How many copyrights do most people own? If you guessed "none", you'd be right.
No, in a Berne Convention country you would be wrong. It wouldn't be uncommon for an individual to hold thousands of enforcable copyrights.
However, that said, saying you don't have propriatary rights over your laundry list is not at all the same thing as saying you can drive anything you want anywhere you want at any speed.
The "anarchy" argument" is specious. We're simply discussing certain terms defining "ownership."
The fact that a public park is held in common ownership by the public and free for its use does not at all imply that it is a place of anarchy.
The big news here, to me, is that Sweden seems to allow minority opinions into their parliament. ..
Yes, that is why they choose to call it a Parley-ment.
America's founding fathers were well aware of such a system. It was the one they were living under until independence was declared (with the caveat that they themselves were not allowed at the parley table); and so they were aware of its shortcomings and sought to obviate them. They were also well aware that they were trading one set of shortcomings for another. It's wise to remember that when the grass looks greener on the other side.
"Well, we solved that problem. Hey! Where'd that problem come from?"
All that said it's true that I have never had a representative in government, in the truest sense of the word, not one, in my entire life. Nor do I ever expect to have one. Under a parliamentary system I might well have someone who at least represents me in some focused issue or other.
Well, perhaps it's called filter and sort, but point taken.
For instance GF, BF, PU and MLs each have their own folder. I'm not sure what all else I'm supposed to do with these other than sort and find. My "Social Network" is pretty well dealt with by this strategy.
Software like this assumes the computer is wiser about you than you are, and if that's true you've go more things to worry about than sorting your mail. As a friend of mine likes to state:
No known laws or principles of physics mandates that the speed of light be constant.
Weeeeell, yes, they do, and this has been understood since the mid 1800s. It can be demonstrated in any decently equiped high school physics lab.
The speed of light is fixed by its method of propagation and only by its method of propagation.You may change the speed of light, but only by changing the nature of electromagnatism across the board. Change the speed of light and you inherently also change the speed of all electric motors; and the force which binds all molecules together.
So the question becomes is there anything that mandates whether the electromagnetic forces can't change.
More importantly, can you show any data indicating that it has; and bearing mind that such a change would effect the very makeup of physical matter.
Personally I don't give a damn. My whole point in this thread is against the idea of dogmatism of any kind.
Just show me the data.
Its speed is highly dependent on the nature of the medium through which it propagates.
No, it isn't. The speed with which light propagates through a medium is highly dependant upon the medium, but the speed of light at any given time within the medium remains the constant c. You are confusing instantaneous speed with average speed. If you drive a car at a constant 60 mph, but stop to piss every mile, your average speed will be much lower than 60 mph.
The concept of medium here means whether there is matter involved, since light stops to piss when it encounters matter. Space is not matter and does not affect the speed of light. It is not a medium. Again this is inherent in the nature of electromagnatism and only in the nature of electromagnatism.
Gravity bends the light near a star because gravity affects the properties of the space around the star.
But does not affect light's speed one iota, because gravity does not affect the electromagnetic force.
The pioneer spacecraft "mystery" is one of these evidences that cannot be explained easily if one is determined to dogmatically assert that these "constants" must not ever change.
It cannot be explained at all in any scientific manner by any means, easily or otherwise. One may postulate that some constant has changed, but one may also postulate that a giant invisible turtle is pushing them along.
This is philosophy. Simply assuming that a constant has changed in order to gain a desired result is "faith."
Just show me the data. I'd be glad to collect the Nobel by overturning all of known physics.Really, I would. Just look a few stories up from this one. I'd have accomplished something even Einstein didn't do (he refined physics, he didn't overturn it).
But to collect the data you might first want to learn something about what you're talking about, because you aren't allowed to simply make shit up for the sake of convenience.
About 400 years ago a Danish Astronomer first challenged the then widely held notion that light takes no time to travel any distance. Experiments done with lanterns and shutters from mountain tops "proved" that this was so.
No it did not. And the astronomer understood and published that it did not (and the experimenter was Italian. Fellow by the name of Galileo. Ole merely repeated the experiment with a better timepiece, further defining the minimum of the speed of light).
The speed of light is inherent in the laws of electromagnetic interaction. Change the speed of light and you must also change all phenomenon relying on electromagentic interactions. Like how your atoms stick together and stuff.
This isn't faith. It is demonstrable.
Most other constants aren't any particular deep mystery or even fundamental to physics. They are simply unit conversion factors from the Metric (or whatever other) system of measurment to the "natural" unit of the phenomenon.
Basically they don't even exist as "real" phenomena. They are side effects of using yardsticks to measure them instead of sticks of some other length.
Many widely held theories of science have fallen to new data.
Exactly - the parent poster is implying that birds and fish are the same, but not other organisms
No he isn't.
Are Bird and Fish the same or different?... For me thought the answer is yes they are [the same].
Here you have editorialized (a polite way of saying "put words into the mouth of") what the OP said to fit your claim by changing it's meaning rather dramatically.
Here is what the OP said:
Are Bird and Fish the same or different?... For me thought the answer is yes they are.
"Would you like to go the mall or would you like to go to the library?"
"Yes."
It is a not uncommon rhetorical ploy when when presented with apparently exclusive choices to answer in the singular to imply agreement with both options.
Moles and related animals create holes in the solid medium to move through - they don't travel through the solid medium, they make room for them to travel and then they travel through the empty room.
What on earth do you think animals that move through air and water do? You've never designed a boat or a car, have you?
Maybe while driving or bicycling you've drafted a truck or something? The truck displaces air. Welcome to the hole.
Regardless of how penguins fly through water, that doesn't make penguins fish.
Regardless of their differences that doesn't make them entirely dissimilar.
name a single animal that travels through a completely SOLID medium.
I wish I was a mole in the ground I wish I was a mole in the ground If I's a mole in the ground I'd root this mountain down I wish I was a mole in the ground
And parent poster is right about penguins flying in water. You only have to watch them for a few minutes to see it. They are birds and move like birds. They simply require a denser medium than air to fly in. A bit of bouyency doesn't hurt, but isn't strictly relevant to the way their wings produce propulsion and lift.
From the article: "Devices which isolate auditory input to one ear are comfortable (i.e., phones) but splitting one's field of vision is highly disorienting..."
Also from the article: ". ..a company that makes video imaging technology for military. . . uses. .."
So I guess Moshe Dyan would have loved this thing, although he would likely bang his shins on the furniture a lot.
"Who is really going to adopt and use this thing on a regular basis in it's current form?"
People who regret not having a pronounced brow ridge?
What's getting me is that I find this article and the first post more lucid, understandable and plainspoke than the previous article on Ambient Findability.
Ok, so guess my desk has Ambient Findability within 50 ft. or so.
. . . PDAs, GPS units, smartphones . ..
The bloody hell we do. If I had that sort of shit I'd have Ambient Findability and I like to flat out fucking disappear from time to time, thank you very much.
Digital networks are available everywhere.
Either this guy never leaves Ann Arbor or he walks around with an Al Franken satellite dish on his head.
Personally, it sounds to me like this guy drank Hubbard's past its expiration date Kool-Aid and I really don't want to become an Findabilityologist, ambient or otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
I administer beatings.
You really should stop that you know? Moral is already as high as it's going to get.
KFG
How many copyrights do most people own? If you guessed "none", you'd be right.
No, in a Berne Convention country you would be wrong. It wouldn't be uncommon for an individual to hold thousands of enforcable copyrights.
However, that said, saying you don't have propriatary rights over your laundry list is not at all the same thing as saying you can drive anything you want anywhere you want at any speed.
The "anarchy" argument" is specious. We're simply discussing certain terms defining "ownership."
The fact that a public park is held in common ownership by the public and free for its use does not at all imply that it is a place of anarchy.
KFG
The big news here, to me, is that Sweden seems to allow minority opinions into their parliament. . .
Yes, that is why they choose to call it a Parley-ment.
America's founding fathers were well aware of such a system. It was the one they were living under until independence was declared (with the caveat that they themselves were not allowed at the parley table); and so they were aware of its shortcomings and sought to obviate them. They were also well aware that they were trading one set of shortcomings for another. It's wise to remember that when the grass looks greener on the other side.
"Well, we solved that problem. Hey! Where'd that problem come from?"
All that said it's true that I have never had a representative in government, in the truest sense of the word, not one, in my entire life. Nor do I ever expect to have one. Under a parliamentary system I might well have someone who at least represents me in some focused issue or other.
KFG
Don't be silly. The last one was about an explosion on the moon. That's exciting stuff. This one is simply about an ordinary old meteor strike.
KFG
It's called "sort."
Well, perhaps it's called filter and sort, but point taken.
For instance GF, BF, PU and MLs each have their own folder. I'm not sure what all else I'm supposed to do with these other than sort and find. My "Social Network" is pretty well dealt with by this strategy.
Software like this assumes the computer is wiser about you than you are, and if that's true you've go more things to worry about than sorting your mail. As a friend of mine likes to state:
"Life is hard. It's harder if you're stupid."
KFG
What if you don't want to be found?
Hide.
KFG
Is it really all the important?
Yes.
Why?
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999. . .
It's such a minimal part of my computer, that I couldn't be bothered to even think of changing it.
Ah, well, you see, there's the difference. Some of us not only think about changing our computers, but do.
KFG
There hasn't been a Google article posted today!
And only old people in Korea still care about SCO.
KFG
No known laws or principles of physics mandates that the speed of light be constant.
Weeeeell, yes, they do, and this has been understood since the mid 1800s. It can be demonstrated in any decently equiped high school physics lab.
The speed of light is fixed by its method of propagation and only by its method of propagation.You may change the speed of light, but only by changing the nature of electromagnatism across the board. Change the speed of light and you inherently also change the speed of all electric motors; and the force which binds all molecules together.
So the question becomes is there anything that mandates whether the electromagnetic forces can't change.
More importantly, can you show any data indicating that it has; and bearing mind that such a change would effect the very makeup of physical matter.
Personally I don't give a damn. My whole point in this thread is against the idea of dogmatism of any kind.
Just show me the data.
Its speed is highly dependent on the nature of the medium through which it propagates.
No, it isn't. The speed with which light propagates through a medium is highly dependant upon the medium, but the speed of light at any given time within the medium remains the constant c. You are confusing instantaneous speed with average speed. If you drive a car at a constant 60 mph, but stop to piss every mile, your average speed will be much lower than 60 mph.
The concept of medium here means whether there is matter involved, since light stops to piss when it encounters matter. Space is not matter and does not affect the speed of light. It is not a medium. Again this is inherent in the nature of electromagnatism and only in the nature of electromagnatism.
Gravity bends the light near a star because gravity affects the properties of the space around the star.
But does not affect light's speed one iota, because gravity does not affect the electromagnetic force.
The pioneer spacecraft "mystery" is one of these evidences that cannot be explained easily if one is determined to dogmatically assert that these "constants" must not ever change.
It cannot be explained at all in any scientific manner by any means, easily or otherwise. One may postulate that some constant has changed, but one may also postulate that a giant invisible turtle is pushing them along.
This is philosophy. Simply assuming that a constant has changed in order to gain a desired result is "faith."
Just show me the data. I'd be glad to collect the Nobel by overturning all of known physics.Really, I would. Just look a few stories up from this one. I'd have accomplished something even Einstein didn't do (he refined physics, he didn't overturn it).
But to collect the data you might first want to learn something about what you're talking about, because you aren't allowed to simply make shit up for the sake of convenience.
You have to show the data.
KFG
Ah, but your examples are about spelling. I'm questioning the language.
KFG
There is no problem with the data whatsoever.
Show me your conclusion from the data.
About 400 years ago a Danish Astronomer first challenged the then widely held notion that light takes no time to travel any distance. Experiments done with lanterns and shutters from mountain tops "proved" that this was so.
No it did not. And the astronomer understood and published that it did not (and the experimenter was Italian. Fellow by the name of Galileo. Ole merely repeated the experiment with a better timepiece, further defining the minimum of the speed of light).
The speed of light is inherent in the laws of electromagnetic interaction. Change the speed of light and you must also change all phenomenon relying on electromagentic interactions. Like how your atoms stick together and stuff.
This isn't faith. It is demonstrable.
Most other constants aren't any particular deep mystery or even fundamental to physics. They are simply unit conversion factors from the Metric (or whatever other) system of measurment to the "natural" unit of the phenomenon.
Basically they don't even exist as "real" phenomena. They are side effects of using yardsticks to measure them instead of sticks of some other length.
Many widely held theories of science have fallen to new data.
Exactly.
Show me the data.
KFG
the military users are trained to use this type of technology
If they need training to watch a movie the recruiters really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
KFG
Exactly - the parent poster is implying that birds and fish are the same, but not other organisms
... For me thought the answer is yes they are [the same].
... For me thought the answer is yes they are.
No he isn't.
Are Bird and Fish the same or different?
Here you have editorialized (a polite way of saying "put words into the mouth of") what the OP said to fit your claim by changing it's meaning rather dramatically.
Here is what the OP said:
Are Bird and Fish the same or different?
"Would you like to go the mall or would you like to go to the library?"
"Yes."
It is a not uncommon rhetorical ploy when when presented with apparently exclusive choices to answer in the singular to imply agreement with both options.
KFG
Moles and related animals create holes in the solid medium to move through - they don't travel through the solid medium, they make room for them to travel and then they travel through the empty room.
What on earth do you think animals that move through air and water do? You've never designed a boat or a car, have you?
Maybe while driving or bicycling you've drafted a truck or something? The truck displaces air. Welcome to the hole.
Regardless of how penguins fly through water, that doesn't make penguins fish.
Regardless of their differences that doesn't make them entirely dissimilar.
KFG
And answer without an exlanation is not an answer, just more philosophy.
Show me the data.
KFG
name a single animal that travels through a completely SOLID medium.
I wish I was a mole in the ground
I wish I was a mole in the ground
If I's a mole in the ground
I'd root this mountain down
I wish I was a mole in the ground
And parent poster is right about penguins flying in water. You only have to watch them for a few minutes to see it. They are birds and move like birds. They simply require a denser medium than air to fly in. A bit of bouyency doesn't hurt, but isn't strictly relevant to the way their wings produce propulsion and lift.
KFG
It looks like you're missing the 'Pulp Fiction' reference he's making.Rent the movie.
Seen it.Big Screen.Like it.Bought a trunk.
KFG
. . .it shares its name with a failure to walk correctly, . . .
.or worse, the dude in the mask in the basement.
Yeah, but at least today I was able to hang the cane up.
. .
Ok, now you're just being an insensitive clod.
KFG
. . .does the article never answer it's lead question of why the two releases within a week of each other?
Dunno. I had a huge buzzword stuck in my eye.
KFG
You remember Netwofive? This is one more.
I'm just going to spin my own Netwoven.
KFG
From the article: "Devices which isolate auditory input to one ear are comfortable (i.e., phones) but splitting one's field of vision is highly disorienting..."
.a company that makes video imaging technology for military. . . uses. . ."
Also from the article: ". .
So I guess Moshe Dyan would have loved this thing, although he would likely bang his shins on the furniture a lot.
"Who is really going to adopt and use this thing on a regular basis in it's current form?"
People who regret not having a pronounced brow ridge?
KFG
I can say is, look at the stock over the past 5 years. . .
All I can say is that I don't consider stock performance scientific data; even with regards to stock performance.
KFG
What's getting me is that I find this article and the first post more lucid, understandable and plainspoke than the previous article on Ambient Findability.
KFG
As users, we have computers,. . .
.
Ok, so guess my desk has Ambient Findability within 50 ft. or so.
. . . PDAs, GPS units, smartphones . .
The bloody hell we do. If I had that sort of shit I'd have Ambient Findability and I like to flat out fucking disappear from time to time, thank you very much.
Digital networks are available everywhere.
Either this guy never leaves Ann Arbor or he walks around with an Al Franken satellite dish on his head.
KFG
Is it just me, or does that sound retarded?
If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance. . .
Personally, it sounds to me like this guy drank Hubbard's past its expiration date Kool-Aid and I really don't want to become an Findabilityologist, ambient or otherwise.
KFG