Surely *any* focussed beam wouldn't fall off in the same way?
The only thing that will obey the inverse square law ass you move away from from the actual device is something that radiates away in a spherical "shell" (not the best terminology, but it's early:p ).
A partially focussed beam would obey the inverse square law (assuming a symmetrical optical system) away from the focal point.
Why would a focussed beam drop off according to the inverse square law? An unfocussed beam, yes, but it doesn't make sense to me when considering a focussed beam.
If I owned a player which took micro-SD then I'd get one of these and put all of my music on one card
This is the idea.
Having a card that the music comes on is only useful if I buy music from a physical store
Again, I believe this is the point.
since ripping a CD is a zero-button operation (insert CD, wait, collect CD when it's ejected)
This does take time, however. I've got a player with an sd card slot, so I'd be able to just put this into my player and copy immediately.
Even if you've got to transfer it through your PC, it's going to be a lot quicker than ripping. Connect, copy, done. No painfully slow reading of the cd, and no transcoding required. The copying speed will only get greater over time, and the media will get *much* cheaper over time.
The problem with gun/knife control is that the real criminal will still be able to get knives or guns from the black market.
Nicely avoiding the issue of how *easy* it is to get illegal weapons. It's possible, yes, but not as easy as it would be if they were legal to buy.
But still , anything can be used as a lethal weapon in some way. You can do some serious damage with an umbrella if you know how.
Nice fallacy there. An umbrella has a use other than injuring/killing animals.
You want a gun in the uk for something like hunting, or have some other reason you would actually need a gun apart from shootn' t'rrists? That's actually legal. (apologies for not linking to the actual law, the home office site is to irritating to find things on)
Oh but officer, this 9mm is for foxes, dontcherknow.
If China or India decide to pass some laws to protect their environment or fix minimum wages for their workers, there isn't much the USA or anyone else can do to stop them.
No, of course we can't stop them from changing their laws. That's not really the issue though, the question is can the companies affect things and should they do so.
The western corporations didn't do much more there than try to get the best prices. Which is how capitalism and the free market are supposed to work.
No, they try and make the most money, not get the best prices. A small nitpick, but one that changes the system massively. Without this difference things like fairtrade would not work at all.
I.e., again, if China wants to fix it, it can simply change the constraints that apply over there. There isn't much that those large corporations can do to force any other result there.
Of course there is. It's an optimisation problem, so change the ways in which people profit. If a large corporation will only give you a huge contract if you have decent working conditions, then it's profitable to have decent working conditions.
If legal != right, then you change what is legal
Yes, this is the best way, but it doesn't preclude changing what is happening. Both can be done, but legal issues take far more time to get sorted/approved/etc.
Except that never worked that way. The people currently benefiting from the status quo, will invariably either [snip]
I think there was a misunderstanding here, I wasn't claiming that "Let the people currently benefiting change things" is the way to go, but that it was what your argument amounted to.
If it's the Chinese that inhale those burned plastic fumes, then let the Chinese say when they've had enough.
How much sway do you really think that the Chinese people have over the government?
But things that they do to themselves for a buck? Why would it be our business to stop them from doing that?
Because we can? Why should anybody who has the ability to help others do so?
It's not like the workers decided this was what they wanted, large corporations have created a system whereby this is the most profitable thing for suppliers to do. They are complicit as they know what happens with their money. Just because it's legal there doesn't make it right (just as the common line on slashdot is in the vein of "just because it's illegal doesn't make it wrong").
You're grouping the people suffering with those able to solve things together. "Let them sort it out" isn't quite the right line, "Let the people currently benefiting change things" is more accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
Surely *any* focussed beam wouldn't fall off in the same way? The only thing that will obey the inverse square law ass you move away from from the actual device is something that radiates away in a spherical "shell" (not the best terminology, but it's early :p ).
A partially focussed beam would obey the inverse square law (assuming a symmetrical optical system) away from the focal point.
Why would a focussed beam drop off according to the inverse square law? An unfocussed beam, yes, but it doesn't make sense to me when considering a focussed beam.
If I owned a player which took micro-SD then I'd get one of these and put all of my music on one card
This is the idea.
Having a card that the music comes on is only useful if I buy music from a physical store
Again, I believe this is the point.
since ripping a CD is a zero-button operation (insert CD, wait, collect CD when it's ejected)
This does take time, however. I've got a player with an sd card slot, so I'd be able to just put this into my player and copy immediately.
Even if you've got to transfer it through your PC, it's going to be a lot quicker than ripping. Connect, copy, done. No painfully slow reading of the cd, and no transcoding required. The copying speed will only get greater over time, and the media will get *much* cheaper over time.
Are they going to ban all the videos that teach you how to cook too?
Yes, because that obviously falls under the heading of "videos in the UK that involve showing weapons with the aim of intimidation".
Although it may be easier for you to ask a question, you may find it useful to RTFA once in a while.
but it's another thing to remove every video about knifes.
Ok, ok, I know this goes against slashiquette, but the title of the article is "YouTube bans some weapons footage".
I'm not saying I agree with the move, but attacking a strawman is always a fallacy no matter which side you're on.
The problem with gun/knife control is that the real criminal will still be able to get knives or guns from the black market.
Nicely avoiding the issue of how *easy* it is to get illegal weapons. It's possible, yes, but not as easy as it would be if they were legal to buy.
But still , anything can be used as a lethal weapon in some way. You can do some serious damage with an umbrella if you know how.
Nice fallacy there. An umbrella has a use other than injuring/killing animals.
You want a gun in the uk for something like hunting, or have some other reason you would actually need a gun apart from shootn' t'rrists? That's actually legal. (apologies for not linking to the actual law, the home office site is to irritating to find things on)
Oh but officer, this 9mm is for foxes, dontcherknow.
If China or India decide to pass some laws to protect their environment or fix minimum wages for their workers, there isn't much the USA or anyone else can do to stop them.
No, of course we can't stop them from changing their laws. That's not really the issue though, the question is can the companies affect things and should they do so.
The western corporations didn't do much more there than try to get the best prices. Which is how capitalism and the free market are supposed to work.
No, they try and make the most money, not get the best prices. A small nitpick, but one that changes the system massively. Without this difference things like fairtrade would not work at all.
I.e., again, if China wants to fix it, it can simply change the constraints that apply over there. There isn't much that those large corporations can do to force any other result there.
Of course there is. It's an optimisation problem, so change the ways in which people profit. If a large corporation will only give you a huge contract if you have decent working conditions, then it's profitable to have decent working conditions.
If legal != right, then you change what is legal
Yes, this is the best way, but it doesn't preclude changing what is happening. Both can be done, but legal issues take far more time to get sorted/approved/etc.
Except that never worked that way. The people currently benefiting from the status quo, will invariably either [snip]
I think there was a misunderstanding here, I wasn't claiming that "Let the people currently benefiting change things" is the way to go, but that it was what your argument amounted to.
If it's the Chinese that inhale those burned plastic fumes, then let the Chinese say when they've had enough.
How much sway do you really think that the Chinese people have over the government?
But things that they do to themselves for a buck? Why would it be our business to stop them from doing that?
Because we can? Why should anybody who has the ability to help others do so?
It's not like the workers decided this was what they wanted, large corporations have created a system whereby this is the most profitable thing for suppliers to do. They are complicit as they know what happens with their money. Just because it's legal there doesn't make it right (just as the common line on slashdot is in the vein of "just because it's illegal doesn't make it wrong").
You're grouping the people suffering with those able to solve things together. "Let them sort it out" isn't quite the right line, "Let the people currently benefiting change things" is more accurate.