From TFA: "Her complaint contains some very disturbing allegations, including one that labels attempted to contact her then eight-year-old daughter under false pretenses without Andersen's permission."
Hi, Sally, this is Mr. Nice calling, is your mommy home? No? Good... I mean, uh, well then can I just talk to you for a minute instead? Tell me Sally, how would you feel about living with a foster family after we toss your mommy in the clink? I mean, she's subjecting you to gangsta rap, for Heaven's sakes, we'd be doing you a favor!
It would've been better if the RIAA had caught the business-end of a "To Catch A Predator" show instead.
But can somebody explain to me why in the hell would we ever need a 28 Mbps audio stream even with 24 channels?
Yeah, not sure what this is all about. Most internet radio streams are in the 100-200 kbps range for two channels, which comes out to the ~2.4 Mbps range at most for 24 ch. So they're saying they need roughly a factor of 10 more data per channel? Maybe they're not compressing the audio stream?
For example, all the laws retracting your freedom in order to catch terrorists. Most of the people on the street are actually convinced this kind of thing is a good idea.
You're right, but I'd say you have to consider the [manipulation | omission]-of-information factor in cases like this. I'm not about to go on a "conspiracy" tirade, but I'd doubt the average american knows much more about the Patriot Act than what Bill O'Reilly told them to think about it.
However, I don't think the artists/creators will enjoy this much.
If one can make any broad, sweeping generalizations, it's that music artists make the vast majority of their profit from performances; actually very little of a CD-sale goes to the artist. For artists, the distribution of their recorded music acts as a promotion for their performances. Hence, FREE distribution, while hurting the record company, only benefits the artist (in the broad, sweeping generalization that I'm referring to here), so I wouldn't expect to see many complaints from artists/creators.
Personally, I think that the rights to a recording should belong to the artists who created the music (and possibly the sound engineers who operated the recording equipment), and not to the record company. It's possible that the reason independent bands are becoming more widespread in recent years is because of free file sharing.
There ya go, no need to take shoes off or all that other ridiculousness.
I have a better idea: make everyone get completely naked and wiggle. THAT might finally break Americans of their puritanical roots (and shed a few pounds too).
Most physics publications are posted for free on what we in the community call simply "The Archive" (said with extra gravitas). Down side: it's not a journal, hence anyone can post sans peer review. Up side: it usually says if the paper has been accepted by a journal for publication, and the database is extensive.
But if what you read is bogus, it's more likely to be from a crackpot rather than a crank site (one is misinformation due to ignorance, the other is deliberate). But in the case of Mercury's orbit, one of the reasons Einstein's GR was celebrated as rapidly as it was is because it closed the gap between observation and prediction of the orbital precession, to within statistical uncertainty. It's possible there are some very small discrepancies still, but if they do exist then they are, well, small, and would likely not take a scientific revolution to resolve.
I agree that at least the crystal structure can't be the sole reason why diamonds are coveted. I should point out that silicon has the exact same crystal structure as diamond, and no one's killing people over that.
Anyways, I found the/. posting where I got the "decidedly legal" idea about space-shifting. From that posting, TFA makes that claim, and references the Rio case that is discussed in the wikipedia article you shared. But in the Napster case, it seems that the context of that ruling [against space-shifting] would not include ipods*. The MP3.com case seems to be in a similar context. Is it true that the law differentiates between various kinds of space-shifting? If so, then it looks like copying to an ipod is legit.
I'm a little ignorant in the land of copyright law, but where does copying songs from a CD to one's iPod fit into all this? I was under the distinct impression that doing so was decidedly legal.
(2) follows from your definition in quotes but (1) does not.
"Computability" has nothing to do with how fast or slow a computation might take.
"Predictability" does not require knowledge of a system's future to infinite precision.
Actually, in order to know a system's future dynamics exactly, what is required is the existence of an analytic solution. This excludes many classes of systems, not just chaotic ones. But given a set of differential equations that describe the system and a set of initial conditions, one can THEN predict the behavior of the system at least numerically. For example, no analytic solution exists for an N-body system, with N >= 3. But they are certainly predictable. If not, [Neptune | Pluto] would not have been discovered when they were; the [Apollo | Voyager | Cassini | etc.] missions would have been bunk; no one would have predicted that Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 would collide with Jupiter, and the Millennium Falcon would not have been able to make the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs;-)
In consequence, it is non-predictable (the only way to know the result is to actually go through each and every step, of which there are an infinite number and each of which requires infinite precision) but wholly deterministic (there are no random elements, if the entire system was reset exactly to an infinite degree of precision to a given state, then it would produce identical results).
Again, you're getting stuck on the meaning of predictability. To give a very simple example, drawing from the most familiar chaotic system, go to this website, type in your zip code. You will get statements about the future weather. These are predictions. Are they perfect? Certainly no, but the are, nonetheless, bonafide predictions.
What you are asking for is an EXACT solution to such a problem, which I agree would take a infinite number of steps if solving numerically. But this is not required for a prediction. In fact, this is only possible in systems for which an analytic solutions exists (which is very rare in practice, trust me). Scientists and engineers use computers to calculate numerical solutions all the time. The most general requirement for a system to be chaotic is that it be described by at least 3 nonlinear coupled differential equations. Given such a system, numerically evolving those equations is usually quite easy. Of course, the results will not be true for an arbitrary number of iterations, but the short-time behavior will be accurate [enough].
The point is, chaotic systems are calculable. You want 0.1% accuracy t units of time? Fine, you can calculate that. The limiting factor is in knowledge of the initial conditions.
Do such problems exist? Well, chaos theory is full of them. You cannot have a system that is truly chaotic and computable at the same time - the two are mutually exclusive. Both are deterministic, but only one is predictable.
While this isn't the main point of your comment, I should call a red card on your reference to chaos theory, determinism, and predictability. First of all, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word "deterministic". If a system is deterministic, then by definition it is, at least at some level, predictable. In terms of physics, the alternative to a deterministic system is a probabilistic system (which is the general interpretation of quantum mechanics). But even probabilistic systems are predictable to a degree (one can predict the probability of certain outcomes).
But when one talks of chaos theory, and a chaotic system, this has nothing to do with its predictability. A chaotic system is in fact predictable. The 'chaos' label refers to the system's sensitivity to initial conditions. But given a set of initial conditions, the later dynamics of that system can be computed.
Come to think of it, the bonus features on the next gen dvds generally portray Spiner as being the most sarcastic cast member... I wouldn't discount the possibility that he was just pulling this guy's leg.
It's good that they have wifi capabilities, certainly it would be stupid to leave that out. But just out of curiosity, how often do you run into situation where you'd use wireless with a desktop? Granted, in recent years, I've only interacted with desktops at the workplace (where there are plenty of ethernet cnxns), but is WiFi really that huge a selling point for a desktop?
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you need to be root to do that? Let me see YOUR geek card.
Ahhhhhh!!! SUDO! SUDO! I swear I meant SUDO!
From TFA: "Her complaint contains some very disturbing allegations, including one that labels attempted to contact her then eight-year-old daughter under false pretenses without Andersen's permission."
Hi, Sally, this is Mr. Nice calling, is your mommy home? No? Good... I mean, uh, well then can I just talk to you for a minute instead? Tell me Sally, how would you feel about living with a foster family after we toss your mommy in the clink? I mean, she's subjecting you to gangsta rap, for Heaven's sakes, we'd be doing you a favor!
It would've been better if the RIAA had caught the business-end of a "To Catch A Predator" show instead.
Amen!
But can somebody explain to me why in the hell would we ever need a 28 Mbps audio stream even with 24 channels?
Yeah, not sure what this is all about. Most internet radio streams are in the 100-200 kbps range for two channels, which comes out to the ~2.4 Mbps range at most for 24 ch. So they're saying they need roughly a factor of 10 more data per channel? Maybe they're not compressing the audio stream?
For example, all the laws retracting your freedom in order to catch terrorists. Most of the people on the street are actually convinced this kind of thing is a good idea.
You're right, but I'd say you have to consider the [manipulation | omission]-of-information factor in cases like this. I'm not about to go on a "conspiracy" tirade, but I'd doubt the average american knows much more about the Patriot Act than what Bill O'Reilly told them to think about it.
However, I don't think the artists/creators will enjoy this much.
If one can make any broad, sweeping generalizations, it's that music artists make the vast majority of their profit from performances; actually very little of a CD-sale goes to the artist. For artists, the distribution of their recorded music acts as a promotion for their performances. Hence, FREE distribution, while hurting the record company, only benefits the artist (in the broad, sweeping generalization that I'm referring to here), so I wouldn't expect to see many complaints from artists/creators.
Personally, I think that the rights to a recording should belong to the artists who created the music (and possibly the sound engineers who operated the recording equipment), and not to the record company. It's possible that the reason independent bands are becoming more widespread in recent years is because of free file sharing.
There ya go, no need to take shoes off or all that other ridiculousness.
I have a better idea: make everyone get completely naked and wiggle. THAT might finally break Americans of their puritanical roots (and shed a few pounds too).
Go for it, you can probably find the thing on ebay...
Most physics publications are posted for free on what we in the community call simply "The Archive" (said with extra gravitas). Down side: it's not a journal, hence anyone can post sans peer review. Up side: it usually says if the paper has been accepted by a journal for publication, and the database is extensive.
But if what you read is bogus, it's more likely to be from a crackpot rather than a crank site (one is misinformation due to ignorance, the other is deliberate). But in the case of Mercury's orbit, one of the reasons Einstein's GR was celebrated as rapidly as it was is because it closed the gap between observation and prediction of the orbital precession, to within statistical uncertainty. It's possible there are some very small discrepancies still, but if they do exist then they are, well, small, and would likely not take a scientific revolution to resolve.
40 billion, spread over how many aircraft, and paid for by how many hundreds of thousands of airline tickets and freight bills?
no, that's the new price for a business-class ticket.
I agree that at least the crystal structure can't be the sole reason why diamonds are coveted. I should point out that silicon has the exact same crystal structure as diamond, and no one's killing people over that.
Someone should mod you up for "informative".
/. posting where I got the "decidedly legal" idea about space-shifting. From that posting, TFA makes that claim, and references the Rio case that is discussed in the wikipedia article you shared. But in the Napster case, it seems that the context of that ruling [against space-shifting] would not include ipods*. The MP3.com case seems to be in a similar context. Is it true that the law differentiates between various kinds of space-shifting? If so, then it looks like copying to an ipod is legit.
Anyways, I found the
*or any other portable mp3 player
I'm a little ignorant in the land of copyright law, but where does copying songs from a CD to one's iPod fit into all this? I was under the distinct impression that doing so was decidedly legal.
Actually, in order to know a system's future dynamics exactly, what is required is the existence of an analytic solution. This excludes many classes of systems, not just chaotic ones. But given a set of differential equations that describe the system and a set of initial conditions, one can THEN predict the behavior of the system at least numerically. For example, no analytic solution exists for an N-body system, with N >= 3. But they are certainly predictable. If not, [Neptune | Pluto] would not have been discovered when they were; the [Apollo | Voyager | Cassini | etc.] missions would have been bunk; no one would have predicted that Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 would collide with Jupiter, and the Millennium Falcon would not have been able to make the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs
I believe the misspelling of stake to steak, along with "medium-rare" was intentional and intended to be humorous.
I believe this point was completely obvious and transparent to everyone, including Wylfing.
In consequence, it is non-predictable (the only way to know the result is to actually go through each and every step, of which there are an infinite number and each of which requires infinite precision) but wholly deterministic (there are no random elements, if the entire system was reset exactly to an infinite degree of precision to a given state, then it would produce identical results).
Again, you're getting stuck on the meaning of predictability. To give a very simple example, drawing from the most familiar chaotic system, go to this website, type in your zip code. You will get statements about the future weather. These are predictions. Are they perfect? Certainly no, but the are, nonetheless, bonafide predictions.
What you are asking for is an EXACT solution to such a problem, which I agree would take a infinite number of steps if solving numerically. But this is not required for a prediction. In fact, this is only possible in systems for which an analytic solutions exists (which is very rare in practice, trust me). Scientists and engineers use computers to calculate numerical solutions all the time. The most general requirement for a system to be chaotic is that it be described by at least 3 nonlinear coupled differential equations. Given such a system, numerically evolving those equations is usually quite easy. Of course, the results will not be true for an arbitrary number of iterations, but the short-time behavior will be accurate [enough].
The point is, chaotic systems are calculable. You want 0.1% accuracy t units of time? Fine, you can calculate that. The limiting factor is in knowledge of the initial conditions.
Do such problems exist? Well, chaos theory is full of them. You cannot have a system that is truly chaotic and computable at the same time - the two are mutually exclusive. Both are deterministic, but only one is predictable.
While this isn't the main point of your comment, I should call a red card on your reference to chaos theory, determinism, and predictability. First of all, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word "deterministic". If a system is deterministic, then by definition it is, at least at some level, predictable. In terms of physics, the alternative to a deterministic system is a probabilistic system (which is the general interpretation of quantum mechanics). But even probabilistic systems are predictable to a degree (one can predict the probability of certain outcomes).
But when one talks of chaos theory, and a chaotic system, this has nothing to do with its predictability. A chaotic system is in fact predictable. The 'chaos' label refers to the system's sensitivity to initial conditions. But given a set of initial conditions, the later dynamics of that system can be computed.
We're still at least one scientific revolution away from figuring out Mercury's orbit though, so we shouldn't feel too smug.
Uh, I'd say no, we've already figured out Mercury's orbit. But ok I'll bite; could you please cite this claim?
and Brent Spiner told him he was ripped off
Come to think of it, the bonus features on the next gen dvds generally portray Spiner as being the most sarcastic cast member... I wouldn't discount the possibility that he was just pulling this guy's leg.
And as usual, there is no explanation as to *why* lithium batteries are now illegal to carry
No, because disclosing that information would only embolden the terrorists.
and guaranteed 802.11n
It's good that they have wifi capabilities, certainly it would be stupid to leave that out. But just out of curiosity, how often do you run into situation where you'd use wireless with a desktop? Granted, in recent years, I've only interacted with desktops at the workplace (where there are plenty of ethernet cnxns), but is WiFi really that huge a selling point for a desktop?
Doesn't help me since the psychoactive dose puts my wife straight into sleepy/tired-land for the most part.
Sure... *cough cough*, THAT'S what puts her into sleepy/tire-land when you're gettin frisky.