but you are saying that it's ok for others to blur that line, and just claim GPL code as their own.
I made no such claim, I posed a question asking why their one set of moral rules should be preferable and more absolute to the other set.
those that have the rights to those protocols that are being called by mplayer, are free to enforce whatever rights they think they have.
You missed the point. Some of the people whose codecs the mplayer group is distributing think that their "right" is to have an exclusive right to distribution. By the same token, the mplayer developers think that their "right" is to have recognition of their contribution.
This is quite different from repackaging and redistributing files that were freely available on the net.
In case you didn't notice, mplayer consists of files freely available on the net. And the very thing the mplayer developers are doing is accusing KISS of repackaging and redistributing their files in violation of their terms.
What's the justification for a different set of rules applying to them?
Now, if you want to be picky, Congress doesn't have the authority to disband itself. The most it could do is start a Constitutional ammendment to that purpose rolling; then it would need to be approved by the States.
A slight correction. It's true that they don't have the authority to disband themselves, but they certainly have the power to. All they have to do is stop showing up. It's not entirely clear where this would leave us, but it would probably fall upon the executive branch to call for their replacement. If congress decided to stop showing up, and the executive branch simultaneously decided it would be better off just keeping whatever authority remained for itself, then we would have a complete breakdown of our government as we know it. The only thing that keeps us going is the willingness of the people involved to keep playing by the rulebook.
Especially when it comes to the types interested in tipping national/global power. Comments, anyone?
Electronic voting is one step closer to internet voting. Internet voting opens up a new category of voters. I'm sure someone out there has already calculated which direction these new voters will swing. College age people, for example, make up a huge portion of the population, tend to have liberal views, and tend to not vote. How many more would vote if they could do it over the internet? Similarly, there might be a collection of conservative businessmen who can't find time in their schedules to make it to the polls.
When it comes time to seriously debate internet voting, there will be a lot of alternate agendas brought to the table.
Re:As it probably won't survive the slashdotting
on
Wikipedia Needs $20K
·
· Score: 1
That is the correct address, but you're right to verify anything seen on/....
In wikipedia tradition where enough people saying a thing makes it true, I also verify that the posted address is correct.
If your area is anything like good old Pittsburgh PA you had the three big networks and PBS for broadcast TV. In contrast we have more classic rock stations than broadcast TV stations.
Pittsburgh has great radio, but it's certainly an exception. Most of this country has nowhere near that number of radio stations. This is much notably worse while highway driving.
Fly west, when night comes, turn your plane around and fly towards the approacing dawn (east), this way you reduce the nighttime and increase daylight:)
If your plane keeps a constant speed, this would of course result in getting nowhere.
It's rather simple really, fly east to keep the nighttime slightly shorter, because the extra weight of batteries contributes significantly to the inefficiency of the plane. So the ideal flight path minimizes battery requirements. During the daytime the solar panels can probably charge the batteries in much less than a full day while still flying (since adding extra solar panels contributes less weight than adding extra batteries), so continuing to fly east during the day does not harm much.
You have free speech rights on -public- land. But, you don't have free speech rights on -my- land.
Wrong. I have as many free speech rights in your living room as on a public road, and it's vital that it remain this way. What YOU have the right to do is have me leave your property for any reason whatsoever, including not liking what I say. But by no means does the government have the right, under the constitution, to arrest me for saying something which you found offensive because I said it in your living room.
Believe it or not, putting unnatural chemicals into our bodies everyday can lead to ill health. Why would you doubt this?
Simple fallacy: Everybody does it, it can't be bad for you.
Re:Well of course
on
Global Dimming
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Although you probably meant this as a joke, it might be. The amount of light people recieve affects lots of physical things.
In laboratory animals, chronic consumption of preservatives and free glutamate affects the hypothalamus and causes obesity, among a large number of other problems. The amount of this in our food has skyrocketed enormously over the last 50 years. In certain countries, such as the US, we eat nearly toxic levels of these compounds without taking notice.
The fresh start of waking up, it's cloning in your cup!
Re:They should have used metric divisions of "sols
on
Living on Mars Time
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Of course, calendars do not lend themselves to base 10, but neither do they lend themselves to base 12 or base 60. In any event, that is no reason that basic temporal units, such as are used in physics (meters/second^2, etc) shouldn't be in the same base as the rest of our scientific units.
There's plenty of reason. Scientists prefer their choice of units to most naturally reflect the environment in which they're working. Kelvin is a more natural temperature scale for fundamental work, but Celsius, with 0 as freezing and 100 as boiling, is more natural in situations where water is important (like cooking and going outside). Particle physicists have one unit, the eV, which measures time, length, mass, etc. This wouldn't be particularly useful for measuring travel distance.
"86.4 ks from now" is not a useful way of refering to the same time tomorrow. This problem becomes much worse when you need to refer to several days away, since 0.7776 Ms is a horrible way to refer to 9 days. You might make the argument that the "day" is artificially chosen and not useful for measurement, but you would be sadly mistaken. For quite a while, at least, human life on this planet will revolve around a daily cycle. The sun still somewhat regulates our sleeping, and thus our work schedules.
If you try to remedy the problem by simply choosing the day as a fundamental unit and discarding the second, then you still run into the exact same problem we're discussing when you go to another planet. And even without interplanetary travel, you still have a problem when it comes to discussing years. Seasonal change affects our lives a great deal, so there is still value in maintaining a unit of time for a year.
These experiments were found to be invalid, because the people were given the ability to change the light level (ie there were dimmer switches on the bulbs). The bright artificial light was resetting their internal clocks to a longer day.
The conclusion that a 25 hour day is inherent may be invalid, but the data is not. The natural environment we're born into these days is one of bright artificial light which we control. If under these conditions we have a tendency to tune to a 25 hour day, then that is a valid conclusion.
Sorry, but weren't WMDs what this invasion was supposedly about? Or has that all been forgotten?
It was originally about WMD's, and the imminent threat. Of course then we discovered that wasn't quite true, so we conveniently relabeled it to being about bringing democracy to the middle east. This is of course entirely consistent with our Taiwan/China policy... Err, wait...
Oh never mind. Have faith! If there's one thing the the administration in D.C. is good at it's relabeling things after the fact. I'm sure they'll think of something that we'll believe.
That's rather interesting, considering how much money it would cost to set up such an infrastructure in a country. Looks like if you're not from a first world country, we don't want you here. Mexico who?
As soon as they're done postponing the date for requiring biometric passports, they'll start reading the biometrics of the countries that have them, and spend more time harassing the people from other countries. This will in turn give us a false sense of security. The worst criminals can spontaneously appear out of nowhere, biometrics won't change too much. The only case this will affect positively is that of someone who already has a criminal record which includes biometric data, has the resources to acquire a fake passport, but does not have the resources to fool a biometric sensor.
i think one shouldn't prohibit cloning of humans. progress cannot be stopped
If we illegalize cloning, then only criminals will be cloned!
But seriously, the debate is very similar to the debate over guns. Excluding arguments from people who don't understand what a clone is, most of the debate is about how and when this technology should be used, and most of the objections are about fears that it will eventually be abused. Sadly, most things that exist are abused, but it's been made pretty clear that enormous benefits to humanity can be made with this technology.
The article is unfortunately sparse on details, but as a general principle, if you stop a photon without destroying its energy, you have a temporary violation of conservation of energy. This puts an approximate bound on the time you can keep the photon stopped, on the order of h/E, which is an extremely short time.
Slashdot Mirror
but you are saying that it's ok for others to blur that line, and just claim GPL code as their own.
I made no such claim, I posed a question asking why their one set of moral rules should be preferable and more absolute to the other set.
those that have the rights to those protocols that are being called by mplayer, are free to enforce whatever rights they think they have.
You missed the point. Some of the people whose codecs the mplayer group is distributing think that their "right" is to have an exclusive right to distribution. By the same token, the mplayer developers think that their "right" is to have recognition of their contribution.
This is quite different from repackaging and redistributing files that were freely available on the net.
In case you didn't notice, mplayer consists of files freely available on the net. And the very thing the mplayer developers are doing is accusing KISS of repackaging and redistributing their files in violation of their terms.
What's the justification for a different set of rules applying to them?
Now, if you want to be picky, Congress doesn't have the authority to disband itself. The most it could do is start a Constitutional ammendment to that purpose rolling; then it would need to be approved by the States.
A slight correction. It's true that they don't have the authority to disband themselves, but they certainly have the power to. All they have to do is stop showing up. It's not entirely clear where this would leave us, but it would probably fall upon the executive branch to call for their replacement. If congress decided to stop showing up, and the executive branch simultaneously decided it would be better off just keeping whatever authority remained for itself, then we would have a complete breakdown of our government as we know it. The only thing that keeps us going is the willingness of the people involved to keep playing by the rulebook.
Dell threw in a free DVD+RW upgrade on my Inspiron 600m laptop that I bought this June.
:)
I bet they also threw in the free chewing gum that they use to keep their display hinges attached.
Especially when it comes to the types interested in tipping national/global power. Comments, anyone?
Electronic voting is one step closer to internet voting. Internet voting opens up a new category of voters. I'm sure someone out there has already calculated which direction these new voters will swing. College age people, for example, make up a huge portion of the population, tend to have liberal views, and tend to not vote. How many more would vote if they could do it over the internet? Similarly, there might be a collection of conservative businessmen who can't find time in their schedules to make it to the polls.
When it comes time to seriously debate internet voting, there will be a lot of alternate agendas brought to the table.
That is the correct address, but you're right to verify anything seen on /. ...
In wikipedia tradition where enough people saying a thing makes it true, I also verify that the posted address is correct.
Sorry to disappoint, but I've never been to the site.
Then go visit it and become enlightened. Search for anything you would expect to find in an encyclopedia:
http://www.wikipedia.org/
If your area is anything like good old Pittsburgh PA you had the three big networks and PBS for broadcast TV. In contrast we have more classic rock stations than broadcast TV stations.
Pittsburgh has great radio, but it's certainly an exception. Most of this country has nowhere near that number of radio stations. This is much notably worse while highway driving.
I'd rather pick out the music that I listen to.
And how do you find new music to like?
Fly west, when night comes, turn your plane around and fly towards the approacing dawn (east), this way you reduce the nighttime and increase daylight :)
If your plane keeps a constant speed, this would of course result in getting nowhere.
It's rather simple really, fly east to keep the nighttime slightly shorter, because the extra weight of batteries contributes significantly to the inefficiency of the plane. So the ideal flight path minimizes battery requirements. During the daytime the solar panels can probably charge the batteries in much less than a full day while still flying (since adding extra solar panels contributes less weight than adding extra batteries), so continuing to fly east during the day does not harm much.
"Batteries will store energy received in daylight hours to fly all night."
Why not just fly the other drection and stay in the sunlight?
Earth's circumference: around 24,000 miles.
Hours in a day: around 24.
Speed of Earth's rotation at surface: around 1,000 miles per hour.
Look on your face as the sun goes wooshing past your solar plane: priceless.
You have free speech rights on -public- land. But, you don't have free speech rights on -my- land.
Wrong. I have as many free speech rights in your living room as on a public road, and it's vital that it remain this way. What YOU have the right to do is have me leave your property for any reason whatsoever, including not liking what I say. But by no means does the government have the right, under the constitution, to arrest me for saying something which you found offensive because I said it in your living room.
Free Speech is terrorism, YOU JUST SAID IT!
Holy freakin' crap, I knew the day would come!
"There ought to be limits to freedom."
-- George W. Bush, May 21, 1999
He was referring to the free speech rights of a website with political satire of him.
Believe it or not, putting unnatural chemicals into our bodies everyday can lead to ill health. Why would you doubt this?
Simple fallacy: Everybody does it, it can't be bad for you.
Although you probably meant this as a joke, it might be. The amount of light people recieve affects lots of physical things.
In laboratory animals, chronic consumption of preservatives and free glutamate affects the hypothalamus and causes obesity, among a large number of other problems. The amount of this in our food has skyrocketed enormously over the last 50 years. In certain countries, such as the US, we eat nearly toxic levels of these compounds without taking notice.
The fresh start of waking up,
it's cloning in your cup!
Of course, calendars do not lend themselves to base 10, but neither do they lend themselves to base 12 or base 60. In any event, that is no reason that basic temporal units, such as are used in physics (meters/second^2, etc) shouldn't be in the same base as the rest of our scientific units.
There's plenty of reason. Scientists prefer their choice of units to most naturally reflect the environment in which they're working. Kelvin is a more natural temperature scale for fundamental work, but Celsius, with 0 as freezing and 100 as boiling, is more natural in situations where water is important (like cooking and going outside). Particle physicists have one unit, the eV, which measures time, length, mass, etc. This wouldn't be particularly useful for measuring travel distance.
"86.4 ks from now" is not a useful way of refering to the same time tomorrow. This problem becomes much worse when you need to refer to several days away, since 0.7776 Ms is a horrible way to refer to 9 days. You might make the argument that the "day" is artificially chosen and not useful for measurement, but you would be sadly mistaken. For quite a while, at least, human life on this planet will revolve around a daily cycle. The sun still somewhat regulates our sleeping, and thus our work schedules.
If you try to remedy the problem by simply choosing the day as a fundamental unit and discarding the second, then you still run into the exact same problem we're discussing when you go to another planet. And even without interplanetary travel, you still have a problem when it comes to discussing years. Seasonal change affects our lives a great deal, so there is still value in maintaining a unit of time for a year.
These experiments were found to be invalid, because the people were given the ability to change the light level (ie there were dimmer switches on the bulbs). The bright artificial light was resetting their internal clocks to a longer day.
The conclusion that a 25 hour day is inherent may be invalid, but the data is not. The natural environment we're born into these days is one of bright artificial light which we control. If under these conditions we have a tendency to tune to a 25 hour day, then that is a valid conclusion.
WTF are you doing with a TI-89/92 in Algebra class?
Maybe they ran out of slide rules?
Sorry, but weren't WMDs what this invasion was supposedly about? Or has that all been forgotten?
It was originally about WMD's, and the imminent threat. Of course then we discovered that wasn't quite true, so we conveniently relabeled it to being about bringing democracy to the middle east. This is of course entirely consistent with our Taiwan/China policy... Err, wait...
Oh never mind. Have faith! If there's one thing the the administration in D.C. is good at it's relabeling things after the fact. I'm sure they'll think of something that we'll believe.
That's rather interesting, considering how much money it would cost to set up such an infrastructure in a country. Looks like if you're not from a first world country, we don't want you here. Mexico who?
As soon as they're done postponing the date for requiring biometric passports, they'll start reading the biometrics of the countries that have them, and spend more time harassing the people from other countries. This will in turn give us a false sense of security. The worst criminals can spontaneously appear out of nowhere, biometrics won't change too much. The only case this will affect positively is that of someone who already has a criminal record which includes biometric data, has the resources to acquire a fake passport, but does not have the resources to fool a biometric sensor.
Your subject sounds like an unfortunate political campaign strategy...
i think one shouldn't prohibit cloning of humans. progress cannot be stopped
If we illegalize cloning, then only criminals will be cloned!
But seriously, the debate is very similar to the debate over guns. Excluding arguments from people who don't understand what a clone is, most of the debate is about how and when this technology should be used, and most of the objections are about fears that it will eventually be abused. Sadly, most things that exist are abused, but it's been made pretty clear that enormous benefits to humanity can be made with this technology.
You've got the right idea, but the Uncertainty Principle puts a lower bound on the mutual uncertainties in time and energy measured
It also gives an estimate for the limits of violation of energy conservation (example: virtual photons).
The article is unfortunately sparse on details, but as a general principle, if you stop a photon without destroying its energy, you have a temporary violation of conservation of energy. This puts an approximate bound on the time you can keep the photon stopped, on the order of h/E, which is an extremely short time.