Extrapolated up and used as the basis for a report from the BSA? If you were a scientist of any field that included the use of statistical analysis and you published a report based on a sample size of five thousands of one percent of the likely total pool, would you expect your analysis to be taken seriously?
Most likely, yes. I'm not a professional statistician, but based on what I can find online, a sample size of 22,500 out of a population of 2 billion should give you a margin of error of about 1%.
You can certainly argue about the quality of the questions and the accuracy of the responses, but there's nothing wrong with the sample size.
Posting "I think they would do _" can never be libel, as it is an opinion that can't be proven.
Just to clarify, starting a sentence with "I think" does not automatically make something an opinion that is immune to a libel lawsuit. "I think FlightSimLabs is a sleazy company that isn't above hiding some malware in their product" would most likely be considered an opinion. "I think John Smith embezzled $10 million from his employer" is not an opinion.
We don't legally punish the person whose house get's broken into by a burglar for not securing their house properly.
>
That's because I'm not generally storing my stuff in my neighbor's house. However if I loan my lawnmower to my neighbor, and it gets stolen because he left his garage door open overnight, he is generally responsible civilly for my loss.
Sorry to be a wet blanket here, but since when do you own anything on someone else's computer?
That doesn't matter. The reason the neighbor would be liable for your loss isn't just because something that you own was stolen. The reason is that their actions, or lack thereof, caused you financial harm.
Which is why the recently enacted "Right to Try" legislation is so important. It legalizes patients obtaining experimental drugs and treatments that are in clinical trial but still far from approval. Before that, you couldn't get such a treatment (in the US) for any price, and any medical practitioner who sold or gave it to you would be a criminal (and also almost certain to lose their certs to practice medicine).
You knowing what else is so important? Facts. Your last sentence is a complete lie; even without the new legislation, if a terminally ill patient does not qualify for an experimental treatment, they can send a request to the FDA's Expanded Access Program. The FDA approves over 99% of such requests.
If it's impossible to know what specific number of carriers are needed, then you cannot possibly know it has to be four or more...
Of course you can. There are some number of employees in my office building. I probably couldn't guess the exact number, or even come within 50, but I know that it's a lot more than four.
I don't think there's any magical number that I'm smart enough to glean.
This is a technically true statement. It's pretty much impossible to know what specific number of carriers would magically create the optimal amount of competition.
Whatever the optimal number or range might be, though, it sure as hell isn't less than four.
Because reductions in output are generally going to be proportional to the number of people. If there's an increase in the efficiency of automobile engines, HVAC units, or light bulbs, the total reduction in CO2 emissions will be greater for the country where 500 million people use the more efficient versions than for the country where 100 million people use the more efficient versions.
Of course, CO2 isn't exactly proportional to population, and the current levels of technology are different for different countries, and there are plenty of other factors. You can't judge situations entirely by the per capita numbers, but you didn't make a reasoned counterargument, you simply accused the other person of lying by omitting part of their statement.
Tesla made a new and better battery and manages to sell a nice set of cars... but in the vehicle itself is nothing really innovative.+
Spare me your attempt to seem unimpressed. "Nothing really innovative"? You might have an argument if anyone else was making more innovative vehicles. Nobody has moved the auto industry more towards electrification than Tesla and to claim their cars aren't innovative is preposterous even if you don't like them.
As much of a complete idiot as he is, there is a tiny piece of a point there. Tesla has some nice automobile features, but several other manufacturers have many, if not all, of the same features. It's ridiculous to say that Tesla is "decades behind Europe", but I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that Tesla's most important contribution by far has been improvements to the battery.
I suspect the ruling will be that general game mechanics are not protected by copyright law.
I don't think there's any suspicion at all. Board game mechanics cannot be protected by copyright, so the same standard will be applied to computer games as well.
I have no idea what the real law is but all of these games are almost exactly copying the concept from the movie Battle Royal. If anybody has a copyright claim seems like would be the people who made the movie .
Or the WWE (formerly known as WWF), from the 1980s. Or tournament melees from the 1400s.
As the standard of living in the 3rd-world sweatshops increase - which their laborers demand - their wages will also increase, then it will once again be competitive for robot manufacturing to return to the US. Another example of how all boats rise from capitalism.
Manufacturing in the US will be competitive because it will be mostly automated. Wages don't matter much when you don't have to pay them.
Slashdot Mirror
It's much closer to 1/74000 if you start with the correct duration of a current day.
So, conversely, does that mean you agree that Budweiser, which is owned by InBev, a European company, can sell alcohol to 18 year olds in America?
Of course not. American laws always apply everywhere in the world, but laws from other countries just interfere with American Freedom (TM).
Fuck off fanboy. ReiserFS jokes are still funny. You were probably one of the stupid fucking morons who defended him right up until the end.
Whoosh.
They could use ReiserFS - that's not being used.
Oh, for fuck's sake, just let that joke die.
Extrapolated up and used as the basis for a report from the BSA? If you were a scientist of any field that included the use of statistical analysis and you published a report based on a sample size of five thousands of one percent of the likely total pool, would you expect your analysis to be taken seriously?
Most likely, yes. I'm not a professional statistician, but based on what I can find online, a sample size of 22,500 out of a population of 2 billion should give you a margin of error of about 1%.
You can certainly argue about the quality of the questions and the accuracy of the responses, but there's nothing wrong with the sample size.
Yup. Fox New actually apologized for their error on this one.
They weren't sorry they did it, they were just sorry they got caught.
Posting "I think they would do _" can never be libel, as it is an opinion that can't be proven.
Just to clarify, starting a sentence with "I think" does not automatically make something an opinion that is immune to a libel lawsuit. "I think FlightSimLabs is a sleazy company that isn't above hiding some malware in their product" would most likely be considered an opinion. "I think John Smith embezzled $10 million from his employer" is not an opinion.
We don't legally punish the person whose house get's broken into by a burglar for not securing their house properly.
> That's because I'm not generally storing my stuff in my neighbor's house. However if I loan my lawnmower to my neighbor, and it gets stolen because he left his garage door open overnight, he is generally responsible civilly for my loss.
Sorry to be a wet blanket here, but since when do you own anything on someone else's computer?
That doesn't matter. The reason the neighbor would be liable for your loss isn't just because something that you own was stolen. The reason is that their actions, or lack thereof, caused you financial harm.
Just to make my view clear, in case it wasn't already, I completely agree with everything you just said.
Which is why the recently enacted "Right to Try" legislation is so important. It legalizes patients obtaining experimental drugs and treatments that are in clinical trial but still far from approval. Before that, you couldn't get such a treatment (in the US) for any price, and any medical practitioner who sold or gave it to you would be a criminal (and also almost certain to lose their certs to practice medicine).
You knowing what else is so important? Facts. Your last sentence is a complete lie; even without the new legislation, if a terminally ill patient does not qualify for an experimental treatment, they can send a request to the FDA's Expanded Access Program. The FDA approves over 99% of such requests.
Well, that too, but I figured I would go with something a bit more substantial than just agreeing that the guy's an idiot.
If it's impossible to know what specific number of carriers are needed, then you cannot possibly know it has to be four or more...
Of course you can. There are some number of employees in my office building. I probably couldn't guess the exact number, or even come within 50, but I know that it's a lot more than four.
I don't think there's any magical number that I'm smart enough to glean.
This is a technically true statement. It's pretty much impossible to know what specific number of carriers would magically create the optimal amount of competition.
Whatever the optimal number or range might be, though, it sure as hell isn't less than four.
Because reductions in output are generally going to be proportional to the number of people. If there's an increase in the efficiency of automobile engines, HVAC units, or light bulbs, the total reduction in CO2 emissions will be greater for the country where 500 million people use the more efficient versions than for the country where 100 million people use the more efficient versions.
Of course, CO2 isn't exactly proportional to population, and the current levels of technology are different for different countries, and there are plenty of other factors. You can't judge situations entirely by the per capita numbers, but you didn't make a reasoned counterargument, you simply accused the other person of lying by omitting part of their statement.
Birth is also a public record, so anyone that knows what city/state you were born in can find out your birth date.
Americans... are totally dependent on producing way way more CO2 per person than just about everyone.
I've highlighted the part you ignored.
Tesla made a new and better battery and manages to sell a nice set of cars ... but in the vehicle itself is nothing really innovative.+
Spare me your attempt to seem unimpressed. "Nothing really innovative"? You might have an argument if anyone else was making more innovative vehicles. Nobody has moved the auto industry more towards electrification than Tesla and to claim their cars aren't innovative is preposterous even if you don't like them.
As much of a complete idiot as he is, there is a tiny piece of a point there. Tesla has some nice automobile features, but several other manufacturers have many, if not all, of the same features. It's ridiculous to say that Tesla is "decades behind Europe", but I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that Tesla's most important contribution by far has been improvements to the battery.
Check Freelancer
Oh man, I loved Freelancer. Probably my favorite space combat game. I'd love to find a game like it that runs on Linux.
You know how I can tell you didn't read the article before you posted that...?
Because it's posted on Slashdot?
the wealth out of the country that was created in no small part due to protectionist trade policies in the beginning half of the 20th century.
Right, because massive destruction of infrastructure and manufacturing capacity in Europe had nothing to do with it.
Maybe gameplay mechanics can be patented in some cases, but IANAL.
Nope. Patents are only for a "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter" (35 USC 101).
I suspect the ruling will be that general game mechanics are not protected by copyright law.
I don't think there's any suspicion at all. Board game mechanics cannot be protected by copyright, so the same standard will be applied to computer games as well.
I have no idea what the real law is but all of these games are almost exactly copying the concept from the movie Battle Royal. If anybody has a copyright claim seems like would be the people who made the movie .
Or the WWE (formerly known as WWF), from the 1980s. Or tournament melees from the 1400s.
...and almost any mouth breather can drive.
You don't pay much attention, do you?
As the standard of living in the 3rd-world sweatshops increase - which their laborers demand - their wages will also increase, then it will once again be competitive for robot manufacturing to return to the US. Another example of how all boats rise from capitalism.
Manufacturing in the US will be competitive because it will be mostly automated. Wages don't matter much when you don't have to pay them.