Yes, it is logarithmic, but in sensor output, so to get the energy, you need to take the 3/2th power, so a 6.0 is about 31.000 times more energetic then a 3.0
Murder might be easier to get away with then patent infringement. Of course, that depends on the specific murder victim and the patented technology. Also, I answered your question "Where's the value in an invention that is no longer patent protected ?", I didn't nescesarily said anything about whether it would be beneficial for any individual to murder anyone.
Perhaps the value is in the invention not being patent protcted? As in, I'm being driven out of the market becauase one of my competitors have a patent on $INVENTION, if I can make the patent go away, I will be better able to compete.
Well, magnetic fields and seismic data. It was discovered that P-waves sould pass through the core, while S-waves couldn't, which could only be explained by a liquid outer core.
Having a monopoly is not a (legal) problem in and of itself, using it to gain advantages is. MS has a monopoly in the OS market, and they are using it to gain a monopoly on the browser market. Which is bad for the consumer and therefor illegal.
But they are different physical phenomenons, in the nova, only hydrogen burns, in a type Ia supernova, carbon burns (type Ia, Ic and II doesn't come from whote dwarves). So it makes sense to distinguish between powerful novae and weak supernovae, even if they can have the same luminosity.
Okay, you go to a fast food restaurant, and you see an employee wander out back and beat up a bum. Would it be wrong for me to go talk to his manager and call the cops on him? Even if he got fired?
*Sigh* Straw Man Alert. If you call the police, no, that would be fine. How would this be a mob?
I've only heard of a handful of cases where crowd-sourced justice misidentified the perpetrator and yet you can find endless threads on the internet (car forums are especially fruitful) where vigilantism peacefully named and shamed the guilty.
No, you can find endless threads were the person who seems to be the bad guy is named and shamed. You don't know the entire story, you don't even know if any of it is true, or just something made up by his competitors (or whoever). If there isn't a balanced system to take care of the cases, you can't be reasonably sure the bad guy was found, which is not justice.
Now, I'm sure that in a lot af the cases, the guy who was found was the bad guy, and vigilantism does point out places where (the public think that) the justice system should do more, but it isn't doing justice.
And even without corruption it isn't as if a grade actually reflects how well the material was learned. Grades reflect all sorts of things that have nothing to do with education, like dedication and the ability to brown nose the teacher. Teachers reward those who repeat what the book rather than those who demonstrate actual understanding of the material.
Yes, there would be a lot of problems doing this with grades, but why is that relevant? It says in the summary that they pay according to tests. I understand about not RTFA, but not reading TFS? That's just taking lazyness to a new level.
We weigh the jollies of some creepy, but perhaps harmless person over the possibility that children get hurt. I don't really think there is an argument.
I disagree, we weigh the jollies of living in a free and open society, where things won't get banned simply because enough people find them gross, against the hypothetical risk that perhaps someone might do something bad.
The right to fantasize, daydream, and drool over violating people and committing crimes? I'm pretty sure I missed that right when reading the constitution.
Wait, did you just admit wanting to ban thinking certain things? Not that I am surprised, but it is nice to see it in writing.
If a person is going to commit rape, offering them the alternative of a game that simulates it isn't going to stop them. This argument seems to boil down to the idea that the culprit can get what he wants from pixels, which is a bit like assuming that your average serial killer will be content with GTA.
Net nescecarily, it is like assuming that some serial killer might get some of the same stimuli, and thus murder less often. That idea might be bunkers, but it is not as extreme as the one you depicted.
But yes, until someone has evidence one way or the other, both is BS, and shouldn't be the base of censorship.
Some words were created offensive because somebody wanted a word that was "filthy." Consider [...] or feces versus shit.
Yes, those protoindoeuropeans creating the word "skheid-" for "to seperate" probably did it to have a filthy word. I'm sure that was their reason. Unless you mean that "feces" was created to be filthy, which is just as wrong.
Consider, for example, "God damn it." You hear it often enough that you don't think about it, but it's a curse. The speaker is asking God to condemn the object of his wrath. It's become rather commonplace and nobody really thinks about that meaning anymore, but consider how offended you'd be if somebody said it and actually meant it.
Offended because somebody asked their imaginary friend to condemn me? Why would I be offended? I might feel sorry for the poor deluded fellow, but not offended.
It doesn't for me, but i use my Nokia E71 much less then I type on a big keyboard, so I don't know if that might be the reason. I use the autocorrection on purpose (one of the special letters in my primary language is not directly accessible on the mobiles' keyboard, but it can usually guess whether I wanted the primary letter or the secondary).
Yes, we can't have that. In the same way that we can't make it illegal to pollute, it would damage the ECONOMY. Maybe you're not working at $chemical_plant and won't lose your job if they have produce less, and maybe they are polluting your back yard, but stop being so selfish! Think of the workers!
Well, probably not quite, you are going to use the money you saved at some time, and some of that consumption are likely going to use power. But not much, and not anywhere near what it would have used if you used it as a inefficient way to heat your house (which is the case whether the efficiency comes from using less electricity or from less exercise for you when you walk around changing the bulbs;-) )
Actually, most loads in normal households are inductive, and the CFL are capacitive, so the low power factor increases the overall power factor of a home (some of the unbalanced power from your fridge now only have to travel to the nearest CFL, and not to the local transformer station).
But don't expect things like facts to convince the people who irrationally hate CFLs, you cannot reason people out of a position they have not reasoned themselves into.
Well, there is some merit to the definition, IIRC some parrots are considered different species by some biologists, simply because their mating behavior is so different that they will not interbreed. A species is not well defined.
Oh, and your neutering example, it works fine as soon as you find a breeding population of neutered animals, then it will be a different species. I think there is a problem with that concept, but I can't put my finger on it...
You are right, I have titrated the amount of CO2 in soft drinks at a soft drink makers laboratory, the plastic bottles had to contain 10% more CO2, for that exact reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it is logarithmic, but in sensor output, so to get the energy, you need to take the 3/2th power, so a 6.0 is about 31.000 times more energetic then a 3.0
Dammit, posting to remove wrong moderation.
Oh, right, I actually did.
Murder might be easier to get away with then patent infringement. Of course, that depends on the specific murder victim and the patented technology.
Also, I answered your question "Where's the value in an invention that is no longer patent protected ?", I didn't nescesarily said anything about whether it would be beneficial for any individual to murder anyone.
Perhaps the value is in the invention not being patent protcted? As in, I'm being driven out of the market becauase one of my competitors have a patent on $INVENTION, if I can make the patent go away, I will be better able to compete.
Well, magnetic fields and seismic data. It was discovered that P-waves sould pass through the core, while S-waves couldn't, which could only be explained by a liquid outer core.
What, like earth?
Having a monopoly is not a (legal) problem in and of itself, using it to gain advantages is. MS has a monopoly in the OS market, and they are using it to gain a monopoly on the browser market. Which is bad for the consumer and therefor illegal.
But they are different physical phenomenons, in the nova, only hydrogen burns, in a type Ia supernova, carbon burns (type Ia, Ic and II doesn't come from whote dwarves). So it makes sense to distinguish between powerful novae and weak supernovae, even if they can have the same luminosity.
You get to defend yourself in a court of law? I would say that would make a rather big difference.
Okay, you go to a fast food restaurant, and you see an employee wander out back and beat up a bum. Would it be wrong for me to go talk to his manager and call the cops on him? Even if he got fired?
*Sigh* Straw Man Alert. If you call the police, no, that would be fine. How would this be a mob?
I've only heard of a handful of cases where crowd-sourced justice misidentified the perpetrator and yet you can find endless threads on the internet (car forums are especially fruitful) where vigilantism peacefully named and shamed the guilty.
No, you can find endless threads were the person who seems to be the bad guy is named and shamed. You don't know the entire story, you don't even know if any of it is true, or just something made up by his competitors (or whoever). If there isn't a balanced system to take care of the cases, you can't be reasonably sure the bad guy was found, which is not justice.
Now, I'm sure that in a lot af the cases, the guy who was found was the bad guy, and vigilantism does point out places where (the public think that) the justice system should do more, but it isn't doing justice.
And even without corruption it isn't as if a grade actually reflects how well the material was learned. Grades reflect all sorts of things that have nothing to do with education, like dedication and the ability to brown nose the teacher. Teachers reward those who repeat what the book rather than those who demonstrate actual understanding of the material.
Yes, there would be a lot of problems doing this with grades, but why is that relevant? It says in the summary that they pay according to tests. I understand about not RTFA, but not reading TFS? That's just taking lazyness to a new level.
We weigh the jollies of some creepy, but perhaps harmless person over the possibility that children get hurt. I don't really think there is an argument.
I disagree, we weigh the jollies of living in a free and open society, where things won't get banned simply because enough people find them gross, against the hypothetical risk that perhaps someone might do something bad.
The right to fantasize, daydream, and drool over violating people and committing crimes? I'm pretty sure I missed that right when reading the constitution.
Wait, did you just admit wanting to ban thinking certain things? Not that I am surprised, but it is nice to see it in writing.
If a person is going to commit rape, offering them the alternative of a game that simulates it isn't going to stop them. This argument seems to boil down to the idea that the culprit can get what he wants from pixels, which is a bit like assuming that your average serial killer will be content with GTA.
Net nescecarily, it is like assuming that some serial killer might get some of the same stimuli, and thus murder less often. That idea might be bunkers, but it is not as extreme as the one you depicted.
But yes, until someone has evidence one way or the other, both is BS, and shouldn't be the base of censorship.
Some words were created offensive because somebody wanted a word that was "filthy." Consider [...] or feces versus shit.
Yes, those protoindoeuropeans creating the word "skheid-" for "to seperate" probably did it to have a filthy word. I'm sure that was their reason. Unless you mean that "feces" was created to be filthy, which is just as wrong.
Consider, for example, "God damn it." You hear it often enough that you don't think about it, but it's a curse. The speaker is asking God to condemn the object of his wrath. It's become rather commonplace and nobody really thinks about that meaning anymore, but consider how offended you'd be if somebody said it and actually meant it.
Offended because somebody asked their imaginary friend to condemn me? Why would I be offended? I might feel sorry for the poor deluded fellow, but not offended.
It doesn't for me, but i use my Nokia E71 much less then I type on a big keyboard, so I don't know if that might be the reason. I use the autocorrection on purpose (one of the special letters in my primary language is not directly accessible on the mobiles' keyboard, but it can usually guess whether I wanted the primary letter or the secondary).
Yes, we can't have that. In the same way that we can't make it illegal to pollute, it would damage the ECONOMY. Maybe you're not working at $chemical_plant and won't lose your job if they have produce less, and maybe they are polluting your back yard, but stop being so selfish! Think of the workers!
Well, probably not quite, you are going to use the money you saved at some time, and some of that consumption are likely going to use power. But not much, and not anywhere near what it would have used if you used it as a inefficient way to heat your house (which is the case whether the efficiency comes from using less electricity or from less exercise for you when you walk around changing the bulbs ;-) )
Actually, most loads in normal households are inductive, and the CFL are capacitive, so the low power factor increases the overall power factor of a home (some of the unbalanced power from your fridge now only have to travel to the nearest CFL, and not to the local transformer station).
But don't expect things like facts to convince the people who irrationally hate CFLs, you cannot reason people out of a position they have not reasoned themselves into.
Actually, his result wasn't correct, as can be seen from the Feynmann quote on the wikipedia article you linked to.
Ahh, but that is excactly the problem: There are no perfect definitions of a species. There aren't even any really good ones.
Well, there is some merit to the definition, IIRC some parrots are considered different species by some biologists, simply because their mating behavior is so different that they will not interbreed. A species is not well defined.
Oh, and your neutering example, it works fine as soon as you find a breeding population of neutered animals, then it will be a different species. I think there is a problem with that concept, but I can't put my finger on it...
You are right, I have titrated the amount of CO2 in soft drinks at a soft drink makers laboratory, the plastic bottles had to contain 10% more CO2, for that exact reason.