The words in your reply are insulting. Is that intentional?
Regarding Neilsen: You are simply incorrect. Nielsen doesn't collect most of its information through the booklets any longer, but through electronic reporting systems (people meters). If you don't watch a channel connected to the device, it doesn't count as being watched. The sample size isn't relevant. It is what it is. The fact that you consider it minuscule isn't important.
Regarding commercial inserts: They money they get from cable companies isn't free. It's part of the Must Carry rules and a negotiated "fair value" and it will reflect the channels' value as a broadcast as reported in the ratings. It is unimportant that Aereo doesn't require an co-located equipment at the studio or in the tower. It is untrue that the cable companies or Aereo are doing the broadcaster a favor. Dictionary.com defines "favor" as "something done or granted out of goodwill, rather than from justice or for remuneration". Neither of those cases is true. It's a strict business relationship. The channel produces and delivers content, cable pays to deliver it and makes money doing it, and Aereo attempts to deliver it for free.
Regarding blackouts, you state that Aereo only delivers in-market broadcasts. There are numerous ways to appear to be in market via the Internet. The broadcasters will complain because they will feel the revenue impact and because they need to support their business relationship with the sports franchises (which is big money for all concerned).
Finally your conclusion is wrong in stating that "...they continue to support the broadcaster's businss model of selling eyeballs to advertisers". Watching via OTT services do not provide for counted eyeballs. Only counted eyeballs support that broadcaster's business model.
Are you shilling for Aereo? And you simile about childish behavior is, as you say, "nonsense".
If Aereo positioned the antenna at your home, and converted it to an internet signal for you on a device they buy or rent from you, they might have a business. In their present model, with their perhaps "pretend" antenna array at an ISP which ships someone else's broadcast content, for a fee, to someone else's home, I can't see that they have a chance in court.
I support free to air broadcasting. I'm not in love with any cable provider. I don't own stock in any broadcaster. I applaud the conversion from NTSC to ATSC and the subchannel opportunities it provides to licensed broadcasters and the interesting innovation being made with it. I don't support overt re-purposing of copyrighted content by someone like Aereo without a license from the content owner. A photo displayed in public doesn't make the photo public property. A TV signal transmitted OTA doesn't make that content public domain. "Must Carry" exists for the benefit of the broadcaster and its be litigated extensively already. IMHO, Aereo appears to have a business plan based on IP theft.
Regarding your fuel cut-off, I must have phrased my remark badly. I should have asked if your car has a fuel cut-off that you can activate while driving the vehicle. Otherwise it's useless in the example of the Lexus accident.
I know that "e" stands for emergency. I was making a sarcastic joke. More correctly, my e-brake is called a "parking brake" and it works well enough to hold the car on an incline. My car is also a manual, and I do use the p-brake daily....mostly for starting to move gracefully when facing up hill at red lights.
Does anyone really believe that Aereo's antenna array and tuners, "under the control of the end user", is really capable of receiving a useful signal? Even if it was sitting in the clear, it's much smaller than any antenna sold commercially. And the thing is attached to a circuit board, inside some kind of chassis, inside some kind of rack, and inside some kind of building.
Then, even if it did work, what kind of scale-able model do they have? Do they have to add another PCB for every 200 subscribers? How many PCBs fill up a rack, and what power do they consume? Heat? Do they really generate a dedicated stream for each connected subscriber? What about all that DVR storage space?
I don't have the numbers in front of me. I'm sure I could understand them if I did. On the back of the napkin here, I don't see an effective business model either financially or regarding antenna performance.
Aereo receives broadcast signals in a market off the air; off the public airwaves to be more politically correct. Aereo then re-encodes (in some fashion) those signals and puts them out over the internet. At your home you subscribe to Aereo and play the re-broadcast signals on the video player device of your choice. (See https://aereo.com/how-it-works)
Aereo seems to claim that their service provides a "virtual antenna" to consumers who could otherwise both receive for free and "DVR" (as verb) those signals to reply them at the time of the consumer's choosing. (Regarding the service provider's DVR feature see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_DVR. It appears to have been determined in court to be a legal business model.)
Skitter is attempting to reach agreements with broadcasters, and I presume, paying them a fee. Aereo, it seems, is not, based on their "virtual antenna" claim.
Skitter is carrying some stations without an agreement in its markets under the FCC"s "must carry" provisions (ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry). This is likely (IMHO) a losing legal argument.
Both Skitter and Aereo are charging, or are about to start charging, $12 per month to subscribers. While I can see that they have costs, what I can't see is how they can hope to sell someone else's broadcast and reap payments for it without fair compensation to the broadcaster. Apparently Skitter has seen this logic, and Aereo sees it differently today.
Question: Assuming Aereo and Skitter leave the broadcaster's advertising in place, why does this hurt the broadcaster?
Answer: First, the broadcaster will get no "Neilsen Rating" (ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_rating) credit for those viewers. Viewers that stop watching on cable and start watching OTT won't be counted by Neilsen and so the station will get lower ratings. Lower ratings in a market means lower commercial charge rates and revenue. I can't judge the impact of this in ratings or in dollars at this time. It's clear to me that if it became a real financial issue, Neilsen could find a way to survey these numbers at the ISP rather easily (as could any of Neilsen's competitors) or at the consumers just as they do today with cable consumers.
Answer: Broadcasters make money off of the carriage by and commercial insert slots bought by the local cable company. While the relationship between these two parties in any market is not often cooperative, it's generally cordial except when the contact carriage rate is up for negotiations. (Again see the Must Carry reference, and the links in it for some examples of carriage disputes such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Warner_Cable#Carriage_controversies.) If Aereo and Skitter are allowed to carry channels at rates below what the broadcasters get from the cable companies, especially on a per-subscriber basis, what position will the broadcasters be in the next time their carriage rate is negotiated with the cable company? The broadcasters simply MUST ACT to protect their primary revenue sources (cable carriage fees and advertising rates).
Answer: Any sports franchise that is carried over local (or remote)
Well God damnit. Does it upset that shithead Mohammed? Oh wait. He's dead. What the f*^+ does his ass care?
More seriously, and less profane, what did the guy in India do his proof of fakery for? Was he trying to be boastful, or was he trying to extort money from the priests? Why didn't he leave the believers alone and let them believe? Was it causing him some problem, other than his own arrogance?
If you have faith leave those alone that don't. If you don't leave those alone that do. Look at Malaysia. An Islamic country where you can buy a drink if your faith permits and can't if it doesn't. What could be more obvious?
Read the manual? Surely most don't. My wife won't even read it to figure out obscure things like setting the hour at DST transitions. I make a point of reading them, but remembering the right part for the car I happen to be in when/if an emergency occurs without regular practice isn't likely if it's not obvious. I never read the 5 second trick on a car before (only on a PC), for example.
Remember that when you really think you are facing death your brain works in a different way. You are no longer analytical.
And does your car really have a fuel cut off? My lanmower does but I've never seen that on any commercial passenger car.
If my Corvette went nuts with "go" at 100% I am confident the brakes would win. They are extreme. The e-brake is a toy though. Not sure what the "e" stands for.:)
In your note above, you write "...why should I act nicely towards them ?". I pull out the old proverb that two wrongs do not make a right, and it would lead to an undesirable situation for all parties. Most interviewers are poorly trained non-hiring professionals (software engineers, for example) and it should not be hard for a skilled interviewer to control most interview situations. Unless you're dealing with someone that SHOULD be professional (like an HR person) it might be best to raise the issue of concern directly. Sometimes, a polite confrontation is the best course. You might find the interviewer happy to learn something, and that would tell you a lot more than just politely leaving.
Today you say "high unemployment seems epidemic in states..." and I have to question what states you refer to. Unemployment is high in most of Africa. Unemployment is high in Greece, Italy and Spain. Do these states (if you'll allow "states" to apply to my generalization about Africa) have "the interests of big bussiness and the wealthy few are prioritised higher, at the cost of the interests of the average person"? I would view Greece and Italy as socialist-like (to different degrees) with that being the root cause of their current economic trouble.
Finally, I think that communism exists in theory only, and I don't see anything close to a truly communist state in the world. Thus, there's little point in considering their employment situations. Just like true democracies. They simply don't exist. The point of my "denigrating" socialism (and I admit to disliking the concept mainly because of its failure to provide incentives for productivity) was only as a counter example to your denigration of other states as fascist. ("...the case in fascist states of course since employers like having employees be easily and cheaply replaceable") I doubt your state is truly socialist, and if the simile offended you, it wasn't my intention, and I extend my apologies.
From Dictionary.com:
"Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."
"Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."
I recommend storing the H2 in big Mylar balloons and giving them to children at parties. That will be lots more fun than just breathing in He and talking funny. Or, we could make massive H2 filled lighter than air vehicles for trans-oceanic flight. What could possibly go wrong?
I believe, but I can't cite the source, that the main goal of any government is to prolong its existence.
Finding new ways to increase the scope of government, beyond its chartered responsibility, is a means to this end. Having citizens object to this expansion, and push back on the expansion of scope, is counter to this direction. If the citizens learn that they can somehow, someway, live without the government being involved in something, it means that people in government will become redundant. And if that starts happening it might snowball. Isn't this the basis of revolution? Instead, if people conform to the will of the government and continue to fund its expansion of scope, then all those in positions of minor power (like TSA stiffs at the airports) are safe. Isn't this the basis of enslavement?
Government is about power, and power is about money. Being required to demonstrate value to maintain your income is something to be avoided, if you can get away it it, no?
“The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors.” Thomas Jefferson
Does "has resigned from his post" mean that he's out of a job, or just that he's no longer the guy that gets to make the public announcement the next time Relativity is brought into question?
My question for this position is always: "why?" Why would the government want a bunch of sheep?
Isn't this what every government that ever existed wants/wanted? Governments don't exist FOR the people, they think the people exist FOR them. Sadly, but not surprisingly, the US federal government (as well as those of the other major democracies) lost sight of the real reason it exists long ago.
TSA stands for Teamsters, Service Workers, and AFL/CIO. It makes work for the otherwise unemployable.
On the one hand, thank god there are some rules to constrain what these morons can do to as a security checkpoints. On the other hand, I want my pocket knife back that these pricks took from me in San Diego, just this week (Swiss Army "Super Tinker" model with its devastatingly dangerous 2.5" blade, $20 on Amazon.COM). (Note that neither of those hands speaks positively about the TSA.) I get so tired of having to be so polite to those people just so I can get through their little power bubble with the least amount of hassle.
I think it was Schneier that said there are only two real improvements to airline security since 9/11: 1. Locking cockpit doors 2. Passengers that fight back
Everything they do at TSA checkpoints is ineffective window dressing.
In fascist states? Wow. Do you do a lot of interviews in fascist states where you've seen this regularly? I'd bet that the employers in your country would also like to see a surplus of talent in the candidate pool so that they also had a competitive advantage to control what is likely their highest business expense. And I don't think that, in and of itself, would make your state fascist. To turn the name-calling around, perhaps you live in a socialist state where the workers have the market advantage?
I interviewed many years ago at Lotus Notes in Cambridge, MA. The interviewer asked me something akin to "how do you manage Japanese engineers since at meetings they only say 'yes' and will never admit to not knowing something?". To which I replied, "Isn't that question based on a racist assumption?" The rest of the interview was pretty uncomfortable. I didn't get an offer.:)
I don't believe for a second that "science" has an agenda. But I do believe that many people make claims that they state are based on science, when in fact they are based on observations, or worse, on opinion. Or on greed.
My observation, is that observationists (ha ha...) see the world through their lens of perception, colored by the points they wish to prove. Recognition of this several centuries ago gave rise to the "scientific method". The value of the word "theory" and respect for arguments on both sides of a "hypothesis" have been drowned out by the screaming that the Internet and free publication of thought has allowed.
Sadly, most people seem to confuse argument, free publication, and conjecture with science. Those, apparently, most inclined to follow this trend are politicians and the free press. I have to admit that it's difficult to resist the emotional siren of it all, and attempt to remain objective. After all, the economic advantage of convincing a government to follow a public trend can be enticing. So long as you are on the "funded" end of the equation.
The Theory of Relativity is just that. A theory. It is OK to question it. When someone observes neutrinos flying across Europe faster than light-speed, people raise questions and conduct experiments. The theory is tested again and again. Bitter arguments are not inclined to erupt. Why is there name-calling rather than argument in other areas where theories are behind the points? Why, if someone questions the anthropogenic theory of global warming are they quickly labelled as a scientific heretic? And isn't that what this entire discussion is really all about, after all? An attempt to name-call those heretics as "conservatives"? Why is it OK not to believe in string theory but not OK not to believe in the green-house-gas theory?
Another popular area to call people names for disagreeing with a theory is evolution. Question that one and instead of being called "conservative" you get painted as "religious zealot". Isn't it time to stop all the name calling and understand that theories are just that, and the basis of the scientific method is raising doubt and devising and conducting tests?
All news sources have agendas and filter their presentations and publications through those agendas. This is not specific to Fox News. Remember the ABC news report on the fictitious Bush performance report from his military days? Look at NBC allowing their own staff to cover their own actions as news related to the Trayvon Martin accusations?
One-sided hatred of Fox is no more rational than what you accuse Fox News of doing. Fair and Balanced:) hatred of both extreme sides of news sources makes far more sense. Is your primary news source any less extreme than you see Fox News as being? And if you think not, is it only because you are tuned into a news source that matches your own slanted perspective? Maybe, if you don't routinely find things said by your news source with which you don't disagree you're not getting a broad enough perspective? Try something other than CNN and MSNBC for awhile.
Finally, on the main topic: It is nothing new to anyone in the Conditional Access field that NDS has worked to "out" their competitors for years. The amount of patent infringement undertaking by NDS, specifically the basis of their work on the TV/COM multilevel access patents has been well known and litigated for years. But I'm not sure that Irdeto, Canal+, or any of the other players in the field are any better behaved. IMHO the advent of the embedded security processor in SoC and the software based security systems that use them are a good (if not new) evolution. The "replaceable security element" model of the Smartcard guys seems to be successfully attacked time and time again in many fields and requires a large on-going legal team to prosecute the pirates to try and keep the model alive. And, IMHO, what a PITA those smart card security company's are to work with due to the false pretense of expertise, their late-delivered demands on hardware and software design, and their almost capricious engineering review reports leading to demands for design changes that don't conform to even their own published security specifications.
How sustainable is the level of the upper lack? Does it have a constant source that exceeds the draw to drive the 20KW turbine? Does the lower lake have an open drain? Is there any impact on the biological conditions in the two lakes (different animal or plant populations, different chemical compositions between the lakes) that the connection is changing?
I don't get how the similar isotope composition of moon samples and the earth rule out the Giant Impact by Theia. Say the Earth is floating around alone (before the moon is there). It has a unique set of Ti isotopes in its composition. Nice. Happy. Then, out of no where, this Theia planet comes by and wham, Theia and Earth a blown apart. The energy makes them mostly molten. Stuff goes everywhere. What a hot mess.
What is that stuff made of, and what happens to all that Ti?
Maybe 2/3 of the stuff is Earth stuff, and maybe 1/3 is Theia stuff. Was there any Ti on Theia? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Was it the same Ti as on Earth? Again, please refer your question to God. I don't know and it doesn't matter.
There's all this hot stuff floating around. Which piece came from Theia and which from Earth? Can't tell anymore. A bunch of the stuff hangs around and forms Earth 2. Another hunk sits some 100K miles away and eventually forms Moon 1. Essentially, it's all the same homogenous mix of stuff. Can't tell which atoms came from Earth and which from Theia.
The ratio of Ti isotopes in the stuff that made Earth 2 and Moon 1 are the same...the stuff floating around in a molten state was homogeneous. That's what the study found. The same ratio of Ti isotopes. And apparently of O isotopes. Good stuff. Homogenous molten ooze cools and sticks together and forms a homogenous pair of rock balls (Earth 2 and Moon 1).
So tell me why, please, does this mean that that molten stuff thrown about and the matching ratios of isotopes on Earth 2 and Moon 1 precludes the Big Impact?
Not unless the US has enough production capacity to replace the entire output of those countries that participate in the boycott. If world demand is (e.g.) 100M bbl per day, and the available supply is only 90M bbl per day, prices will rise or production will increase. There's this little triangle of supply, demand, and price that's always in play and the three vertices sit in world-wide markets, not just in the US domestic market.
Only if the US were to have a law that said that we could not export any domestically produced oil would our production serve to buffer our needs. But would such a law be constitutional? And, I expect there would be cries of anguish from some who would claim the US was the cause of a world wide shortage of crude oil, rather than the countries engaged in the boycott, hurting people in other places around the globe.
The US makes a very convenient target for these morons. These people don't intend to make or engage in rational arguments. They simply want to stop using carbon-based fuels and use snake oil instead. (Pity the poor snakes, though those long yellow snakes are pretty ugly, and I'm OK with turning them into oil. (joke))
If you are one of the "stop drilling now" crowd, grow a sack. Turn off your lights, your heat, and your computer and put your car up on blocks and live the life you are preaching. Spend your money on over-priced and unreliable solar panels and live the financial consequences of your personal life choices. Leave me the heck alone. I like fossil fuels, being warm, taking hot showers, having a job, and driving to work. I love coal, gas, and all the flavors of oil and the various wells it comes from. I do not like turning corn into fuel when we could feed it to tasty hogs instead. I do not like deforesting the tropics to grow palm oil. I would rather harvest that timber responsibly so that I can have beautiful walnut and mahogany furniture instead of plastic, scrap wood, or low-cost pine furniture.
Slashdot Mirror
The words in your reply are insulting. Is that intentional?
Regarding Neilsen: You are simply incorrect. Nielsen doesn't collect most of its information through the booklets any longer, but through electronic reporting systems (people meters). If you don't watch a channel connected to the device, it doesn't count as being watched. The sample size isn't relevant. It is what it is. The fact that you consider it minuscule isn't important.
Regarding commercial inserts: They money they get from cable companies isn't free. It's part of the Must Carry rules and a negotiated "fair value" and it will reflect the channels' value as a broadcast as reported in the ratings. It is unimportant that Aereo doesn't require an co-located equipment at the studio or in the tower. It is untrue that the cable companies or Aereo are doing the broadcaster a favor. Dictionary.com defines "favor" as "something done or granted out of goodwill, rather than from justice or for remuneration". Neither of those cases is true. It's a strict business relationship. The channel produces and delivers content, cable pays to deliver it and makes money doing it, and Aereo attempts to deliver it for free.
Regarding blackouts, you state that Aereo only delivers in-market broadcasts. There are numerous ways to appear to be in market via the Internet. The broadcasters will complain because they will feel the revenue impact and because they need to support their business relationship with the sports franchises (which is big money for all concerned).
Finally your conclusion is wrong in stating that "...they continue to support the broadcaster's businss model of selling eyeballs to advertisers". Watching via OTT services do not provide for counted eyeballs. Only counted eyeballs support that broadcaster's business model.
Are you shilling for Aereo? And you simile about childish behavior is, as you say, "nonsense".
If Aereo positioned the antenna at your home, and converted it to an internet signal for you on a device they buy or rent from you, they might have a business. In their present model, with their perhaps "pretend" antenna array at an ISP which ships someone else's broadcast content, for a fee, to someone else's home, I can't see that they have a chance in court.
I support free to air broadcasting. I'm not in love with any cable provider. I don't own stock in any broadcaster. I applaud the conversion from NTSC to ATSC and the subchannel opportunities it provides to licensed broadcasters and the interesting innovation being made with it. I don't support overt re-purposing of copyrighted content by someone like Aereo without a license from the content owner. A photo displayed in public doesn't make the photo public property. A TV signal transmitted OTA doesn't make that content public domain. "Must Carry" exists for the benefit of the broadcaster and its be litigated extensively already. IMHO, Aereo appears to have a business plan based on IP theft.
Hi and thanks.
Regarding your fuel cut-off, I must have phrased my remark badly. I should have asked if your car has a fuel cut-off that you can activate while driving the vehicle. Otherwise it's useless in the example of the Lexus accident.
I know that "e" stands for emergency. I was making a sarcastic joke. More correctly, my e-brake is called a "parking brake" and it works well enough to hold the car on an incline. My car is also a manual, and I do use the p-brake daily....mostly for starting to move gracefully when facing up hill at red lights.
Does anyone really believe that Aereo's antenna array and tuners, "under the control of the end user", is really capable of receiving a useful signal? Even if it was sitting in the clear, it's much smaller than any antenna sold commercially. And the thing is attached to a circuit board, inside some kind of chassis, inside some kind of rack, and inside some kind of building.
Then, even if it did work, what kind of scale-able model do they have? Do they have to add another PCB for every 200 subscribers? How many PCBs fill up a rack, and what power do they consume? Heat? Do they really generate a dedicated stream for each connected subscriber? What about all that DVR storage space?
I don't have the numbers in front of me. I'm sure I could understand them if I did. On the back of the napkin here, I don't see an effective business model either financially or regarding antenna performance.
Aereo receives broadcast signals in a market off the air; off the public airwaves to be more politically correct. Aereo then re-encodes (in some fashion) those signals and puts them out over the internet. At your home you subscribe to Aereo and play the re-broadcast signals on the video player device of your choice. (See https://aereo.com/how-it-works)
Aereo seems to claim that their service provides a "virtual antenna" to consumers who could otherwise both receive for free and "DVR" (as verb) those signals to reply them at the time of the consumer's choosing. (Regarding the service provider's DVR feature see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_DVR. It appears to have been determined in court to be a legal business model.)
A similar service called Skitter (see http://www.rapidtvnews.com/index.php/business/media-investment/skitter-aereo-once-again-test-the-virtual-cableco-waters.html, http://www.skitter.tv/html/index.html, or http://www.mediabiz.com/news/morningbridge/?publication_id=17&release_id=1416).
Skitter is attempting to reach agreements with broadcasters, and I presume, paying them a fee. Aereo, it seems, is not, based on their "virtual antenna" claim.
Skitter is carrying some stations without an agreement in its markets under the FCC"s "must carry" provisions (ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry). This is likely (IMHO) a losing legal argument.
Both Skitter and Aereo are charging, or are about to start charging, $12 per month to subscribers. While I can see that they have costs, what I can't see is how they can hope to sell someone else's broadcast and reap payments for it without fair compensation to the broadcaster. Apparently Skitter has seen this logic, and Aereo sees it differently today.
Question: Assuming Aereo and Skitter leave the broadcaster's advertising in place, why does this hurt the broadcaster?
Answer: First, the broadcaster will get no "Neilsen Rating" (ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_rating) credit for those viewers. Viewers that stop watching on cable and start watching OTT won't be counted by Neilsen and so the station will get lower ratings. Lower ratings in a market means lower commercial charge rates and revenue. I can't judge the impact of this in ratings or in dollars at this time. It's clear to me that if it became a real financial issue, Neilsen could find a way to survey these numbers at the ISP rather easily (as could any of Neilsen's competitors) or at the consumers just as they do today with cable consumers.
Answer: Broadcasters make money off of the carriage by and commercial insert slots bought by the local cable company. While the relationship between these two parties in any market is not often cooperative, it's generally cordial except when the contact carriage rate is up for negotiations. (Again see the Must Carry reference, and the links in it for some examples of carriage disputes such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Warner_Cable#Carriage_controversies.) If Aereo and Skitter are allowed to carry channels at rates below what the broadcasters get from the cable companies, especially on a per-subscriber basis, what position will the broadcasters be in the next time their carriage rate is negotiated with the cable company? The broadcasters simply MUST ACT to protect their primary revenue sources (cable carriage fees and advertising rates).
Answer: Any sports franchise that is carried over local (or remote)
Does it ever occur to any government that instead of finding new ways to raise taxes that they could just reduce spending?
Well God damnit. Does it upset that shithead Mohammed? Oh wait. He's dead. What the f*^+ does his ass care?
More seriously, and less profane, what did the guy in India do his proof of fakery for? Was he trying to be boastful, or was he trying to extort money from the priests? Why didn't he leave the believers alone and let them believe? Was it causing him some problem, other than his own arrogance?
If you have faith leave those alone that don't. If you don't leave those alone that do. Look at Malaysia. An Islamic country where you can buy a drink if your faith permits and can't if it doesn't. What could be more obvious?
Read the manual? Surely most don't. My wife won't even read it to figure out obscure things like setting the hour at DST transitions. I make a point of reading them, but remembering the right part for the car I happen to be in when/if an emergency occurs without regular practice isn't likely if it's not obvious. I never read the 5 second trick on a car before (only on a PC), for example.
Remember that when you really think you are facing death your brain works in a different way. You are no longer analytical.
And does your car really have a fuel cut off? My lanmower does but I've never seen that on any commercial passenger car.
If my Corvette went nuts with "go" at 100% I am confident the brakes would win. They are extreme. The e-brake is a toy though. Not sure what the "e" stands for. :)
In your note above, you write "...why should I act nicely towards them ?". I pull out the old proverb that two wrongs do not make a right, and it would lead to an undesirable situation for all parties. Most interviewers are poorly trained non-hiring professionals (software engineers, for example) and it should not be hard for a skilled interviewer to control most interview situations. Unless you're dealing with someone that SHOULD be professional (like an HR person) it might be best to raise the issue of concern directly. Sometimes, a polite confrontation is the best course. You might find the interviewer happy to learn something, and that would tell you a lot more than just politely leaving.
Today you say "high unemployment seems epidemic in states..." and I have to question what states you refer to. Unemployment is high in most of Africa. Unemployment is high in Greece, Italy and Spain. Do these states (if you'll allow "states" to apply to my generalization about Africa) have "the interests of big bussiness and the wealthy few are prioritised higher, at the cost of the interests of the average person"? I would view Greece and Italy as socialist-like (to different degrees) with that being the root cause of their current economic trouble.
Finally, I think that communism exists in theory only, and I don't see anything close to a truly communist state in the world. Thus, there's little point in considering their employment situations. Just like true democracies. They simply don't exist. The point of my "denigrating" socialism (and I admit to disliking the concept mainly because of its failure to provide incentives for productivity) was only as a counter example to your denigration of other states as fascist. ("...the case in fascist states of course since employers like having employees be easily and cheaply replaceable") I doubt your state is truly socialist, and if the simile offended you, it wasn't my intention, and I extend my apologies.
From Dictionary.com:
"Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."
"Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."
I recommend storing the H2 in big Mylar balloons and giving them to children at parties. That will be lots more fun than just breathing in He and talking funny. Or, we could make massive H2 filled lighter than air vehicles for trans-oceanic flight. What could possibly go wrong?
I believe, but I can't cite the source, that the main goal of any government is to prolong its existence.
Finding new ways to increase the scope of government, beyond its chartered responsibility, is a means to this end. Having citizens object to this expansion, and push back on the expansion of scope, is counter to this direction. If the citizens learn that they can somehow, someway, live without the government being involved in something, it means that people in government will become redundant. And if that starts happening it might snowball. Isn't this the basis of revolution? Instead, if people conform to the will of the government and continue to fund its expansion of scope, then all those in positions of minor power (like TSA stiffs at the airports) are safe. Isn't this the basis of enslavement?
Government is about power, and power is about money. Being required to demonstrate value to maintain your income is something to be avoided, if you can get away it it, no?
“The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors.” Thomas Jefferson
Does "has resigned from his post" mean that he's out of a job, or just that he's no longer the guy that gets to make the public announcement the next time Relativity is brought into question?
My question for this position is always: "why?" Why would the government want a bunch of sheep?
Isn't this what every government that ever existed wants/wanted? Governments don't exist FOR the people, they think the people exist FOR them. Sadly, but not surprisingly, the US federal government (as well as those of the other major democracies) lost sight of the real reason it exists long ago.
TSA stands for Teamsters, Service Workers, and AFL/CIO. It makes work for the otherwise unemployable.
On the one hand, thank god there are some rules to constrain what these morons can do to as a security checkpoints. On the other hand, I want my pocket knife back that these pricks took from me in San Diego, just this week (Swiss Army "Super Tinker" model with its devastatingly dangerous 2.5" blade, $20 on Amazon.COM). (Note that neither of those hands speaks positively about the TSA.) I get so tired of having to be so polite to those people just so I can get through their little power bubble with the least amount of hassle.
I think it was Schneier that said there are only two real improvements to airline security since 9/11:
1. Locking cockpit doors
2. Passengers that fight back
Everything they do at TSA checkpoints is ineffective window dressing.
What? You humiliate your dog by making him wear a sign describing himself as a slave? Have you no decency, Sir?
In fascist states? Wow. Do you do a lot of interviews in fascist states where you've seen this regularly? I'd bet that the employers in your country would also like to see a surplus of talent in the candidate pool so that they also had a competitive advantage to control what is likely their highest business expense. And I don't think that, in and of itself, would make your state fascist. To turn the name-calling around, perhaps you live in a socialist state where the workers have the market advantage?
I interviewed many years ago at Lotus Notes in Cambridge, MA. The interviewer asked me something akin to "how do you manage Japanese engineers since at meetings they only say 'yes' and will never admit to not knowing something?". To which I replied, "Isn't that question based on a racist assumption?" The rest of the interview was pretty uncomfortable. I didn't get an offer. :)
I don't believe for a second that "science" has an agenda. But I do believe that many people make claims that they state are based on science, when in fact they are based on observations, or worse, on opinion. Or on greed.
My observation, is that observationists (ha ha...) see the world through their lens of perception, colored by the points they wish to prove. Recognition of this several centuries ago gave rise to the "scientific method". The value of the word "theory" and respect for arguments on both sides of a "hypothesis" have been drowned out by the screaming that the Internet and free publication of thought has allowed.
Sadly, most people seem to confuse argument, free publication, and conjecture with science. Those, apparently, most inclined to follow this trend are politicians and the free press. I have to admit that it's difficult to resist the emotional siren of it all, and attempt to remain objective. After all, the economic advantage of convincing a government to follow a public trend can be enticing. So long as you are on the "funded" end of the equation.
The Theory of Relativity is just that. A theory. It is OK to question it. When someone observes neutrinos flying across Europe faster than light-speed, people raise questions and conduct experiments. The theory is tested again and again. Bitter arguments are not inclined to erupt. Why is there name-calling rather than argument in other areas where theories are behind the points? Why, if someone questions the anthropogenic theory of global warming are they quickly labelled as a scientific heretic? And isn't that what this entire discussion is really all about, after all? An attempt to name-call those heretics as "conservatives"? Why is it OK not to believe in string theory but not OK not to believe in the green-house-gas theory?
Another popular area to call people names for disagreeing with a theory is evolution. Question that one and instead of being called "conservative" you get painted as "religious zealot". Isn't it time to stop all the name calling and understand that theories are just that, and the basis of the scientific method is raising doubt and devising and conducting tests?
See http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/.
All news sources have agendas and filter their presentations and publications through those agendas. This is not specific to Fox News. Remember the ABC news report on the fictitious Bush performance report from his military days? Look at NBC allowing their own staff to cover their own actions as news related to the Trayvon Martin accusations?
One-sided hatred of Fox is no more rational than what you accuse Fox News of doing. Fair and Balanced :) hatred of both extreme sides of news sources makes far more sense. Is your primary news source any less extreme than you see Fox News as being? And if you think not, is it only because you are tuned into a news source that matches your own slanted perspective? Maybe, if you don't routinely find things said by your news source with which you don't disagree you're not getting a broad enough perspective? Try something other than CNN and MSNBC for awhile.
Finally, on the main topic: It is nothing new to anyone in the Conditional Access field that NDS has worked to "out" their competitors for years. The amount of patent infringement undertaking by NDS, specifically the basis of their work on the TV/COM multilevel access patents has been well known and litigated for years. But I'm not sure that Irdeto, Canal+, or any of the other players in the field are any better behaved. IMHO the advent of the embedded security processor in SoC and the software based security systems that use them are a good (if not new) evolution. The "replaceable security element" model of the Smartcard guys seems to be successfully attacked time and time again in many fields and requires a large on-going legal team to prosecute the pirates to try and keep the model alive. And, IMHO, what a PITA those smart card security company's are to work with due to the false pretense of expertise, their late-delivered demands on hardware and software design, and their almost capricious engineering review reports leading to demands for design changes that don't conform to even their own published security specifications.
How sustainable is the level of the upper lack? Does it have a constant source that exceeds the draw to drive the 20KW turbine? Does the lower lake have an open drain? Is there any impact on the biological conditions in the two lakes (different animal or plant populations, different chemical compositions between the lakes) that the connection is changing?
I don't get how the similar isotope composition of moon samples and the earth rule out the Giant Impact by Theia. Say the Earth is floating around alone (before the moon is there). It has a unique set of Ti isotopes in its composition. Nice. Happy. Then, out of no where, this Theia planet comes by and wham, Theia and Earth a blown apart. The energy makes them mostly molten. Stuff goes everywhere. What a hot mess.
What is that stuff made of, and what happens to all that Ti?
Maybe 2/3 of the stuff is Earth stuff, and maybe 1/3 is Theia stuff. Was there any Ti on Theia? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Was it the same Ti as on Earth? Again, please refer your question to God. I don't know and it doesn't matter.
There's all this hot stuff floating around. Which piece came from Theia and which from Earth? Can't tell anymore. A bunch of the stuff hangs around and forms Earth 2. Another hunk sits some 100K miles away and eventually forms Moon 1. Essentially, it's all the same homogenous mix of stuff. Can't tell which atoms came from Earth and which from Theia.
The ratio of Ti isotopes in the stuff that made Earth 2 and Moon 1 are the same...the stuff floating around in a molten state was homogeneous. That's what the study found. The same ratio of Ti isotopes. And apparently of O isotopes. Good stuff. Homogenous molten ooze cools and sticks together and forms a homogenous pair of rock balls (Earth 2 and Moon 1).
So tell me why, please, does this mean that that molten stuff thrown about and the matching ratios of isotopes on Earth 2 and Moon 1 precludes the Big Impact?
Thanks
What will happen is that people will write more clearly to avoid sounding needlessly pompous when they write ridiculous opinions.
Why not? Your arms are already ruined.
Excellent post.
Perfectly said. "No." Ridiculous question based on gender bias.
Not unless the US has enough production capacity to replace the entire output of those countries that participate in the boycott. If world demand is (e.g.) 100M bbl per day, and the available supply is only 90M bbl per day, prices will rise or production will increase. There's this little triangle of supply, demand, and price that's always in play and the three vertices sit in world-wide markets, not just in the US domestic market.
Only if the US were to have a law that said that we could not export any domestically produced oil would our production serve to buffer our needs. But would such a law be constitutional? And, I expect there would be cries of anguish from some who would claim the US was the cause of a world wide shortage of crude oil, rather than the countries engaged in the boycott, hurting people in other places around the globe.
The US makes a very convenient target for these morons. These people don't intend to make or engage in rational arguments. They simply want to stop using carbon-based fuels and use snake oil instead. (Pity the poor snakes, though those long yellow snakes are pretty ugly, and I'm OK with turning them into oil. (joke))
If you are one of the "stop drilling now" crowd, grow a sack. Turn off your lights, your heat, and your computer and put your car up on blocks and live the life you are preaching. Spend your money on over-priced and unreliable solar panels and live the financial consequences of your personal life choices. Leave me the heck alone. I like fossil fuels, being warm, taking hot showers, having a job, and driving to work. I love coal, gas, and all the flavors of oil and the various wells it comes from. I do not like turning corn into fuel when we could feed it to tasty hogs instead. I do not like deforesting the tropics to grow palm oil. I would rather harvest that timber responsibly so that I can have beautiful walnut and mahogany furniture instead of plastic, scrap wood, or low-cost pine furniture.