Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:ugh (Score 1) 552

Every time it snows, deniers claim "see, there's no global warming" and believers say "weather is not climate!" The summary of this article then uses the past three months and declares it proof of climate change.

I realize that the actual article is more subtle, but I believe the point OP is making was that if you don't want "Polar Vortex" to be used as an argument against climate change, you probably shouldn't use "heat wave" as an argument in favor.

Taken as a whole, the trend is clear. Leading with a headline "last three months hottest ever" is only going to remind people in DC that they just experienced the coldest winter in 20 years and the most snow ever recorded.

Comment: Re: Blame Google. (Score 1) 239

But meat inspection includes objective measures (as I already said). There's also no penalty for overblocking, but significant costs if they miss even one block. Meat inspection is well regulated with documented procedures handed down by regulatory bodies, but you insist that Google write all their own rules and procedures and have no forgiveness if they get anything wrong (apparently in either direction).

Comment: Re:Blame Google. (Score 2) 239

Isn't "meat inspector" a job of the government, paid for by taxes? The EU didn't provide Google with a "forgotten person" inspector. When it comes to meat, there are clearly objective measurements to determine when it has gone bad. There are no objective criteria handed down to determine when this right applies and when it doesn't. You're asking a for-profit company to personally be responsible for the cost of evaluating every case before them. In fact, you don't even know whether or not they did evaluate this? Given their precedent setting loss, it's not unreasonable to assume that they've set the threshold higher than maybe you would have.

If you were to ask me, the only objective criteria should be as simple as "Was the event newsworthy?" (Yes, because it appeared in the news.) But that's clearly not enough. The information is still allowed to exist, so it's not libelous and the information itself is not illegal, only linking to it is. There is no "registered famous/public person" database (or even a definition of a "public" person). The problem is that you can't just smell this meat and decide if it's gone bad. Now, Google could decide, on its own, to declare that this particular case doesn't pass the undefined threshold, but they have to take on all the expense and risk.

You've come along and demanded that Google toss out all the bad meat (without defining it), and NOW you're complaining when they find it easier to also throw out some good meat. Everyone told you that's what they'd do. It's the ONLY sensible course of action.

Comment: Re:More detail diving down. (Score 1) 98

by Col. Klink (retired) (#46961955) Attached to: SpaceX Injunction Dissolved

Yup, the letters all agree that if Rogozin controls NPO Energomash, payments must be blocked, but Treasury must "make an affirmative determination" that this is the case. Nothing compels them to actually make that affirmative determination.

Yes, they know that NPO Energomash is owned and controlled by the Russian Government. And yes, they know that Rogozin is the head of their space agency. But you could show them a cancelled check from Treasury with Rogozin's signature on it, and they still wouldn't be compelled to "affirmatively declare" that he was in control.

Comment: Re:Misaaplication of the law (Score 1) 798

The judge lauded the school's behavior and expressed her complete confidence in the school first, then she allowed the defendant (victim) to present his defense. But still, she's a judge so I'm sure she knows what she's doing and she can't possibly be biased in any way. After all, if in her unbiased opinion, the school has never done wrong before, I can't see why she would even need to ever hear evidence to the contrary.

There are worse things in life than death. Have you ever spent an evening with an insurance salesman? -- Woody Allen