Reading the summary carefully, it was a rock given in commemoration of the moon walk. This doesn't mean it came from the moon. Perhaps it came from where they landed? (But they were sea landings, weren't they.) OK, well, maybe from the construction of the Johnson Space Center. Or where they were stationed.
As said, I can see how they reached the conclusion that they reached, but the plaque didn't say it was what they thought it was, and it may well be that the people making the presentation thought they were being honest and straight-forward. That nobody knew that anybody else was misunderstanding them.
There are theoretical arguments that imply that it's impossible to accurately model why you are making your decisions at any great level of detail. They're rather convincing, but not totally so, especially when I slip in the constraint "at any great level of detail" rather than claiming perfection in the modeling.
But they're still rather convincing. And then there's the time element. By the time you've finished your modeling, the decision is likely to be long past.
So free will is a good working approximation, rather like Newtonian Mechanics.
You could try the definition of "free will" that Larry Niven used in "Protector":
Free will is the result of not being able to accurately predict the best action.
That's a paraphrase, but I think I preserved all the meaning without dragging in a lot of story context. If you know what the best action is, then you will follow that course of action. So you don't have free will. If you don't know, and you don't know enough about yourself to accurately model why you are making the decision that you are making, then you perceive yourself as having free will.
Now currently nobody knows enough about themselves to be able to accurately model why they make the decisions they do, so free will is a "best working assumption". This doesn't make it true, merely practical. But practical counts for a lot, and truth is hard to come by.
I've definitely seen things that indicate that it's being misspent...e.g. the amount they paid for this scheduling system I count as such an indication.
This doesn't mean that money is being spent on the students or on the classes. Some is, but I know of schools where the teacher brings in a role of toilet paper that she bought herself and students sign it out when they go to the john...because the school doesn't provide any.
It's also true that there are other schools in the same district that don't have this problem. My *suspicion* is embezzlement at the local school. Whether by the principal, the administrators, or the janitors I couldn't even guess. But it must have acceptance by the city government, because it happens year after year. It sure isn't the teachers who are getting rich.
When's the last time you've heard of someone being prosecuted for that?
I think the wording is such that if you can convincingly claim you believed you had the right to issue the request, you can't be punished. So, e.g., if someone else told you that they owned the copyright, and requested you to make a DMCA takedown notice, you would be off the hook. And the law doesn't cover them making the request of you. So they're also off the hook.
A lot of the time the police *do* choose to enforce the laws that are convenient, and ignore the others. I'm not saying that a private firm would do it any better, but think and observe a bit more carefully. A government doing it isn't a cure-all either.
FWIW, I strongly support a public health system, but not any old public health system. It would be quite possible to do things worse than the current system. (And I say this after having been left in pain in the emergency room for well over 12 hours. Fortunately, I don't remember most of it, but I'm told I was not only moaning, but occasionally screaming and vomiting. Inflamed cellulitis. And this despite having health insurance. Only one doctor was available [it was a holiday weekend], and he couldn't be reached. I presume there were more urgent cases.)
The care I received as a military dependent during the 1950's was generally superior to that which I have received from HMO's since then. (I understand that the military health care for dependents has since been adjusted downwards. At the instigation of private health insurance companies.)
Not specifically. The GPL largely relies on copyright law. There's LOTS of copyright law. Basically, the GPL says "Either you agree to my terms, OR you are allowed to use normal copyright terms." As such, it doesn't need (or have room for) much GPL specific case law.
That the tongue is better has been known for a long time. Sensory endings are more densely clustered, e.g. But the people wearing the back stimulator processed it as visual imagery, so the explanation that the tongue is uniquely suited because of neural mapping is either misleading or incorrect. The brain is flexible enough to adapt multiple parts of the body as visual substitutes. And, for an example of the opposite, there are reports that people can learn to hear the visual printout of a processed microphone trace. (Don't know what processing is used. Search the other comments of this article for someone who knows more directly.)
The tongue stimulating electrodes aren't new. So my guess as to what's new is the camera. Just consider how much cameras have developed due to the driving force of cell phones.
It's been done in variations many times. The first time I heard they were using most of the person's back. But this is the first time I'm aware of that they were considering selling it.
I'd guess it's a bit more developed now. (Wonder if anything's been changed but the camera?)
That's not a fix. The best fix would be to enable new companies to start doing business more easily. That involves scrapping the US patent system, truncating the trems of copyrights, and allowing people to start businesses in their homes.
The patent system is so dysfunctional that the only reasonable thing to do is to scrap it totally, and start again from scratch. One of the premises of the new system would be that NO monopoly shall be granted. I.e., that reasonable licensing must be negotiable. Another would be that independently invented items are not excluded by existing patents. (But do note the "independently". Proof may be required.) Another would be that if three or more independent inventions of a device are created, that the patents for ALL of them are dismissed as obvious.
The current copyright law is actually pretty sane...at least up until 1995. It's just too long. But it needs to be slightly altered. If a device is covered by a patent, then all copyrights are rendered void. Also no copyright shall protect any publication which is only released under a protection intended to render the copying of the materials impossible. (It doesn't need to be successful. the attempt is what is important.) Perhaps the unencumbered material could be "watermarked" and serial numbered, and sold for 5 times the cost of the protected version. Something like that.
I'd worry more about the details of these ideas if I were actually implementing them. As it is, this give the flavor of my thoughts.
This, possibly, might work. But *only* if the entities are required to pay for ALL externalized costs. This includes pollution. This includes degradation of the environment by the consumption of resources at a rate faster than they renew. This includes the costs of the training that their labor force receives before they recruit them. This includes the costs of the infrastructure needed to allow the resources that they require to be transported to them. Etc.
We can then consider whether they are allowed to treat their labor force as an expendable supply.
Perhaps there needs to be taxes on imports? The problem is these need to be delicately structured. This isn't something our legal system has a history of doing properly.
Another problem is that the system needs to be run fairly. I.e., so as not to advantage one side over the other. This is not something our system has a record of even TRYING to do.
But if one makes it advantageous to off-shore one's company, one shouldn't be surprised when those able to take advantage of this do so.
Personally, I suspect that the recent "bail-out" of the banks was the last straw for any company that primarily produces value. And "bail-out" is not a proper description. Grand Theft comes closer, but still understates the magnitude of the crime. And the beneficiaries were not usually the banks as such, but rather entities connected to the banks who manipulate them. I don't understand what happened well enough to be much more specific...but don't let your prejudices run away with you. Con-men come from *all* races and ethnicities. If you don't realize that, you'll be mislead.
The only suggestion that I've heard is to engage in wholesale violation of the law, get sued, and then strike the same deal. It *might* work. OTOH, if it did I bet the suit against them would be bankrolled by Google, and so the terms they ended up with wouldn't be nearly as decent.
So, effectively, Google has a legal monopoly. A monopoly which there is no obvious way to overcome, other than waiting for the copyrights to expire. (And Google's digitization and clean-up is a LOT younger than Mickey Mouse.)
If Google does something and MS protests it, I'll at least consider that Google was probably doing something good.
In this case I've got a *bit* more information, so I'm willing to consider that MS might, just barely possibly, be on the correct side for a change, provided that it has nothing to do with the wording of ant settlement.
Google definitely isn't all good, and I'm not at all pleased with their exclusive right to out of print books. This doesn't mean that I trust any group with MS as a component to come to a settlement that's any better. (And I consider that what they say for PR is as reliable as most PR, or, given the MS involvement, perhaps a little less so. So I don't trust their statements of their goals at all.)
Yeah. But they don't (didn't?) make any guarantees that you'll get what you paid for. Or anything at all even.
I used that "service" twice. Never again. It blighted my thoughts towards Amazon before the Kindle even showed up. Now I prefer to purchase elsewhere. If I must buy before I receive, then my local bookstore is quite willing to place orders. And they guarantee that when I order a used book, I'll either get a used book or not be charged. (They do want payment in advance, but unlike Amazon, they'll refund the money if the book doesn't show up.)
Slashdot Mirror
Reading the summary carefully, it was a rock given in commemoration of the moon walk. This doesn't mean it came from the moon. Perhaps it came from where they landed? (But they were sea landings, weren't they.) OK, well, maybe from the construction of the Johnson Space Center. Or where they were stationed.
As said, I can see how they reached the conclusion that they reached, but the plaque didn't say it was what they thought it was, and it may well be that the people making the presentation thought they were being honest and straight-forward. That nobody knew that anybody else was misunderstanding them.
But it's also humorous to think of it as a joke.
There are theoretical arguments that imply that it's impossible to accurately model why you are making your decisions at any great level of detail. They're rather convincing, but not totally so, especially when I slip in the constraint "at any great level of detail" rather than claiming perfection in the modeling.
But they're still rather convincing. And then there's the time element. By the time you've finished your modeling, the decision is likely to be long past.
So free will is a good working approximation, rather like Newtonian Mechanics.
You could try the definition of "free will" that Larry Niven used in "Protector":
Free will is the result of not being able to accurately predict the best action.
That's a paraphrase, but I think I preserved all the meaning without dragging in a lot of story context. If you know what the best action is, then you will follow that course of action. So you don't have free will. If you don't know, and you don't know enough about yourself to accurately model why you are making the decision that you are making, then you perceive yourself as having free will.
Now currently nobody knows enough about themselves to be able to accurately model why they make the decisions they do, so free will is a "best working assumption". This doesn't make it true, merely practical. But practical counts for a lot, and truth is hard to come by.
Yes!! If you look closely, most of the chips are clearly Chinese imports.
Because "Homeland Security" doesn't have anything to do with security, only security theater. This time someone wanted a serious investigation.
Well, if it's a rom chip, then this wouldn't work, but my first idea is to repartition it with fdisk.
I've definitely seen things that indicate that it's being misspent...e.g. the amount they paid for this scheduling system I count as such an indication.
This doesn't mean that money is being spent on the students or on the classes. Some is, but I know of schools where the teacher brings in a role of toilet paper that she bought herself and students sign it out when they go to the john...because the school doesn't provide any.
It's also true that there are other schools in the same district that don't have this problem. My *suspicion* is embezzlement at the local school. Whether by the principal, the administrators, or the janitors I couldn't even guess. But it must have acceptance by the city government, because it happens year after year. It sure isn't the teachers who are getting rich.
Probably not simply and quickly, but fixed, anyway.
Well, of course it could be a simple bug. But the thing to bet on is some error in the design.
When's the last time you've heard of someone being prosecuted for that?
I think the wording is such that if you can convincingly claim you believed you had the right to issue the request, you can't be punished. So, e.g., if someone else told you that they owned the copyright, and requested you to make a DMCA takedown notice, you would be off the hook. And the law doesn't cover them making the request of you. So they're also off the hook.
Caution: IANAL.
*That*'s responsibly? To require that you be running as an administrator to perform normal functions is responsible?
I'm sorry, but we seem to be using VERY different definitions.
A lot of the time the police *do* choose to enforce the laws that are convenient, and ignore the others. I'm not saying that a private firm would do it any better, but think and observe a bit more carefully. A government doing it isn't a cure-all either.
FWIW, I strongly support a public health system, but not any old public health system. It would be quite possible to do things worse than the current system. (And I say this after having been left in pain in the emergency room for well over 12 hours. Fortunately, I don't remember most of it, but I'm told I was not only moaning, but occasionally screaming and vomiting. Inflamed cellulitis. And this despite having health insurance. Only one doctor was available [it was a holiday weekend], and he couldn't be reached. I presume there were more urgent cases.)
The care I received as a military dependent during the 1950's was generally superior to that which I have received from HMO's since then. (I understand that the military health care for dependents has since been adjusted downwards. At the instigation of private health insurance companies.)
Is it on the web? Does it have a URL?
If so, I can think of definitions of site that it doesn't meet, but they aren't used in colloquial speech.
Would your proposed fix break the current internet?
If so, you'd better follow the IPv6 route, and only implement it as a separate sub-net linked by conversion protocols.
Would the existing internet break your proposed fix?
If so, you'd better follow the IPv6 route, and only implement it as a separate sub-net linked by conversion protocols.
If no to both questions, then just implement your proposed fix, and let those who want to use it, use it.
Not specifically. The GPL largely relies on copyright law. There's LOTS of copyright law. Basically, the GPL says "Either you agree to my terms, OR you are allowed to use normal copyright terms." As such, it doesn't need (or have room for) much GPL specific case law.
That the tongue is better has been known for a long time. Sensory endings are more densely clustered, e.g. But the people wearing the back stimulator processed it as visual imagery, so the explanation that the tongue is uniquely suited because of neural mapping is either misleading or incorrect. The brain is flexible enough to adapt multiple parts of the body as visual substitutes. And, for an example of the opposite, there are reports that people can learn to hear the visual printout of a processed microphone trace. (Don't know what processing is used. Search the other comments of this article for someone who knows more directly.)
The tongue stimulating electrodes aren't new. So my guess as to what's new is the camera. Just consider how much cameras have developed due to the driving force of cell phones.
The first version of this I ever heard of was worn on the back. It worked. So the explanation in the article is either incorrect or misleading.
My suspicion is that the thing that's made this possible is the recent improvements in camera technology.
It's been done in variations many times. The first time I heard they were using most of the person's back. But this is the first time I'm aware of that they were considering selling it.
I'd guess it's a bit more developed now. (Wonder if anything's been changed but the camera?)
That's not a fix. The best fix would be to enable new companies to start doing business more easily. That involves scrapping the US patent system, truncating the trems of copyrights, and allowing people to start businesses in their homes.
The patent system is so dysfunctional that the only reasonable thing to do is to scrap it totally, and start again from scratch. One of the premises of the new system would be that NO monopoly shall be granted. I.e., that reasonable licensing must be negotiable. Another would be that independently invented items are not excluded by existing patents. (But do note the "independently". Proof may be required.) Another would be that if three or more independent inventions of a device are created, that the patents for ALL of them are dismissed as obvious.
The current copyright law is actually pretty sane...at least up until 1995. It's just too long. But it needs to be slightly altered. If a device is covered by a patent, then all copyrights are rendered void. Also no copyright shall protect any publication which is only released under a protection intended to render the copying of the materials impossible. (It doesn't need to be successful. the attempt is what is important.) Perhaps the unencumbered material could be "watermarked" and serial numbered, and sold for 5 times the cost of the protected version. Something like that.
I'd worry more about the details of these ideas if I were actually implementing them. As it is, this give the flavor of my thoughts.
It's not right for you to be bitter about what the Chinese did. And are doing.
OTOH, the US politicians you have every right in the world to be bitter about. I'd agree with you totally if you'd just change that emphasis.
This, possibly, might work. But *only* if the entities are required to pay for ALL externalized costs. This includes pollution. This includes degradation of the environment by the consumption of resources at a rate faster than they renew. This includes the costs of the training that their labor force receives before they recruit them. This includes the costs of the infrastructure needed to allow the resources that they require to be transported to them. Etc.
We can then consider whether they are allowed to treat their labor force as an expendable supply.
Perhaps there needs to be taxes on imports? The problem is these need to be delicately structured. This isn't something our legal system has a history of doing properly.
Another problem is that the system needs to be run fairly. I.e., so as not to advantage one side over the other. This is not something our system has a record of even TRYING to do.
But if one makes it advantageous to off-shore one's company, one shouldn't be surprised when those able to take advantage of this do so.
Personally, I suspect that the recent "bail-out" of the banks was the last straw for any company that primarily produces value. And "bail-out" is not a proper description. Grand Theft comes closer, but still understates the magnitude of the crime. And the beneficiaries were not usually the banks as such, but rather entities connected to the banks who manipulate them. I don't understand what happened well enough to be much more specific...but don't let your prejudices run away with you. Con-men come from *all* races and ethnicities. If you don't realize that, you'll be mislead.
Amazon is working towards enabling the "tax me every time I read a book" proposal.
There's no obvious way for others to follow.
The only suggestion that I've heard is to engage in wholesale violation of the law, get sued, and then strike the same deal. It *might* work. OTOH, if it did I bet the suit against them would be bankrolled by Google, and so the terms they ended up with wouldn't be nearly as decent.
So, effectively, Google has a legal monopoly. A monopoly which there is no obvious way to overcome, other than waiting for the copyrights to expire. (And Google's digitization and clean-up is a LOT younger than Mickey Mouse.)
If Google does something and MS protests it, I'll at least consider that Google was probably doing something good.
In this case I've got a *bit* more information, so I'm willing to consider that MS might, just barely possibly, be on the correct side for a change, provided that it has nothing to do with the wording of ant settlement.
Google definitely isn't all good, and I'm not at all pleased with their exclusive right to out of print books. This doesn't mean that I trust any group with MS as a component to come to a settlement that's any better. (And I consider that what they say for PR is as reliable as most PR, or, given the MS involvement, perhaps a little less so. So I don't trust their statements of their goals at all.)
Yeah. But they don't (didn't?) make any guarantees that you'll get what you paid for. Or anything at all even.
I used that "service" twice. Never again. It blighted my thoughts towards Amazon before the Kindle even showed up. Now I prefer to purchase elsewhere. If I must buy before I receive, then my local bookstore is quite willing to place orders. And they guarantee that when I order a used book, I'll either get a used book or not be charged. (They do want payment in advance, but unlike Amazon, they'll refund the money if the book doesn't show up.)