The problem is that in cosmology predictions only predict the next prediction, and the data behind most of the hypotheses is worthless edge data.
Actual predictions about the distribution of stuff in space that have had good measurements are continuing to come in mostly wrong; for example, the Earth's radiation belts were recently measured and were not as predicted. A spacecraft recently made it to the solar heliopause, and no surprise but (spoiler alert!) it was not as predicted.
Compare that to real physics being done at lab-scale, where they make predictions and then when they get a chance to observe the real thing, it comes out correct to many, many places, it comes out correct to the sensitivity of the sensor, at the middle ranges of the sensors where they give good data.
Mainstream cosmology like "Big Bang" is based entirely, 100% on data that is by their own theory at the edge of what any sensor can detect and is therefore worthless based on everything we know about sensors. Sensors suck at the edges of what they can detect; all of them. "Gosh the physics at the most distant in time place we can see... looks simpler!" It sounds just like, "Gosh, the trees on the horizon that I can just barely make out... look simpler!" If you believe in the Big Bang, you'd have to believe that it can never be well established as a theory, because you'd never be able to make a reasonable observation. It is as un-provable an idea as Creator Deity. What if photons just get red hair as they age, and they die at 14b years? What if there is some sort of very weak force pulling on them, slowly shifting them red as they age, and we'd need a lab with a beam at least a few hundred light years long to start to detect it? We have no way of knowing what we don't know at that scale! And cosmology is like that almost everywhere you look.
The few people working on real, measurable phenomena reaching Earth with signals in the good ranges of sensors, of course, are often doing good work. The workings of the Sun are able to be predicted much better than, for example, the working of Earth's magnetics, or the shape of the solar system. But the work on the Sun is largely driven by the work being done at the small scale in nuclear physics, so it is no surprise that they have real numbers to work with.
You can smell how rotten the field has gotten when the data doesn't disprove the prediction, instead "there must be a bunch of invisible stuff we can't see because if some invisible stuff did exist, it would make the numbers match the prediction." It is bad enough to fit the theory to the observation, but in cosmology you don't even have to make the fit; you just have to assert that maybe a fudge factor can exist, and give it a name, and now you can just use it in calculations.
Did you sleep all the fucking way through school, or what?
I did make it far enough that I learned that English is an open language, with no authorities or rules; merely Style Guides, for example the one that said class required. Punctuation is eternally disputed and controversial.
Also, your use of capitalization does not follow any of the mainstream style guides, and is quite likely to be controversial in itself. Additionally, your complaint leaves itself not well established as there are both standard and non-standard uses of "it's" in the source.
The SCOTUS has always defined what is copyrightable very broadly. In the example of a phone book, they have always said that the facts aren't copyrightable but the presentation is; the question then come down to, the functional parts are fair use even to the extent that the gray area may or may not reach them in a particular case. This is the same thing they're doing with computer cases. The amount of copying that is necessary for interoperation between devices will be almost always be "fair," regardless of the arguments made about what is or isn't protected IP categorically. They (the SCOTUS) don't really like categorical exclusions. Like software patents; they won't say it would never make sense, but they've yet to approve of a single one that they have examined in detail. Actual programs all appear to be solving problems using the same algorithms as when done on paper using math and humans, so far; but they're not willing to say that it applies to everything. They have the same attitude with copyright. They're not going to make a categorical exclusion for what can not be protected by copyright, when it isn't written into the law, (for example, "all APIs" is not written in the law as uncopyrightable) but they are much more willing to make a categorical determination that some is fair use. APIs by definition are the part needed for interoperation! Who cares if they are copyrightable, they are clearly fair to use to whatever extent they are functional because they don't do anything other than allow inter-operation between different pieces of computer code. And if they were expressive in an exclusive way, they would not even function. Oracle were fools to ever even go there, because if this got to the SCOTUS they would get bench-slapped with a unanimous decision; even if most of their arguments were accepted! They were guaranteed to eventually lose.
In Oregon after 7 years of use, the property line moves! If you argue they don't have access, the court will have to find that they own it, not you. Arguing shared access, that it is an easement, becomes the only way not to lose the shared portion!
As long as when faced with an actual religious hat they allow it, then there is no problem. If they actually tell a person with a religious hat not to enter, then yeah, they're screwed; but not for the hat policy. Only for saying no to the one person.
There is some latitude, if for example the person's religion doesn't require the wearing of the hat, and you know exactly which sect the person is a member of. If it is a stranger, though, that is a dangerous game.
An example that has been litigated is religious jewelry; if it isn't required by the religion, it can be required to remove it, as long as everybody has to remove it. So a government-run swimming pool can have a "no jewelry" requirement, and it still covers cross jewelry because it isn't a required item, and isn't banned based on content.
A private business could ban jewelry with peace signs, based on content, but not ones with religious iconography. But they could ban all jewelry, including religious jewelry, but when somebody comes in the door wearing jewelry and says, "it is the first day of Oggliboogli, the Great One commands that all Good People wear their Oggli pin today," you'll just have to let them wear it, unless you're ready to argue in court that Oggliboogli doesn't count as a religion, or that the sect of Oggliboogli that the person is a member of doesn't require the wearing of Oggli pins. A more real-world example, a Pastafarian may be required to wear the strainer on their head for official photos, for whatever reason, but it is known that they're not required to wear it all the time. A blanket ban on hats could be legally extended to include pasta strainers, though you would certainly have to allow somebody to carry their strainer with them during their visit. But you couldn't specifically ban the wearing of pasta strainers as hats, because that would be clear discrimination based on religion.
* I am not a lawyer, and none of this statement should be considered to be advice of any kind.
I would actually prefer an unarmed person in a traffic patrol car simply scan my plate and have the computer send me a ticket in the mail, with a login code if I want want to go to the website and view what I did wrong, and their description of what I should have done instead.
There is absolutely no reason for a person with a normal vehicle, with unobscured license plates, to need a jumpy guy with a gun to come and stand in a vulnerable position next to their car... for a minor traffic violation. It is complete idiocy.
Not that I'm defending the shooting, but by now everyone knows what the police officer will want when they pull you over. Get your license out of your wallet and registration/insurance out of the glove compartment, and have them ready in your hands while the officer is walking towards your car.
In my State they warn you not to try to prepare any documents until asked, because reaching around inside your car could "create a misunderstanding."
It isn't a type of question that will produce good data anyways, because a lot of people are going to say, basically, "Gosh I don't care about politics, the important news I get is about my grandkids. And I get that on facebook! Yeah, I get my news from facebook, the important stuff anyways."
And if you narrow the question enough, well, the average person can't answer a narrowly defined question within the arbitrary parameters.
I was alive before the internet. I was even already "online" before the internet. But the reality is that before the internet, people got their news from "social media;" their neighbor, the guy at the barber shop, their bartender, the clerk at the neighborhood convenience store, grandpa, uncle joe, etc.
National Enquirer was then what it is now; words and pictures in the checkout line for bored compulsive shoppers. When click-bait was checkout-bait. Didn't you notice it was right next to the checkout line candy, the "mommy, mommy, please, mommy, pleaaaaaase, mommmmmMY" stuff?
There is no money in hiding nudity, the money is in near nudity; the promise or implication of nudity. Implication requires hiding, but the hiding isn't what sells.
Intelligent people don't have to make a show of "leaving," they still have accounts if they have people who they might want to contact who use that as their primary contact, they simply don't make casual use of the service.
I have better things to do with my time. Slashdot use shows that I do have some time to simply fritter away. But I meter it. Most people have some time they fritter frivolously. It seems reasonable to say that intelligent people do not spend all day on facebook, or a similar activity. However, making a show of it serves no purpose.
Like if I point out that I don't watch TV, except for PBS sometimes. It does nothing to say I don't watch TV. There is no positive effect. But saying "except for PBS" joins a public debate over how to manage the resource, and what content has unsatisfied latent demand. Listen carefully to No-TV-Guy; often he's making a political statement, not just bragging.
The phrase is "film at eleven" - you're hearing this on the news, so the news is now".
Sorry kid wizard, you don't get to create the cliches, society as a whole does that. And "news at 11" is a standard cliche. You might as well get over it now, because it was already a cliche when you created your account.
As for the actual real-world usage that the cliche is from, you're wrong there too; the standard cliche is of an advertisement that teases the stories that will be on the news, later. The news isn't "now" in this situation. Right now is evening soaps or sitcoms. News is at 11.
A google search literally turns up transcripts of news teaser spots, mixed in with cliche uses and simple ads for 11' news.
You are free to discriminate against hats in the US, or even against people who you believe to have ever worn the sort of hat you have a problem with.
If it becomes a widespread problem, our society will debate through various forums if we should add hats to the list of protected attributes. Currently, it is considered that choice of hat is purely personal choice, and not rising to the important level of religion, so it is only protected from government interference. The government can regulate if it is allowed to wear hats in a location, or require the wearing of hats in a location, but it cannot regulate the style of hat. (though it can and does regulate the function of hats in certain situations) But a private business is free to discriminate based on content, outside of the things protected. A business can put up a sign, "no hippies" or "no rednecks" and that is totally legal.
As long as facebook isn't discriminating based on membership in a protected group, they can ban/filter/hide/remove whatever videos they want. If they were the government, they would have requirements of being content-neutral. But they're not the government.
See my answer above. If you find an additional way to ask the question, see above, the answer will be the same.
If they sold the car, they gave up prerogatives regarding how it is used. If they didn't sell the car, then it depends on the contract who holds which prerogatives.
I expect it's cheaper and easier for Daesh to find gullible young Muslim men tormented by their homosexuality or addiction to porn than it'd cost to buy a fleet of self-driving Teslas.
Even if somebody gave them the self-driving cars, they would probably still include some suicide bombers for social reasons, and just in case the targets figure out some trick to reset it them to manual mode.
What I find weird is this contemporary idea that "updates make you more secure." Well, if security updates were on a different track than features, there would be a good argument for that. But with new bugs and exploits released on a regular basis, this isn't obvious at all. And people will quickly shout the name of a past exploit as a counter-argument, but all that proves is that trust was misplaced to begin with; it isn't as if when those exploits were announced, people who had been updating constantly hadn't already been exposed for years before they found out. If you were trusting the system, then whatever data you trusted it with might have been compromised.
My opinion is that casual trust of computer resources is misplaced. Change is the enemy, because code without non-security-related changes will have increased security over time. Code that experiences constant code-thrash can easily have security go both up and down over time, and it will, and in unpredictable ways.
I just want a decent FLOSS browser that is committed to not adding or modifying features. And then I'll probably be happy to received timely security updates.
If it is a leased car, then it depends on the terms of the lease.
If the car is owned by the driver, then they are the source of authorization. It would only be a crime if the 3rd party shop didn't have the customer's permission.
No, courts don't laugh when you make invalid arguments. You're supposed to make your arguments in filings first, and if they're not valid you won't be allowed to make them in court. If you start blurting it out in open court anyways, they don't laugh.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that in cosmology predictions only predict the next prediction, and the data behind most of the hypotheses is worthless edge data.
Actual predictions about the distribution of stuff in space that have had good measurements are continuing to come in mostly wrong; for example, the Earth's radiation belts were recently measured and were not as predicted. A spacecraft recently made it to the solar heliopause, and no surprise but (spoiler alert!) it was not as predicted.
Compare that to real physics being done at lab-scale, where they make predictions and then when they get a chance to observe the real thing, it comes out correct to many, many places, it comes out correct to the sensitivity of the sensor, at the middle ranges of the sensors where they give good data.
Mainstream cosmology like "Big Bang" is based entirely, 100% on data that is by their own theory at the edge of what any sensor can detect and is therefore worthless based on everything we know about sensors. Sensors suck at the edges of what they can detect; all of them. "Gosh the physics at the most distant in time place we can see... looks simpler!" It sounds just like, "Gosh, the trees on the horizon that I can just barely make out... look simpler!" If you believe in the Big Bang, you'd have to believe that it can never be well established as a theory, because you'd never be able to make a reasonable observation. It is as un-provable an idea as Creator Deity. What if photons just get red hair as they age, and they die at 14b years? What if there is some sort of very weak force pulling on them, slowly shifting them red as they age, and we'd need a lab with a beam at least a few hundred light years long to start to detect it? We have no way of knowing what we don't know at that scale! And cosmology is like that almost everywhere you look.
The few people working on real, measurable phenomena reaching Earth with signals in the good ranges of sensors, of course, are often doing good work. The workings of the Sun are able to be predicted much better than, for example, the working of Earth's magnetics, or the shape of the solar system. But the work on the Sun is largely driven by the work being done at the small scale in nuclear physics, so it is no surprise that they have real numbers to work with.
You can smell how rotten the field has gotten when the data doesn't disprove the prediction, instead "there must be a bunch of invisible stuff we can't see because if some invisible stuff did exist, it would make the numbers match the prediction." It is bad enough to fit the theory to the observation, but in cosmology you don't even have to make the fit; you just have to assert that maybe a fudge factor can exist, and give it a name, and now you can just use it in calculations.
It's the nature of our reality, and as we understand it, it doesn't make sense. That's pretty awesome!
It may be awesome, but it wasn't the lesson. The lesson was, it isn't intuitive; but it does make sense.
Did you sleep all the fucking way through school, or what?
I did make it far enough that I learned that English is an open language, with no authorities or rules; merely Style Guides, for example the one that said class required. Punctuation is eternally disputed and controversial.
Also, your use of capitalization does not follow any of the mainstream style guides, and is quite likely to be controversial in itself. Additionally, your complaint leaves itself not well established as there are both standard and non-standard uses of "it's" in the source.
Everybody writes a new API; the person publishing the API, and the person using it too.
The SCOTUS has always defined what is copyrightable very broadly. In the example of a phone book, they have always said that the facts aren't copyrightable but the presentation is; the question then come down to, the functional parts are fair use even to the extent that the gray area may or may not reach them in a particular case. This is the same thing they're doing with computer cases. The amount of copying that is necessary for interoperation between devices will be almost always be "fair," regardless of the arguments made about what is or isn't protected IP categorically. They (the SCOTUS) don't really like categorical exclusions. Like software patents; they won't say it would never make sense, but they've yet to approve of a single one that they have examined in detail. Actual programs all appear to be solving problems using the same algorithms as when done on paper using math and humans, so far; but they're not willing to say that it applies to everything. They have the same attitude with copyright. They're not going to make a categorical exclusion for what can not be protected by copyright, when it isn't written into the law, (for example, "all APIs" is not written in the law as uncopyrightable) but they are much more willing to make a categorical determination that some is fair use. APIs by definition are the part needed for interoperation! Who cares if they are copyrightable, they are clearly fair to use to whatever extent they are functional because they don't do anything other than allow inter-operation between different pieces of computer code. And if they were expressive in an exclusive way, they would not even function. Oracle were fools to ever even go there, because if this got to the SCOTUS they would get bench-slapped with a unanimous decision; even if most of their arguments were accepted! They were guaranteed to eventually lose.
In Oregon after 7 years of use, the property line moves! If you argue they don't have access, the court will have to find that they own it, not you. Arguing shared access, that it is an easement, becomes the only way not to lose the shared portion!
Web sites loaded faster in the year 2000, even using Sun's Java browser.
New standards have to be added, but why a lot else?
As long as when faced with an actual religious hat they allow it, then there is no problem. If they actually tell a person with a religious hat not to enter, then yeah, they're screwed; but not for the hat policy. Only for saying no to the one person.
There is some latitude, if for example the person's religion doesn't require the wearing of the hat, and you know exactly which sect the person is a member of. If it is a stranger, though, that is a dangerous game.
An example that has been litigated is religious jewelry; if it isn't required by the religion, it can be required to remove it, as long as everybody has to remove it. So a government-run swimming pool can have a "no jewelry" requirement, and it still covers cross jewelry because it isn't a required item, and isn't banned based on content.
A private business could ban jewelry with peace signs, based on content, but not ones with religious iconography. But they could ban all jewelry, including religious jewelry, but when somebody comes in the door wearing jewelry and says, "it is the first day of Oggliboogli, the Great One commands that all Good People wear their Oggli pin today," you'll just have to let them wear it, unless you're ready to argue in court that Oggliboogli doesn't count as a religion, or that the sect of Oggliboogli that the person is a member of doesn't require the wearing of Oggli pins. A more real-world example, a Pastafarian may be required to wear the strainer on their head for official photos, for whatever reason, but it is known that they're not required to wear it all the time. A blanket ban on hats could be legally extended to include pasta strainers, though you would certainly have to allow somebody to carry their strainer with them during their visit. But you couldn't specifically ban the wearing of pasta strainers as hats, because that would be clear discrimination based on religion.
* I am not a lawyer, and none of this statement should be considered to be advice of any kind.
I would actually prefer an unarmed person in a traffic patrol car simply scan my plate and have the computer send me a ticket in the mail, with a login code if I want want to go to the website and view what I did wrong, and their description of what I should have done instead.
There is absolutely no reason for a person with a normal vehicle, with unobscured license plates, to need a jumpy guy with a gun to come and stand in a vulnerable position next to their car... for a minor traffic violation. It is complete idiocy.
Not that I'm defending the shooting, but by now everyone knows what the police officer will want when they pull you over. Get your license out of your wallet and registration/insurance out of the glove compartment, and have them ready in your hands while the officer is walking towards your car.
In my State they warn you not to try to prepare any documents until asked, because reaching around inside your car could "create a misunderstanding."
It isn't a type of question that will produce good data anyways, because a lot of people are going to say, basically, "Gosh I don't care about politics, the important news I get is about my grandkids. And I get that on facebook! Yeah, I get my news from facebook, the important stuff anyways."
And if you narrow the question enough, well, the average person can't answer a narrowly defined question within the arbitrary parameters.
The first lesson of the Free Press: you need a press if you want to choose what gets pressed on one of the machines.
Freedom of the Press was fought for, and won, by people with presses.
Facebook has a press.
The great thing these days, anybody with a few bucks for a VPS can set up whatever digital press they want! But they do have to spend those few bucks.
I was alive before the internet. I was even already "online" before the internet. But the reality is that before the internet, people got their news from "social media;" their neighbor, the guy at the barber shop, their bartender, the clerk at the neighborhood convenience store, grandpa, uncle joe, etc.
National Enquirer was then what it is now; words and pictures in the checkout line for bored compulsive shoppers. When click-bait was checkout-bait. Didn't you notice it was right next to the checkout line candy, the "mommy, mommy, please, mommy, pleaaaaaase, mommmmmMY" stuff?
There is no money in hiding nudity, the money is in near nudity; the promise or implication of nudity. Implication requires hiding, but the hiding isn't what sells.
Intelligent people don't have to make a show of "leaving," they still have accounts if they have people who they might want to contact who use that as their primary contact, they simply don't make casual use of the service.
I have better things to do with my time. Slashdot use shows that I do have some time to simply fritter away. But I meter it. Most people have some time they fritter frivolously. It seems reasonable to say that intelligent people do not spend all day on facebook, or a similar activity. However, making a show of it serves no purpose.
Like if I point out that I don't watch TV, except for PBS sometimes. It does nothing to say I don't watch TV. There is no positive effect. But saying "except for PBS" joins a public debate over how to manage the resource, and what content has unsatisfied latent demand. Listen carefully to No-TV-Guy; often he's making a political statement, not just bragging.
Companies back biased reporting. News at 11
The phrase is "film at eleven" - you're hearing this on the news, so the news is now".
Sorry kid wizard, you don't get to create the cliches, society as a whole does that. And "news at 11" is a standard cliche. You might as well get over it now, because it was already a cliche when you created your account.
As for the actual real-world usage that the cliche is from, you're wrong there too; the standard cliche is of an advertisement that teases the stories that will be on the news, later. The news isn't "now" in this situation. Right now is evening soaps or sitcoms. News is at 11.
A google search literally turns up transcripts of news teaser spots, mixed in with cliche uses and simple ads for 11' news.
My goodness, a person who can read. On slashdot! `Morning gramps, I guess you remembered your meds today! lol
Don't look out the window, the state of the lawn might distress you.
You are free to discriminate against hats in the US, or even against people who you believe to have ever worn the sort of hat you have a problem with.
If it becomes a widespread problem, our society will debate through various forums if we should add hats to the list of protected attributes. Currently, it is considered that choice of hat is purely personal choice, and not rising to the important level of religion, so it is only protected from government interference. The government can regulate if it is allowed to wear hats in a location, or require the wearing of hats in a location, but it cannot regulate the style of hat. (though it can and does regulate the function of hats in certain situations) But a private business is free to discriminate based on content, outside of the things protected. A business can put up a sign, "no hippies" or "no rednecks" and that is totally legal.
As long as facebook isn't discriminating based on membership in a protected group, they can ban/filter/hide/remove whatever videos they want. If they were the government, they would have requirements of being content-neutral. But they're not the government.
That just shows you don't what know what rights are, or where they come from. You just know you dislike the gubermint, whatever that is.
See my answer above. If you find an additional way to ask the question, see above, the answer will be the same.
If they sold the car, they gave up prerogatives regarding how it is used. If they didn't sell the car, then it depends on the contract who holds which prerogatives.
Fine arts painter, but good guess.
I expect it's cheaper and easier for Daesh to find gullible young Muslim men tormented by their homosexuality or addiction to porn than it'd cost to buy a fleet of self-driving Teslas.
Even if somebody gave them the self-driving cars, they would probably still include some suicide bombers for social reasons, and just in case the targets figure out some trick to reset it them to manual mode.
What I find weird is this contemporary idea that "updates make you more secure." Well, if security updates were on a different track than features, there would be a good argument for that. But with new bugs and exploits released on a regular basis, this isn't obvious at all. And people will quickly shout the name of a past exploit as a counter-argument, but all that proves is that trust was misplaced to begin with; it isn't as if when those exploits were announced, people who had been updating constantly hadn't already been exposed for years before they found out. If you were trusting the system, then whatever data you trusted it with might have been compromised.
My opinion is that casual trust of computer resources is misplaced. Change is the enemy, because code without non-security-related changes will have increased security over time. Code that experiences constant code-thrash can easily have security go both up and down over time, and it will, and in unpredictable ways.
I just want a decent FLOSS browser that is committed to not adding or modifying features. And then I'll probably be happy to received timely security updates.
If it is a leased car, then it depends on the terms of the lease.
If the car is owned by the driver, then they are the source of authorization. It would only be a crime if the 3rd party shop didn't have the customer's permission.
No, courts don't laugh when you make invalid arguments. You're supposed to make your arguments in filings first, and if they're not valid you won't be allowed to make them in court. If you start blurting it out in open court anyways, they don't laugh.