The story says, "The two companies may be find [sic] as much as $11,000 for each violation," which could lead one to believe that they are being fined for the violations they already committed. The actual article makes it clear that this is not the case. They entered into a settlement agreement with the FTC and could be fined $11,000 for each violation of that agreement. There's no reason to believe they'll be fined unless they continue to commit violations.
You're contradicting yourself, so it's difficult to argue with you.
I wrote: "If all paranormal investigators claimed is that people sometimes imagine themselves floating outside their bodies..."
You wrote: "Several paranormal investigators have claimed exactly this, but the subject has, despite plenty of research, been laughed out of "serious" academic circles." and "The typical reaction from skeptics to people reporting OOBEs is to a priori refute the claim, usually stating the subject simply imagined it.... because OOBE's don't exist"
If stating that the subject imagined it is the reaction from skeptics, why would claims that people imagine it be laughed out of academic circles?
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying. One cannot say, and I doubt anyone does, that an experience does not exist because it was merely imagined. One can deny that the experience corresponded to reality: the person may have been dreaming, imagining, or hallucinating. However, making such a claim does not deny that the person experienced what they did.
Also, who has called Persinger a kook? I thought his work was well-regarded by skeptics.
The news here is that the "real" scientists, who for years have claimed out of body experiences were either lies, hoaxes, drug induced hallucinations or intentional self deceptions, have verified an experience paranormal investigators have been describing for a long time.
You're confused. Imagining or hallucinating that you're floating outside your body is not paranormal. It's only paranormal if the subject is literally able to see what is going on while their eyes are closed or something. This article did not describe the verification of anything like that. They were able to cause out-of-body experiences, but nothing indicated that they were anything more than hallucinations.
If all paranormal investigators claimed is that people sometimes imagine themselves floating outside their bodies, nobody would have called that "lies, hoaxes, or intentional self deceptions" (I'm sure it could be caused by drugs in some cases, though).
I'd rather not consume the rotting corpses of the dead thanks.
Same here. I tried putting some meat in a pit in my backyard with a big block of ice, but it keeps melting. If only we had some sort of technology that could keep things cold.
this idea is simply not true. think about a lighthouse in the middle of a cynlinder - the bigger the cynlinder, the faster the light moves around it provided the lighthouse is spinning at a constand speed. if you make the cynlinder indefinately large, does the light travel at infinite speed along the walls? no - eventually the light will curve, and even spirall - just like a water from a hosepipe.
While it is meaningless to talk about an infinitely large cylinder, the speed of the spot of light will be directly proportional to the size of the cylinder, and can therefore be increased without bound. The beam of light will, of course, curve and spiral, but this has no bearing on the speed of the spot of light.
Well, I don't have a Ph.D. in physics, but I imagine I can easily find one to endorse my opinion on this if you really want (I'm a senior, soon to be grad student, at MIT).
To make my claim as precise as possible: There is a laser emitting light at the center of a sphere of radius 8 light-minutes. The "spot of light" is the "area illuminated by the laser," which is not an imaginary concept. This all happens in an inertial frame of reference. At time t=0, the laser is rotated 180 degrees in pi seconds. At time t=8 minutes, the spot of light moves across the interior of the sphere at a speed 480 times that of light. At time t=16 minutes, an observer at the center of the sphere will see the spot of light move 480 times faster than light.
This works because light is being emitted from the laser as it is being rotated. It will, of course, take 8 minutes for the light to get to its new target, which is why the spot won't move until 8 minutes after the laser is rotated, and why the observer won't see it move for 16 minutes.
Let's say, for example, that I've got a 1 AU (about 8 light-minitue) long indistructable rod and I'm out in space. I push the rod. Common sense says that the far tip of the rod moves at the same time I move the near tip. But that'd break the speed of light; forgetting about inertia for a moment, it'd take at least 8 minutes for the rod to move after I push the near end.
If I have a powerful laser out in space that points out to 1 AU, and a spin it 180 degress, the "spot" of light doesn't move; light just starts moving out at c in the opposite direction.
If you define the "spot of light" as "the area illuminated by the laser," and "to move" as "to change location," the spot of light most certainly does move. 8 minutes after you turn the laser, it will move across whatever you're illuminating at a speed exceeding that of light. I don't know what else you could possibly mean by "spot of light" or "move." Of course, this does not violate relativity at all.
But hey, in case you didn't know, the Cooper Union is the only 4-year private univ in the US that gives a full-tuition scholarship worth about $100k over four years to every student admitted!
How do they determine the value of the scholarship if they don't charge any tuition?
That's not a justifiable thing to assume. According to the article, "the e-mail outlines the definition of copyright violations," which strongly implies that they are only concerned with copyright violations, and distributing your own music is not a copyright violation.
The poster said that his friend made himself a new computer, not that he bought a shipped system.
Re:Important Step?
on
Awari Solved
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The AI community really needs to stop looking for tricks that allow computers to solve problems in ways that humans never could and instead spend their time trying to understand how intelligence actually works.
Yeah, and the automobile industry ought to stop using tricks like "wheels" that allow cars to move in ways that humans never could, and switch to building giant two-legged robots.
A human can screw up playing tic-tac-toe too, it's just not that likely. When most people refer to a "game of chance" they mean something where randomness is supposed to be a fundamental part of the game, such as games that use shuffled decks of cards or dice.
But it is a common fallacy among physicists to claim that conducting an experiment that can invalidate a theory "tests" that theory.
No, tests can have false positives or false negatives and still be "tests". Do you think the Miller-Rabin primality test is not a test because it is possible for composites to pass it? Where did you get this use of the word "test"?
In fact, merely imposing finite speed on Newtonian gravity (and doing some fixing up to make the result consistent) gives you an interesting theory that is quite similar to the experimental predictions of GR in many ways.
And if this theory makes predictions that differ from GR, one could use them to test GR. What's your point? No one's claiming that a theory cannot be wrong as long as it passes at least one test.
Can you show that the total free time lost to excercise makes up for the extra life span?
Yes. Running for 30 minutes 3 or 4 times a week is perfectly adequate to be in decent shape. Let's say 2 hours per week. So, your lifespan would have to increase by a factor of 168/166 = 1.012 to break even. Even if you'd live to be 80 without exercising, that's only an increase of 0.96 years. The difference between being completely sedentary and being in decent shape should add multiple years to your life, so it's not even close.
The art would be improved if there was some way to use the memory as a display buffer AND as a disk. I think it might look pretty neat to watch a grep -r work on that puppy.
Reading from a display buffer doesn't affect what you see, so nothing would visibly happen during the grep.
That's not true. You don't need to use X to do this, you just need a video card. In fact, if you're just using the machine in console mode, you may as well use your video memory for swap or something.
Hotmail only uses SSL during the logon process (AFTER your username and password have been transmitted in the clear). I suspect this is an underhanded attempt to get the real IP address for those using anonymizing proxies, which often don't proxy SSL: you think you're anonymous, your browser silently connects on port 443, your real IP address is captured, and you're none the wiser until you're found out.
To observe this, turn on the warnings for transitioning between SSL and non-SSL pages and log on to hotmail.
You don't know what you're talking about.
The page with the login form is indeed sent to you unencrypted via ordinary HTTP. However, the form action is of the form https://foo/bar, which means that your browser will use SSL to submit the information you put into the form. This is why you don't get a security warning until you submit the form.
Now, this is inferior to using SSL for the login form, because the user has to examine the page source to protect against an attacker replacing the login page, via a DNS spoof or something, with one that submits the form to the attacker rather than Hotmail. However, the username and password are not transmitted in the clear if the actually Hotmail page is used.
So does the grocery shop around the corner. Yet it provides a living for the guy that owns the place. He won't get rich, but he survives.
The difference is that the grocery store still makes a profit for its owner, even if he doesn't get rich. If he were depleting his retirement savings by spending $38 running the store for every dollar it brought in, he'd be an idiot, even if the store were providing a living for a couple of people he hired.
Liquid Audio is providing a living for a few people, but it is doing so by wasting money that the shareholders rightfully own, providing no net benefit to society, and if the shareholders have any sense they'll liquidate the company.
Slashdot Mirror
The story says, "The two companies may be find [sic] as much as $11,000 for each violation," which could lead one to believe that they are being fined for the violations they already committed. The actual article makes it clear that this is not the case. They entered into a settlement agreement with the FTC and could be fined $11,000 for each violation of that agreement. There's no reason to believe they'll be fined unless they continue to commit violations.
You do understand the difference between comments made the submitter and those made by the editor who posted the story, right?
You're contradicting yourself, so it's difficult to argue with you.
I wrote: "If all paranormal investigators claimed is that people sometimes imagine themselves floating outside their bodies..."
You wrote: "Several paranormal investigators have claimed exactly this, but the subject has, despite plenty of research, been laughed out of "serious" academic circles." and "The typical reaction from skeptics to people reporting OOBEs is to a priori refute the claim, usually stating the subject simply imagined it.... because OOBE's don't exist"
If stating that the subject imagined it is the reaction from skeptics, why would claims that people imagine it be laughed out of academic circles?
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying. One cannot say, and I doubt anyone does, that an experience does not exist because it was merely imagined. One can deny that the experience corresponded to reality: the person may have been dreaming, imagining, or hallucinating. However, making such a claim does not deny that the person experienced what they did.
Also, who has called Persinger a kook? I thought his work was well-regarded by skeptics.
The news here is that the "real" scientists, who for years have claimed out of body experiences were either lies, hoaxes, drug induced hallucinations or intentional self deceptions, have verified an experience paranormal investigators have been describing for a long time.
You're confused. Imagining or hallucinating that you're floating outside your body is not paranormal. It's only paranormal if the subject is literally able to see what is going on while their eyes are closed or something. This article did not describe the verification of anything like that. They were able to cause out-of-body experiences, but nothing indicated that they were anything more than hallucinations.
If all paranormal investigators claimed is that people sometimes imagine themselves floating outside their bodies, nobody would have called that "lies, hoaxes, or intentional self deceptions" (I'm sure it could be caused by drugs in some cases, though).
I'd rather not consume the rotting corpses of the dead thanks.
Same here. I tried putting some meat in a pit in my backyard with a big block of ice, but it keeps melting. If only we had some sort of technology that could keep things cold.
You need pressure to determine how much water fits in that volume.
this idea is simply not true. think about a lighthouse in the middle of a cynlinder - the bigger the cynlinder, the faster the light moves around it provided the lighthouse is spinning at a constand speed. if you make the cynlinder indefinately large, does the light travel at infinite speed along the walls? no - eventually the light will curve, and even spirall - just like a water from a hosepipe.
While it is meaningless to talk about an infinitely large cylinder, the speed of the spot of light will be directly proportional to the size of the cylinder, and can therefore be increased without bound. The beam of light will, of course, curve and spiral, but this has no bearing on the speed of the spot of light.
Pressure is just Force per Area. Area is directly related to the distance, and force can be defined by weight and distance...
You're using mass to define a unit of pressure and pressure to define a unit of mass. Try again.
Are you sure? (Ph.D. sure).
Well, I don't have a Ph.D. in physics, but I imagine I can easily find one to endorse my opinion on this if you really want (I'm a senior, soon to be grad student, at MIT).
To make my claim as precise as possible: There is a laser emitting light at the center of a sphere of radius 8 light-minutes. The "spot of light" is the "area illuminated by the laser," which is not an imaginary concept. This all happens in an inertial frame of reference. At time t=0, the laser is rotated 180 degrees in pi seconds. At time t=8 minutes, the spot of light moves across the interior of the sphere at a speed 480 times that of light. At time t=16 minutes, an observer at the center of the sphere will see the spot of light move 480 times faster than light.
This works because light is being emitted from the laser as it is being rotated. It will, of course, take 8 minutes for the light to get to its new target, which is why the spot won't move until 8 minutes after the laser is rotated, and why the observer won't see it move for 16 minutes.
Codebooks aren't actually unbreakable, as you point out in your second paragraph.
I think he meant that codebooks are unbreakable if you don't send the same codeword more than once, which is true, although nobody uses them that way.
Let's say, for example, that I've got a 1 AU (about 8 light-minitue) long indistructable rod and I'm out in space. I push the rod. Common sense says that the far tip of the rod moves at the same time I move the near tip. But that'd break the speed of light; forgetting about inertia for a moment, it'd take at least 8 minutes for the rod to move after I push the near end.
If I have a powerful laser out in space that points out to 1 AU, and a spin it 180 degress, the "spot" of light doesn't move; light just starts moving out at c in the opposite direction.
If you define the "spot of light" as "the area illuminated by the laser," and "to move" as "to change location," the spot of light most certainly does move. 8 minutes after you turn the laser, it will move across whatever you're illuminating at a speed exceeding that of light. I don't know what else you could possibly mean by "spot of light" or "move." Of course, this does not violate relativity at all.
But hey, in case you didn't know, the Cooper Union is the only 4-year private univ in the US that gives a full-tuition scholarship worth about $100k over four years to every student admitted!
How do they determine the value of the scholarship if they don't charge any tuition?
What if it's MY music? I cannot share it?
That's not a justifiable thing to assume. According to the article, "the e-mail outlines the definition of copyright violations," which strongly implies that they are only concerned with copyright violations, and distributing your own music is not a copyright violation.
The poster said that his friend made himself a new computer, not that he bought a shipped system.
The AI community really needs to stop looking for tricks that allow computers to solve problems in ways that humans never could and instead spend their time trying to understand how intelligence actually works.
Yeah, and the automobile industry ought to stop using tricks like "wheels" that allow cars to move in ways that humans never could, and switch to building giant two-legged robots.
A human can screw up playing tic-tac-toe too, it's just not that likely. When most people refer to a "game of chance" they mean something where randomness is supposed to be a fundamental part of the game, such as games that use shuffled decks of cards or dice.
But it is a common fallacy among physicists to claim that conducting an experiment that can invalidate a theory "tests" that theory.
No, tests can have false positives or false negatives and still be "tests". Do you think the Miller-Rabin primality test is not a test because it is possible for composites to pass it? Where did you get this use of the word "test"?
In fact, merely imposing finite speed on Newtonian gravity (and doing some fixing up to make the result consistent) gives you an interesting theory that is quite similar to the experimental predictions of GR in many ways.
And if this theory makes predictions that differ from GR, one could use them to test GR. What's your point? No one's claiming that a theory cannot be wrong as long as it passes at least one test.
Can you show that the total free time lost to excercise makes up for the extra life span?
Yes. Running for 30 minutes 3 or 4 times a week is perfectly adequate to be in decent shape. Let's say 2 hours per week. So, your lifespan would have to increase by a factor of 168/166 = 1.012 to break even. Even if you'd live to be 80 without exercising, that's only an increase of 0.96 years. The difference between being completely sedentary and being in decent shape should add multiple years to your life, so it's not even close.
The art would be improved if there was some way to use the memory as a display buffer AND as a disk. I think it might look pretty neat to watch a grep -r work on that puppy.
Reading from a display buffer doesn't affect what you see, so nothing would visibly happen during the grep.
Besides...this only applies to X users anyway.
That's not true. You don't need to use X to do this, you just need a video card. In fact, if you're just using the machine in console mode, you may as well use your video memory for swap or something.
That's trespassing.
Read the article.
eBlaster is a fancy keystroke logger. Encrypted network connections are completely irrelevant.
Hotmail only uses SSL during the logon process (AFTER your username and password have been transmitted in the clear). I suspect this is an underhanded attempt to get the real IP address for those using anonymizing proxies, which often don't proxy SSL: you think you're anonymous, your browser silently connects on port 443, your real IP address is captured, and you're none the wiser until you're found out.
To observe this, turn on the warnings for transitioning between SSL and non-SSL pages and log on to hotmail.
You don't know what you're talking about.
The page with the login form is indeed sent to you unencrypted via ordinary HTTP. However, the form action is of the form https://foo/bar, which means that your browser will use SSL to submit the information you put into the form. This is why you don't get a security warning until you submit the form.
Now, this is inferior to using SSL for the login form, because the user has to examine the page source to protect against an attacker replacing the login page, via a DNS spoof or something, with one that submits the form to the attacker rather than Hotmail. However, the username and password are not transmitted in the clear if the actually Hotmail page is used.
So does the grocery shop around the corner. Yet it provides a living for the guy that owns the place. He won't get rich, but he survives.
The difference is that the grocery store still makes a profit for its owner, even if he doesn't get rich. If he were depleting his retirement savings by spending $38 running the store for every dollar it brought in, he'd be an idiot, even if the store were providing a living for a couple of people he hired.
Liquid Audio is providing a living for a few people, but it is doing so by wasting money that the shareholders rightfully own, providing no net benefit to society, and if the shareholders have any sense they'll liquidate the company.
No, the point was they don't want to rely on public NTP servers. They do want to run their own NTP server. Read the damn question.