OK, quick question. Why is this post moderated Insightful (and every post critical of it either Troll or Flamebait)? That is, do that many people on Slashdot seriously believe that Antigua and Barbuda is going to be added to the Axis of Evil now? If not, then why is this being moderated up?
Not really. Patent trolls don't make money through lawsuits, but by threatening lawsuits. Companies then go and pay licensing fees that they know aren't legal because the fees are cheaper than fighting in court. If it cost less money to fight a bogus patent, more of them would be challenged and invalidated.
The red cross is not an ordinary trademark symbol. Usage of the red cross emblem is governed under the first and second Geneva Conventions.
If I am reading it right, a red cross may have one of two distinct meanings. It may either be used as a sign that a person/building/ship is protected by the Geneva Conventions, or may be used as a logo by the Red Cross. Any other use is forbidden.
Also, there is the reason that trademark laws were created, for consumer protection. Trademarks exists so that when a consumer sees a trademark, they will associate the product they see it on with whatever organization they associate the trademark with. In the case of a red cross, the vast majority of Americans associate it with the International Red Cross, not Johnson & Johnson. Use of a red cross by Johnson & Johnson would likely confuse people into thinking the product was connected with the Red Cross, while usage by the Red Cross would not mislead people into thinking it connected with Johnson & Johnson. Because most consumers would associate the red cross this way, Johnson & Johnson's use of the trademark is what would deceive consumers, completely defeating the point of trademark law.
Though they don't say why, it is clear from the logs that some revisions were deleted. It could be for the reason given, because Wikipedia will generally remove personal information on request. Relevant page logs:
What really happened was a committee hearing by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The witnesses were either people against child pornography (Miss America, the Director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, and the president of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children) or experts ("experts" ?) on technology (the Assistant Superintendent for Technology and Human Resources of the Virginia Department of Education and the General Counsel/Corporate Secretary, of the Go Daddy Group, Inc).
direct the Federal Communications Commission to identify industry practices that can limit the transmission of child pornography;
require schools that receive E-Rate funds to provide age-appropriate education to their students regarding online behavior, social networking and cyberbullying;
require the Federal Trade Commission to form a working group to identify blocking and filtering technologies in use and identify, what, if anything could be done to improve the process and better enable parents to proactively protect their children online; and
add the selling or purchasing of children's personal information in connection with a criminal offense in the criminal code as an indictable offense.
For those who believe Stevens' lack of knowledge will only cause harm, the day before this hearing he cosponsored the Community Broadband Act of 2007.
Really? Can you make a tomato that contains fish genes by traditional agriculture?
Yes. Native Americans used to plant some seeds inside of a buried fish because they found that it helps the plant grow. I believe it is possible, though unlikely, that fish DNA could find its way into the fertilized seed.
I feel that this shows two separate problems. The first is how easy it is to fool the regulators and get a license. The second is just how many things are over-regulated, and done so in a completely arbitrary and irrational manner. Why is a license needed to get nearly harmless amounts of nuclear material when found in industrial equipment while, as David Hahn (the Radioactive Boy Scout) showed, the same stuff can be found in common household items?
That may be true for high schools, where there might be a fair number of nerds able, and willing, to help out. But in elementary schools (grades 1 through 4), any computer-expert-to-be would still be just learning the basics.
[A multiplication table] is nowhere to be seen on that site. Homepage -> Worksheets -> Small Times Table Charts
It took me maybe ten seconds to find, though it is a rather poor multiplication table. The page is just six copies of the same 0 through 9 table, probably made to print out and give to a class.
That depends on what you mean by hurt. Although I doubt that anybody is physically hurt by receiving spam, most people are hurt in terms of lost time or resources.
Most spam is sent by zombified computers. The people who use those computers probably don't like the fact that their computer or internet connection is slowed down by a spambot, even those who don't know the cause. The companies that provide access to the internet don't like having to use resources to allow significant amounts of traffic that will likely go completely unused, nor do they like receiving complaints from some of their customers who don't want to receive spam. Company email addresses receiving spam waste a large number of paid work hours each year having spam deleting from their inboxes. I would say that that is enough to justify stopping spam.
And for those people who want to receive spam there is still the ability to opt-in.
Wow, I never expected somebody that I knew to get on Slashdot. Bruce Bukiet is my Calculus II professor at NJIT.
He mentioned this before a few times, including today after that article made it to the most popular spot on Yahoo! News. This is more of a hobby for him than an official project.
From what he has said in the past about the model, it tends to overestimate the Yankees, among other reasons, because they often buy good players at the end of their prime. Thus the players won't play as well as they had in the past. He hasn't used it to make any bets. For the model, coming within a game or two of the actual results is considered a good prediction.
As some people above said, the model isn't intended to be extremely accurate, and is frequently off by a significant amount. The interviews he does are more to get people interested in math, and to see how it has real use, rather than to try and show off. He used to go into more details in the past, but doesn't now because they tend to confuse the interviewer, and don't make it into the final article.
In Firefox 1.5.0.11 I got the message The image "http://www.danamania.com/temp/dontloadthis.jpg" cannot be displayed, because it contains errors. Going to View Source gives a bunch of random stuff, with the words "Ducky" and "Adobe".
However, I could right-click it and save it to My Pictures. MS paint can't open it. Windows and Fax Viewer could view it, but not at full size, and doing anything takes several seconds.
However, they both contain the same genetic codes, so they are, indeed, identical twins. They just have 1.5 times the genetic code of anyone else, with cells in their body randomly containing one code or another.
I don't think so. What I got out of the article was that one egg was fertilized by two different sperm (A and B). When the egg split into two separate embryos, one of them had the DNA of sperm A, while the other had some DNA from A and some from B.
Wikipedia has some information on it. Specifically, Lydia Fairchild, the woman who almost had her children taken away, along with that article's sources. As well as a part of the article on intersexuality.
A phonorecord is any physical medium used to distribute sound, but not audio-visual. It includes music CDs, cassettes, vinyl records, the old cylinders that Edison used, the clay pots used to record sound on an episode of Mythbusters/CSI, and anything else with exclusively sound information stored on it.
The data is not sold with accompanying user name or information, but merely as a numerical user value. However, it is still theoretically possible to tie this information to a specific ISP account
only if the ISP leaks something, like a specific identifier (MAC?) or a cookie.
A URL can have information in it that either identifies you, or can help narrow it down.
For example, a poor quality website for looking up your IP address might return it in the URL. If you look up your address, the URL would have it. If you edit Wikipedia anonymously, your user talk page, which you might edit frequently, has your IP address in it. If you go to several sites with a narrow userbase, for example a college or business's website, they could try to get all of the IPs that visit those sites and find which ones are common between them. Also, if you have a personal website, with stuff that would only be of interest to you, visiting there several times could make it easy to guess who you are in real life.
In the real world, holding on to useless stuff costs a nontrivial amount of money. Everything needs space, which either costs money or takes away from your living space, and it needs to be organized, which gets significantly harder with more stuff. With computers, though, there is a very low cost of archiving things after they are deemed no longer useful.
I personally archive almost every file that goes on my computer. Although the odds are that any one file in that archive will wind up being useless, every now and then I find that I need to go back and use something that I had considered to be worthless. Sometimes getting back one file this way saves more time and money than what making the entire archive took.
Slashdot Mirror
The files are now up at Wikileaks.
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C_1996-2009
Pressed the wrong button when moderating, oops. Undoing now, sorry.
OK, quick question. Why is this post moderated Insightful (and every post critical of it either Troll or Flamebait)? That is, do that many people on Slashdot seriously believe that Antigua and Barbuda is going to be added to the Axis of Evil now? If not, then why is this being moderated up?
Not really. Patent trolls don't make money through lawsuits, but by threatening lawsuits. Companies then go and pay licensing fees that they know aren't legal because the fees are cheaper than fighting in court. If it cost less money to fight a bogus patent, more of them would be challenged and invalidated.
The red cross is not an ordinary trademark symbol. Usage of the red cross emblem is governed under the first and second Geneva Conventions.
If I am reading it right, a red cross may have one of two distinct meanings. It may either be used as a sign that a person/building/ship is protected by the Geneva Conventions, or may be used as a logo by the Red Cross. Any other use is forbidden.
Also, there is the reason that trademark laws were created, for consumer protection. Trademarks exists so that when a consumer sees a trademark, they will associate the product they see it on with whatever organization they associate the trademark with. In the case of a red cross, the vast majority of Americans associate it with the International Red Cross, not Johnson & Johnson. Use of a red cross by Johnson & Johnson would likely confuse people into thinking the product was connected with the Red Cross, while usage by the Red Cross would not mislead people into thinking it connected with Johnson & Johnson. Because most consumers would associate the red cross this way, Johnson & Johnson's use of the trademark is what would deceive consumers, completely defeating the point of trademark law.
What really happened was a committee hearing by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The witnesses were either people against child pornography (Miss America, the Director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, and the president of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children) or experts ("experts" ?) on technology (the Assistant Superintendent for Technology and Human Resources of the Virginia Department of Education and the General Counsel/Corporate Secretary, of the Go Daddy Group, Inc).
After the hearing, they decided to draft a measure to:
For those who believe Stevens' lack of knowledge will only cause harm, the day before this hearing he cosponsored the Community Broadband Act of 2007.
I feel that this shows two separate problems. The first is how easy it is to fool the regulators and get a license. The second is just how many things are over-regulated, and done so in a completely arbitrary and irrational manner. Why is a license needed to get nearly harmless amounts of nuclear material when found in industrial equipment while, as David Hahn (the Radioactive Boy Scout) showed, the same stuff can be found in common household items?
That may be true for high schools, where there might be a fair number of nerds able, and willing, to help out. But in elementary schools (grades 1 through 4), any computer-expert-to-be would still be just learning the basics.
It took me maybe ten seconds to find, though it is a rather poor multiplication table. The page is just six copies of the same 0 through 9 table, probably made to print out and give to a class.
Most spam is sent by zombified computers. The people who use those computers probably don't like the fact that their computer or internet connection is slowed down by a spambot, even those who don't know the cause. The companies that provide access to the internet don't like having to use resources to allow significant amounts of traffic that will likely go completely unused, nor do they like receiving complaints from some of their customers who don't want to receive spam. Company email addresses receiving spam waste a large number of paid work hours each year having spam deleting from their inboxes. I would say that that is enough to justify stopping spam.
And for those people who want to receive spam there is still the ability to opt-in.
Wow, I never expected somebody that I knew to get on Slashdot. Bruce Bukiet is my Calculus II professor at NJIT.
He mentioned this before a few times, including today after that article made it to the most popular spot on Yahoo! News. This is more of a hobby for him than an official project.
From what he has said in the past about the model, it tends to overestimate the Yankees, among other reasons, because they often buy good players at the end of their prime. Thus the players won't play as well as they had in the past. He hasn't used it to make any bets. For the model, coming within a game or two of the actual results is considered a good prediction.
As some people above said, the model isn't intended to be extremely accurate, and is frequently off by a significant amount. The interviews he does are more to get people interested in math, and to see how it has real use, rather than to try and show off. He used to go into more details in the past, but doesn't now because they tend to confuse the interviewer, and don't make it into the final article.
Some pages of his own about the project are:http://m.njit.edu/~bukiet/baseball/baseball.html
http://www.egrandslam.com/
In Firefox 1.5.0.11 I got the message The image "http://www.danamania.com/temp/dontloadthis.jpg" cannot be displayed, because it contains errors. Going to View Source gives a bunch of random stuff, with the words "Ducky" and "Adobe".
However, I could right-click it and save it to My Pictures. MS paint can't open it. Windows and Fax Viewer could view it, but not at full size, and doing anything takes several seconds.
Wikipedia has some information on it. Specifically, Lydia Fairchild, the woman who almost had her children taken away, along with that article's sources. As well as a part of the article on intersexuality.
I found it here: http://digg.com/politics/Voters_Appalled_Over_Forc ed_Amendment_to_Marijuana_Law_Passed_by_the_People
A URL can have information in it that either identifies you, or can help narrow it down.
For example, a poor quality website for looking up your IP address might return it in the URL. If you look up your address, the URL would have it. If you edit Wikipedia anonymously, your user talk page, which you might edit frequently, has your IP address in it. If you go to several sites with a narrow userbase, for example a college or business's website, they could try to get all of the IPs that visit those sites and find which ones are common between them. Also, if you have a personal website, with stuff that would only be of interest to you, visiting there several times could make it easy to guess who you are in real life.
In the real world, holding on to useless stuff costs a nontrivial amount of money. Everything needs space, which either costs money or takes away from your living space, and it needs to be organized, which gets significantly harder with more stuff. With computers, though, there is a very low cost of archiving things after they are deemed no longer useful.
I personally archive almost every file that goes on my computer. Although the odds are that any one file in that archive will wind up being useless, every now and then I find that I need to go back and use something that I had considered to be worthless. Sometimes getting back one file this way saves more time and money than what making the entire archive took.
Wow. For a standardized form, parent and a post above vary a lot. Fourteen options are either checked here and not there, or vice versa.
What ISP did you use?