Comment Wikileaks. (Score 1) 230
2. Send anon email to company saying the information has been posted tow wikileaks.
3. Watch them have massive coronaries.
If you remember, the monkey couldn't claim copyright because monkeys have no standing to claim copyright.
As for getting a DMCA takedown notice, I've been threatened a couple of times in the past, and basically told them to go pee up a rope. DMCA only works in the US
As for the NFL, who cares? Not me, that's for sure. But the NFL's over-broad copyright claims have not been upheld by the courts.
One example setup (albeit not a very good one) would be roughly if you took the EPA-as-is, separated its budget and revenue from the entire rest of the government, devised articles of incorporation, made all Americans shareholders, and made its officers subject to the same kind of accountability to shareholders as corporate officers.
Hm... Interesting. Only problem I see with it is that it might actually diffuse the power the American people have over the new corporation as opposed to the old EPA. Shareholders of large corporations tend to have less power over their CEOs than citizens have over the President, for example.
You'd probably also want to the new corporation to have some statutory power just to keep it from being immediately bankrupted by lawsuits from industry.
Also, how would said company gain revenue to give to the people, presumably in the form of dividends? The way I think of it would be what I propose - charging for pollution.
And if you think corporate officers aren't subject to 'lobbying', I have some bridges you might want to buy a share in...
I don't see how religion should be treated differently from The Adventures of Pinocchio or The Lord of the Rings or The Time Machine or Gulliver's Travels or something like that.
I currently get ~60 Mb up/down for $45/mo with my WISP.
How long can you keep a 60 Mbps without running into your monthly cap? The wireless Internet service providers I've looked at will cut you off after 10 GB in a month unless you insert coin to continue.
Some people used to touring can probably make a move in a day.
Perhaps "colo" here refers to the DSLAM or CMTS where the signal gets split to a neighborhood. In Archangel Michael's proposal as I understand it, a neutral party would own the colo and the last mile, but that party wouldn't connect the colo to the Internet. That'd be the job of competitive ISPs.
It doesn't. The parent said our space program sucked. I was pointing out that for a program that sucks it does some pretty awesome stuff.
It is seldom the veracity of facts that the debate is over; it is their significance. But that happens to be where this falls idea falls short, because misinterpretation of facts is where the most potent misinformation comes from.
Case in point, "vaccine injury" -- which is a real thing, albeit very rare. Anti-vaccine activists point to the growing volume of awards made by the US "Vaccine Court" (more accurately called "The Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims") as proof that vaccine injuries are on the rise.
It is a verifiable fact that the volume of awards has grown since the early years of the program. That is absolutely and unquestionably true. However, that this is proof vaccine injuries is gross misinterpretation, because the "Vaccine Court" program is no fault. You don't actually have to show the defendant *caused* an "injury", you only have to (a) show the child got sick after being vaccinated and (b) find a doctor to sign off on a medical theory by which the child's illness *might* have been caused by the vaccination.
Since you don't have to actually prove injury in "Vaccine Court", the rise in cases and awards doesn't know vaccine injuries are on the rise. All that is necessary is that more people think that their child's illness was caused by vaccinations, and the low burden of proof will automatically ensure more awards.
And so there you have it. A perfectly factual claim can be cited in a way that leads people to preposterous conclusions.
A drop of water can self-form into a sphere by surface tension alone. If that is dropped off in space, it becomes a planet??
Not in my view. That isn't implied by what I said, either. I said mass, and I meant mass. If you dropped your putative drop of water off in space, by the way, by which I mean in a vacuum, I don't think it would be able to hold itself together by any means. I suspect it'd most likely sublimate before you even had a chance to really get into admiring it.
Oh, by the way, our sun orbits the galaxy, does that mean we aren't a planet here on earth because we orbit around something that has its own orbit?
Not to me. Again, I said nothing of the sort, and I implied nothing of the sort.
If not, then why do moons get to be moons when many of them are bigger than the "planet" Pluto, when they orbit around something that has its own orbit around another body?
Moons get to be moons in the context of a solar system; once you step beyond that level of organization, most of us (apparently not you, but that's ok) use different terminology to indicate groupings of stars, gas clouds, supergroupings, and so on.
But hey, don't let me get in the way of your irrational ranting; you've got a good head of steam going there, be a shame to see it peter out too soon.
We see articles about how few people are scientifically literate, and so many on Slashdot decry "We are geeks, we understand science!"
Appearently, nope!
Actually, my dear fellow poster, it is you that does not understand science. Science is a method. Information gathered and suppositions constructed are both data. Such data, particularly when the scientific method is applied, may give rise to (hopefully) more accurate metaphor(s) (more data) as to how nature behaves, and that in turn may let us go a little (or a lot) deeper next time around. Science is a very simple, and beautiful, method.
Back to data. Data is subject to naming, among other things, and those names are (a) abstracts selected for the convenience of the various users, (b) significantly arbitrary, (c) quite often of a dual or more diverse nature (and still 100% correct), for instance "daisy" and "bellis perennis" and "flower" and "that thing that makes me sneeze" and (d) often extend into the metaphorical and allegorical realms in order to further-, and/or better-, and/or simply re-define the issue(s) at hand. This most definitely includes one's own personal or sharable naming conventions and specifics.
When something is controversial or simply not static, we will often see the naming structure(s) and/or system(s) undergo permutation, mutation or even outright replacement. Brontosaurus, apatosaurus, brontosaurids, etc. Those are good examples of names that changed for some pretty good reasons (wrong head on the body... the "brontosaur" was an apatosaurus that mistakenly got a camarasaurus head on it, lol. Now "brontosaurids" means, hand-wavingly, "those long-necked ones" and not much else.) These nomenclature mutations are part of the process of integrating the data into our best-approximation of knowledge about the world, which, coming back around to square one, is not "science" either. Science is a method that we "do." Knowledge is not science itself, although it can and should be used in the undertaking of science.
Further, as the users of the data, objects, information vary, often so goes the terminology. Programmer: "Time for za!" Secretary sent to get it: "Can I order a pizza, please?" counter person: "pie, cheese" artisian: "yet another culinary masterpiece!"... they're all correct. It's not a problem. It's normal and natural. It is still normal and natural if someone in a particular household begins to call pizza "magic goo"... and who knows, it could be what everyone calls it some years down the road. I still kind of twitch when someone says "you suck", because when I was a teenager, that was a deadly insult, worthy of an immediate fistfight. Means something quite a bit more casual today, something absolutely unrelated to its original meaning. And so it goes. Naming is by its very nature a malleable domain. As it should be.
The bottom line here is, just because a few astronomers (and it was very few, btw) voted for a particular usage, does not mean we have to, or even should, comply if we don't agree. I'm sorry if that seems too chaotic for you, but that's really the way it is, and likely always will be, too.
But to decry that because you learned something one way, therefore that convinces you forever, that's just plain stupid.
Well, good thing I wasn't doing that then, eh?
Cheers!
If you want to have a semantics discussion go elsewhere, if you want to have an actual discussion I suggest you read the actual manuals for linux distributions that were "tuned" (according to your words) for super computer and high-node count clusters.
please do. Your phrase of "might as well not be linux", is not equivilant to "adjusted some options at compile time". Its still Linux, and guess what, it will still run most linux binaries, and it will definately run most Linux code. Its still all the same code.
I suggest you compare the binaries and then return to me and dare to repeat said statement
compare them how, with a hash sum, or for compatibility.
. I get it, you hate systemd
Actually no. I think we can chalk you off to a troll.
you fail to understand the concept that the same code can compile to very different binaries with a single pre-processor variable
You don't understand how the same code is the same program, and regardless of the binary being diffrent.
and you don't like the fact that some people out there want productivity
random acusations.
Next you also claim that you don't need a configuration file to know which modules to load at boot
No, I said it doesn't use a shell script. now you're flat out lying about what I said. Great.
So I must apologize for having a hard time taking you serious. And lets not forget how you twisted my words into "you think I'm stalking you". You're a bad show man.
wat? I'm certain your either a troll, or purposefully reciting FUD.
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do. -- Jerome Klapka Jerome