Well, it was, but because of... political factors... he had to disguise it as fiction, so instead of the title being 1948 it was 1984, and a few other things changed, e.g. he was reporting on Spain.
"The cameras in every house" were a part of his metaphor for an extensive network of spies such that you couldn't trust anyone.
Most physicistswhereuse LaTeX to make their presentations.?
The GP was specific in speaking about CERN, and this is probably observational judgement. I don't believe that you can make an observational judgement about all physicists everywhere. It may well vary with, e.g., sub-specialty. Or what time period you are doing your observations. (I know that a couple of decades ago LaTex was quite popular in a couple of places, and probably several others. This doesn't mean that's still true. And if I go back to when I was occasionally working at the Laurence Berkeley Lab Unix systems were quite rare. I think there was one on [what was then considered] a micro computer...but I never actually saw it...well, that was *several* decades ago. And it may have been VMS.)
The problem is that the current "nationalized health care" wasn't designed to reduce the costs of the system, merely to increase coverage, which I will admit is a good point.
A decent system would have started by saying that insurance was a lousy model for any cost which you know will be incurred...and removed the insurance companies from the scam. That action alone would have cut the costs by probably 50%. Then it would have cut back tremendously on the paperwork. Get rid of all this "justification for performance of this laboratory test requested by a doctor". Even allowing for an increase in the number of unneeded tests this would probably shave another 50% off the system. So much of the costs of the system are tied up in bookkeeping games that it's unreal. Then, using a very conservative definition of "unnecessary" cut unnecessary medical procedures out of the system. Perhaps they could be covered by additional "insurance" policies...though that's not the kind of thing insurance likes to cover. But there's no need to cover plastic surgery except in cases like, e.g., reconstructive surgery after an accident. And perhaps "really major medical" could be covered by insurance. That's a thing that actually *is* suitable for the insurance model.
OTOH, this *would* mean increased governmental data collection...except that they were doing it anyway, so I'd just like to get some benefit out of all that government intrusion. If you don't support governmental coverage of health because it increases governmental intrusion, first ensure that you get rid of the governmental intrusion if you don't have it.
The odd thing is, they WERE ordered to present the evidence. They even got an extention until the end of January (severl years ago) because their lawyers went on vacation over Christmas. They still didn't present any evidence (to speak of). And yet the case went on.
You don't just shoot them in the head, then you need to fill their mouth with salt and sew their lips together to keep them from spitting it out. Shooting them in the head is just to slow them down enough so that you can do that.
Perhaps, but she shut down Groklaw because she realized that she couldn't manage secure communication with people who wanted to send her information. See the NSA, et al.
Well, back in the day I bought a C++ development system that cam with source code libraries, but which had a license that made it a violation of copyright to distribute the source code. That was Open Source but clearly not Free Software. (I've stil got a CD with Faircom source code on it, which would be readable on an MSWind95 system, so that was once Open Source, but there was no right to redistribute even a compiled copy without a separate license. So it also clearly wasn't Free Software, and you can argue about whether or not it's still Open Source.
That's almost, but not quite it. Another part of the answer is that people discount future expenses, and the further into the future they are the more they discount them.
And do note that this is largely sensible. Our knowledge of the future isn't very good, so any projected future reward or cost is uncertain, and the further into the future it is, the more uncertain.
P.S.: That we currently have the option to change to FOSSish phones doesn't mean that the option will continue to exist. And I said "FOSSish" because actual FOSS phones are illegal. If they existed you could use a GNU radio to drive the phone on any frequency you chose. (Well, ok, not *any*, but a large number of frequencies, many of which are illegal, frequently for very good reasons.)
Well, I've no idea about the Cayla doll, I was comparing it to the recent TVs. Your point about battery life is decent, but I'm not certain. That would mean it wasn't transmitting much, but a USB stick can hold a lot, so they wouldn't necessarily need to transmit very often.
Of course, I'm assuming that they are intentionally collecting information. But then they have advertised that that's what they're doing, and I don't expect the PR people to know how the thing works, and I don't really expect most of the designers to have known how the part they were working on was going to be used. (After all, it's probably a lot better if it's desinged so that it can work in lots of other things.)
Recording sound to non-moving storage is cheap on battery power, it's only transmission that's expensive.
FWIW, I don't have a smart phone with apps, but I'll probably end up with one soon...for an uncertain value of soon, could be months, could be years.
Another FWIW: The professional liars that I was talking about were the PR spokesmen. These people generally don't even realize that they are lying, because they never check. It's like the artists that do paperback book cover illustrations. They're told a bit about the story, maybe a scene, and then they come up with something they hope will sell. And they never bother to read the book. (Usually they wouldn't have a chance until afterwards anyway.)
You are believing what professional liars tell you. Off switches are frequently merely switches that disable local output.
I *do* agree that if you don't have an accessible WiFi in the neighborhood it probably won't be snooping on you. But the neighbor's WiFi might well do.
OTOH, if you are right, and it requires a dedicated smartphone to operate, then it will be less intrusive, but also a lot more expensive than stated. (I.e., you'll need to include not only the $80 for the doll, but also the cost of a phone and its monthly connection rental.) (Practically, I don't think the doll can share your cell phone, as you are often out of the house. Perhaps you could let it onto your computer...I'm sure they've got the security tight enough that *your* data would be safe. But I wouldn't trust it with *my* data.)
That actually *would* be a reasonable objection, but I have no reason to believe that the spokesman understood this. But do note that clones currently are not likely to be as healthy as the original, and are likely to have various epigenetic markers which will mean that they will not perform in the same way that the original would. Also even in normal reproduction there tend to be copying errors. Clones have a much larger number of these "copying errors" because many error correcting processes are suppressed. (Check on the rate of "spontaneous abortions" prior to the first month of pregnancy. Probably shorter on animals with shorter gestations. You'd be surprised at how high it is, but generally these are never noticed.)
Everything you say is true, and I'm rather certain that it has little to do with the reason for the complaint. (After all, it would just mean that the competition to the standard breeders was weaker. But it *would* allow the increase in the numbers of competitors...perhaps.)
Ok. I can accep that. But if you were to do so anyway the most humane way is to put them in a room and thoroughly remove the carbon dioxide from the air. (Bubbling it through liquid nitrogen should work.) People only feel the need to breathe when the level of carbon dioxide builds up, so they'd pretty much stop breathing. They might not even live long enough to experience hypo-oxigenation, which, according to fighter pilots, is quite enjoyable...of course it also means your brain is shutting down, but you don't care.
In fact, just put them in a room and slowly replace the air with pure nitrogen (plus water vapor). That would probably be a quite blissful way to die.
Another alternative, much slower, is to put them in a room and give them all the booze and hash and other schedule I drugs they want...but nothing to do. Make sure it's well padded so they can't injure themselves without a lot of effort.
But these all miss that the reason most people support the death penalty is they WANT to hurt the (purported) perpetrator. Any humane death penalty won't really satisfy those who insist that one exist.
IIUC, the value of the dollar is tied to the fact that it can be used to buy oil. That the USD is at a 12 year high may be due to the fact that the OPEC are selling oil in dollars at lower prices. How long do you expect this to continue? (If this analysis is correct, then the value of the $ is not primarily based on internal US production, and is out of our direct control. And this also explains our intense military involvement in the Persian Gulf area so that we have rather strong indirect control.)
I agree that the basic choice is whether or not to be a hegemonic power, and that the choice to be one is unreasonably bad. Somehow the people who end up in charge seem to be those who worship power, though, so expecting them to evaluate things the same way is unreasonable. So the first thing that needs to be fixed is that the way to get power is to desire power. This is one reason I think "elective office" should be replaced by "selective office", and that the selection should be essentially a lottery among those qualified: "Your friends and neighbors have selected you to serve a term as Senator for..." I will grant that the criteria for who is qualified would need to be tightened a bit. And perhaps lawyers should be forbidden on grounds of conflict of interest.
No. It's because it's small and relatively weak. The tactics that work for a small, relatively weak country don't work for a large, relatively strong country. This is why he selected the comparison example he did. He could have also suggested a classical Hindu empire, that of Ashoka, but didn't because that would weaken is argument. OTOH, please do notice that much of Ashoka's history is uncertain, and that he's the ONLY example of an essentially pacifistic emperor. Also that he only converted to Buddhism after conquering most of his empire.
Unhhh..... that comment about "Happy Birthday" is US law, and applies in the US. (And the copyright should be ruled invalid as the song predated the copyright issuance date by considerable, and the putative author of the song had nothing to do with it's creation, though possibly with its orchestration. (It was already being sung to that approximate tune, but I don't know whether it was to the exact same tune...probably, considering the number of singers, but just *try* to prove it.)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it was, but because of ... political factors ... he had to disguise it as fiction, so instead of the title being 1948 it was 1984, and a few other things changed, e.g. he was reporting on Spain.
"The cameras in every house" were a part of his metaphor for an extensive network of spies such that you couldn't trust anyone.
Most physicists where use LaTeX to make their presentations.?
The GP was specific in speaking about CERN, and this is probably observational judgement. I don't believe that you can make an observational judgement about all physicists everywhere. It may well vary with, e.g., sub-specialty. Or what time period you are doing your observations. (I know that a couple of decades ago LaTex was quite popular in a couple of places, and probably several others. This doesn't mean that's still true. And if I go back to when I was occasionally working at the Laurence Berkeley Lab Unix systems were quite rare. I think there was one on [what was then considered] a micro computer...but I never actually saw it...well, that was *several* decades ago. And it may have been VMS.)
Just how does that protect you when someone else's computer holding records of your information is breached?
The problem is that the current "nationalized health care" wasn't designed to reduce the costs of the system, merely to increase coverage, which I will admit is a good point.
A decent system would have started by saying that insurance was a lousy model for any cost which you know will be incurred...and removed the insurance companies from the scam. That action alone would have cut the costs by probably 50%. Then it would have cut back tremendously on the paperwork. Get rid of all this "justification for performance of this laboratory test requested by a doctor". Even allowing for an increase in the number of unneeded tests this would probably shave another 50% off the system. So much of the costs of the system are tied up in bookkeeping games that it's unreal. Then, using a very conservative definition of "unnecessary" cut unnecessary medical procedures out of the system. Perhaps they could be covered by additional "insurance" policies...though that's not the kind of thing insurance likes to cover. But there's no need to cover plastic surgery except in cases like, e.g., reconstructive surgery after an accident. And perhaps "really major medical" could be covered by insurance. That's a thing that actually *is* suitable for the insurance model.
OTOH, this *would* mean increased governmental data collection...except that they were doing it anyway, so I'd just like to get some benefit out of all that government intrusion. If you don't support governmental coverage of health because it increases governmental intrusion, first ensure that you get rid of the governmental intrusion if you don't have it.
The odd thing is, they WERE ordered to present the evidence. They even got an extention until the end of January (severl years ago) because their lawyers went on vacation over Christmas. They still didn't present any evidence (to speak of). And yet the case went on.
Not over this matter. In this case it's quite important that IBM win.
Pick another case.
You don't just shoot them in the head, then you need to fill their mouth with salt and sew their lips together to keep them from spitting it out. Shooting them in the head is just to slow them down enough so that you can do that.
Perhaps, but she shut down Groklaw because she realized that she couldn't manage secure communication with people who wanted to send her information. See the NSA, et al.
Idiot or troll?
Well, back in the day I bought a C++ development system that cam with source code libraries, but which had a license that made it a violation of copyright to distribute the source code. That was Open Source but clearly not Free Software. (I've stil got a CD with Faircom source code on it, which would be readable on an MSWind95 system, so that was once Open Source, but there was no right to redistribute even a compiled copy without a separate license. So it also clearly wasn't Free Software, and you can argue about whether or not it's still Open Source.
That's almost, but not quite it. Another part of the answer is that people discount future expenses, and the further into the future they are the more they discount them.
And do note that this is largely sensible. Our knowledge of the future isn't very good, so any projected future reward or cost is uncertain, and the further into the future it is, the more uncertain.
P.S.: That we currently have the option to change to FOSSish phones doesn't mean that the option will continue to exist. And I said "FOSSish" because actual FOSS phones are illegal. If they existed you could use a GNU radio to drive the phone on any frequency you chose. (Well, ok, not *any*, but a large number of frequencies, many of which are illegal, frequently for very good reasons.)
Well, I've no idea about the Cayla doll, I was comparing it to the recent TVs. Your point about battery life is decent, but I'm not certain. That would mean it wasn't transmitting much, but a USB stick can hold a lot, so they wouldn't necessarily need to transmit very often.
Of course, I'm assuming that they are intentionally collecting information. But then they have advertised that that's what they're doing, and I don't expect the PR people to know how the thing works, and I don't really expect most of the designers to have known how the part they were working on was going to be used. (After all, it's probably a lot better if it's desinged so that it can work in lots of other things.)
Recording sound to non-moving storage is cheap on battery power, it's only transmission that's expensive.
FWIW, I don't have a smart phone with apps, but I'll probably end up with one soon...for an uncertain value of soon, could be months, could be years.
Another FWIW: The professional liars that I was talking about were the PR spokesmen. These people generally don't even realize that they are lying, because they never check. It's like the artists that do paperback book cover illustrations. They're told a bit about the story, maybe a scene, and then they come up with something they hope will sell. And they never bother to read the book. (Usually they wouldn't have a chance until afterwards anyway.)
You are believing what professional liars tell you. Off switches are frequently merely switches that disable local output.
I *do* agree that if you don't have an accessible WiFi in the neighborhood it probably won't be snooping on you. But the neighbor's WiFi might well do.
OTOH, if you are right, and it requires a dedicated smartphone to operate, then it will be less intrusive, but also a lot more expensive than stated. (I.e., you'll need to include not only the $80 for the doll, but also the cost of a phone and its monthly connection rental.) (Practically, I don't think the doll can share your cell phone, as you are often out of the house. Perhaps you could let it onto your computer...I'm sure they've got the security tight enough that *your* data would be safe. But I wouldn't trust it with *my* data.)
That means trusting Mattel, and there seem to be reasons to believe that would be a bad idea.
Agreed, comic books tend to be vacuous ... but TV is worse.
That actually *would* be a reasonable objection, but I have no reason to believe that the spokesman understood this. But do note that clones currently are not likely to be as healthy as the original, and are likely to have various epigenetic markers which will mean that they will not perform in the same way that the original would. Also even in normal reproduction there tend to be copying errors. Clones have a much larger number of these "copying errors" because many error correcting processes are suppressed. (Check on the rate of "spontaneous abortions" prior to the first month of pregnancy. Probably shorter on animals with shorter gestations. You'd be surprised at how high it is, but generally these are never noticed.)
Everything you say is true, and I'm rather certain that it has little to do with the reason for the complaint. (After all, it would just mean that the competition to the standard breeders was weaker. But it *would* allow the increase in the numbers of competitors...perhaps.)
Actually, NO. Look up the history of Dolly, the sheep. Things aren't that simple.
OTOH, this isn't what they are arguing about.
Ok. I can accep that. But if you were to do so anyway the most humane way is to put them in a room and thoroughly remove the carbon dioxide from the air. (Bubbling it through liquid nitrogen should work.) People only feel the need to breathe when the level of carbon dioxide builds up, so they'd pretty much stop breathing. They might not even live long enough to experience hypo-oxigenation, which, according to fighter pilots, is quite enjoyable...of course it also means your brain is shutting down, but you don't care.
In fact, just put them in a room and slowly replace the air with pure nitrogen (plus water vapor). That would probably be a quite blissful way to die.
Another alternative, much slower, is to put them in a room and give them all the booze and hash and other schedule I drugs they want...but nothing to do. Make sure it's well padded so they can't injure themselves without a lot of effort.
But these all miss that the reason most people support the death penalty is they WANT to hurt the (purported) perpetrator. Any humane death penalty won't really satisfy those who insist that one exist.
And surely they wouldn't sell out their other users. Only the one's they've already been caught selling out.
No, they moved the equivalent into the ROM.
IIUC, the value of the dollar is tied to the fact that it can be used to buy oil. That the USD is at a 12 year high may be due to the fact that the OPEC are selling oil in dollars at lower prices. How long do you expect this to continue? (If this analysis is correct, then the value of the $ is not primarily based on internal US production, and is out of our direct control. And this also explains our intense military involvement in the Persian Gulf area so that we have rather strong indirect control.)
I agree that the basic choice is whether or not to be a hegemonic power, and that the choice to be one is unreasonably bad. Somehow the people who end up in charge seem to be those who worship power, though, so expecting them to evaluate things the same way is unreasonable. So the first thing that needs to be fixed is that the way to get power is to desire power. This is one reason I think "elective office" should be replaced by "selective office", and that the selection should be essentially a lottery among those qualified:
"Your friends and neighbors have selected you to serve a term as Senator for..."
I will grant that the criteria for who is qualified would need to be tightened a bit. And perhaps lawyers should be forbidden on grounds of conflict of interest.
No. It's because it's small and relatively weak. The tactics that work for a small, relatively weak country don't work for a large, relatively strong country. This is why he selected the comparison example he did. He could have also suggested a classical Hindu empire, that of Ashoka, but didn't because that would weaken is argument. OTOH, please do notice that much of Ashoka's history is uncertain, and that he's the ONLY example of an essentially pacifistic emperor. Also that he only converted to Buddhism after conquering most of his empire.
Unhhh..... that comment about "Happy Birthday" is US law, and applies in the US. (And the copyright should be ruled invalid as the song predated the copyright issuance date by considerable, and the putative author of the song had nothing to do with it's creation, though possibly with its orchestration. (It was already being sung to that approximate tune, but I don't know whether it was to the exact same tune...probably, considering the number of singers, but just *try* to prove it.)