Adobe would bend over backwards to make flash work in the iPhone or iPad to Steve Job's satisfaction.
This right here is the reason I'm going to point out next time someone says Apple should merely "not support" unapproved apps on the iPhone rather than locking them out altogether. Whether or not you agree with the morality of doing so, Apple wants strict control over their user experience, and all it takes is a 3rd party like Adobe to package up some sort of jail-break in a nice tidy product and it's downloadable to everyone, and suddenly considered an acceptable "part" of the iPhone. Then sites design for it and say "oh, you can use your iPhone on our banking site, as long as you download the flash plugin". That drags down the user experience for all of us.
You can debate the morality of Apple being able to have this tight control over the products after they sell them, but it should be clear now why they feel they have to do so.
In the state that I'm in, the law goes farther than that. Stopping within an intersection is a traffic violation. If you want to go straight, you wait behind the stop line for a spot on the other side of the intersection to open up. If you want to go left, you wait behind the stop line for a path to open up. If the light turns red, you stay there until the next light cycle.
You don't need an app store, but you need people to write software for it. There's too many platforms out there, and for non-enterprise consumer cell-phones, Palm is a third-run in the market for apps, at best.
It would be nice if we could standardize on something a la the web, so it didn't have to be "android apps vs. ipod-os apps vs. web-os apps"... but here we are right now, and that's killing the Pre.
Sibling is correct, top quarks don't live long enough. The hadronic energy scale is at about 200 MeV, and the available energy in a W decay from t to b is fairly close to the top quark mass: 171 GeV. So the time scale is about 1000 times faster (back of the envelope).
In colliders we actually do a lot with particles that barely exist at all. What a detector observes is the travel of long lived particles into material it can interact with, so electrons, photons, muons, pions, protons, and maybe some lambdas and kaons. Everything else has to be inferred from mass-energy conservation ("direct" observation), or deviation from expected produciton rates (indirect observation).
How is it different? why not just consider it indeed being the same as any other spacial dimension?
You can consider it however you like, if it's helpful. You have to be very careful in conversations like these to restrict your hypotheses to ones which have real observable consequences. Otherwise you wander away from science into philosophy, which is a fine conversation to have, but not one that scientists would enjoy having with you =P
General Relativity, being the most accurate model to-date of time and space themselves, treats time as a dimension, but one with slightly different mathematical properties. In taking the magnitude of a 4-vector, you *subtract* the square of the time component. This makes it possible to get negative distances, which is what "light-cones" attempt to visualize: in the interior of the cone are "time-like" points, where they are separated from the origin by a negative distance (under this sign convention), and are capable of influencing each other causally. The opposite would be "space-like" (nothing I do on Earth now can affect what someone on Alpha Centauri does now, and vice versa), and the boundary on the cone itself is "light-like".
Except Pete can't actually sell the data, that would be a derivative work of their copyrighted web-pages. Sure he has the fair-use ability to publish academic studies, but he'd be limited to using the data internally.
And would you claim that prosecutors filing RICO claims against organized crime are just "propping up" businesses that failed to pay their protection money? There's nothing wrong with government helping business by eliminating hazardous illegal activity.
I'm not sure if I'm willing to argue it, but it seems like the crux of our argument should be that these activities shouldn't be actionable in the first place because society benefits as a whole, and not that it's somehow evil to use the courts to enforce legal liability.
If you're referring to the hierarchy problem, that's more a question of fine-tuning, trying to find a way of explaining the low Higgs mass without involving an arbitrarily specific parameter.
I would agree it's a problem, and one that would be nicely solved by Supersymmetry or a suitable substitute, but I don't think their absence entirely precludes the standard model.
And the easiest solution, which seems to escape almost everybody, is "don't work offline in the first place".
FTFY. Having my data available on any online computer or device that I happen to be at *increases* its availability to me, even in the presence of occasional outages. There's down-sides, such as privacy, but availability isn't one of them: it's a net positive.
Differential Geometry explains this fairly coherently, but it's tough to wrap your head around. The functions that define size and shape of a geometrical space (the first and second fundamental forms, not necessarily respectively), can be completely defined within the host geometry. So for example, you could define the surface of a globe without ever referring to it being embedded in a 3-dimensional space. So it is with the Universe. By current understanding (General Relativity) the universe isn't "in" anything.
My understanding is the Higgs (or some other particle or particles that perform the same function) is the last one that absolutely MUST exist. Beyond that, we would merely LIKE them to exist, because they answer some questions raised by the current understanding of the standard model.
The most boring thing that could happen at the LHC is the discovery of a Standard Model Higgs and absolutely no hint of anything else. That would pretty much be it for energy-frontier physics for a while (at least until cheaper experiments come along).
I agree. The reason such a thing doesn't really matter so much yet is (at least in my experience) the in-box DLC is just shiny extras, like in Forza 3, where I got a couple tracks and some cars, none of which are used in career mode. It makes buying an original copy a little nicer, like the physical trinkets in old computer games, but it doesn't change the game.
Now if we were talking entire expansion packs, like if the Fallout 3 GOTY edition came with DLC cards instead of an extra disc... then we'd be talking reduced value.
But Gamestop isn't making the claim - the game company is.
And in the new product, the DLC code is there and usable, with the tear-off cover still in place. But Gamestop is selling an altered version of the product without the publisher's involvement or endorsement. Just like removing the manual or even the disc. If anything, this might even be a violation of trademark ("you're devaluing our product's reputation by selling an inferior version in our trademarked original packaging!"... not that I want to give them ideas)
Yeah, I think so. I have faith in people to do the right thing in those situations, and I think on balance (what I perceive to be) the low risk of lives lost is worth having a country where the press is free to have that kind of check on government. As long as it's continued to be used responsibly. Wikileaks scares me a little... they don't seem like the most responsible guys, but time will tell.
I didn't state my own opinion, though I'd be hesitant to pretend to know better than the Supreme Court without doing the same research they did. Perhaps it would be helpful to read the decision?
But is Wikileaks the entity that gets to decide what should and shouldn't be classified?
Yes. For better or worse, ever since the Supreme Court decided on the Pentagon Papers incident, the press has a recognized First Amendment ability to publish the truth regardless of its classification, in situations where it does not ACTUALLY harm national security. Of course, if you're wrong in that determination, prepare to see the US Government in court.
There are national security laws, and there are also exceptions to them. NYT v US found that the release of the Pentagon Papers was protected under the First Amendment freedom of the press since they didn't actually jeopardize national security even though they were classified as such. With that precedent the Supreme Court gave us citizens (provided we're unbound by secrecy agreements) the ability to make an independent evaluation of whether it's proper to keep something secret, though we have to be willing to face consequences in court if we're wrong.
It's actually not a bad anology. In reality free porn is just as good as the pay stuff, but like bottled water pay porn is cheap enough not to matter to most people, and so it just takes a little consistency and *perceived* quality to make it worth it.
You're not interested in what Medicare is doing? NASA? The VA? FEMA?
The executive branch is the one that actually spends this country's money (for the most part). It would be nice to see how they're doing what Congress funded them to do.
It makes sense, the executive branch is the one actually doing things. The only thing such a bill would cover in the legislative branch is the process of lawmaking, which is largely done by Thomas already anyway, leaving the remainder closed by intent (whether it should be or not is up for debate).
1) Theoretically nothing. Though some states have shown mumblings of interest in stepping in and imposing limits themselves in the wake of some of the latest premium increases.
2) Most states currently mandate minimum care standards, which is the biggest impediment to "shopping across state lines". They should probably be standardized nation-wide, but this bill didn't do that.
3) That's a non-feature of our system. We tried to provide a certain minimum level of care to everyone, but people should be able to pay for additional costs they'd like to incur.
in thirty years you will be spending 100% of your GDP on health services.
I'm undoing mods to post this, but this is EXACTLY the kind of logic that makes me die a little inside. Didn't we learn better from Malthus? The fact that extrapolating growth leads to an impossible outcome means that growth won't continue that way. Surely you're not suggesting that people will sign away the entirety of their paycheck on health insurance and opt not to eat, clothe themselves, and otherwise live their lives. There is some hidden limit to what amount of expenditure the economy will support, and eventually we'll hit it and people will have to ask themselves what sort of health care they're actually willing to pay for.
Government intervention delays, not prevents, that day, by making us able to continue spending more (societally instead of out of pocket). I'm not suggesting reform isn't a good idea, only we stop kidding ourselves if we think anything that doesn't actually cut costs is going to help anything. It may or may not be that THIS reform isn't a good idea on those grounds.
Slashdot Mirror
Adobe would bend over backwards to make flash work in the iPhone or iPad to Steve Job's satisfaction.
This right here is the reason I'm going to point out next time someone says Apple should merely "not support" unapproved apps on the iPhone rather than locking them out altogether. Whether or not you agree with the morality of doing so, Apple wants strict control over their user experience, and all it takes is a 3rd party like Adobe to package up some sort of jail-break in a nice tidy product and it's downloadable to everyone, and suddenly considered an acceptable "part" of the iPhone. Then sites design for it and say "oh, you can use your iPhone on our banking site, as long as you download the flash plugin". That drags down the user experience for all of us.
You can debate the morality of Apple being able to have this tight control over the products after they sell them, but it should be clear now why they feel they have to do so.
In the state that I'm in, the law goes farther than that. Stopping within an intersection is a traffic violation. If you want to go straight, you wait behind the stop line for a spot on the other side of the intersection to open up. If you want to go left, you wait behind the stop line for a path to open up. If the light turns red, you stay there until the next light cycle.
Simple, sensible, and ignored by everyone.
You don't need an app store, but you need people to write software for it. There's too many platforms out there, and for non-enterprise consumer cell-phones, Palm is a third-run in the market for apps, at best.
It would be nice if we could standardize on something a la the web, so it didn't have to be "android apps vs. ipod-os apps vs. web-os apps"... but here we are right now, and that's killing the Pre.
Sibling is correct, top quarks don't live long enough. The hadronic energy scale is at about 200 MeV, and the available energy in a W decay from t to b is fairly close to the top quark mass: 171 GeV. So the time scale is about 1000 times faster (back of the envelope).
In colliders we actually do a lot with particles that barely exist at all. What a detector observes is the travel of long lived particles into material it can interact with, so electrons, photons, muons, pions, protons, and maybe some lambdas and kaons. Everything else has to be inferred from mass-energy conservation ("direct" observation), or deviation from expected produciton rates (indirect observation).
How is it different? why not just consider it indeed being the same as any other spacial dimension?
You can consider it however you like, if it's helpful. You have to be very careful in conversations like these to restrict your hypotheses to ones which have real observable consequences. Otherwise you wander away from science into philosophy, which is a fine conversation to have, but not one that scientists would enjoy having with you =P
General Relativity, being the most accurate model to-date of time and space themselves, treats time as a dimension, but one with slightly different mathematical properties. In taking the magnitude of a 4-vector, you *subtract* the square of the time component. This makes it possible to get negative distances, which is what "light-cones" attempt to visualize: in the interior of the cone are "time-like" points, where they are separated from the origin by a negative distance (under this sign convention), and are capable of influencing each other causally. The opposite would be "space-like" (nothing I do on Earth now can affect what someone on Alpha Centauri does now, and vice versa), and the boundary on the cone itself is "light-like".
Except Pete can't actually sell the data, that would be a derivative work of their copyrighted web-pages. Sure he has the fair-use ability to publish academic studies, but he'd be limited to using the data internally.
And would you claim that prosecutors filing RICO claims against organized crime are just "propping up" businesses that failed to pay their protection money? There's nothing wrong with government helping business by eliminating hazardous illegal activity.
I'm not sure if I'm willing to argue it, but it seems like the crux of our argument should be that these activities shouldn't be actionable in the first place because society benefits as a whole, and not that it's somehow evil to use the courts to enforce legal liability.
If you're referring to the hierarchy problem, that's more a question of fine-tuning, trying to find a way of explaining the low Higgs mass without involving an arbitrarily specific parameter.
I would agree it's a problem, and one that would be nicely solved by Supersymmetry or a suitable substitute, but I don't think their absence entirely precludes the standard model.
And the easiest solution, which seems to escape almost everybody, is "don't work offline in the first place".
FTFY. Having my data available on any online computer or device that I happen to be at *increases* its availability to me, even in the presence of occasional outages. There's down-sides, such as privacy, but availability isn't one of them: it's a net positive.
Differential Geometry explains this fairly coherently, but it's tough to wrap your head around. The functions that define size and shape of a geometrical space (the first and second fundamental forms, not necessarily respectively), can be completely defined within the host geometry. So for example, you could define the surface of a globe without ever referring to it being embedded in a 3-dimensional space. So it is with the Universe. By current understanding (General Relativity) the universe isn't "in" anything.
My understanding is the Higgs (or some other particle or particles that perform the same function) is the last one that absolutely MUST exist. Beyond that, we would merely LIKE them to exist, because they answer some questions raised by the current understanding of the standard model.
The most boring thing that could happen at the LHC is the discovery of a Standard Model Higgs and absolutely no hint of anything else. That would pretty much be it for energy-frontier physics for a while (at least until cheaper experiments come along).
If the DLC code for a game has been used, how exactly would GameStop be able to determine this, in order to adjust the price accordingly?
The DLC cards have a little tear-off cover, and the card explicitly states that the card is invalid if received without the cover intact.
I agree. The reason such a thing doesn't really matter so much yet is (at least in my experience) the in-box DLC is just shiny extras, like in Forza 3, where I got a couple tracks and some cars, none of which are used in career mode. It makes buying an original copy a little nicer, like the physical trinkets in old computer games, but it doesn't change the game.
Now if we were talking entire expansion packs, like if the Fallout 3 GOTY edition came with DLC cards instead of an extra disc... then we'd be talking reduced value.
But Gamestop isn't making the claim - the game company is.
And in the new product, the DLC code is there and usable, with the tear-off cover still in place. But Gamestop is selling an altered version of the product without the publisher's involvement or endorsement. Just like removing the manual or even the disc. If anything, this might even be a violation of trademark ("you're devaluing our product's reputation by selling an inferior version in our trademarked original packaging!"... not that I want to give them ideas)
Yeah, I think so. I have faith in people to do the right thing in those situations, and I think on balance (what I perceive to be) the low risk of lives lost is worth having a country where the press is free to have that kind of check on government. As long as it's continued to be used responsibly. Wikileaks scares me a little... they don't seem like the most responsible guys, but time will tell.
I didn't state my own opinion, though I'd be hesitant to pretend to know better than the Supreme Court without doing the same research they did. Perhaps it would be helpful to read the decision?
But is Wikileaks the entity that gets to decide what should and shouldn't be classified?
Yes. For better or worse, ever since the Supreme Court decided on the Pentagon Papers incident, the press has a recognized First Amendment ability to publish the truth regardless of its classification, in situations where it does not ACTUALLY harm national security. Of course, if you're wrong in that determination, prepare to see the US Government in court.
There are national security laws, and there are also exceptions to them. NYT v US found that the release of the Pentagon Papers was protected under the First Amendment freedom of the press since they didn't actually jeopardize national security even though they were classified as such. With that precedent the Supreme Court gave us citizens (provided we're unbound by secrecy agreements) the ability to make an independent evaluation of whether it's proper to keep something secret, though we have to be willing to face consequences in court if we're wrong.
It's actually not a bad anology. In reality free porn is just as good as the pay stuff, but like bottled water pay porn is cheap enough not to matter to most people, and so it just takes a little consistency and *perceived* quality to make it worth it.
You're not interested in what Medicare is doing? NASA? The VA? FEMA?
The executive branch is the one that actually spends this country's money (for the most part). It would be nice to see how they're doing what Congress funded them to do.
It makes sense, the executive branch is the one actually doing things. The only thing such a bill would cover in the legislative branch is the process of lawmaking, which is largely done by Thomas already anyway, leaving the remainder closed by intent (whether it should be or not is up for debate).
1) Theoretically nothing. Though some states have shown mumblings of interest in stepping in and imposing limits themselves in the wake of some of the latest premium increases.
2) Most states currently mandate minimum care standards, which is the biggest impediment to "shopping across state lines". They should probably be standardized nation-wide, but this bill didn't do that.
3) That's a non-feature of our system. We tried to provide a certain minimum level of care to everyone, but people should be able to pay for additional costs they'd like to incur.
in thirty years you will be spending 100% of your GDP on health services.
I'm undoing mods to post this, but this is EXACTLY the kind of logic that makes me die a little inside. Didn't we learn better from Malthus? The fact that extrapolating growth leads to an impossible outcome means that growth won't continue that way. Surely you're not suggesting that people will sign away the entirety of their paycheck on health insurance and opt not to eat, clothe themselves, and otherwise live their lives. There is some hidden limit to what amount of expenditure the economy will support, and eventually we'll hit it and people will have to ask themselves what sort of health care they're actually willing to pay for.
Government intervention delays, not prevents, that day, by making us able to continue spending more (societally instead of out of pocket). I'm not suggesting reform isn't a good idea, only we stop kidding ourselves if we think anything that doesn't actually cut costs is going to help anything. It may or may not be that THIS reform isn't a good idea on those grounds.
Primary sources.
You forgot one of the more esoteric ones.