Slashdot Mirror

Actually, the first one I watched was iCrave TV, it was ahead of it's time and squashed by a consiracy of cable companies and the RIAA.

An article about iCrave TV

This reminds me of the not-incorrect observation by a certain Harvard dean that women, in general, tend to be better in areas not related to math and science. Regardless of the merit of such a claim, the current political climate is such that any observation other than the obvious is regarded as demeaning. Even obvious differences are often taboo. It would be fine to observe, for example, that asians tend to excell at math and science, but mentioning that they're generally shorter than their european counterparts would be considered insulting by some, regardless of the fact that being smaller has many advantages for survival.

You should be forced to take a real economics class before repeating garbage like this. The housing bubble -- if there is a bubble -- is being created by historically low interest rates as a result of foreign central banks buying US debt, an increasing population and an artifically limited housing supply. This last issue was addressed in long NYTimes article last Sunday about an economist named Edward Glaeser.

Has anybody ever actually seen a single electron? 'cause I haven't

Gabrielse, et al. have isolated a single electron in a "Penning trap" and can do detailed experiments on the motion of that single electron in a magnetic field.

You act as if nothing has happened in science since about 1905.

That's the first thing I thought as well when I read the GP.

It's probably a good thing that the FAS NOC is moving away from its various home brewed bits (to Cisco Network Registrar) but they are *not* the bits the Networld World article mentions.

And none of that has to do with the slowness and downtime for the FAS email servers or the downtime of the web server.

http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/091 6_hlsalum.htm

Oh sure and have the GNAA after me?

On a serious note, I raise an eyebrow whenever I see an obvious attempt to succor favor from minorities.

it is Harvard. I bet they talk to the RIAA on a regular basis.

they seem to be missing some firewalls !

https://public.noc.harvard.edu/images/core_network .gif

All that, and they still don't know how to set up DNS properly.

-----------
$ host harvard.edu
harvard.edu A record currently not present
-----------

I notified them about this months ago, but they didn't seem to care. Most web browsers automatically try the "www" prefix when you type, say, "harvard.edu" into your address bar, so you don't notice this problem generally. However, if you try wget, you can see it fail.

-----------
$ wget harvard.edu
--14:38:45-- http://harvard.edu/
=> `index.html'
Resolving harvard.edu... failed: Host not found.
-----------

Pretty sloppy if you ask me.

Why don't you apply? I hear they are looking to fill at least one position.

This is all moot -- all governmental opposition to stem-cell research will go out the window when they find out that scientists can grow boobies in the lab!

BOOBIES, MAN -- BOOOBIESSSSSS!!!!!

Bemopolis

It's not "Harvard's Berkman Institute," it's the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School.

It's not "Harvard's Berkman Institute," it's the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School.

This is not correct. In Galoob v. Nintendo, the court ruled that the Game Genie was allowed to use the copyrighted word "Nintendo" for purposes of interoperability.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/cases/Gal oob_v_Nintendo.html

The end result is that it would be perfectly legal for AMD to say their chips are "Intel" if it allows AMD chips to interoperate with Intel-only software. (Like Skype.) This happens all the time -- look at the browser ID strings for MSIE and Safari -- they both claim to be "Mozilla (compatible)", even though Mozilla is a trademark of the Mozilla Foundation (and the only browsers that are Mozilla are SeaMonkey and Firefox).

you're quite wrong.

Keck and the other scopes on Mauna Kea will, though, sometimes try to sneak a peek at a "high-priority" target like this, if they can find the time in their busy schedules.

Oh, along with Rochester Astronomy, a couple other cool sources for announcements of newly found supernovae and such are the IAU Circulars (subscription required) and Astronomer's Telegram. For gamma ray bursts, check out NASA's Gamma ray bursts Coordinates Network, too.

In the US, there's an appeals court precedent about linking to illegal material. The law may depend on your (perceived) intent in making the link.

At least some of the Justices, Scalia in particular, seemed troubled by how an inventor would know, at the time of inventing, how its invention might be marketed in the future. How, some of the Justices asked MGM, could the inventors of the iPod (or the VCR, or the photocopier, or even the printing press) know whether they could go ahead with developing their invention? It surely would not be difficult for them to imagine that somebody might hit upon the idea of marketing their device as a tool for infringement. MGM's answer to this was pretty unsatisfying. They said that at the time the iPod was invented, it was clear that there were many perfectly lawful uses for it, such as ripping one's own CD and storing it in the iPod. This was a very interesting point for them to make, not least because I would wager that there are a substantial number of people on MGM's side of the case who don't think that example is one bit legal. But they've now conceded the contrary in open court, so if they actually win this case they'll be barred from challenging "ripping" in the future under the doctrine of judicial estoppel. In any event, though, MGM's iPod example did exactly what their proposed standard expressly doesn't do: it evaluated the legality of the invention based on the knowledge available to the inventor at the time, not from a post hoc perspective that asks how the invention is subsequently marketed or what business models later grow up around it.

Dark Matter exists, and in my opinion it is here for good. The attempts to come up with alternative theories of gravity are quite noble, but they only work on certain scales, and the proponents of these theories sometimes neglect examples that invalidate their theory. It would be quite elegant to be able to account for dark matter via a modification of gravity alone, but I am afraid that it will not be possible.

One of the most compelling pieces of evidence for the existence of dark matter is the "bullet cluster of galaxies" discovered by Maxim Markevitch and collaborators. Their 2004 peer reviewed article shows a small cluster of galaxies passing through much more massive one. As the cluster passes through, its gas is stripped, but the dark matter stays behind, detected via weak gravitational lensing. This effect is impossible to reproduce using alternative theories of gravity, because there is a visible separation between the total mass peak and the observable mass peak.

There are dozens of other peer-reviewed articles that argue against these alternative theories of gravity. What about the cosmic microwave background? The CMB is one of the underpinnings of modern cosmology and basically made the big bang the widely accepted theory that it is today. This recent analysis of the CMB show that the kind of alternative gravity proposed here is strongly disfavored by the CMB spectrum, and that it would imply too high a neutrino mass.

I challenge you to look through the literature for yourself. Here is a list of papers discussing modified newtonian gravity and its derivatives... You will find that yes, these alternative theories do work quite well at describing the rotation curves of galaxies, as TFA suggest. But on larger scales, such as in cluster of galaxies and the cosmic microwave background, they seem to fail convincingly.

Dark Matter exists, and in my opinion it is here for good. The attempts to come up with alternative theories of gravity are quite noble, but they only work on certain scales, and the proponents of these theories sometimes neglect examples that invalidate their theory. It would be quite elegant to be able to account for dark matter via a modification of gravity alone, but I am afraid that it will not be possible.

One of the most compelling pieces of evidence for the existence of dark matter is the "bullet cluster of galaxies" discovered by Maxim Markevitch and collaborators. Their 2004 peer reviewed article shows a small cluster of galaxies passing through much more massive one. As the cluster passes through, its gas is stripped, but the dark matter stays behind, detected via weak gravitational lensing. This effect is impossible to reproduce using alternative theories of gravity, because there is a visible separation between the total mass peak and the observable mass peak.

There are dozens of other peer-reviewed articles that argue against these alternative theories of gravity. What about the cosmic microwave background? The CMB is one of the underpinnings of modern cosmology and basically made the big bang the widely accepted theory that it is today. This recent analysis of the CMB show that the kind of alternative gravity proposed here is strongly disfavored by the CMB spectrum, and that it would imply too high a neutrino mass.

I challenge you to look through the literature for yourself. Here is a list of papers discussing modified newtonian gravity and its derivatives... You will find that yes, these alternative theories do work quite well at describing the rotation curves of galaxies, as TFA suggest. But on larger scales, such as in cluster of galaxies and the cosmic microwave background, they seem to fail convincingly.

Dark Matter exists, and in my opinion it is here for good. The attempts to come up with alternative theories of gravity are quite noble, but they only work on certain scales, and the proponents of these theories sometimes neglect examples that invalidate their theory. It would be quite elegant to be able to account for dark matter via a modification of gravity alone, but I am afraid that it will not be possible.

One of the most compelling pieces of evidence for the existence of dark matter is the "bullet cluster of galaxies" discovered by Maxim Markevitch and collaborators. Their 2004 peer reviewed article shows a small cluster of galaxies passing through much more massive one. As the cluster passes through, its gas is stripped, but the dark matter stays behind, detected via weak gravitational lensing. This effect is impossible to reproduce using alternative theories of gravity, because there is a visible separation between the total mass peak and the observable mass peak.

There are dozens of other peer-reviewed articles that argue against these alternative theories of gravity. What about the cosmic microwave background? The CMB is one of the underpinnings of modern cosmology and basically made the big bang the widely accepted theory that it is today. This recent analysis of the CMB show that the kind of alternative gravity proposed here is strongly disfavored by the CMB spectrum, and that it would imply too high a neutrino mass.

I challenge you to look through the literature for yourself. Here is a list of papers discussing modified newtonian gravity and its derivatives... You will find that yes, these alternative theories do work quite well at describing the rotation curves of galaxies, as TFA suggest. But on larger scales, such as in cluster of galaxies and the cosmic microwave background, they seem to fail convincingly.

Dark Matter exists, and in my opinion it is here for good. The attempts to come up with alternative theories of gravity are quite noble, but they only work on certain scales, and the proponents of these theories sometimes neglect examples that invalidate their theory. It would be quite elegant to be able to account for dark matter via a modification of gravity alone, but I am afraid that it will not be possible.

One of the most compelling pieces of evidence for the existence of dark matter is the "bullet cluster of galaxies" discovered by Maxim Markevitch and collaborators. Their 2004 peer reviewed article shows a small cluster of galaxies passing through much more massive one. As the cluster passes through, its gas is stripped, but the dark matter stays behind, detected via weak gravitational lensing. This effect is impossible to reproduce using alternative theories of gravity, because there is a visible separation between the total mass peak and the observable mass peak.

There are dozens of other peer-reviewed articles that argue against these alternative theories of gravity. What about the cosmic microwave background? The CMB is one of the underpinnings of modern cosmology and basically made the big bang the widely accepted theory that it is today. This recent analysis of the CMB show that the kind of alternative gravity proposed here is strongly disfavored by the CMB spectrum, and that it would imply too high a neutrino mass.

I challenge you to look through the literature for yourself. Here is a list of papers discussing modified newtonian gravity and its derivatives... You will find that yes, these alternative theories do work quite well at describing the rotation curves of galaxies, as TFA suggest. But on larger scales, such as in cluster of galaxies and the cosmic microwave background, they seem to fail convincingly.

I'm afraid the application process is rather lengthy, but here you go

Oddly, it seems blocking Slashdot would have made more sense than blocking non-political, academic web sites such as MIT EECS, MIT Alumni club, Supercomputer Computations Research Institute, and so on... . See for yourself on the list of blocked sites.

If China is looking to continue to improve its science and engineering skills, why block these sites???

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/china/

Unless you don't return your books...Then they'll keep it for fifty years.
There's an older one, from one of the Harvard libraries, which was overdue by a little over 230 years. As for general library fines, I know our local library refers your case to a creditor if you're over $50, which isn't too hard to do if you lose an item. *wry grin* Or, for that matter, not being careful with videos. Videos go out for a week, there's a $1 fine per day, and there's no grace period. The maximum you can check out is 20 (NetFlix look out...), so being overdue by a week could easily take you up to $140. I had a co-worker who managed a slightly smaller scale fine ($73) and recently, I was in line behind of someone who'd racked up $232 in fines with his World War II videos. That said, a lot of small town libraries will work with you to resolve such fines. Like the banks, they're really not out to screw you over when it comes to debt repayment.

The more things change: http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/961/

I was only able to find two papers from him.

I understand your point about credibility but I've been going over the lectures he put up and I'm not seeing the flaws. Now perhaps that's due to my lack of ability but it might also be that the argument itself is fairly solid. That argument is now no longer available to be seen. (but I have a copy if you like.)

MIT has no record of him, but as of now Stanford doesn't either. The ADS Abstract service that contains the articles listed above gives him an email address at alum.mit.edu.

So what gives? Maybe, and this gets ugly, his thesis was about the very same topic that we see before us today. I wonder how a thesis advisor would react to a candidate whose submission claimed to disprove the Big Bang. I could easily see a scenario where politics came to play and the approval of his thesis got held up. Would you attach your name to it? Would you risk your career on approving this work from a student of yours?

Personally I don't really care where he went to school. I care whether or not his theory is correct. If a patent clerk published something ground breaking then I say give him a scholarship. Maybe he's faking the credentials so he can be heard. He may be a complete con-artist. I really wouldn't care, although I would certainly understand why they would take the website down at that point.

Let those who have the credentials show how the theory falls apart under analysis. If it doesn't, if it holds up under scrutiny, are we then going to discount the theory because he doesn't have enough letters after his name?

For the record, we do not know that he isn't a PhD. We just know that several very respectable institutions apparently want nothing to do with him. The reason for that is unclear.

I was only able to find two papers from him.

I understand your point about credibility but I've been going over the lectures he put up and I'm not seeing the flaws. Now perhaps that's due to my lack of ability but it might also be that the argument itself is fairly solid. That argument is now no longer available to be seen. (but I have a copy if you like.)

MIT has no record of him, but as of now Stanford doesn't either. The ADS Abstract service that contains the articles listed above gives him an email address at alum.mit.edu.

So what gives? Maybe, and this gets ugly, his thesis was about the very same topic that we see before us today. I wonder how a thesis advisor would react to a candidate whose submission claimed to disprove the Big Bang. I could easily see a scenario where politics came to play and the approval of his thesis got held up. Would you attach your name to it? Would you risk your career on approving this work from a student of yours?

Personally I don't really care where he went to school. I care whether or not his theory is correct. If a patent clerk published something ground breaking then I say give him a scholarship. Maybe he's faking the credentials so he can be heard. He may be a complete con-artist. I really wouldn't care, although I would certainly understand why they would take the website down at that point.

Let those who have the credentials show how the theory falls apart under analysis. If it doesn't, if it holds up under scrutiny, are we then going to discount the theory because he doesn't have enough letters after his name?

For the record, we do not know that he isn't a PhD. We just know that several very respectable institutions apparently want nothing to do with him. The reason for that is unclear.

I'd even take this a little deeper and suggest that the main benefit is to the germ line cells - in a sense, the body is really just a complex vehicle for the reproductive cells. Human ova are partially developed - partially through meiosis - even before the female fetus is born. Although there has been some recent contention, it is generally thought that new female reproductive cells do not develop after birth (or are limited in number relative to the quantity that develop while in the womb). So, the fetal environment doesn't just affect the fetus - it affects that fetus' offspring, too. Furthermore, sociological research (like the Human Life History Project) shows that "the longer a woman lived after the end of her reproductive years, the more successfully her children's reproductive lives would be."

In response: people have a right to do what they want so long as they do not exercise force against others. This right is absolute. If the man wants not to save the child, we may call him a depraved individual with a set of values far outside the set of those which sane human beings may hold, we may. We may not however initiate the use of force against him by imprisoning him for no action. The same is true in the case of medication. If you contractually ablige yourself to save another's life, you must; if you don't, you are under no obligation to do so. Even if a law is passed allowing theft (of a drug in this case) it is still wrong. Laws != ethics.

I don't know what the French are discussing, but read the link in my sig.

For the record (since slashdot sigs are mutable) the referenced link is: http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v18/18Har vJLTech085.pdf

Damn trolls. Must not reply. Must not feed them. Must not reply. Replying...

Whoooo! Fresh meat! Eighty-two pages of hearty PDF, and slathered with footnotes; just as I like it.

BTW: I'm not a troll, I'm an Ogre. Like an onion, you know? Oh nevermind...

My first impression is that your paper suffers from a perceptional bias. There is a definite bias toward seeing digital content artifacts as being predominantly comprised of mass market content, which is to say content created by a class we call authors and produced for the purpose of commercial consumption. The proverbial "Brittney Spears MP3" would fall into this class. From what I've read to this point, there's little focus in your paper on the treatment of anything outside this class.

I'd consider that deficiency to be worth addressing in itself.

Not a fault of yours, but I would expect such a bias from anyone who has made the study of Intellectual Property and Copyright a professional focus. Perhaps you can benefit from an analysis by a troll.

There's no reason why high quality blogs and news sources, or even political and cooking websites, shouldn't be funded under the same system...

Much of the content on the internet is composed of digital content artifacts which were not created for commercial reasons, and although clearly authored by someone, were not created by Authors in the traditional Copyright sense. Among these, for example, would be Slashdot replies, although those probably don't qualify as "high quality" content. It's not clear that any VMRS could ever be efficient enough to interoperate with the creation of this kind of content without necessarily impeding it. I'm not sure it would be worth my trouble to register as an author for the kind of financial return a VMRS would offer to mere slashdot posters, unless it were necessary to keep Delilah from registering in my stead to game the system. I'd probably just exit the market instead.

...in proportion to the amount they get used/appreciated.

Demand does not always equal value, (2.A.1, pp96-97) unless defined as such. While I'm unable to offer an alternative, I think you underestimate the detrimental effect a VMRS might suffer from inappropriately compensating popular but not particularly valuable content. (think: kiddee porn.)

Additionally, there are vast classes of Internet traffic which should not be considered digital content artifacts (think routing table updates, ICMP queries, etc) and that which straddles the line (RTP snippets of a VoIP conversation, etc). And while a tax based on bandwidth might seem intuitive to someone who only sees the Internet as a string of free MP3's, those of us who work down in the bowels of the Internet ("Under the bridge", if you will) tend to see things differently.

I do like your proposal of allowing consumers to "vote" their content preferences, but without further analysis, it seems impossibly flawed. I can provide further analysis to your email-address-of-record, if you'd like, but I believe it's beyond the scope for this thread.

Software development is a hard case...

Agreed. Perhaps it too is beyond the scope of this discussion. But the Internet has a tendency to act as a slippery slope for many things. And solution which cannot serve for all kinds of digital content artifacts is at best incomplete.

Stealing royalities, maybe, sometimes.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bi bcode=2005AGUFM.G41B0363M&db_key=PHY&data_type=HTM L&format=&high=43e8a348db18655

Affymetrix?

http://www.sunmanagers.org/pipermail/sunmanagers/2 001-March/002577.html

Anyone we know? Database Administrator you say?

sentient or not, nature has it's way or ballancing things out. weather it's disease, biological adaptation, global warming, *Snowball Earth, or any number of things, there are dellicate systems made to adjust, and sometimes repair the dammage. HOPEFULLY the dammage we have done, is not perminant. *RE Snowball Earth: http://www-eps.harvard.edu/people/faculty/hoffman/ snowball_paper.html http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s98442.ht m

Now, as to his claims, there are many. Most, if not all, seem to me to rely on his concept of "gravitational transverse redshift" GTR, which in turn (he claims) follows from "a simple thought experiment" on slide 6 of his first lecture, "A Correction to the Gravitational Model". A little though shows his conclusions on slides 6 and 7 to be incorrect. If A sees B's clock running slowly and B sees A's clock running slowly this leads inevitably to a contradiction - an inescapable paradox.

Say both A and B set their clocks simultaneously to zero, according to an observer at rest at a point O, halfway between A and B, while the spacecraft is at rest. The observer at O also sets their clock to zero at the same time. At this point both Mayer and Einstein would say that all three clocks are observed by A, B and O to be running at the same rate.

Let the spacecraft accelerate at rate g for t seconds according to the clock at O, which continues to be halfway between A and B. Then let the spacecraft coast - becoming an inertial frame again. Now all three clocks are again observed to be running at the same rate. According to Mayer though, O sees the clocks at both A and B to be lagging the clock at O, A sees the clocks at O and B to be lagging the clock at A, B sees the clocks at O and A to be lagging the clock at A.

We now move the observers and clocks at A and B to the location of O, taking great care to do so completely symmetrically, so that there is no reason to distinguish between A and B. Here is the paradox - according to Mayer, A continues to see B's clock lagging A, and B continues to see A's clock lagging B.

This is not the same as the twins paradox. According to O, who has been sitting in the middle all this time, the movement of A and B has been completely symmetrical and there is no reason to favour one over the other.

Since the rest of Mayer's argument, especially GTR, seems to me to depend on this thought experiment, and since his conclusions from the thought experiment are wrong, his remaining theoretical arguments will fall, unless they follow from other principles.

I found this reference :
Multidimensional Time Simplifies General Relativity
Authors: Mayer, Alexander
Affiliation: MIT
Journal: American Physical Society, Second Meeting of the Northwest Section 2000 May 19-20, 2000 University of Oregon Eugene, Oregon, abstract #CP1.013
Publication Date: 05/2000
Abstract
The Minkowski metric is interpreted to imply that time is multidimensional. Multidimensional time simplifies the derivation of equations describing gravitational relativistic phenomena and challenges interpretations of the theory in the strong field limit.

and this one
Title: On the Cause of Geodetic Satellite Accelerations and Other Correlated Unmodeled Phenomena
Authors: Mayer, A. F.
Affiliation: AA(Affymetrix, Inc., 3380 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95051 United States ; amayer@alum.mit.edu)
Journal: American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2005, abstract #G41B-0363
Publication Date: 12/2005
Origin: AGU
AGU Keywords: 1229 Reference systems, 1243 Space geodetic surveys, 6964 Radio wave propagation, 7504 Celestial mechanics, 7969 Satellite drag (1241)
Abstract Copyright: (c) 2005: American Geophysical Union
Bibliographic Code: 2005AGUFM.G41B0363M
Abstract
An oversight in the development of the Einstein field equations requires a well-defined amendment to general relativity that very slightly modifies the weak-field Schwarzschild geometry yielding unambiguous new predictions of gravitational relativistic phenomena. . .etc.

I found this reference :
Multidimensional Time Simplifies General Relativity
Authors: Mayer, Alexander
Affiliation: MIT
Journal: American Physical Society, Second Meeting of the Northwest Section 2000 May 19-20, 2000 University of Oregon Eugene, Oregon, abstract #CP1.013
Publication Date: 05/2000
Abstract
The Minkowski metric is interpreted to imply that time is multidimensional. Multidimensional time simplifies the derivation of equations describing gravitational relativistic phenomena and challenges interpretations of the theory in the strong field limit.

and this one
Title: On the Cause of Geodetic Satellite Accelerations and Other Correlated Unmodeled Phenomena
Authors: Mayer, A. F.
Affiliation: AA(Affymetrix, Inc., 3380 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95051 United States ; amayer@alum.mit.edu)
Journal: American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2005, abstract #G41B-0363
Publication Date: 12/2005
Origin: AGU
AGU Keywords: 1229 Reference systems, 1243 Space geodetic surveys, 6964 Radio wave propagation, 7504 Celestial mechanics, 7969 Satellite drag (1241)
Abstract Copyright: (c) 2005: American Geophysical Union
Bibliographic Code: 2005AGUFM.G41B0363M
Abstract
An oversight in the development of the Einstein field equations requires a well-defined amendment to general relativity that very slightly modifies the weak-field Schwarzschild geometry yielding unambiguous new predictions of gravitational relativistic phenomena. . .etc.

Here's the page for the IAU: Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams which explains how to submit discoveries. (IAU = International Astronomical Union.) They seem to have gone to email mainly, and yes, spam is a problem. Text only messages please! (Submit CCD images seperately.) And you probably want to stick to the format developed for telegrams.

[from my recent blog]
If you have been Chinese since the 1940's it's hard to imagine anyone thinking
China is imperialist. Of course it is possible to say that China as capitalist
would be equally shocking to Chinese society before 1980. Imperialism requires
either a king or heavy handed policy. Historically war has been the direct
result of this style of policy however in recent times economic sanctions also
work. Take for instance the US led sanctions on Iraq.
        While most countries require the UN to impose economic restraints, China has the
singular ability to make economic policy with it's own weight. Google's recent
policy decision to self censor information fed to Chinese citizens is proof of
her ability. Even though the United States does not have the
same sorts of restrictions on information dissemination Google has chosen to
impose restrictions on itself in order to continue diplomatic relations. It
would be interesting to know whether Google has Taiwanese relationships and
how they plan to explain themselves. "Taiwan Independence" is one of the
restricted keywords.
        China is not new at imperialistic tactics. A paper from the China Quarterly,
from Cambridge University Press, describes the "Macedonia Project" where China
bought influence in post communist countries before Taiwan could. Countries
who are UN abiding do not recognize Taiwan as a soverign country. Macedonia did
recognzie Taiwan for a time as a country.* Capitalist nations follow their
corporations. Corporations follow the revenue. Any percentage point higher then
one from the overall population represents a large potentional of revenue from China.
        The Japanese idiom that "business is war" could be taken literally here. As
our nations corporate players jockey around the Internet our governments bend
policy to their will. In this case the pronoun "their" is entirely subjective
and could be the government's will (presumbly linked to the people) or the corporation's
will (presumbly linked to the shareholders). If the government were to enact a policy
that stated "corporations could not create policy that would be illegal to enact on
citizens of the United States" then entities like Google and Yahoo would be
bound to comply. There would also not be a financial risk to them since the US
government would be responsible, and the ultimate defendant, in legal action.
Until that time China will have the ability to bend corporate policy to her
own will regardless of that company's own laws.

* Canada currently favors Taiwan with diplomatic level relations. The US officially recognizes "One China" but continues to sell fighter jet and submarine technology to Taiwan.

Nice troll. However, just to inject some facts on the issue, Harvard Extension is one of twelve degree granting schools at Harvard University. Classes are taught by both tenured and untenured Harvard professors and visiting faculty. Students who receive good marks may also attend regular day Harvard classes. The Extension school has an excellent reputation, can you offer any facts to refute this?

The Chinese government has had Google completely censored before this. By doing this Google offers the Chinese people more access to information on the web than they had before.

IQ albeit a goodly definition years ago is lacking substantially now with new theories of multiple types of intelligence such as those propounded by Harvard's Gardner. I have seen a Japanese kid (25 year old) on a DDR machine rack up unbelievable scores (kinesthetic intelligence, by Gardner) litterly not be able to add anything to any conversation about anything. He was going to college for Business and had failed remedial math that semeseter along with other classes but was being kept on because he was a star in track, I will not tell you the University for obvious reasons.

Nonsense. RSS doesn't have to be governed by a standards body for Apple's actions to be "wrong." The spec can be found at http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss quite easily. And there's nothing stopping Apple from visiting http://feedvalidator.org/ to make sure their code works. They clearly didn't bother to do that.

This isn't Apple bashing either. Many of the people who are most upset about this, myself included, are diehard Apple users.

Apple screwed up photocasting, pure and simple. And they screwed up their podcasting spec too by releasing poorly designed specs (and I'm being generous here by calling their first attempt a "spec") and then changing things later. And they've made processing of some of their elements amazingly difficult. For instance, the itunes:keywords element can either be delimitted by commas or spaces. There's nothing in the xml itself to indicate for sure which you're dealing with, you just have to guess. Check if there's a comma present, if so, split by commas, otherwise, split by spaces. But what happens if they meant to use the single keyword "bad apple" instead of "bad", "apple"? There's no way to know for sure. The whole point of a spec is to avoid this kind of rediculous imprecision.

So yeah, Apple doesn't seem to have the first clue about generating valid RSS or XML any of that stuff. And all they had to do was ask. Secrecy is not always your best friend.

This is the sort of thing that suggetss forgetting is good:

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Reliving_tr auma_Pluses_and_minuses.htm

Traditional psychiatry, with its emphasis on remembering every humiliating or traumatizing moment of your life could easily make you miserable.

If you look at treatments for PTSD, you'll see that psychotherapy hasn't been proven to be helpful.

Look at the standard human reaction after a war: don't talk about it. Pretend it didn't happen. Try to get on with life. Otherwise you'll just be a mess, and not get anything done.

I have been listening to the Computer Science E-1 Harvard podcast. It does a pretty good job of building up from 0 to medium understanding without getting too complex. The beginning is a little bit slow if you know anything about how computers work, but it does a good job of filling in some of the gaps. I have not finished the series yet, so I am not sure how far it goes, but so far I can imagine my mother/grandmother understanding what is going on without too much difficulty. A book based along these same lines would probably work well. http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~cscie1/?page=podcast&t ype=static

I have been listening to the Computer Science E-1 Harvard podcast. It does a pretty good job of building up from 0 to medium understanding without getting too complex. The beginning is a little bit slow if you know anything about how computers work, but it does a good job of filling in some of the gaps. I have not finished the series yet, so I am not sure how far it goes, but so far I can imagine my mother/grandmother understanding what is going on without too much difficulty. A book based along these same lines would probably work well. http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~cscie1/?page=podcast&t ype=static

That is why it is hypothetical.

"Could Einstein's theory of gravity, which has proved to be correct in all cases so far, be somehow wrong?"
(from http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_astro/dark_matter2 .html)
Sure, it could be wrong...something as theoretical can always be wrong. I think the observations that man can make from Earth most likely are bent or distorted by the massive size of the galaxy and the distances between them. Something so huge is hard to measure or calculate definitively.

It's more sophisticated that you might think:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/google/
http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php /1488031

Notice:
http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=nazi&btnG=Goog le-Suche&meta=
Ergebnisse 1 - 10 von ungefähr 28.300.000 für nazi. (0,03 Sekunden)
http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&ie=ISO-8859-1&q= nazi&btnG=Rechercher&meta=
Résultats 1 - 10 sur un total d'environ 28 300 000 pour nazi. (0,05 secondes)
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en- us&q=nazi&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Results 1 - 10 of about 29,900,000 for nazi [definition]. (0.04 seconds)

See the search count numbers? Don't blame it on language. Lets search for Nazi in ... Japan:
http://www.google.co.jp/search?q=Nazi&btnG=%CF%EE% E8%F1%EA+%E2+Google&lr=
Nazi 29,900,000 1 - 10 (0.05 )

Neat, huh?

Keep in mind, unless you specify google to focus on your language, the search results should be _exactly_ the same across local sites. Except if they tamper with the results, which both Google and Yahoo do for Germany and France.

Research on Similar experiences with china:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/china/

Sadly, you can't test the Chinese version from outside China. cyberlaw sometimes has a proxy running in China that will allow you to test it, but its currently down. A google filters those results based upon whether your IP block is Chinese or not.

Here's someone's test. You don't have to believe it, I guess:
http://www.dit-inc.us/report/google200409/google.h tm

Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_words_blocked _by_search_engines_in_Mainland_China

Interestingly enough, looks like our Congress criters may be trying to change this behavior:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6026733.html

It's more sophisticated that you might think:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/google/
http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php /1488031

Notice:
http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=nazi&btnG=Goog le-Suche&meta=
Ergebnisse 1 - 10 von ungefähr 28.300.000 für nazi. (0,03 Sekunden)
http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&ie=ISO-8859-1&q= nazi&btnG=Rechercher&meta=
Résultats 1 - 10 sur un total d'environ 28 300 000 pour nazi. (0,05 secondes)
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en- us&q=nazi&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Results 1 - 10 of about 29,900,000 for nazi [definition]. (0.04 seconds)

See the search count numbers? Don't blame it on language. Lets search for Nazi in ... Japan:
http://www.google.co.jp/search?q=Nazi&btnG=%CF%EE% E8%F1%EA+%E2+Google&lr=
Nazi 29,900,000 1 - 10 (0.05 )

Neat, huh?

Keep in mind, unless you specify google to focus on your language, the search results should be _exactly_ the same across local sites. Except if they tamper with the results, which both Google and Yahoo do for Germany and France.

Research on Similar experiences with china:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/china/

Sadly, you can't test the Chinese version from outside China. cyberlaw sometimes has a proxy running in China that will allow you to test it, but its currently down. A google filters those results based upon whether your IP block is Chinese or not.

Here's someone's test. You don't have to believe it, I guess:
http://www.dit-inc.us/report/google200409/google.h tm

Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_words_blocked _by_search_engines_in_Mainland_China

Interestingly enough, looks like our Congress criters may be trying to change this behavior:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6026733.html

Interesting. I'm not much of a legal scholar but a little searching on the 'hot news' doctrine brought up a case that seems very much releated to this MLB issue.

In 1977 the NFL tried to sue the state of Delaware for running a lottery based on the outcome of NFL games. The NFL got shot down.

If nothing else, it shows this sort of idiocy is not really all that new.