Nuclear Technology has come a looooong way in 40 years. That's something to stress to the anti-nukes.
It hasn't come far enough that the nuclear industry and the investing community feels that it is safe enough to build new reactors without a combination of extraordinary legal protections against liability.
If it was a safe as the industry tries to claim it is to the public and to government decisionmakers, they wouldn't need the things they keep asking for from the government in order to move forward. The fact that they are lobbying for shields against liability for accidents is a clear signal that the expectation that they will have accidents and that the accidents will result in massive damages for which they would, without special protection, be liable is driving their decisionmaking.
I am still very disappointed that Google did not release their Google Voice app onto the Cydia, Icy, and other alternative app stores.
Since they instead put the missing features which would be covered by a special app into the mobile web interface (they were always in the "regular" web interface) to Google Voice so you don't need an app at all, I don't see why anyone would be disappointed.
And "The Cloud" must adjust to the fact that businesses and IT departments require reliability, not several-hour down-time, unavailability, and security issues which only affect a "subset of users."
Most of the environments I've experienced, non-cloud applications run on the organizations own servers experience those effects as much as any cloud application I've heard of. Downtime isn't something that magically only happens on the cloud.
Do I need to repeat the rest of the explanation? We've been having this tug-of-war over software subscriptions for almost 15 years now. Call it "the cloud" or any of the other rebranding attempts from the past, but it's all had the same goal: making you pay more for the software you use.
The cloud is not software-as-a-service, though it is a kind of platform on which SaaS offerings can be built (in fact, SaaS offerings are often built on someone else's cloud.) Cloud computing is, essentially, just providing dynamic resource provisioning and divorcing logical servers from physical servers.
What we should fear is no longer having any control at all over the software we use AND having to pay every month/day/hour/minute for the privilege of being able to use it.
Sure; while there may be some cases where SaaS makes sense, for lots of users it doesn't make sense for most uses, and it should be rejected. That doesn't mean it should be rejected always and everywhere, and it even more clearly doesn't mean that technologies which are usable for deploying SaaS among other things should be rejected simply because they can be used for SaaS.
One thing that I find interesting about this is that Intel decided to still call it "i7" when it apparently doesn't fit into the Nehalem-based i7 motherboards. As the article correctly pointed out - why not call it "i6" to prevent consumer confusion?
Intel has never been particularly keen on matching processor branding to sockets; while its probably frustrating to enthusiasts who'd like to be able to rely on the branding rather than several different axes of variation within the same brand name while building systems, its hardly new with the Core i7 brand, and there is really no reason to expect (as opposed to "want") it to change.
That's because at the time the DMCA was passed, there was no such thing as contributory trademark infringement.
Not so. Contributory trademark infringement has been recognized for quite some time; the standards applied by the courts in finding it were clearly articulated by the Supreme Court in Ives Labs v. Inwood Labs, 456 US 844 (1982). It was a well-established doctrine when the DMCA was passed in 1998.
People now have a mechanism to silence other people's speech: complain they are contributing to violation of their trademark. With no safe harbor, no sane ISP will ignore their request.
I don't think you understand the DMCA safe harbor provision, which only protects the ISP from the complaining (supposed) rights holder if it does obey the request to take material down. A similar safe harbor for trademark infringement would not encourage ISPs to ignore takedown requests.
No. Read the Constitution mister cop (you know, that thing you pledged to protect, but apparently never read). Carrying a flag, sign, or other item is considered "symbolic speech" according to the Supreme Court and therefore protected.
Police are permitted to advise people that they would be generally better off doing things even when those things are not legally mandatory; of course, people are also free to ignore such advise, arouse suspicion in their neighbors, have the police called and have the police arrive to investigate. That something is Constitutionally protected doesn't mean it isn't suspicious to your neighbors, and it doesn't mean the police won't investigate when they get a report, and that both the report and the follow-up inquiry won't be perfectly legal.
It is only things that are on BOTH X chromosomes that are important to women.
This, of course, is only true of recessive X-linked traits. Dominant X-linked traits are expressed when you only have one copy of them, regardless of whether you have another X chromosome or not and women have more opportunities to get them with two X chromosomes.
Now, seriously harmful traits that are preserved in the gene pool (X-linked or otherwise) tend to be recessive, since otherwise they would manifest in (and harm) every carrier and stop themselves from spreading, and since lots of times discussion of X-linked traits focusses on such harmful traits, its easy to forget that they aren't the only ones to consider.
In the movie, I seem to remember them saying that the mutations come from the father, how women are mutants I don't know.
Assuming that there is a key gene that activates other dormant genes (which seems to me to be the easiest way to rationalize, or at least paint a veneer of plausibility over, the commonality of behavior of the "mutations" in the X-men with the differences in their manifestation), then if that gene is both dominant and had an effect which rendered ova with it nonviable, then the only way the key gene could be passed down would be from the father.
So I kind of find what you are complaining about a non-issue; if one can suspend belief far enough to allow for mutations of the type in the X-men with a common nature in the first place, them only being passed down from the father is no big deal.
Government managers don't routinely get hundred-million-dollar golden parachutes for losing billions of dollars and costing tens of thousands of people their jobs, either.
I don't know that the difference here is as big as you might think; high-ranking elected and appointed officials (the rough public equivalent of the senior executive leadership of private firms who you see getting those kinds of rewards) whose actions in office are useful to a narrow constituency (whether in terms of economic benefit, or ideology, or some combination), even if harmful to the general public in the ways you describe--or more serious ways like getting lots of people killed--often do land in extremely lucrative positions sponsored by the groups who their "public" career benefited once they leave public office, whether they leave through voluntary retirement or getting thrown out of office by angry voters.
Yes but you just said "explanations needed to understand the data" which means you'll have interpretations.
Well, the use of language is always subject to interpretation to a certain degree, but actually the "explanations needed to understand the data" means that the data would be accompanied by sufficient explanatory material so that what the facts were would be as clear as possible.
For example I think "military spending" means tanks, planes, et cetera. But other people say it should also include payments made to Saudi Arabia's kings and nobility to protect the oil supply to run those tanks and planes. Who's right?
It doesn't matter for transparency who is right, what matters is whether the data provided gives you all the facts necessary to determine what "military spending" actually is under either definition. (That is, for the particular distinction you propose, if it tells you how much money was spent on tanks, planes, etc., and how much money was spent supporting Saudi Arabia.) Sure, on a practical level, categories will have to be used, and some people will prefer a different categorization, but ultimately it doesn't matter as long as the information necessary to understand the categorization used is provided, and the details are sufficient to support re-interpreting the data with different preferred categorization schemes.
What the significance of those facts is will always be a matter of public debate, and the government can't provide all the perspectives on that and shouldn't try to. Transparency is providing the facts, so that the informed public debate about the significance of the facts, how they should be changed, etc., can occur.
I think for true transparency the government needs to present differing views from multiple studies.
Transparency, I would think, requires the government to present as much factual information as possible with the explanations needed to understand the data. Differing interpretations of that data aren't part of transparency, they are part of what transparency enables, and part of what it provides the means for people to evaluate.
The results are contrary to expectations stemming from research on television, where violence has been shown to decrease attention to advertisements.
That's an odd expectation: I would expect attention to ads shown during violence as part of the same scene to operate very differently than attention to ads shown in between scenes of violence, in breaks from the main teleplay. In game ads are (pretty much exactly) like product placement in TV or movies, not like normal TV ads.
If the landlord knew his property was being used to make drugs and did nothing about it, potentially yes, he would be at risk from prosecution.
Actually, given the rules that have been applied in the War on Drugs, even if the landlord didn't know his property was being used to make drugs, it could be seized by law enforcement in a civil forfeiture action.
The rule is: You get a notification, you notify the owner of the site with the alleged violation, you receive an affirmation of legality from the site owner, you do nothing.
Actually, that's very close to the special "safe harbor" rule with regard to copyright infringement that was part of the DMCA. No such "safe harbor" rule exists with regard to trademark infringement.
If there's one thing I hate about Chrome it's the way the tabs replace the normal title bar functionality. It makes the window harder to drag, harder to maximize, and basically throws 25 years of Windows usability standards out the window.
The tabs don't replace the title bar functionality in Chrome. The title bar, including its minize, maximize, and close buttons, is in its normal place, and performs its normal function. It's slightly less tall than on a normal window, though.
How much of that decline was spend cleaning up M$ malware?
None; products and services directed at that end are part of the total output.
It looks like several tens of billions of dollars per year down the drain. I bet for 5 we could convert any M$ holdouts in the public and private sector over to desktops with customize { Openbox | Fluxbox | Xcfe | KDE } on { Linux | BSD | Solaris }.
Pulling two different numbers out of some bodily orifice and comparing them doesn't make a convincing argument.
Why do you state that? Are you assuming the network isn't used for any critical operations where disruption might have irreversible consequence?
Yes, actually. Very few networks do.
It's true, a very small percentage of all networks are the main operational network used by the agencies of a government of a combined city and county, including use to store and exchange confidential law enforcement documents.
OTOH, 100% of the networks Childs is accsed of compromising do meet that description.
Maybe I don't remember HS Civic's very well but I thought the point of bail was ONLY to prevent flight, not that it had been redefined to be large as a result of danger the innocent (until proved otherwise) person poses.
You badly misremember your HS civics, or were badly misinformed in that class, then. Bail has historically been discretionary, and dangerousness has almost always been a consideration. It was briefly, in non-capital federal cases, restricted to a guarantee of appearance under the Bail Reform Act of 1966, but considerations of dangerousness for non-capital defendants were restored in the District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970 and, more broadly, in the 1984 revisions to federal bail law.
The prosecutors in the case are arguing that the city's computer systems are more valuable than human life?
If that's the case, then yes, certainly the bail is appropriate.
If not, then the bail is entirely inappropriate.
In assessing risk, one considers not only the magnitude of harm, but also the probability that the harm will be realized. Prosecutors could, instead, argue not that the system is more valuable than human life, but that it is vastly more likely that Child's would succeed in damaging it if released on bail than it is that the average (e.g.) murder suspect would succeed in killing while on bail.
Its also possible that they could argue that the system is used for critical functions related to public safety, so that disruption could directly have consequences for safety and even human life.
don't think the judge understands the nature of network security, which is understandable since he isn't an IT guy......but no doubt the prosecuting attorney was pushing to distort the issue to make him look as dangerous as possible. What if he is not guilty, are they still going to keep him in jail because he might be dangerous?
The question is irrelevant. Danger to the community is expressly a consideration in bail decisions.
It's not like he can cause irreparable damage, as murdering someone might.
Why do you state that? Are you assuming the network isn't used for any critical operations where disruption might have irreversible consequence?
One thing I don't understand is why this guy doesn't exercise his right to a speedy trial.
Speed in a trial often favors the prosecution, since the prosecution gathers inculpatory evidence before it even files charges, while the defense rarely prepares before that point.
It sounds like they have zero confidence in whoever is now in charge of securing their network.
Well, the prosecutors work for the City and County of San Francisco, too; certainly, its not that uncommon for people on the business side of an operation to have low confidence in their own IT staff.
Slashdot Mirror
It hasn't come far enough that the nuclear industry and the investing community feels that it is safe enough to build new reactors without a combination of extraordinary legal protections against liability.
If it was a safe as the industry tries to claim it is to the public and to government decisionmakers, they wouldn't need the things they keep asking for from the government in order to move forward. The fact that they are lobbying for shields against liability for accidents is a clear signal that the expectation that they will have accidents and that the accidents will result in massive damages for which they would, without special protection, be liable is driving their decisionmaking.
Since they instead put the missing features which would be covered by a special app into the mobile web interface (they were always in the "regular" web interface) to Google Voice so you don't need an app at all, I don't see why anyone would be disappointed.
Most of the environments I've experienced, non-cloud applications run on the organizations own servers experience those effects as much as any cloud application I've heard of. Downtime isn't something that magically only happens on the cloud.
The cloud is not software-as-a-service, though it is a kind of platform on which SaaS offerings can be built (in fact, SaaS offerings are often built on someone else's cloud.) Cloud computing is, essentially, just providing dynamic resource provisioning and divorcing logical servers from physical servers.
Sure; while there may be some cases where SaaS makes sense, for lots of users it doesn't make sense for most uses, and it should be rejected. That doesn't mean it should be rejected always and everywhere, and it even more clearly doesn't mean that technologies which are usable for deploying SaaS among other things should be rejected simply because they can be used for SaaS.
Intel has never been particularly keen on matching processor branding to sockets; while its probably frustrating to enthusiasts who'd like to be able to rely on the branding rather than several different axes of variation within the same brand name while building systems, its hardly new with the Core i7 brand, and there is really no reason to expect (as opposed to "want") it to change.
Not so. Contributory trademark infringement has been recognized for quite some time; the standards applied by the courts in finding it were clearly articulated by the Supreme Court in Ives Labs v. Inwood Labs, 456 US 844 (1982). It was a well-established doctrine when the DMCA was passed in 1998.
I don't think you understand the DMCA safe harbor provision, which only protects the ISP from the complaining (supposed) rights holder if it does obey the request to take material down. A similar safe harbor for trademark infringement would not encourage ISPs to ignore takedown requests.
Police are permitted to advise people that they would be generally better off doing things even when those things are not legally mandatory; of course, people are also free to ignore such advise, arouse suspicion in their neighbors, have the police called and have the police arrive to investigate. That something is Constitutionally protected doesn't mean it isn't suspicious to your neighbors, and it doesn't mean the police won't investigate when they get a report, and that both the report and the follow-up inquiry won't be perfectly legal.
This, of course, is only true of recessive X-linked traits. Dominant X-linked traits are expressed when you only have one copy of them, regardless of whether you have another X chromosome or not and women have more opportunities to get them with two X chromosomes.
Now, seriously harmful traits that are preserved in the gene pool (X-linked or otherwise) tend to be recessive, since otherwise they would manifest in (and harm) every carrier and stop themselves from spreading, and since lots of times discussion of X-linked traits focusses on such harmful traits, its easy to forget that they aren't the only ones to consider.
Assuming that there is a key gene that activates other dormant genes (which seems to me to be the easiest way to rationalize, or at least paint a veneer of plausibility over, the commonality of behavior of the "mutations" in the X-men with the differences in their manifestation), then if that gene is both dominant and had an effect which rendered ova with it nonviable, then the only way the key gene could be passed down would be from the father.
So I kind of find what you are complaining about a non-issue; if one can suspend belief far enough to allow for mutations of the type in the X-men with a common nature in the first place, them only being passed down from the father is no big deal.
I don't know that the difference here is as big as you might think; high-ranking elected and appointed officials (the rough public equivalent of the senior executive leadership of private firms who you see getting those kinds of rewards) whose actions in office are useful to a narrow constituency (whether in terms of economic benefit, or ideology, or some combination), even if harmful to the general public in the ways you describe--or more serious ways like getting lots of people killed--often do land in extremely lucrative positions sponsored by the groups who their "public" career benefited once they leave public office, whether they leave through voluntary retirement or getting thrown out of office by angry voters.
Well, the use of language is always subject to interpretation to a certain degree, but actually the "explanations needed to understand the data" means that the data would be accompanied by sufficient explanatory material so that what the facts were would be as clear as possible.
It doesn't matter for transparency who is right, what matters is whether the data provided gives you all the facts necessary to determine what "military spending" actually is under either definition. (That is, for the particular distinction you propose, if it tells you how much money was spent on tanks, planes, etc., and how much money was spent supporting Saudi Arabia.) Sure, on a practical level, categories will have to be used, and some people will prefer a different categorization, but ultimately it doesn't matter as long as the information necessary to understand the categorization used is provided, and the details are sufficient to support re-interpreting the data with different preferred categorization schemes.
What the significance of those facts is will always be a matter of public debate, and the government can't provide all the perspectives on that and shouldn't try to. Transparency is providing the facts, so that the informed public debate about the significance of the facts, how they should be changed, etc., can occur.
Quentin Bryce is not the monarch of any of the countries at issue.
Transparency, I would think, requires the government to present as much factual information as possible with the explanations needed to understand the data. Differing interpretations of that data aren't part of transparency, they are part of what transparency enables, and part of what it provides the means for people to evaluate.
And half of those countries don't even share a monarch with Australia.
About 4.6 picoparsecs.
That's an odd expectation: I would expect attention to ads shown during violence as part of the same scene to operate very differently than attention to ads shown in between scenes of violence, in breaks from the main teleplay. In game ads are (pretty much exactly) like product placement in TV or movies, not like normal TV ads.
Actually, given the rules that have been applied in the War on Drugs, even if the landlord didn't know his property was being used to make drugs, it could be seized by law enforcement in a civil forfeiture action.
Actually, that's very close to the special "safe harbor" rule with regard to copyright infringement that was part of the DMCA. No such "safe harbor" rule exists with regard to trademark infringement.
The tabs don't replace the title bar functionality in Chrome. The title bar, including its minize, maximize, and close buttons, is in its normal place, and performs its normal function. It's slightly less tall than on a normal window, though.
None; products and services directed at that end are part of the total output.
Pulling two different numbers out of some bodily orifice and comparing them doesn't make a convincing argument.
You badly misremember your HS civics, or were badly misinformed in that class, then. Bail has historically been discretionary, and dangerousness has almost always been a consideration. It was briefly, in non-capital federal cases, restricted to a guarantee of appearance under the Bail Reform Act of 1966, but considerations of dangerousness for non-capital defendants were restored in the District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970 and, more broadly, in the 1984 revisions to federal bail law.
In assessing risk, one considers not only the magnitude of harm, but also the probability that the harm will be realized. Prosecutors could, instead, argue not that the system is more valuable than human life, but that it is vastly more likely that Child's would succeed in damaging it if released on bail than it is that the average (e.g.) murder suspect would succeed in killing while on bail.
Its also possible that they could argue that the system is used for critical functions related to public safety, so that disruption could directly have consequences for safety and even human life.
The question is irrelevant. Danger to the community is expressly a consideration in bail decisions.
Why do you state that? Are you assuming the network isn't used for any critical operations where disruption might have irreversible consequence?
Speed in a trial often favors the prosecution, since the prosecution gathers inculpatory evidence before it even files charges, while the defense rarely prepares before that point.
Well, the prosecutors work for the City and County of San Francisco, too; certainly, its not that uncommon for people on the business side of an operation to have low confidence in their own IT staff.