Or the IRA from attacking the UK military. Or Chechen separatist from attacking the Russian military.
For that matter, nuclear weapons didn't stop forces from nuclear-armed superpowers from directly engaging each other in Korea, Vietnam, and a number of other places, either.
So, nuclear weapons haven't stopped: 1. State actors without nuclear weapons from engaging in armed conflict with nuclear armed states on the other side (Argentina v. UK, etc.), 2. Non-state actors without nuclear weapons from fighting engaging in armed conflict against nuclear armed states (IRA v. UK, Al-Qaeda v. US, Chechen separatists v. Russia, etc.), or 3. State actors with nuclear weapons from engaging in direct armed conflict against forces from other nuclear-armed states (U.S. v. USSR in Korea, Vietnam), or 4. State actors with nuclear weapons from engaging in armed conflict against major states without nuclear weapons (Suez 1956, USSR v. Afghanistan 1980, U.S. v. Panama 1990, U.S. v. Iraq 1991, U.S. v. Iraq 2003, etc.)
Nuclear weapons haven't really done much to stop wars. They may have channelled conflict such that mutual aggression between nuclear-armed states is mostly directed into conflict on the territory of third-party client states where, but its not clear that that translates into a reduction in conflict if third-party non-nuclear client states weren't available, or whether it just means a return to direct conflict if third-party non-nuclear proxies aren't available as venues for playing out major-power aggression.
From reading the article, it sounds like the Pauls are more afraid of the government than corporations, which is a mistake IMHO
Well, whats a mistake is failing to realize that corporations are applications of government power. They work to the benefit of certain private individuals, but that's true of most applications of government power.
A judge should check whether someone acts within the limits set by the law. A judge shouldn't be publicly trying to change the laws
In the US system, you don't stop being a citizen when you become a judge.
Clearly, judges should not adjudicate cases based on their preferred policy outcomes in place of the laws in force, but it makes no sense to argue that judges shouldn't publicly advocate for changes to the law.
just like a politician should not try to get involved in a court case to get someone convicted.
A judge publicly advocating for a change in the law isn't analogous to a politician intefering in the operation of a legal case to produce a conviction. Its more the legislative analog of an elected legislator filing a civil lawsuit for damages in a court -- its someone who has an official position in one branch of government relating to another branch of government in exactly the way every citizen is entitled to under the law.
Yeah, too bad Bayer doesn't make any money at all on acetyl salicylic acid because it hasn't been patent protected for many, many years.
Much of what they do make on aspirin is because of an association with the product built on the basis of the the patent they had when it was first introduced.
Certainly, they don't make the kind of money they'd make on an equally broadly useful drug that was also protected by a patent.
As long as by "law geek" you don't mean "someone with any actual legal qualifications" then yes, of course you're right.
"Geeks" often don't have formal qualifications in the area of the geekery (and plenty of people with formal qualifications aren't geeks in the areas of their formal qualifications), what makes them geeks is intense interest and active personal knowledge-seeking, which is largely orthogonal to formal qualifications.
But, that aside, Slashdot has a fair number of regulars who are both law geeks and people with formal qualifications related to law, including attorneys.
A Microsoft engineer? and he doesn't realise that any program on any computer on the internet could pretend to be on android?
Well, either "doesn't realise" or "has a vested interest leading him to first fail to mention and, after that, downplay the possibility". Which is more likely is left as an exercise to the reader.
I must surely be one of the lone dissenting voices with this idea, but - as a long-time iPad owner - I often found myself wishing Apple (or anyone else) also offered a hand-held touch-screen model that was twice as large
Twice the 10" iPad size or twice the 7-8" size of Nook Color/Nook Tablet/Kindle Fire/Nexus 7/rumored iPad Mini/etc.?
The latter -- a 15" 3:4 tablet would be 9"x12", pretty much perfect for letter/A4-formatted content, and right about the limit for what I would consider a tablet useful as a tablet -- I would really like to see.
I've got a 7" device now (a Nook Color I've had for quite a while) as well as a smartphone, and other than replacing those with better devices in similar form factors, I'd much rather pick up a 15" device than a 10" device.
Apple not only DOES check it, they require the developer to cryptographically sign the entire package with keys they provide, and apps won't run unless it matches. There should be nothing in between that could modify code without tripping that up.
If "they" in the first sentence is Apple rather than the developer (and its not clear what the referent fro that pronoun is), then Apple has the keys and could modify the package after it is provided by the developer. Why they would do so is unclear, but it would explain how there could be changes between delivery from developer to Apple and delivery from Apple to end-user.
I agree, unions are awesome. I allows mediocre employees to receive the same compensation as the excellent employees.
I've worked in several places (in the US, even) that were unionized, and none had policies (whether as part of the union contract or otherwise) which forced that. They all required justifications for a wide array of decisions, which might have the effect of levelling salaries with lazy, unmotivated managers -- but those managers probably wouldn't be making salary decisions that would really reflect actual performance if they had a free hand to do so without justification, because if they were doing the work so that they really had a supportable position on who was performing and who wasn't, justifying the decisions wouldn't be any substantial extra work.
Same with the related myth that unions make it impossible to fire poor performers.
Now I'm fearing for Google Reader, which I use all the time. Google hasn't updated it for years, so it's just a matter of time before it is "spring cleaned".
Wasn't there a big to-do a few months back over them integrating its social features with Google+ instead of keeping them standalone?
It's a pity Google's video search now only searches YouTube
Would be if it was true, but its not even close. Google's video search searches the web, not just YouTube.
Yesterday I was searching for a clip of Bond flying Little Nellie. Turns out the best one was on TCM - Bing found it, Google didn't.
Doing a search with terms "James Bond" "Little Nellie" on Bing I get 33 results, 25 of which are from YouTube, and none of which are "from TCM" (by the site -- actual root source of the video, maybe). Same search on Google Videos gets "about 67,400 results", from a wider array (from just the first few pages) of sources than Bing's,
What investors? The European governments that fund CERN?
I would presume the investors that are happy are the ones that invested money in the firms that supplied stuff for CERN to do the research with.
I suppose you could be talking about what commercial companies, and their investors, will eventually be able to do based upon this basic research funded by [European] taxpayers.
That's another, less immediate, set of investor-beneficiaries.
As this mentions the 'slide-to-unlock' function as obvious based on existing functions in earlier handests - could this be used in evidence as part of the arguments around the Nexus ban?
No, its not evidence. It might be precedent (persuasive only, because it is from a foreign jurisdiction, and of limited persuasive value because, in addition to the fact its a foreign jurisdiction, its applying a different patent law than applies in the US.)
More importantly, while the invalidity argument here is one that is, in general form, available in US patent law, I don't think it is one that is available against an issued patent in proceedings before the International Trade Commission. So, I don't think its applicable at all to the proceedings in which the import ban is at issue.
The.gov has very little Constitutional proscribed power to regulate contract law between two individuals.
First, learn the difference between "proscribed" and "prescribed".
Second, it actually has quite a bit of Constitutional power to regulate commercial transactions (whether by contract or otherwise) when the transaction affects international or interstate commerce.
US Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8: "The Congress shall have power [...] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes".
Though, really, the big problem here is with the fact that government hasn't kept pace with technology -- the internet is the modern communication infrastructure serving the same role that, in the 18th Century, was served by "post offices and post roads", which the Constitution didn't just give the federal government the authority to regulate but also the power to establish.
What he meant is that corporations are made out of people
Corporations are made out of people in the exact way that the government is made out of people. Corporations are creatures of law -- and thus, artifacts of government.
However, Verizon is a carrier; the content it carries is obviously not its own speech
Sure, but the content a newspaper publisher -- or TV broadcaster -- publishes isn't "its own speech", its speech of other individuals that the publisher or broadcaster decides to relay. Verizon is attempting to cast the role of a carrier in selecting which content to relay over its pipes as analogous to a publisher or broadcaster.
(At the same time, of course, Verizon will jealously defend all the legal protections from responsibility for content that, as a carrier, it has been granted that are based on the premise that carriers aren't actively selecting content to relay.)
Either you're a dumb data carrier who isn't responsible for the data being carried, or you're an active participant liable for what you transmit. Can't have it both ways, fools.
Sure you can, if you can convince government decision makers to let you, and Verizon and others in the industry are willing to spend lots of money to achieve that goal (because they stand to make lots of money from it if they do.)
Unfortunately, it is upon publication when a study is picked up by the media and exposed to the general public. By the time other scientists try to replicate the experiments and find they're bullshit, it's "too late" in a sense.
Some sort of independent verification needs to be worked into the process before a new study is put out there for general consumption.
The whole point of the scientific method is that putting work out for general consumption is the best avenue for independent verification (to adapt a phrase familiar to this audience, one might think of it as "with many eyes, all non-reproducible results are shallow".)
The fact that reporters covering science in the popular media lack a basic understanding of the scientific method is a reason to change something, but the thing that needs change isn't scientific publishing.
The basis of your cost comparison appears to be comparing the cost of a server farm (and associated support infrastructure like internet connections, etc.) that is fully utilized 100% of the time vs. buying the same flat capacity from a cloud service whose main selling point is the ability to scale with demand.
Which, surprisingly enough, shows the fixed 100% utilized system (which is, of course, what the cloud provider has to have to sell the service in the first place) is less expensive than the cloud service.
The thing is, most real users don't have a bandwidth, CPU, or other resource loads such that a system set up to handle their peak need would be fully utilized 100% of the time.
All that being said though, I think it is a pretty good assumption this will be a paid offering
Given that they announced a pricing structure, its more than just an assumption.
and as such will not have the plug pulled.
That it is a paid-only offering, that it is not a blue-sky project like Wave but something that fits a well-known, established commercial market, are factors that suggest it isn't likely to get the plug pulled quickly (as is the apparently pretty serious pre-open-launch private partner work that went on with it.)
The rest of the sentence is a qualification on specifically what they oppose.
Even if that was true -- and I disagree that that is a reasonable reading -- it wouldn't matter, because even read that way it still opposes teaching actual critical thinking skills, since what it points to is, though phrased in loaded language and with a narrow focus, actually central to the entire concept of critical thinking, which is opposed both to the very concept of "fixed beliefs" and to authority-as-justification.
I said that the rest of the sentence CONTAINS, not that it was a direct quote.
It was a direct quote, whether you said it was or not (which you did actually say, by using quotation marks, since that's what using quotation marks means), and what you omitted was directly relevant to the part you quoted and its role in relation to the rest of the sentence.
Leverage your monopoly in the desktop space to push the APIs you use on your tablets, and then reserve the tablet space for yourself!
Even if Microsoft manages to kill OEM interest in Win8 ARM tablets, they won't be the only player in the tablet space. They'll still be competing with Win8 x86 tablets -- which OEMs aren't rushing to give up on yet -- and, more significantly, they'll still be competing with Android and iOS tablets.
Slashdot Mirror
Or the IRA from attacking the UK military. Or Chechen separatist from attacking the Russian military.
For that matter, nuclear weapons didn't stop forces from nuclear-armed superpowers from directly engaging each other in Korea, Vietnam, and a number of other places, either.
So, nuclear weapons haven't stopped:
1. State actors without nuclear weapons from engaging in armed conflict with nuclear armed states on the other side (Argentina v. UK, etc.),
2. Non-state actors without nuclear weapons from fighting engaging in armed conflict against nuclear armed states (IRA v. UK, Al-Qaeda v. US, Chechen separatists v. Russia, etc.), or
3. State actors with nuclear weapons from engaging in direct armed conflict against forces from other nuclear-armed states (U.S. v. USSR in Korea, Vietnam), or
4. State actors with nuclear weapons from engaging in armed conflict against major states without nuclear weapons (Suez 1956, USSR v. Afghanistan 1980, U.S. v. Panama 1990, U.S. v. Iraq 1991, U.S. v. Iraq 2003, etc.)
Nuclear weapons haven't really done much to stop wars. They may have channelled conflict such that mutual aggression between nuclear-armed states is mostly directed into conflict on the territory of third-party client states where, but its not clear that that translates into a reduction in conflict if third-party non-nuclear client states weren't available, or whether it just means a return to direct conflict if third-party non-nuclear proxies aren't available as venues for playing out major-power aggression.
Well, whats a mistake is failing to realize that corporations are applications of government power. They work to the benefit of certain private individuals, but that's true of most applications of government power.
In the US system, you don't stop being a citizen when you become a judge.
Clearly, judges should not adjudicate cases based on their preferred policy outcomes in place of the laws in force, but it makes no sense to argue that judges shouldn't publicly advocate for changes to the law.
A judge publicly advocating for a change in the law isn't analogous to a politician intefering in the operation of a legal case to produce a conviction. Its more the legislative analog of an elected legislator filing a civil lawsuit for damages in a court -- its someone who has an official position in one branch of government relating to another branch of government in exactly the way every citizen is entitled to under the law.
Much of what they do make on aspirin is because of an association with the product built on the basis of the the patent they had when it was first introduced.
Certainly, they don't make the kind of money they'd make on an equally broadly useful drug that was also protected by a patent.
"Geeks" often don't have formal qualifications in the area of the geekery (and plenty of people with formal qualifications aren't geeks in the areas of their formal qualifications), what makes them geeks is intense interest and active personal knowledge-seeking, which is largely orthogonal to formal qualifications.
But, that aside, Slashdot has a fair number of regulars who are both law geeks and people with formal qualifications related to law, including attorneys.
Well, either "doesn't realise" or "has a vested interest leading him to first fail to mention and, after that, downplay the possibility". Which is more likely is left as an exercise to the reader.
Slashdot has a decent-sized contingent of law geeks.
Twice the 10" iPad size or twice the 7-8" size of Nook Color/Nook Tablet/Kindle Fire/Nexus 7/rumored iPad Mini/etc.?
The latter -- a 15" 3:4 tablet would be 9"x12", pretty much perfect for letter/A4-formatted content, and right about the limit for what I would consider a tablet useful as a tablet -- I would really like to see.
I've got a 7" device now (a Nook Color I've had for quite a while) as well as a smartphone, and other than replacing those with better devices in similar form factors, I'd much rather pick up a 15" device than a 10" device.
If "they" in the first sentence is Apple rather than the developer (and its not clear what the referent fro that pronoun is), then Apple has the keys and could modify the package after it is provided by the developer. Why they would do so is unclear, but it would explain how there could be changes between delivery from developer to Apple and delivery from Apple to end-user.
I've worked in several places (in the US, even) that were unionized, and none had policies (whether as part of the union contract or otherwise) which forced that. They all required justifications for a wide array of decisions, which might have the effect of levelling salaries with lazy, unmotivated managers -- but those managers probably wouldn't be making salary decisions that would really reflect actual performance if they had a free hand to do so without justification, because if they were doing the work so that they really had a supportable position on who was performing and who wasn't, justifying the decisions wouldn't be any substantial extra work.
Same with the related myth that unions make it impossible to fire poor performers.
Even if that were true, wouldn't that be exactly the opposite of the point of trying to send that message?
Wasn't there a big to-do a few months back over them integrating its social features with Google+ instead of keeping them standalone?
Would be if it was true, but its not even close. Google's video search searches the web, not just YouTube.
Doing a search with terms "James Bond" "Little Nellie" on Bing I get 33 results, 25 of which are from YouTube, and none of which are "from TCM" (by the site -- actual root source of the video, maybe). Same search on Google Videos gets "about 67,400 results", from a wider array (from just the first few pages) of sources than Bing's,
I would presume the investors that are happy are the ones that invested money in the firms that supplied stuff for CERN to do the research with.
That's another, less immediate, set of investor-beneficiaries.
No, its not evidence. It might be precedent (persuasive only, because it is from a foreign jurisdiction, and of limited persuasive value because, in addition to the fact its a foreign jurisdiction, its applying a different patent law than applies in the US.)
More importantly, while the invalidity argument here is one that is, in general form, available in US patent law, I don't think it is one that is available against an issued patent in proceedings before the International Trade Commission. So, I don't think its applicable at all to the proceedings in which the import ban is at issue.
First, learn the difference between "proscribed" and "prescribed".
Second, it actually has quite a bit of Constitutional power to regulate commercial transactions (whether by contract or otherwise) when the transaction affects international or interstate commerce.
US Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8: "The Congress shall have power [...] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes".
Though, really, the big problem here is with the fact that government hasn't kept pace with technology -- the internet is the modern communication infrastructure serving the same role that, in the 18th Century, was served by "post offices and post roads", which the Constitution didn't just give the federal government the authority to regulate but also the power to establish.
Corporations are made out of people in the exact way that the government is made out of people. Corporations are creatures of law -- and thus, artifacts of government.
Sure, but the content a newspaper publisher -- or TV broadcaster -- publishes isn't "its own speech", its speech of other individuals that the publisher or broadcaster decides to relay. Verizon is attempting to cast the role of a carrier in selecting which content to relay over its pipes as analogous to a publisher or broadcaster.
(At the same time, of course, Verizon will jealously defend all the legal protections from responsibility for content that, as a carrier, it has been granted that are based on the premise that carriers aren't actively selecting content to relay.)
Sure you can, if you can convince government decision makers to let you, and Verizon and others in the industry are willing to spend lots of money to achieve that goal (because they stand to make lots of money from it if they do.)
The whole point of the scientific method is that putting work out for general consumption is the best avenue for independent verification (to adapt a phrase familiar to this audience, one might think of it as "with many eyes, all non-reproducible results are shallow".)
The fact that reporters covering science in the popular media lack a basic understanding of the scientific method is a reason to change something, but the thing that needs change isn't scientific publishing.
The basis of your cost comparison appears to be comparing the cost of a server farm (and associated support infrastructure like internet connections, etc.) that is fully utilized 100% of the time vs. buying the same flat capacity from a cloud service whose main selling point is the ability to scale with demand.
Which, surprisingly enough, shows the fixed 100% utilized system (which is, of course, what the cloud provider has to have to sell the service in the first place) is less expensive than the cloud service.
The thing is, most real users don't have a bandwidth, CPU, or other resource loads such that a system set up to handle their peak need would be fully utilized 100% of the time.
Given that they announced a pricing structure, its more than just an assumption.
That it is a paid-only offering, that it is not a blue-sky project like Wave but something that fits a well-known, established commercial market, are factors that suggest it isn't likely to get the plug pulled quickly (as is the apparently pretty serious pre-open-launch private partner work that went on with it.)
Even if that was true -- and I disagree that that is a reasonable reading -- it wouldn't matter, because even read that way it still opposes teaching actual critical thinking skills, since what it points to is, though phrased in loaded language and with a narrow focus, actually central to the entire concept of critical thinking, which is opposed both to the very concept of "fixed beliefs" and to authority-as-justification.
It was a direct quote, whether you said it was or not (which you did actually say, by using quotation marks, since that's what using quotation marks means), and what you omitted was directly relevant to the part you quoted and its role in relation to the rest of the sentence.
I understand sarcasm quite well, enough, in fact, to understand the difference between it and just posting irrelevancies with "sarcasm" as an excuse.
Even if Microsoft manages to kill OEM interest in Win8 ARM tablets, they won't be the only player in the tablet space. They'll still be competing with Win8 x86 tablets -- which OEMs aren't rushing to give up on yet -- and, more significantly, they'll still be competing with Android and iOS tablets.