9 posts • joined 21 May 2007
As you said...
"Misrepresentation is another thing entirely." Take a look at the still-extant website for Rampant Films and their own description of Crossroads, the movie they claimed they were making. Look in the "Properties" section.
It really doesn't seem like quite the same film as "Expelled". Does that qualify as misrepresentation? Not illegal, but certainly deceptive.
If we knew, we wouldn't have to look.
Dave and the Martian - d'you think science is all about picking a selected improvement to technology and then researching the topic to build the gizmo? Hardly. The whole point of science, in all its fields, branches and offshoots, is to try to find out how the universe works. Frequently, that knowledge becomes useful. Not always, and not always immediately, but frequently and eventually. Historically, pure science has always paid off in the long run - but the order of things is normally "find out what's happening, THEN find a use for it".
We don't know what this research may lead us to. We can guess at possibilities - a better understanding of gravity, mass, and energy could lead to fusion power, anti-gravity, better energy transmission - or it could lead to something totally unexpected. It might even lead to nothing - but you have to buy the ticket to get a chance to win the prize.
A matter of choice
Jim, the way it should work is that your search for "flower arranging" is supposed to turn up people who have that interest AND have agreed to let world+dog find out about it. Right now, you can find them whether they wanted you to or not.
And yes, Test Man, there is a fix for it - but when you've already selected an option to make your profile private, are you really likely to go looking for a second option to do the same thing? I know it isn't really the same thing, but I'd rate this as a high chance for confusion, at least.
And for that last anonymous one...in Soviet Russia, profile searches you! (Sorry...somebody had to say it.)
Illegal profit vs. sale price
Anigel - The jewelry sold for $5 mil, true, but without the shill bidding, it would still have sold for something. Presumably the AG ran the numbers and decided they got $400K extra, above what it would normally have sold for. (Or more likely, they boosted the prices by less than $400K, and the AG tacked on some punitive damages.) Comparing the $400K fine to the $5 mil sale price is not a fair estimate of profit, and is DEFINITELY an unfair assumption of stupidity in the prosecutors.
For home use?
Sounds like a splendid idea for businesses with moderately competent SysAdmins. But what about small businesses and home users, where Administrator access does not mean Administrator knowledge? Do these whitelisting systems protect my grandmother from clicking "Accept" when a hacked website offers to install a trojan?
In my layman's opinion, that wold make this lawyer an accessory to the crime, and part of the the conspiracy. Perhaps he should be charged under RICO himself...in addition to being disbarred, of course.
Perhaps you aren't fully aware of how many Anglophiles are on the western side of the pond - especially in the more technically-minded circles. Nearly any Monty Python sketch or movie scene can be quoted at length by American SysAdmins - and often is. Old BBC comedies are the most popular shows on our PBS channels. We love British culture. Far from being a problem, the .co.uk should actually be a selling point here in the U.S.
Besides, Simon might get annoyed if you changed it...and none of us want the BOFH annoyed.
I understand that you may have been trying to be humorous in juxtaposing "Whitehouse" in a story on "greenhouse" gases. If so, you failed; it isn't funny, just annoying. The correct usage is White House.
Otherwise, the story was interesting, if sadly not surprising. The Administration has shown a history of picking references to suit conclusions. For the anonymous commenter "Dorky Story," the story said that ANY set of years would show a different answer. I took that to include the sets of 2001-2004, 2002-2004, and 2003-2004. The graph included in the "full analysis" link confirms that nicely. The U.S. had ONE good year, 2000. That year was good enough to make up for the differences in 2001-2004...but the trend is clearly in favor of Europe. It appears that the White House is taking credit for the one year that worked, the FIRST year Bush was in office (when his policies could be expected to have the least effect), and using that to justify Administraion policy for the entire time since then. Clinton was no better on this subject...but that doesn't say much.
Competition spurs progress...again?
I earnestly wish the Chinese success in their space ventures. I can think of very few events better designed to encourage my fellow Americans to get the government up off its collective duff and back into manned space exploration. Maybe this time we'll figure out how to make a buck up there beyond geosync orbit - that will keep us moving in the right direction and not resting on our as...er, laurels.
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? Why can’t I walk past Maplin without buying stuff I don’t need?
- Review 'Mommy got me an UltraVibe Pleasure 2000 for Xmas!' South Park: Stick of Truth
- The land of Milk and Sammy: Free music app touted by Samsung
- Privacy warriors lob sueball at Facebook buyout of WhatsApp