This is another strength of Wikipedia. The ability to get to the source material and get further details.
The news may report that in a 10 year study the rate of men who never had heart attacks is 50% higher among those who do not take statins.
What they don't say, is That the heart attack rate among statin users is 2% and the non-statin users is 3%. That is indeed 50% more.
However that is not the same thing as saying If you have no heart problems you increase your risk for 2% to 3% if you don't take a statin. But you avoid the 25% to 50% rate of serious side affects among statin users.
Having the source material available to look at saves you from the sensational 50% increased chance of death that the talking heads would be pushing.
What is even better for him is that he is NOT fighting the record company. No dishonest accounting, no promo costs, etc and everything else they pull.
His song was able to become a hit, with no record company controling it and preventing "infringing uses" and he is able profit from it, instead of some record company "owning" most of his rights.
The president can do anything he wants with an executive order. There were fears that Nixon would pardon himself if Congress impeached him as a sitting President.
You can make it one big pissing match. Anything Congress does or the Courts find can be undone with an Execuvite order. Up until President Clinton, presidents were very careful to not create a situation with Executive Orders. Clinton was bad, Bush was even worse and Obama is a habitual abuser.
Did the Sheriff know about the Facebook likes. Or did the Sheriff lay off the least productive employees with negative attitudes?
It is always possible that they kind of attitude that says "Please lay me off" is also the kind of attitude that does not like how things are going at work, thus also the kind of person who would like someone else as Sheriff.
They may not have been fired for it. They have offered no proof more than saying something like "10 employees were laid off and 8 of them liked someone on Facebook who was running for Sheriff...coidience...I think not!"
The Sheriff is an elected position. Protected speech or not. The Sheriff goes out and see an "elect this other guy, not my boss" button, bumper sticker, or Facebook like. What do you think he would do????
They very subtly said "someone else can do a better job than my boss...and I wish they would." Also as members of the Sheriff department and likely considered experts by the general public about how well the Sheriff department is run. With a vote of "No Confidence" like that, the Sheriff decided at budget cut time to eliminate those people.
With human nature being what it is, is it ANY surprise this happened? Generally speaking, I try not to say "My boss sucks and I wish someone else had his job." No matter how sure I am my boss won't find out.
I don't have a reference. But one of MLK heirs was talking yesterday about how it is wrong that business have sales on MLK day and should be required to pay 10% of their sales on that day to their foundation.
It is sad to see 2 generations of that family feel that they have the right to freeload off of one speech. That they should never have to work a job, be competent or do anything to contribute to society because they had a relative give an awesome speech over 40 years ago.
You don't see people on the right side of the chart in the Industry Sector moving into the Government Sector.
What you do see, are government officials both elected and appointed who have taken contributions, vacations and other perks from many Industries. Then these same politicians voted for policies that are very favorable to an industry when common sense would indicate it was the wrong thing to do. Just months later these government officials then get high paying jobs, often doing nothing in the very companies that they found for or created polices favorable to.
Some real fast numbers. There are like 115 people on the list. About 80 are staffers and 35 are former Congressmen/Senators.
So 35 congressmen, 34 are democrats and 1 was Republican
80 Staffers. 1 Ford, 2 Reagan, 1 Bush Sr, and 3 Bush, totaling 7. With a breakdown of 73 Democrats and 7 Republicans.
Mind you, that is just a quick eyeballing of the list. It does not take in account voting records. It looks like for all the talk of protecting the little people from big business. Democrats talk a big talk, but then stand up for and get jobs with big business far more often than Republicans do.
I prefer when politicians talk about what they are going to do, instead of just doing it. Bush may have been more or less open than Clinton, but whichever it was, he did not promise one thing and to another.
When politicians stand up and make a big deal about the type of decency that even a 5 year old knows how show. It worries me.
Bill Clinton promised "When I get to Washington D.C. it will not be politics as usual", I knew it would be more "as usual" than ever.
Barack Obama promised "The most transparent administration ever", so once again, I knew that would be a joke. Not because he was a Democrat. All politicians who make to big a deal about promising to be decent tend to fail at that point.
At the point your computer is compromised by a botnet, it is not really your computer anymore. The botnet owns it and allows you as a patsy to continue to use it. This is about the same as someone making a copy of your car keys and borrowing your car every night to commit crimes and gases it back up and leaves it for you in the morning.
I am not sure how a compromised PC should be treated. But I do not think you have the same rights as with an uncompromised PC. If you don't want the FBI poking around on your computer. Then you need to make sure it does not get infected. Because once it is infected, it is a threat and danger to the public and yourself. Spewing out spam, being used to crack passwords, serve up illegal porn and as a playground for stealing your online identity and accounts.
The minute your computer is compromised it is like going to a bad neighborhood and leaving an unlocked car with a pile of cash, a machine gun, ammo, and drugs laying around in the front seat. You have encouraged something bad to happen.
Should the FBI have just traced the IP address and filed suit against these individuals as spamers? Should they send you a letter telling you your computer is infected and you need to spend $200 or more taking it to someone who knows what their doing to backup your data and reinstall your OS and software?
I think sending the kill signal is the best thing they could have done. Otherwise there is a good chance some hacker would be able to re-acquire these machines.
Big corporations are so clueless at what will be good business for them in the long rung. It reminds me of a line from Scott Adams "Dogbert Management Handbook".
Managers go to Management retreats and ask 2 questions.
1. How can we get more work for less money from employees.
2. Why is employee morale so low?
Whatever advantage they gain in the sort term, is outweighed that some more open and thus innovative platform will surpass them in the future.
It is valid if I say that the New York Times is a "valued institution". When I say that I am a "valued institution", then I have just gone overboard.
Pretty much everyone else has the right to call the New York Times a "valued institution" if they believe that is the case.
For them to say that about themselves is hubris and fairly good indication of what is wrong with the industry. The elitist entitlement mentality. They are just waiting for us to come back to our senses and realize that all the blogs online and most other newspapers that let you read for "free" are just junk. They are the fricking NEW YORK TIMES and you are lucky to pay $3.75 a week to get their opinion on anything so you can know what to think about any topic till the retraction is issued on page A35.
The problem for Microsoft here is the dollar amount. That is $98 for every copy of office. For retail copies that sell at $500.00. For OEM copies that sell at $200.00, for educational copies that sell at $15.00. This eats up most of the profits from selling Microsoft Office.
Since Microsoft has worked so hard on building a patent portfolio that it can use to extract money from or destroy other companies, it is nice to see them on the other end of the stick.
Hopefully there is a point where this hurts them so much that they will ask congress to do away with software patents.
Any author living since the time of the printing press knows the score. If someone buys a book, they can lend it to a friend to read and you will "lose" a sale.
So at this point the author has a choice. Decide to invest their time writing a book knowing that the income they get from it will only come from those who actually purchase it. Some people who will have read that "loaned" copy will be happy having read it once and will never read it again. Others will want to buy a copy. So sometimes a "loaned" copy hurts their sales, sometimes it helps their sale.
If they don't think they will make enough money from the sales of their book. They can spend six months digging ditches, flipping burgers, or writing a book that would generate the kind of revenue they would like to see, even with "loaning" happening.
Any author living since the time of Benjamin Franklin knows the score. In addition to friends loaning a book to friends, they have to deal with libraries loaning out books. Again, some read it at the library and never feel a need to buy it. Others won't buy it but recommend it to friends who do.
If you don't think the book will turn a profit at this point. Don't write it. He knew from day one this is how the system works. If he does not want patrons of the library "freeloading" off of his work and research. Then he should not have written the book in the first place.
Who would want to be the president who 2 weeks after being in office takes television away from 20% of the country. It does not matter if the new president was Republican or Democrat. You could see this one coming on for a long time.
Put your money where your mouth is. The IPS's think the only money they have to lose is of the person they cut off. Which is cheaper than the possibility of dealing with a legal "threat" from the RIAA.
Someone should publish a list of IPS's that will drop their customers at the beckon call of the RIAA. Then good netizens could switch to to an ISP that does NOT participate in the program. When they cancel they need to let the ISP know exactly why they are canceling. Also let the new ISP you sign up with know exactly why you left your old ISP.
These netizens are the same people who influence their friends and relatives. If all the recommendations made are for ISPs that don't cave, and at every turn you move those you know away from the bad ISPs. Let people know, they can be falsely accused. Their wireless can be hacked. They can get some spyware that would allow files to be shared or served from their computer. Three strikes and you are out, whether you did anything wrong or not. Encourage them to move to an ISP where they never have to worry about such a thing happening.
Vote with your wallet. It is your right to do so and it is the one thing that companies understand. People have principles...most companies do not.
The ads have to be effective at something or someone would not pay for them.
What that something may be is another thing altogether? Is it causing on-line gamblers to switch whom they gamble with? Does it tempt new people who have never gambled? Or do they advertise to reach the addicted who can't say no?
To some degree for the addicted. This is akin to them seeing ads on TV, hearing them on the radio, seeing it on billboards and in the grocery store. Popping up in every day activities they can't avoid, tempting them.
My dad did door to door sales and said the best house to go to on a block is one with a sign that said "No Solicitors". Because usually there will be a board housewife at home who can't say "No" to a salesman and a husband who has just put up a sign advertising that she is there.
I don't think their goal is "lets catch those addicted to gambling and drive them to our sites", but more along the lines of "advertising at goolge has driven up profits 10%". They don't really want to look and see if those any of those folks are the addicted or desperate. Their money spends as well as everyone elses.
The only plugin Firefox comes with by default is the one for reporting bugs.
There are dozens of useful plugins that do not come with Firefox. Firefox installs NO ONE's plugins. Google does not get a boost there.
An example of plugins
tweak network - to speed up browsing on high-speed internet
google preview - show pictures of websites on google search results.
customize-google - customize how google displays results
adblock plus - to block ads
If Firefox was about pushing google, they would bundle google sync and google notebook with the browser. Since they are both usefull, and help promote "google lock-in".
But they don't. Firefox follows the policy they have had all along. They make a decent browser, and if the user wants to customize it, they can download and install whatever plugins they like.
I wish they would make a customization kit. I.E. I want these plugins, these themes, and these settings installed and configured globably. Then someone can run that installer and have a customized version of Firefox. That would be good for ISP, or company deployments.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Elder-Geek.
Citations Please
This is another strength of Wikipedia. The ability to get to the source material and get further details.
The news may report that in a 10 year study the rate of men who never had heart attacks is 50% higher among those who do not take statins.
What they don't say, is That the heart attack rate among statin users is 2% and the non-statin users is 3%. That is indeed 50% more.
However that is not the same thing as saying If you have no heart problems you increase your risk for 2% to 3% if you don't take a statin. But you avoid the 25% to 50% rate of serious side affects among statin users.
Having the source material available to look at saves you from the sensational 50% increased chance of death that the talking heads would be pushing.
Easy Money
What is even better for him is that he is NOT fighting the record company. No dishonest accounting, no promo costs, etc and everything else they pull.
His song was able to become a hit, with no record company controling it and preventing "infringing uses" and he is able profit from it, instead of some record company "owning" most of his rights.
Yes Yes Yes
The president can do anything he wants with an executive order. There were fears that Nixon would pardon himself if Congress impeached him as a sitting President.
You can make it one big pissing match. Anything Congress does or the Courts find can be undone with an Execuvite order. Up until President Clinton, presidents were very careful to not create a situation with Executive Orders. Clinton was bad, Bush was even worse and Obama is a habitual abuser.
GRC has evn a better take on this
Increasing the search space is the key. A password is always a needle. The larger the haystack the longer it takes to find.
https://www.grc.com/haystack.htm
And here is his test:
Which of the following two passwords is stronger,
more secure, and more difficult to crack?
D0g.....................
PrXyc.N(n4k77#L!eVdAfp9
Believe it or not. it is the first password.
Re:
Good question.
Did the Sheriff know about the Facebook likes. Or did the Sheriff lay off the least productive employees with negative attitudes?
It is always possible that they kind of attitude that says "Please lay me off" is also the kind of attitude that does not like how things are going at work, thus also the kind of person who would like someone else as Sheriff.
They may not have been fired for it. They have offered no proof more than saying something like "10 employees were laid off and 8 of them liked someone on Facebook who was running for Sheriff...coidience...I think not!"
Really
The Sheriff is an elected position. Protected speech or not. The Sheriff goes out and see an "elect this other guy, not my boss" button, bumper sticker, or Facebook like. What do you think he would do????
They very subtly said "someone else can do a better job than my boss...and I wish they would." Also as members of the Sheriff department and likely considered experts by the general public about how well the Sheriff department is run. With a vote of "No Confidence" like that, the Sheriff decided at budget cut time to eliminate those people.
With human nature being what it is, is it ANY surprise this happened? Generally speaking, I try not to say "My boss sucks and I wish someone else had his job." No matter how sure I am my boss won't find out.
Payoff
I don't have a reference. But one of MLK heirs was talking yesterday about how it is wrong that business have sales on MLK day and should be required to pay 10% of their sales on that day to their foundation.
It is sad to see 2 generations of that family feel that they have the right to freeload off of one speech. That they should never have to work a job, be competent or do anything to contribute to society because they had a relative give an awesome speech over 40 years ago.
What the Chart Does not Show
What the chart does not show is time and events.
You don't see people on the right side of the chart in the Industry Sector moving into the Government Sector.
What you do see, are government officials both elected and appointed who have taken contributions, vacations and other perks from many Industries. Then these same politicians voted for policies that are very favorable to an industry when common sense would indicate it was the wrong thing to do. Just months later these government officials then get high paying jobs, often doing nothing in the very companies that they found for or created polices favorable to.
Some real fast numbers. There are like 115 people on the list. About 80 are staffers and 35 are former Congressmen/Senators.
So 35 congressmen, 34 are democrats and 1 was Republican
80 Staffers. 1 Ford, 2 Reagan, 1 Bush Sr, and 3 Bush, totaling 7. With a breakdown of 73 Democrats and 7 Republicans.
Mind you, that is just a quick eyeballing of the list. It does not take in account voting records. It looks like for all the talk of protecting the little people from big business. Democrats talk a big talk, but then stand up for and get jobs with big business far more often than Republicans do.
Action Speak Louder Than Words
I prefer when politicians talk about what they are going to do, instead of just doing it. Bush may have been more or less open than Clinton, but whichever it was, he did not promise one thing and to another.
When politicians stand up and make a big deal about the type of decency that even a 5 year old knows how show. It worries me.
Bill Clinton promised "When I get to Washington D.C. it will not be politics as usual", I knew it would be more "as usual" than ever.
Barack Obama promised "The most transparent administration ever", so once again, I knew that would be a joke. Not because he was a Democrat. All politicians who make to big a deal about promising to be decent tend to fail at that point.
Its not your computer
At the point your computer is compromised by a botnet, it is not really your computer anymore. The botnet owns it and allows you as a patsy to continue to use it. This is about the same as someone making a copy of your car keys and borrowing your car every night to commit crimes and gases it back up and leaves it for you in the morning.
I am not sure how a compromised PC should be treated. But I do not think you have the same rights as with an uncompromised PC. If you don't want the FBI poking around on your computer. Then you need to make sure it does not get infected. Because once it is infected, it is a threat and danger to the public and yourself. Spewing out spam, being used to crack passwords, serve up illegal porn and as a playground for stealing your online identity and accounts.
The minute your computer is compromised it is like going to a bad neighborhood and leaving an unlocked car with a pile of cash, a machine gun, ammo, and drugs laying around in the front seat. You have encouraged something bad to happen.
Should the FBI have just traced the IP address and filed suit against these individuals as spamers? Should they send you a letter telling you your computer is infected and you need to spend $200 or more taking it to someone who knows what their doing to backup your data and reinstall your OS and software?
I think sending the kill signal is the best thing they could have done. Otherwise there is a good chance some hacker would be able to re-acquire these machines.
Clueless
Big corporations are so clueless at what will be good business for them in the long rung. It reminds me of a line from Scott Adams "Dogbert Management Handbook".
Managers go to Management retreats and ask 2 questions.
1. How can we get more work for less money from employees.
2. Why is employee morale so low?
Whatever advantage they gain in the sort term, is outweighed that some more open and thus innovative platform will surpass them in the future.
Refering to oneself in the third person
It is valid if I say that the New York Times is a "valued institution". When I say that I am a "valued institution", then I have just gone overboard.
Pretty much everyone else has the right to call the New York Times a "valued institution" if they believe that is the case.
For them to say that about themselves is hubris and fairly good indication of what is wrong with the industry. The elitist entitlement mentality. They are just waiting for us to come back to our senses and realize that all the blogs online and most other newspapers that let you read for "free" are just junk. They are the fricking NEW YORK TIMES and you are lucky to pay $3.75 a week to get their opinion on anything so you can know what to think about any topic till the retraction is issued on page A35.
Watch Out
Their lawyers are going to send a stern note. To someone in Russia. Seriously?
Also, I would not be surprised if Chicago Magazine had not "borrowed" ideas from other magazine covers.
Hoisted upon his own petard
The problem for Microsoft here is the dollar amount. That is $98 for every copy of office. For retail copies that sell at $500.00. For OEM copies that sell at $200.00, for educational copies that sell at $15.00. This eats up most of the profits from selling Microsoft Office.
Since Microsoft has worked so hard on building a patent portfolio that it can use to extract money from or destroy other companies, it is nice to see them on the other end of the stick.
Hopefully there is a point where this hurts them so much that they will ask congress to do away with software patents.
He knew the score
Any author living since the time of the printing press knows the score. If someone buys a book, they can lend it to a friend to read and you will "lose" a sale.
So at this point the author has a choice. Decide to invest their time writing a book knowing that the income they get from it will only come from those who actually purchase it. Some people who will have read that "loaned" copy will be happy having read it once and will never read it again. Others will want to buy a copy. So sometimes a "loaned" copy hurts their sales, sometimes it helps their sale.
If they don't think they will make enough money from the sales of their book. They can spend six months digging ditches, flipping burgers, or writing a book that would generate the kind of revenue they would like to see, even with "loaning" happening.
Any author living since the time of Benjamin Franklin knows the score. In addition to friends loaning a book to friends, they have to deal with libraries loaning out books. Again, some read it at the library and never feel a need to buy it. Others won't buy it but recommend it to friends who do.
If you don't think the book will turn a profit at this point. Don't write it. He knew from day one this is how the system works. If he does not want patrons of the library "freeloading" off of his work and research. Then he should not have written the book in the first place.
It is about the Presidency
Who would want to be the president who 2 weeks after being in office takes television away from 20% of the country. It does not matter if the new president was Republican or Democrat. You could see this one coming on for a long time.
Boycott
Put your money where your mouth is. The IPS's think the only money they have to lose is of the person they cut off. Which is cheaper than the possibility of dealing with a legal "threat" from the RIAA.
Someone should publish a list of IPS's that will drop their customers at the beckon call of the RIAA. Then good netizens could switch to to an ISP that does NOT participate in the program. When they cancel they need to let the ISP know exactly why they are canceling. Also let the new ISP you sign up with know exactly why you left your old ISP.
These netizens are the same people who influence their friends and relatives. If all the recommendations made are for ISPs that don't cave, and at every turn you move those you know away from the bad ISPs. Let people know, they can be falsely accused. Their wireless can be hacked. They can get some spyware that would allow files to be shared or served from their computer. Three strikes and you are out, whether you did anything wrong or not. Encourage them to move to an ISP where they never have to worry about such a thing happening.
Vote with your wallet. It is your right to do so and it is the one thing that companies understand. People have principles...most companies do not.
The must do something
The ads have to be effective at something or someone would not pay for them.
What that something may be is another thing altogether? Is it causing on-line gamblers to switch whom they gamble with? Does it tempt new people who have never gambled? Or do they advertise to reach the addicted who can't say no?
To some degree for the addicted. This is akin to them seeing ads on TV, hearing them on the radio, seeing it on billboards and in the grocery store. Popping up in every day activities they can't avoid, tempting them.
My dad did door to door sales and said the best house to go to on a block is one with a sign that said "No Solicitors". Because usually there will be a board housewife at home who can't say "No" to a salesman and a husband who has just put up a sign advertising that she is there.
I don't think their goal is "lets catch those addicted to gambling and drive them to our sites", but more along the lines of "advertising at goolge has driven up profits 10%". They don't really want to look and see if those any of those folks are the addicted or desperate. Their money spends as well as everyone elses.
Scalping...be real
If you are scalping a ticket the odds are you are not doing it legally. You are not collecting or paying taxes.
Scalping is already considered bad. If the current laws to shut it down and curtail it don't work. Why make more?
It is like outlawing committing suicide.
No plugins by default
The only plugin Firefox comes with by default is the one for reporting bugs.
There are dozens of useful plugins that do not come with Firefox. Firefox installs NO ONE's plugins. Google does not get a boost there.
An example of plugins
tweak network - to speed up browsing on high-speed internet
google preview - show pictures of websites on google search results.
customize-google - customize how google displays results
adblock plus - to block ads
If Firefox was about pushing google, they would bundle google sync and google notebook with the browser. Since they are both usefull, and help promote "google lock-in".
But they don't. Firefox follows the policy they have had all along. They make a decent browser, and if the user wants to customize it, they can download and install whatever plugins they like.
I wish they would make a customization kit. I.E. I want these plugins, these themes, and these settings installed and configured globably. Then someone can run that installer and have a customized version of Firefox. That would be good for ISP, or company deployments.