The Slashdot moderating system is broken because it substitutes irrational knee-jerk downmodding for rational arguments.
If the mods are using the powers in "irrational, kneejerk" ways, what makes you think that any other response they would make to the same post would be any more rational?
and they can't do it 100% anonymously and without any consequences, since everything they say is tied to their account, which can be banned if necessary.
Lots of forums (including Slashdot) allow comments to be posted without being tied to a user account.
I think the WTF is that the Ivory Coast, in Africa, is involved in this at all.
Uh, why? On the one hand, poor countries with relatively little current computer/internet penetration have a substantial interest in how these decisions go, since it plays a big role in determine how expensive it will be for them to improve their condition.
And, on the other hand, poor countries are cheaper for interested first-world corporations to bribe.
So, on either side, it shouldn't be all that surprising. E
Most ISO standards are (justly) ignored. Virtually no restaurant in the entire US provides ISO 3103 compliant tea (although they no longer make it with salt water).
ISO 3103 is a standard method of brewing tea for use in sensory tests, which is not the principal purpose for which most restaurants brew tea. While it may be true that most ISO standards are ignored, a case where a standard is not generally applied outside of its area of intended application hardly demonstrates, or even illustrates, that point.
...of the MS efforts. Discrediting the standards process (and, by implication, the standards produced through it) is just as good, or better, for them then getting a spot as a second standard alongside ODF. If the standards bodies aren't credible, than the only "standard" that matters is "what's dominant in the marketplace today", and Microsoft has that locked up right now.
Logo was good, but the language landscape is so vast now there are better languages for almost every task to which logo can be put.
I don't know -- I can't think of anything better for the kind of multi-agent simulations that StarLogo and NetLogo seem to focus on than those are similar Logo derivatives (at least, for an educational environment that doesn't take lots of outside programming experience as a prerequisite). OTOH, one disadvantage Logo has is that there is a lot less support in the form of texts readily available compared to languages that are popular for broader use like Python or Ruby and far fewer teachers (either formal teachers or mentors) that know Logo well-enough to get a student up to speed with it.
Would they HAVE any users if their PageRank was a little lower?
Sure. There are otherwise to get business other than free results in Google indexes. Advertising, word of mouth, etc. All designing for GoogleBot is is a way of spending money on advertising -- only, instead of paying the palce you want the advertising placed, you are paying a web designer, etc., who sells their services based on their claimed ability to get you ranked well in search results.
A start-up business, that may very well be legitimate, and useful for users searching for it, may not get indexed appropriately or may not be displayed as a relevant hit on google's results page, unless it has a lot of text and other 'clutter' that google bots search for.
So, what you are saying is, that a site that is not a well-established business will have to rely on something other than free indexing by Google to get the attention it would have if it were an established. successful business in the field.
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act was designed to fight organized crime, but in recent years more than 100 times as many civil as federal RICO cases have been filed.
This makes no sense. Civil RICO cases filed are federal cases. Is this supposed to mean: 1) That there are 100x as many civil as criminal RICO cases filed, or 2) That there are 100x as many RICO cases filed by private plaintiffs as there are filed by the U.S. Department of Justice.
And does it matter, in either case? RICO laws were designed to fight organized crime by providing civil and criminal remedies, the former available through both public and private rights of action. Civil remedies and a private right of action were created both to provide a means of compensating victims and because organized criminals often sought to avoid criminal prosecution by corrupt influence on government officials and witness intimidation, etc., that made meeting the high criminal standard of proof difficult. So a predominance of civil and/or privately-filed RICO cases is not evidence that the system isn't working as designed.
The problem with making a Star Trek Babies movie is that there is absolutely NO THREAT to any of the characters.
Is this really an issue? I mean, seriously, was there such a threat in the series (any of them) to anyone but anonymous redshirts? None of the major cast were killed off during the series except Tasha Yar. Really, the Trek format isn't about serious threats (from the audience point of view) to major characters, even though there are occasionally such threats from the characters POV.
Yeah, so we know they aren't going to pull (without breaking continuity, which perhaps shouldn't be considered inconceivable in a Star Trek prequel) a TWoK -- if only because reversing it in a subsequent movie has been done before; but then how many times in hundreds of TV episodes and dozens of movies has a major character death (or departure to join the Q, whatever) happened in Trek anyway? The rare occasion when it does happen it gets its power from the fact that the fans "know" its not going to happen, even if the overt situation is one which seriously threatens it.
So, really, I don't think much is lost by making that slightly more inconceivable than normal.
The tool could be a small piece of software installed on Air Force computers or it could be a simple mechanism for taking a screenshot and relaying it to security experts
Uh. Okay. So they have a print screen key that happens to automatically send the screen image to a security review team somewhere rather than saving it locally. Sure, maybe its useful somehow, but calling it a "cyber sidearm" is ludicrous. I mean, I'm sure lots of military sites uses cameras that send images to security personnel, are we going to call them "photographic sidearms" now?
If you can keep up the pace, you can drive by car between any 2 points in the continental US in 72 hours: 60mph * 72h = 4320 miles.
That's a pretty big "if". Averaging 60mph over 72 hours means 3 days without much in the way of sleep. If you're travelling alone, that's not a really good idea.
Which is why I'm wondering why in the post-9/11 environment we don't see more "luxury semi-private-charter" type thingies showing up with smaller planes, where they drive you out to the flight line from your home.
I've actually seen a fair number of ads for new charter services since 9/11, though the market their aimed at is mostly the rich to super-rich; and big businesses often already have their own planes, and if they need more because commercial travel gets harder, they can adjust.
The people who are inconvenienced are the people who aren't super rich individuals or giant businesses.
The upside is it helps break the expectation of freedom and get people used to the idea that every action must be pre-cleared by the government, which reduces the probability of strenuous objection to future intrusive policies.
Admittedly, though, that's only an "upside" from a certain perspective.
Let us assume for a moment that Microsoft-- er, I mean IP Innovation LLC wins this case. And let us assume that Red Hat and other Linux distributors are then forced to pay a patent royalty for every copy of the operating system that they sell.
If they lost, they'd more likely be orderd to pay damages for every copy they distribute, and prohibited from further distribution without a license. If such a license was granted at all, it would no doubt also require payment for each copy distributed, and it would stipulate that no software using the license could be distributed under terms that allowed the end-user to redistribute it without a new license.
IOW, it would effectively prohibit free distribution of any software covered by the suit.
They could, but there is a significant risk that the vendor of the infringing product (i.e. e.g. Microsoft) steps in and takes care of their defense.
OTOH, at that point, the vendor also gets added as a defendant. Presumably, the reason Microsoft is pushing patent trolls to do this rather than attacking with the supposed MS-owned IP directly is because Microsoft doesn't want to take the risk of adverse rulings affecting MS directly. So why would they jump in to defend the patent troll, since that would put them in exactly the position that they are trying to avoid by using an indirect attack in the first place?
The interesting question is why MS is doing this by proxy, i.e., using straw men they encourage and abet.
I see a few possibilities:
1. Because Microsoft doesn't want to end up like SCO if it goes badly?
2. (A weaker form of 1) Because Microsoft is risk-averse, but smaller companies are more willing to take a risk for a potential big payoff, so Microsoft does better paying for smaller companies to take the risk than taking them itself.
3. Because Microsoft doesn't, contrary to their claims, actually have any IP of any kind that they even have a remotely colorable infringement claim against major Linux distributors for, and so doesn't even have half a leg to stand on doing it directly.
IANAL.. The thing is, the power to regulate gambling is a State right.
There is no such thing as a "state right". Governments, including state governments, have <i>powers</i>. People have <i>rights</i>. Anyhow, this isn't about the power to regulate gambling, but the power to enter into commitments regarding equal treatment of foreign trade.
<blockquote>Thus, Nevada allows it.
If the Federal Gov't is even allowed to legislate it (i.e. sign a treaty about it) is to me, questionable </blockquote>
The federal power to regulate interstate and international commerce, including engaging in treaty arrangements governing the terms of foreign trade in any industry, is explicit in Article I.
The issue with the WTO arises out of the federal government exercising the commerce power to restrict foreign trade in a way inconsistent with another exercise of the commerce power to enter into a treaty arrangement making certain commitments about foreign trade.
Editing is down 20% and new account creation is down 30%. After six years of rapid growth and more than 2 million articles, is Wikipedia's development now past its peak?
Yeah, its been heavily exposed, especially over the last couple years, in even the mainstream media. Most people that would be interested in joining have joined, and the low-hanging fruit as far as obvious articles have been written, editted, and polished up to the point where improvements are hard.
The rate of growth has slowed. Shouldn't be a surprise. Most things that succeed at all take off with what looks, at first, like an exponential growth curve but turns out to be more like a logistic curve.
Re:Good luck with positional evaluation
on
Cracking Go
·
· Score: 1
As simple as it can seem on the surface I think modeling Ing or Super Ko rules in software would cause major headaches.
The major division in rules to prevent repetition is between the simple ko rule and the super ko rule: the simple ko rule (typically part of the Japanese ruleset) prevents repetition of the last previous board; while the super ko rule (typically part of Chinese derived rulesets) prevents repetition of any previous board. The super ko rule is further differentiated into situational super ko (includes whose turn it is) and positional super ko (ignores whose turn it is). The simple ko rule (contrary to the name) generally includes additional rules to handle other undesirable repetitions (e.g. long cycles can lead to no result where the game must be replayed).
Assuming this is correct, it seems like either the situational or positional forms of super ko would be trivial to implement in software.
Based on what, exactly? Something particular in TFA that you can point to that is problematic with the FAA? TFA indicates that the manufacturers have been working with both the FAA and the NHTSA (the latter of which may be a bigger barrier.)
I'm gonna need to see a working prototype before I think anyone has achieved VTOL on unleaded fuel and in a package which can both safely fly and drive.
Um, its a folding-wing light propellor driven aircraft with a road drivetrain to allow you to drive to a runway from your home on regular roads, convert to an aircraft, and take-off and fly to your destination runway, land, fold wings, and drive on the road to your final destination. Its not VTOL. Its not a jet. Its not time machine. Its not lots of things, and neither TFA nor even TFS claimed it was any of those things. Its just a really light plane with folding wings, and a drivetrain for the road.
If you are going to be skeptical of a claim, fine, but be skeptical of something actually claimed in either TFA or at least TFS.
Slashdot Mirror
If the mods are using the powers in "irrational, kneejerk" ways, what makes you think that any other response they would make to the same post would be any more rational?
Lots of forums (including Slashdot) allow comments to be posted without being tied to a user account.
Uh, why? On the one hand, poor countries with relatively little current computer/internet penetration have a substantial interest in how these decisions go, since it plays a big role in determine how expensive it will be for them to improve their condition.
And, on the other hand, poor countries are cheaper for interested first-world corporations to bribe.
So, on either side, it shouldn't be all that surprising.
E
ISO 3103 is a standard method of brewing tea for use in sensory tests, which is not the principal purpose for which most restaurants brew tea. While it may be true that most ISO standards are ignored, a case where a standard is not generally applied outside of its area of intended application hardly demonstrates, or even illustrates, that point.
...of the MS efforts. Discrediting the standards process (and, by implication, the standards produced through it) is just as good, or better, for them then getting a spot as a second standard alongside ODF. If the standards bodies aren't credible, than the only "standard" that matters is "what's dominant in the marketplace today", and Microsoft has that locked up right now.
I don't know -- I can't think of anything better for the kind of multi-agent simulations that StarLogo and NetLogo seem to focus on than those are similar Logo derivatives (at least, for an educational environment that doesn't take lots of outside programming experience as a prerequisite). OTOH, one disadvantage Logo has is that there is a lot less support in the form of texts readily available compared to languages that are popular for broader use like Python or Ruby and far fewer teachers (either formal teachers or mentors) that know Logo well-enough to get a student up to speed with it.
So, what you are saying is, that a site that is not a well-established business will have to rely on something other than free indexing by Google to get the attention it would have if it were an established. successful business in the field.
Certainly, this is true. And why shouldn't it be?
This makes no sense. Civil RICO cases filed are federal cases. Is this supposed to mean:
1) That there are 100x as many civil as criminal RICO cases filed, or
2) That there are 100x as many RICO cases filed by private plaintiffs as there are filed by the U.S. Department of Justice.
And does it matter, in either case? RICO laws were designed to fight organized crime by providing civil and criminal remedies, the former available through both public and private rights of action. Civil remedies and a private right of action were created both to provide a means of compensating victims and because organized criminals often sought to avoid criminal prosecution by corrupt influence on government officials and witness intimidation, etc., that made meeting the high criminal standard of proof difficult. So a predominance of civil and/or privately-filed RICO cases is not evidence that the system isn't working as designed.
Well, assuming that being more concise and easier to read isn't "superior", I'd agree.
Is this really an issue? I mean, seriously, was there such a threat in the series (any of them) to anyone but anonymous redshirts? None of the major cast were killed off during the series except Tasha Yar. Really, the Trek format isn't about serious threats (from the audience point of view) to major characters, even though there are occasionally such threats from the characters POV.
Yeah, so we know they aren't going to pull (without breaking continuity, which perhaps shouldn't be considered inconceivable in a Star Trek prequel) a TWoK -- if only because reversing it in a subsequent movie has been done before; but then how many times in hundreds of TV episodes and dozens of movies has a major character death (or departure to join the Q, whatever) happened in Trek anyway? The rare occasion when it does happen it gets its power from the fact that the fans "know" its not going to happen, even if the overt situation is one which seriously threatens it.
So, really, I don't think much is lost by making that slightly more inconceivable than normal.
Its not that they've forgotten, its that they are (and have been since their creation) dedicate to changing that, bit by bit.
Uh. Okay. So they have a print screen key that happens to automatically send the screen image to a security review team somewhere rather than saving it locally. Sure, maybe its useful somehow, but calling it a "cyber sidearm" is ludicrous. I mean, I'm sure lots of military sites uses cameras that send images to security personnel, are we going to call them "photographic sidearms" now?
That's a pretty big "if". Averaging 60mph over 72 hours means 3 days without much in the way of sleep. If you're travelling alone, that's not a really good idea.
I've actually seen a fair number of ads for new charter services since 9/11, though the market their aimed at is mostly the rich to super-rich; and big businesses often already have their own planes, and if they need more because commercial travel gets harder, they can adjust.
The people who are inconvenienced are the people who aren't super rich individuals or giant businesses.
The upside is it helps break the expectation of freedom and get people used to the idea that every action must be pre-cleared by the government, which reduces the probability of strenuous objection to future intrusive policies.
Admittedly, though, that's only an "upside" from a certain perspective.
And the other 150 WTO members that would be making claims? Including China?
How much has the US spent failing to "bring democracy" to Iraq?
If they lost, they'd more likely be orderd to pay damages for every copy they distribute, and prohibited from further distribution without a license. If such a license was granted at all, it would no doubt also require payment for each copy distributed, and it would stipulate that no software using the license could be distributed under terms that allowed the end-user to redistribute it without a new license.
IOW, it would effectively prohibit free distribution of any software covered by the suit.
OTOH, at that point, the vendor also gets added as a defendant. Presumably, the reason Microsoft is pushing patent trolls to do this rather than attacking with the supposed MS-owned IP directly is because Microsoft doesn't want to take the risk of adverse rulings affecting MS directly. So why would they jump in to defend the patent troll, since that would put them in exactly the position that they are trying to avoid by using an indirect attack in the first place?
I see a few possibilities:
1. Because Microsoft doesn't want to end up like SCO if it goes badly?
2. (A weaker form of 1) Because Microsoft is risk-averse, but smaller companies are more willing to take a risk for a potential big payoff, so Microsoft does better paying for smaller companies to take the risk than taking them itself.
3. Because Microsoft doesn't, contrary to their claims, actually have any IP of any kind that they even have a remotely colorable infringement claim against major Linux distributors for, and so doesn't even have half a leg to stand on doing it directly.
There is no such thing as a "state right". Governments, including state governments, have <i>powers</i>. People have <i>rights</i>. Anyhow, this isn't about the power to regulate gambling, but the power to enter into commitments regarding equal treatment of foreign trade.
<blockquote>Thus, Nevada allows it.
If the Federal Gov't is even allowed to legislate it (i.e. sign a treaty about it) is to me, questionable
</blockquote>
The federal power to regulate interstate and international commerce, including engaging in treaty arrangements governing the terms of foreign trade in any industry, is explicit in Article I.
The issue with the WTO arises out of the federal government exercising the commerce power to restrict foreign trade in a way inconsistent with another exercise of the commerce power to enter into a treaty arrangement making certain commitments about foreign trade.
Yeah, its been heavily exposed, especially over the last couple years, in even the mainstream media. Most people that would be interested in joining have joined, and the low-hanging fruit as far as obvious articles have been written, editted, and polished up to the point where improvements are hard.
The rate of growth has slowed. Shouldn't be a surprise. Most things that succeed at all take off with what looks, at first, like an exponential growth curve but turns out to be more like a logistic curve.
From Wikipedia:
Assuming this is correct, it seems like either the situational or positional forms of super ko would be trivial to implement in software.
Isn't it rather key to Go that, in fact, stones are regularly removed from the board once they are played?
Based on what, exactly? Something particular in TFA that you can point to that is problematic with the FAA? TFA indicates that the manufacturers have been working with both the FAA and the NHTSA (the latter of which may be a bigger barrier.)
Um, its a folding-wing light propellor driven aircraft with a road drivetrain to allow you to drive to a runway from your home on regular roads, convert to an aircraft, and take-off and fly to your destination runway, land, fold wings, and drive on the road to your final destination. Its not VTOL. Its not a jet. Its not time machine. Its not lots of things, and neither TFA nor even TFS claimed it was any of those things. Its just a really light plane with folding wings, and a drivetrain for the road.
If you are going to be skeptical of a claim, fine, but be skeptical of something actually claimed in either TFA or at least TFS.