Verizon to sell their public policy ideas to policymakers are, in fact, lobbyists.
If you had the money to hire people to do that for you instead of just writing a letter to your representative on your own, that person would be lobbying on your behalf, too.
As corporations are creatures of law that are products of public policy, whose behavior is constrained by public policy, and whose relationships to other entities (shareholders, employees, customers), etc., are all bound up in public policy, I can't imagine anything a corporation would be more concerned about.
Everyone in the U.S. has such a right, whether their interest is motivated by business interest or otherwise. This is expressly guaranteed by the first Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In San Francisco Bay, they could probably get reasonable latency and high bandwidth with microwave transmitters pointed at one or more shore stations (possibly on opposites sides of the Bay, to provide redundancy against problems affecting either San Francisco or the East Bay.) A major disaster that killed the shore stations would cause an interruption in service, but would require less to recover from than destroying the data center itself.