And left a loaded, ready-to-shoot firearm in the middle of the room like you would a discarded plate or an old newspaper. There's no excuse. And this is exactly the problem with gun-owning countries
No, this is the problem with people who fail to practice firearm safety. You're correct that there is no excuse, but it is not a product of the ability to own the firearm itself. It is simply an example of the abuse of that right. Similarly with knives, they can be used safely, or they can be weilded as a weapon or accidentaly injure young children when not properly controlled.
It's a gun. It's used to kill things, and only to kill things.
How you you explain target shooting? Did I 'kill' all those paper targets and clay 'pigeons'?
Of course, in this case the gun was loaded and prepped in anticipation of being used for home defense. Even in that case, though, it could be effective without being fired, let alone killing anyone.
Even if we take the "home defence" argument - the pillock left the gun downstairs, with ammunition in it after his initial fears were calmed. If there *had* been someone in the house that he didn't see, he's just handed them a free deadly weapon with which to kill him.
Exactly, it's not the fact that the guy owned a gun, or intended to use it for self defense. This was caused entirely by his failure to follow basic safety measures. The blame lies entirely upon his actions, not on the evil of guns or video games. The pistol and the Wii could have been replaced with any two other items and the outcome been the same (poison and candy, explosive and toy, etc), so let's lay the blame squarely on the cock-ass whose careless actions let a child kill herself.
And, of course, I assume you practice proper firearm safety, and would never leave your firearms unattended. Particularly in the presence of children. Unlike this dumb-ass.
Seriously, missile attacks seem so easily circumvented by anyone carrying a lightsabre, you have to wonder why the whole universe hasn't reverted to melee combat (although I guess guns are still good for mass, mobilised oppression).
Correction: missile attacks are easily circumvented by anyone with a lightsaber and a command of the Force. Note that Luke was shit with the lightsaber at the beginning, and he only improved because of natural affinity with the Force.
...the franchise has generated over $1 billion to date...
It also said that due to royalties it would need to be more "selective" about track listings, and that it needs more support from the music industry in that department.
We ain't making enough cash off this donkey. Find me a cheaper one.
There. TTFY.
I think the question is less about "how do we ring them dry?", more "how can we keep this profitable so we can continue?". The licensed songs give a portion of revenue (by percentage) to the artist, and another portion of the sales to MS or Sony (standard DLC listing cost). So, costs are fixed (manpower) and demand for each song is declining (fewer people are playing, and there's a lot more songs than any one person will reasonably buy, over 1000), that means revenues will need to increase somewhere. One way to do that is stick with best-selling songs only, which means they lose the market who like the more unique 'niche' songs. The other way is they change their licensing structure for less-popular songs to reduce their risk. That, or they stop making DLC songs altogether (bad for the customer).
Perhaps a sliding revenue percentage by sales for DLC. Let's assume artists get a flat 8% of the sale now and the song needs to sell 20k copies for Harmonix to cover their costs. A new licensing scheme could be for artists to take 4% of the first 15k sales (so Harmonix covers costs more quickly), 8% on the next 15k sales, and 12% after that. Small artists still benefit with word of mouth, and Harmonix is still able to release their music without taking a loss. Larger artists get even more money. How would that screw people?
Not for stoning in particular. Though I might point out that in the new testament jesus doesn't condemn the old and says that you should follow it. So I'm not sure why there would be issue with citing old testament but i digress.
Right, Jesus said he came to fulfill the law: "Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17) As Romans 3:20 states "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." It is also made clear that the sacrifice on the cross means that there is no longer a requirement for follow the strict regulations of the Law, "know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified." (Galatians 2:16) If we still needed to follow the rules of punishment and atonement, then what was the point of Christ dying for our forgiveness? Since we receive forgiveness and grace through Jesus, we no longer need to stone or punish those who God forgives.
It isn't very nice to non-believers:
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. -- jesus saying he'll kill a slut and her kids and adulterers...
1) The first verse is the end of a parable (Luke 19:11-26), and the words are spoken by the harsh king of the parable. This is not Jesus speaking to unbelievers.
2) Second one is spot on: without Christ your (eternal) life will wither like a branch without sap, and you will receive the just punishment for your sin. Those who follow Jesus are given grace, and not punished as their sins deserve (Romans 5).
3) This is Revelation, which is its own whole bag of tricks. Of course, at this point the wicked are being punished (it is the apocalypse, after all). Keep in mind that Jesus, while on earth, ate with prostitutes, as they were ones who needed his grace more than others. Also keep in mind that the Revelation verse is speaking of a Jezebel who is misleading many in the church, this isn't your garden-variety skank. When the apocalypse comes, she's in trouble.
It is also pretty sexist... women are required to wear hats in church. But if you go to church I bet that plenty of women aren't wearing hats. Women also aren't allowed to speak in church (Though paul said that last bit). Read 1-Corinthians-11.
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife."
Wives must submit to their husbands "in every thing" as though they were Christ. "For the husband is the head of the wife." -- reallly sexist...
First one, I personally believe Paul was speaking of local traditions. Corinthians 11:13 says "Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?" It seems most likely this was to say 'is it right in Corinth for a woman to not wear a hat?' Also keep in mind with hair lengths that in Corinth, male prostitutes were identified by their long hair, and female prostitutes by short hair. It makes sense that Paul would be speaking of Corinthian culture (don't look like a whore), rather than giving commandments over all the churches in all places.
Ephesians 5 is also a stumbling block for many. Many people stop reading right where you did and say "Gotcha!" However, it isn't misogynistic in an attempt to put women down, nor is it 'make me a sammich' type
For this case specifically, Christians believe that the Levitical Law no longer applies, and that the standards were intentionally so strict that no man could uphold them all. Not being a Jew, I am unaware how they reconcile these verses currently, though my guess is simply a loss of orthodoxy.
Are you aware of any examples in the New Testament?
Particularly the inconsistencies in his symptoms. The biggest one is that he has to encase his computer and mouse in a faraday cage, but not his computer monitor? The photographer needed to use a film camera, yet the lighting in his house is ok (but not all?). And why would a 12V battery (DC, doesn't emit EMR) need to be buried? A DC-AC inverter would surely create more EMR than a 60Hz transmission line.
I'm still willing to admit that there is a mechanism that would cause this kind of issue (perhaps initial high-dose EMR as in this case causes damage), but I agree that a double-blind study is required to verify this isn't psychosomatic. Assuming there are some who have legitimate sensitivity, we need to separate the physical from the mental causes before we can do real research.
Ooo thanks for the citation. Most fundies i've talked to about homosexuality cite something to do with spilling seed/onanism. Which was I suppose more against jerking off, they applied it to gay sex (as babies wouldn't be produced). Weird.
One can also imply that the interpretation that it is a ban on homosexuality (some claim only against anal sex) is correct by the Bible continuously referring to proper marriage as between a man and woman (Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:5, for example) and sex as only appropriate while married (Hebrews 13:4 and 1 Corinthians 6:15-20). There are other verses as well that imply homosexuality as a sin (Romans 1:26, Jude 1:7). Taken as a whole, the simplest conclusion is that homosexuality is equivalent to adultery.
I would assume that those who you have spoken to were trying to fit the Bible into their preconceived notions (hence the tenuous link to onanism, which is tenuous to begin with), rather than seeking a correct interpretation of the Bible.
Invoking God is the religious equivalent to dividing by zero in mathematics.
The addition of God removes things from being described purely in the realm of science, just the same way that at some level the addition of a human also removes many phenomena from the realms of the 'hard' sciences (as opposed to psychology/sociology).
For example, a baseball game can be described by hard science... mostly. There's physics and math to describe the flight of the ball. There's mechanics and chemistry to describe how we get muscle contractions which swing the bat. But what 'hard' science doesn't describe is why a bunch of guys in caps are throwing around a white ball with red stiches.
Of course, there is a gap in a pure logical proof for a belief in God. However, there would be the same gap in logic proving the existence of baseball, using purely science. In one case, religion uses their texts to attempt a logical conclusion from what is written; in the other case, a logical conclusion comes from a well defined rulebook.
"Even within our own culture there are far, far too many theories surrounding morality for anything to be proved."
Oh I completely agree that it is not proof in that manner at all. But it IS proof of contradiction. Since generally speaking the religious don't believe in stoning people (for example). But they say they believe in the bible. Then that would be a contradiction.
Sorry, this example doesn't make any sense. What about stoning is the contradiction? Is this a contradiction inherent in the Bible (or some other religious text), or one you find in people who try to follow said book's teachings? Do you have another (better) example, or can you at least expand?
Considering the way the NSA has behaved in the last 9 years
You mean, considering the reports we have heard. There's a pretty obvious selection bias, in that only the illegal activities (which there certainly are, sanctioned or otherwise) will be notable enough to publish and publicize. I highly doubt that illegal activities accounted for more than 1% of work performed by the NSA (again, including both sanctioned and unsanctioned activities), let alone 51% for cryptologic work to be 'more likely' to be used illegaly.
If you're a mathematician especially, you'll have nothing to show for it
So you can't brag to your friends, you can still feel quite fulfilled knowing that your work is not only important, American (or your home nation, for other intelligence agencies) lives may be saved by your hard work.
Furthering science isn't the only way a scientist, engineer, or mathemetician can feel fulfilled.
A driver should be aware of their fuel economy, but it's more likely the job of a specialist to determine why the fuel economy has changed. Knowing if the difference is due to the air filter/oil filter/radiator/spark plug/exhaust/fuel filter, or any of the other parts which could cause this problem is generally left to someone knowledgeable. The end-user should only be expected to notice the issue and request help, which it seems many did by requesting assistance on the company forums.
For example, don't you think that the automated and streamlined ordering systems that corporations use to reduce costs on necessary goods used by the poor would suffer?
It's necessary in the same way that roads and highways are necessary for the developed world. Sure, we could do without, but there would be a discernable difference if you removed either.
Except, Faust goes to heaven at the end of the play. Mephistopheles busts his balls for him around the world, and even though he technically wins their bargain, God puts the kibosh on it all and takes Faust anyway. Great moral, huh?
Right, that's what I meant. I think we're on the same page, just talking about two different things.
So basically, this technique can only gain limited information from our current constant sampling-frequency methods. However, once we start taking samples randomly, all bets are off, old rules don't apply, and we end up with better information.
From what I understand, neither of these statements are in fact the case. Firstly, Compressed sensing is capable of reconstructing data at significantly sub-Nyquist sampling rates, the Nyquist criterion does not apply at all in this case.
If the sampling rate is constant, the Nyquist frequency will still apply. Consider: at 20kHz constant sampling, a 21kHz wave's sparsest representation would be at 1kHz. This could be solved while still taking fewer samples by 'chirping' the sample rate. As you pointed out, this technique works best for random data points.
Secondly, as far as I'm aware, JPG data will work fine, although I think it is possible that some noise may be interpreted as structure, but that is not to say it won't work. In fact that basis in which you construct the data is some sort of fourier, cosine or wavelet basis, which is pretty much what JPG does.
Yes, my thought is that any noise on highly-compressed JPG would be viewed as structure. More importantly, the CS would be trying to work backwards from what the JPG filtered out in a similar fashion. I see no way for a JPG compressed to 20% then run through CS would be better (or maybe even equal) quality as the original. I think the better method would be to just take 20% of the samples randomly, where the CS is not hindered by a 'haze' from the JPG artifacts.
Bingo. Now instead of eavesdropping being limited to hearing range (and masked by other noise), it's limited by visual range and technology.
Basically, anyone with the technology to use this for private information, should know that anyone else with the technology can listen in and therefor won't use it for private information.
One could possibly have a similar thing here; eg, go to officials, lay out the situation (cost of water, need to redirect that $$$ to college fund for baby, etc.) & request an exemption.
Of course, that requires the resident to know (or assume) that their town has a ridiculous ordinance requiring that their drought-stricken area essentially requires a grass lawn. Even if they go ask, there's no guarantee that the county/city clerk they speak with will have the faintest idea if the ordinance exists, and might just tell them that it's ok in order to get them to leave.
So while this is a good idea in general, it really isn't useful in cases of completely ridiculous regulations.
Is religion so meaningless to you that would extend its definition to include any arbitrary group of people that may or may not have read books by a particular author?
I said essentially. It's obviously not a religion.
However, Dawkin's form of 'militant atheism' shares many traits with the very religions he rails against. Particularly, his very hard-line claim that his is the Only True Way (capitalization mine). Did he start a religion? Not really. Is he as Dogmatic, radical, and evangelistic as some religions? Absolutely.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. This was either criminal negligence, or criminal intent. Take your pick.
And left a loaded, ready-to-shoot firearm in the middle of the room like you would a discarded plate or an old newspaper. There's no excuse. And this is exactly the problem with gun-owning countries
No, this is the problem with people who fail to practice firearm safety. You're correct that there is no excuse, but it is not a product of the ability to own the firearm itself. It is simply an example of the abuse of that right. Similarly with knives, they can be used safely, or they can be weilded as a weapon or accidentaly injure young children when not properly controlled.
It's a gun. It's used to kill things, and only to kill things.
How you you explain target shooting? Did I 'kill' all those paper targets and clay 'pigeons'?
Of course, in this case the gun was loaded and prepped in anticipation of being used for home defense. Even in that case, though, it could be effective without being fired, let alone killing anyone.
Even if we take the "home defence" argument - the pillock left the gun downstairs, with ammunition in it after his initial fears were calmed. If there *had* been someone in the house that he didn't see, he's just handed them a free deadly weapon with which to kill him.
Exactly, it's not the fact that the guy owned a gun, or intended to use it for self defense. This was caused entirely by his failure to follow basic safety measures. The blame lies entirely upon his actions, not on the evil of guns or video games. The pistol and the Wii could have been replaced with any two other items and the outcome been the same (poison and candy, explosive and toy, etc), so let's lay the blame squarely on the cock-ass whose careless actions let a child kill herself.
And, of course, I assume you practice proper firearm safety, and would never leave your firearms unattended. Particularly in the presence of children. Unlike this dumb-ass.
Seriously, missile attacks seem so easily circumvented by anyone carrying a lightsabre, you have to wonder why the whole universe hasn't reverted to melee combat (although I guess guns are still good for mass, mobilised oppression).
Correction: missile attacks are easily circumvented by anyone with a lightsaber and a command of the Force. Note that Luke was shit with the lightsaber at the beginning, and he only improved because of natural affinity with the Force.
...the franchise has generated over $1 billion to date... It also said that due to royalties it would need to be more "selective" about track listings, and that it needs more support from the music industry in that department.
We ain't making enough cash off this donkey. Find me a cheaper one. There. TTFY.
I think the question is less about "how do we ring them dry?", more "how can we keep this profitable so we can continue?". The licensed songs give a portion of revenue (by percentage) to the artist, and another portion of the sales to MS or Sony (standard DLC listing cost). So, costs are fixed (manpower) and demand for each song is declining (fewer people are playing, and there's a lot more songs than any one person will reasonably buy, over 1000), that means revenues will need to increase somewhere. One way to do that is stick with best-selling songs only, which means they lose the market who like the more unique 'niche' songs. The other way is they change their licensing structure for less-popular songs to reduce their risk. That, or they stop making DLC songs altogether (bad for the customer).
Perhaps a sliding revenue percentage by sales for DLC. Let's assume artists get a flat 8% of the sale now and the song needs to sell 20k copies for Harmonix to cover their costs. A new licensing scheme could be for artists to take 4% of the first 15k sales (so Harmonix covers costs more quickly), 8% on the next 15k sales, and 12% after that. Small artists still benefit with word of mouth, and Harmonix is still able to release their music without taking a loss. Larger artists get even more money. How would that screw people?
Not for stoning in particular. Though I might point out that in the new testament jesus doesn't condemn the old and says that you should follow it. So I'm not sure why there would be issue with citing old testament but i digress.
Right, Jesus said he came to fulfill the law: "Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17) As Romans 3:20 states "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." It is also made clear that the sacrifice on the cross means that there is no longer a requirement for follow the strict regulations of the Law, "know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified." (Galatians 2:16) If we still needed to follow the rules of punishment and atonement, then what was the point of Christ dying for our forgiveness? Since we receive forgiveness and grace through Jesus, we no longer need to stone or punish those who God forgives.
It isn't very nice to non-believers: But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. -- jesus saying he'll kill a slut and her kids and adulterers...
1) The first verse is the end of a parable (Luke 19:11-26), and the words are spoken by the harsh king of the parable. This is not Jesus speaking to unbelievers.
2) Second one is spot on: without Christ your (eternal) life will wither like a branch without sap, and you will receive the just punishment for your sin. Those who follow Jesus are given grace, and not punished as their sins deserve (Romans 5).
3) This is Revelation, which is its own whole bag of tricks. Of course, at this point the wicked are being punished (it is the apocalypse, after all). Keep in mind that Jesus, while on earth, ate with prostitutes, as they were ones who needed his grace more than others. Also keep in mind that the Revelation verse is speaking of a Jezebel who is misleading many in the church, this isn't your garden-variety skank. When the apocalypse comes, she's in trouble.
It is also pretty sexist... women are required to wear hats in church. But if you go to church I bet that plenty of women aren't wearing hats. Women also aren't allowed to speak in church (Though paul said that last bit). Read 1-Corinthians-11. "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife." Wives must submit to their husbands "in every thing" as though they were Christ. "For the husband is the head of the wife." -- reallly sexist...
First one, I personally believe Paul was speaking of local traditions. Corinthians 11:13 says "Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?" It seems most likely this was to say 'is it right in Corinth for a woman to not wear a hat?' Also keep in mind with hair lengths that in Corinth, male prostitutes were identified by their long hair, and female prostitutes by short hair. It makes sense that Paul would be speaking of Corinthian culture (don't look like a whore), rather than giving commandments over all the churches in all places.
Ephesians 5 is also a stumbling block for many. Many people stop reading right where you did and say "Gotcha!" However, it isn't misogynistic in an attempt to put women down, nor is it 'make me a sammich' type
For this case specifically, Christians believe that the Levitical Law no longer applies, and that the standards were intentionally so strict that no man could uphold them all. Not being a Jew, I am unaware how they reconcile these verses currently, though my guess is simply a loss of orthodoxy.
Are you aware of any examples in the New Testament?
Particularly the inconsistencies in his symptoms. The biggest one is that he has to encase his computer and mouse in a faraday cage, but not his computer monitor? The photographer needed to use a film camera, yet the lighting in his house is ok (but not all?). And why would a 12V battery (DC, doesn't emit EMR) need to be buried? A DC-AC inverter would surely create more EMR than a 60Hz transmission line.
I'm still willing to admit that there is a mechanism that would cause this kind of issue (perhaps initial high-dose EMR as in this case causes damage), but I agree that a double-blind study is required to verify this isn't psychosomatic. Assuming there are some who have legitimate sensitivity, we need to separate the physical from the mental causes before we can do real research.
Ooo thanks for the citation. Most fundies i've talked to about homosexuality cite something to do with spilling seed/onanism. Which was I suppose more against jerking off, they applied it to gay sex (as babies wouldn't be produced). Weird.
One can also imply that the interpretation that it is a ban on homosexuality (some claim only against anal sex) is correct by the Bible continuously referring to proper marriage as between a man and woman (Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:5, for example) and sex as only appropriate while married (Hebrews 13:4 and 1 Corinthians 6:15-20). There are other verses as well that imply homosexuality as a sin (Romans 1:26, Jude 1:7). Taken as a whole, the simplest conclusion is that homosexuality is equivalent to adultery.
I would assume that those who you have spoken to were trying to fit the Bible into their preconceived notions (hence the tenuous link to onanism, which is tenuous to begin with), rather than seeking a correct interpretation of the Bible.
Invoking God is the religious equivalent to dividing by zero in mathematics.
The addition of God removes things from being described purely in the realm of science, just the same way that at some level the addition of a human also removes many phenomena from the realms of the 'hard' sciences (as opposed to psychology/sociology).
For example, a baseball game can be described by hard science... mostly. There's physics and math to describe the flight of the ball. There's mechanics and chemistry to describe how we get muscle contractions which swing the bat. But what 'hard' science doesn't describe is why a bunch of guys in caps are throwing around a white ball with red stiches.
Of course, there is a gap in a pure logical proof for a belief in God. However, there would be the same gap in logic proving the existence of baseball, using purely science. In one case, religion uses their texts to attempt a logical conclusion from what is written; in the other case, a logical conclusion comes from a well defined rulebook.
"Even within our own culture there are far, far too many theories surrounding morality for anything to be proved." Oh I completely agree that it is not proof in that manner at all. But it IS proof of contradiction. Since generally speaking the religious don't believe in stoning people (for example). But they say they believe in the bible. Then that would be a contradiction.
Sorry, this example doesn't make any sense. What about stoning is the contradiction? Is this a contradiction inherent in the Bible (or some other religious text), or one you find in people who try to follow said book's teachings? Do you have another (better) example, or can you at least expand?
Considering the way the NSA has behaved in the last 9 years
You mean, considering the reports we have heard. There's a pretty obvious selection bias, in that only the illegal activities (which there certainly are, sanctioned or otherwise) will be notable enough to publish and publicize. I highly doubt that illegal activities accounted for more than 1% of work performed by the NSA (again, including both sanctioned and unsanctioned activities), let alone 51% for cryptologic work to be 'more likely' to be used illegaly.
If you're a mathematician especially, you'll have nothing to show for it
So you can't brag to your friends, you can still feel quite fulfilled knowing that your work is not only important, American (or your home nation, for other intelligence agencies) lives may be saved by your hard work.
Furthering science isn't the only way a scientist, engineer, or mathemetician can feel fulfilled.
A driver should be aware of their fuel economy, but it's more likely the job of a specialist to determine why the fuel economy has changed. Knowing if the difference is due to the air filter/oil filter/radiator/spark plug/exhaust/fuel filter, or any of the other parts which could cause this problem is generally left to someone knowledgeable. The end-user should only be expected to notice the issue and request help, which it seems many did by requesting assistance on the company forums.
For example, don't you think that the automated and streamlined ordering systems that corporations use to reduce costs on necessary goods used by the poor would suffer?
It's necessary in the same way that roads and highways are necessary for the developed world. Sure, we could do without, but there would be a discernable difference if you removed either.
Except, Faust goes to heaven at the end of the play. Mephistopheles busts his balls for him around the world, and even though he technically wins their bargain, God puts the kibosh on it all and takes Faust anyway. Great moral, huh?
Right, that's what I meant. I think we're on the same page, just talking about two different things.
So basically, this technique can only gain limited information from our current constant sampling-frequency methods. However, once we start taking samples randomly, all bets are off, old rules don't apply, and we end up with better information.
...electronic torture?
Wattage-boarding
From what I understand, neither of these statements are in fact the case. Firstly, Compressed sensing is capable of reconstructing data at significantly sub-Nyquist sampling rates, the Nyquist criterion does not apply at all in this case.
If the sampling rate is constant, the Nyquist frequency will still apply. Consider: at 20kHz constant sampling, a 21kHz wave's sparsest representation would be at 1kHz. This could be solved while still taking fewer samples by 'chirping' the sample rate. As you pointed out, this technique works best for random data points.
Secondly, as far as I'm aware, JPG data will work fine, although I think it is possible that some noise may be interpreted as structure, but that is not to say it won't work. In fact that basis in which you construct the data is some sort of fourier, cosine or wavelet basis, which is pretty much what JPG does.
Yes, my thought is that any noise on highly-compressed JPG would be viewed as structure. More importantly, the CS would be trying to work backwards from what the JPG filtered out in a similar fashion. I see no way for a JPG compressed to 20% then run through CS would be better (or maybe even equal) quality as the original. I think the better method would be to just take 20% of the samples randomly, where the CS is not hindered by a 'haze' from the JPG artifacts.
Bingo. Now instead of eavesdropping being limited to hearing range (and masked by other noise), it's limited by visual range and technology.
Basically, anyone with the technology to use this for private information, should know that anyone else with the technology can listen in and therefor won't use it for private information.
As long as there's a beowulf cluster of them.
One could possibly have a similar thing here; eg, go to officials, lay out the situation (cost of water, need to redirect that $$$ to college fund for baby, etc.) & request an exemption.
Of course, that requires the resident to know (or assume) that their town has a ridiculous ordinance requiring that their drought-stricken area essentially requires a grass lawn. Even if they go ask, there's no guarantee that the county/city clerk they speak with will have the faintest idea if the ordinance exists, and might just tell them that it's ok in order to get them to leave.
So while this is a good idea in general, it really isn't useful in cases of completely ridiculous regulations.
As well, it seems the trophy update had something to do with the issue, not something that would have been seen in 2006.
Is religion so meaningless to you that would extend its definition to include any arbitrary group of people that may or may not have read books by a particular author?
I said essentially. It's obviously not a religion.
However, Dawkin's form of 'militant atheism' shares many traits with the very religions he rails against. Particularly, his very hard-line claim that his is the Only True Way (capitalization mine). Did he start a religion? Not really. Is he as Dogmatic, radical, and evangelistic as some religions? Absolutely.
Absolutely. How can you rail against religion, while simultaneously belonging to what is essentially the Church of Richard Dawkins?