Contrary to The Breakfast Club, I also got As in shop class. Quite frankly, that ignorant assumption by Hollywood always irritated me.
It is not really surprising. One of the biggest correlating factors for intelligence (however you define intelligence) is general health, and general health is strongly caused by good nutrition. It should be no surprise that athleticism and physical skill positively correlates with brains. Quite a number of the legendary physics minds of the 1st half of the 20th century enjoyed hiking mountains and/or flirting with the ladies.
We may remember Einstein in his later years as some perfect nerd, but he too liked flirting with the ladies in his earlier years.
I"m curious what they're going about what most photographers have to do...a model release form, signed for each person appearing in the image, if it is to be used to generate $$$.
I am wondering that, too.
A professional photographer produces a product for which the licensing is clear. If I am a paid model, I signed the releases as a condition for employment, and I know what to expect.
But what if a friend snaps a photo of me, FB grabs it, and another party creates an advertisement that implies I am endorsing a product/service? Removing the professional photographer from the picture does not change my reasonable expectations as a private citizen while, say, dining in a random restaurant.
You are fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of Realism. Yours is a common misunderstanding on/., please be patient.
More frames per second are not necessarily "more realistic". It could just be more data thrown at you in an unnatural way.
The human eye naturally scans and blinks. In fact, about 99.999% of the time you look from one part of a room to anywhere else in the room, you will blink (unless you work very hard to override your natural instincts). Try it and see.
24 frames is a compromise that seems to adequately emulate the normal reality of human eye, forcing the pacing of virtual jumps and refocusing that are roughly the norm of the human experience.
At higher frame rates, you are throwing more visual information into the field of vision in a manner that approximately never occurs in real life. If you were actually standing next to Bilbo the whole time, you would inevitably observe vastly LESS than what Jackson is throwing into your field of view -- because you eye can sit comfortably gazing a most of the screen, your brain is physically able to attempt to draw in more details than any kind of reality would normally allow.
Artistically speaking, maybe that is bad and maybe that is good -- I do not have an opinion on that score.
The bottom line is that we have reasons to believe that more frames per second can provide *less* realism -- I will leave the scientific details to neurophysiologists to draw the exact lines.
It is not obvious that such will reduce overall employment. Every kind of tax arguably reduce employment somewhere in the economy. But not taxing anyone also kills employment because the gov't cannot provide services.
What is important is to make the tax burden both predictable and not excessive. A few per cent tax on the gross meets both criteria.
Another approach would be to tax assets. It boils down to a similar effect for corporations, because any business with a strong gross revenue arguably also has a nominal value, regardless of whether the profits "somehow" leak into the Cayman Islands.
It really is not so clear cut, because a rational argument can be made for the efficacy of judiciously applied placebos.
In fact, I believe that doctors incorrectly prescribe medications all the time. The reason this often "works" (and does not land the doctor into hot water) is because of the placebo effect.
Distilled water seems like it could be an improvement over simply misprescribing drugs..
Instead of obsessing over whether a student is learning or not, and spending time trying to evaluate others, just concentrate on transferring knowledge; if you want to give assignments, ask the students to figure out something you don't know how to do yet. Work with the students to further knowledge, instead of acting as their adversary and withholding knowledge "with the closed fist of the teacher who keeps some things back".
Congratulations, you have just reinvented the wheel.
The classic lecture system is an extremely resource efficient means of "transferring knowledge", because it has an attractive one-to-many broadcasting model. However it has proven deficiencies in the full concepts actually landing into mental schemas that yield usable skills. That is why competent teachers think about "whether a student is learning or not".
This is not a new discussion among professional educators. It goes back, oh, some 150 years, when the onset of the industrial revolution created a demand for technical professionals that far outstripped what the traditional apprenticeship model of education could provide.
Your suggestion (" ask the students to figure out something you don't know how to do yet") is not fundamentally a bad idea, not at all. But in actual implementation it is an expensive one. What if the student's project goes off the rails? What if the work is crappy? Most students need some amount of expert guidance, unless you are willing to let students fall through the cracks by the boatload. Or do you just let incompetent people get their degrees because you are above worrying about silly things like "whether a student is learning or not"?
Expert guidance means creating a mentor-apprentice model, even if a lightweight one. That is expensive.
The question is whether neutron treatment of thorium-232 is genuinely more practical than similar treatment of uranim-238. As you correctly point out, the potential exists regardless of whether a single commercial thorium reactor is ever built.
Research reactors have excellent neutron fluxes, but are not optimized for the sample volumes to make this a very efficient at converting U238. Commercial reactors have large volumes but terrible neutron fluxes. The produce a good amount of plutonium in a reasonable amount of time, it is vastly easier to design a reactor for that exact purpose.
I wonder if the story is so different for thorium that we should care.
We cannot really stop a nation who is committed to building bombs, and thinks that spending a couple decades to built two or three is good enough. (And I would argue they would not be much of a proliferation problem, in the larger picture.)
MRIs for non-emergencies take months in the USA, as well. But the way they play the game here is to override the doctor's opinion and say "N. O." That way the patient never shows up on any waiting list. When the doctor asks for the 7th time, THEN the wait might be a couple weeks.
Rationing is rationing. Torturing the doctor with paperwork and playing a waiting game does not make capitalist healthcare rationing into something other than rationing.
My mother-in-law was begging her insurance company for 19 months to get the MRI her doctor authorized, as her hip painfully disintegrated. The insurance knew better than the doctor -- hey, surely another round of painkillers will be good enough.
When the insurance company finally relented, I think it only took a few weeks to get that MRI. So under the statistics about the awesome American health care system, her "wait" was ~14 days. Yet from her doctor's POV, her actual wait was, oh, 570 days. If only she were in the crappy land of Canada, her wait would have been, oh, 400 or 500 days less.
Lo and behold, her MRI showed such a dangerously disintegrated hip that she was ordered bed ridden until she could have an emergency hip replacement.
But WE do not ration in the USA. Oh, no, no, no, not evil socialist rationing. We just worship at the altar of the Free Market (and pretend that rationing is not rationing, even to the point of lying to ourselves.)
Shakespeare, the King James Bible, the Sistine Chapel, Beethoven's symphonies, the Seven Samurai (to pick a few random great works) have all clearly influenced follow on work in their fields.
Where's the evidence that Revenge of the Sith has influence future art in an arguably positive manner?
Frank Sinatra's singing career, Jerry Lewis, and the Mickey Mouse Club were all very popular in their day, but I think they will be rated flashes in the pan because they lacked an enduring influence. Where is the hip new art with clear Sith influences?
You are also indulging in anachronistic thinking. At a time when social order existed only under the implied threat of potential violence by men with swords, these rules may have made sense enough -- a little unfortunate bloodshed to avoid greater violence from clan on clan feuds within the city/tribe.
But that was then. This is now. We now know how to maintain social order with vastly less bloodletting.
Taking an ancient moral code and naively applying it to a modern context is not logically superior to taking a modern moral code and second-guessing those in the ancient context.
As for your particular example of adultery, it is simply a legal system that happens to not have kept up with modern science. But the foundational idea that any man worthy of the least consideration would take responsibility for the children of his wife is rooted in the ancient system -- it is not simply a modern problem. Such was true back in the Good Old Ancient Days, too. Ostracizing (or killing) your legal wife and her children were an option, but without clear proof recognized by the legal system doing so risked angering her well-armed male relatives.
The legal system now so happens to be written as if proving who is the biological father is difficult. Things will change.
The question is where the profits come from. Faced with short-sighted would be buyers, many enterprise software companies take a small loss on the original software sold and make their actual profit on the services getting it up and running, and maintenance charges of the same. It is an anti-virtuous circle, because a new company selling a product that is not plainly outright superior cannot charge a fair price for their software when the customer mindset works against the customer's own long termbest interest.
It's not a judge's job to help people negate legally-binding documents.
Of course it is. The law has always recognized different degrees of duty. One of the main points of even having courts and having judges is so that someone can sort out competing legal and ethical duties within complex relationships of multiple parties.
You claim I did not fulfill my legal duty to provide working conditions without debilitating forms of harassment. I ask the judge to bend the normal everyday rules to privacy to see some of your personal information. Happens all the time.
It may so happen that you have provisions in your apartment lease that limits the access of other visitors, yet that will never limit the right of a court to order the search of your domicile for reason.
It may so happen that a third party like Facebook might dive in with lawyers, arguing that you failing to fulfill the full terms of your mutual contract causes it material harm. In this kind of case, that would never happen. But, in principle, it is not for you to speculate about harm to Facebook based on nothing but a EULA. Of course, you can try. But unless it is such a strong argument that a FB lawyer comes running at your request, you would be simply ignored, as it should be.
Lots of highly competent people, albeit with thinner resumes, would take that job at a moderate pay rate. Getting "I saved a troubled large company" on your resume is worth something in terms of future job prospects. An overpaid CEO cannot save a company where an underpaid CEO might. But it would require management with the courage to figure out how to fix the problems, rather than whine and blame the unions for their own serial egregious failures.
Chastising the CEO for having a contract that is overpriced while support a union contract that is overpriced is a bit hypocritical.
The second problem might be successively corrected by a CEO who is not overpaid. The fact of him being perceived as being overpaid made him less competent at actually doing his job. That is a failure of management by the board of directors.
This is a pretty good publicity stunt if your intended market would be those who are easily swayed that the hunters are doing something illegal. And the craft can probably be recovered and repaired, so you are not out the full 4k.
Certainly, the business market is a nice enough place to -- most companies envy the "problems" MS has, even if those problems are quite real.
The question is how company like MS can justify a P/E of greater than ~12. Without some degree of excitement, MS is a stock that has been flat for 10 years and is going to stay flat for the next 10 years.
Your points are good ones, and I would agree that simply Obamacare or simply single-payer will not automatically make things better. It is more complicated than that.
But let's keep in mind that when we look at a couple hundred million people receive medical care in other industrialized nations, we can see the potential for savings is so huge that even a government medical facility that throws 25 cents of every dollar down the drain is not necessarily any worse than what we have.
Most industrialized nations can manage to provide healthcare of very similar quality to what insured Americans enjoy to their entire populace, and the total bill comes in at ~40% less than what Americans pay. Under single-payer, it is entirely plausible your bills will go *down* (and I can prove that possibility with more than a dozen real world examples).
I hold that America does not need to be uniquely incompetent at providing affordable healthcare forever.
The test of reasonableness is ultimately decided by 15 people: a police officer*, a prosecutor, a judge, and 12 jurors. Any single one of them can veto the whole shebang, which is a de facto decision that a violent response was reasonable enough. I would not advocate attacking the cameraman, but do you really think it is a good bet that not one single member of the 15 would be weirded out enough to decide the cameraman simply got what he deserved?
* While technically one might think that the police officer's judgement should not matter so much, in the real world the cameraman might be the one who gets arrested. As a practical matter the perp is never going to be re-labelled the victim once the wheels of the legal system start turning.
While I think this guy's actions are assholish at best, he does raise an excellent point.
That his actions are assholish at best IS the entire point. Surveillance cameras are no less assholish. So if you're opposed to this guy, you must also oppose surveillance cameras.
A person physically located a few feet away, staring intently, and not observing the social norms of personal space can be perceived as a menace by reasonable people -- that can generate a number of negative reactions, including FEAR. Adding a camera does not magically make this an innocent exercise. Nor does bringing along an ideological axe to grind.
A close physical presence out of line of social norms could be construed as purposefully menacing -- an implied threat of unwanted physical contact made with intent. Now we are in the realm of "assault" which does not require any actual physical contact for a conviction -- all it takes is for the jury to believe "he scared me". It might also persuade a jury, if someone were to beat this guy up.
Whether privacy is violated is not necessarily important here. The strong reactions are because he is violating the norms of personal space, which have an entirely different set of rules.
No, you are confusing yourself because you have an ideological axe to grind.
AC and MightyYar brought up the topic of "personal space". Privacy and personal space are not necessarily related at all. My privacy may be approximately nil in a crowd, while the crowd could still be very respectful of my personal space. Likewise, a full body cavity search may not violate my privacy in any important way (depending on my personal attitude about my details of biology), while it has everything to do with personal space.
He is violating social taboos very dear to most people, and violence is a likelihood. Juries are not going to sympathize with this fellow any more than they would sympathize with a naked man caught masturbating in front of a grade school.
Furthermore actions very close to another's personal space that a reasonable person might construe as purposefully menacing can be grounds for assault. "Assault", unlike "battery" does not require any actual physical contact. All it takes is a jury to believe "he scared me" from one victim and this guy could be in the hospital as warm up for his time in jail.
It is not that simple, because of the large capital costs of a new semiconductor fab line. Pretty much everyone competent easily makes money on the margin. The question is how the cost of capital spent in the past is being paid for, and how will the financial performance over the years will inform those with the money when the next new fab line needs to be built.
Losing money providing Apple with 100M widgets in the short term can easily bring the big win over the long haul, depending how the capital costs are folded into the calculation. Obviously one has to be careful because a fab line that does not eventually yield fat profits cannot justify being upgraded to the next generation of technology.
Slashdot Mirror
Contrary to The Breakfast Club, I also got As in shop class. Quite frankly, that ignorant assumption by Hollywood always irritated me.
It is not really surprising. One of the biggest correlating factors for intelligence (however you define intelligence) is general health, and general health is strongly caused by good nutrition. It should be no surprise that athleticism and physical skill positively correlates with brains. Quite a number of the legendary physics minds of the 1st half of the 20th century enjoyed hiking mountains and/or flirting with the ladies.
We may remember Einstein in his later years as some perfect nerd, but he too liked flirting with the ladies in his earlier years.
I"m curious what they're going about what most photographers have to do...a model release form, signed for each person appearing in the image, if it is to be used to generate $$$.
I am wondering that, too.
A professional photographer produces a product for which the licensing is clear. If I am a paid model, I signed the releases as a condition for employment, and I know what to expect.
But what if a friend snaps a photo of me, FB grabs it, and another party creates an advertisement that implies I am endorsing a product/service? Removing the professional photographer from the picture does not change my reasonable expectations as a private citizen while, say, dining in a random restaurant.
You are fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of Realism. Yours is a common misunderstanding on /., please be patient.
More frames per second are not necessarily "more realistic". It could just be more data thrown at you in an unnatural way.
The human eye naturally scans and blinks. In fact, about 99.999% of the time you look from one part of a room to anywhere else in the room, you will blink (unless you work very hard to override your natural instincts). Try it and see.
24 frames is a compromise that seems to adequately emulate the normal reality of human eye, forcing the pacing of virtual jumps and refocusing that are roughly the norm of the human experience.
At higher frame rates, you are throwing more visual information into the field of vision in a manner that approximately never occurs in real life. If you were actually standing next to Bilbo the whole time, you would inevitably observe vastly LESS than what Jackson is throwing into your field of view -- because you eye can sit comfortably gazing a most of the screen, your brain is physically able to attempt to draw in more details than any kind of reality would normally allow.
Artistically speaking, maybe that is bad and maybe that is good -- I do not have an opinion on that score.
The bottom line is that we have reasons to believe that more frames per second can provide *less* realism -- I will leave the scientific details to neurophysiologists to draw the exact lines.
It is not obvious that such will reduce overall employment. Every kind of tax arguably reduce employment somewhere in the economy. But not taxing anyone also kills employment because the gov't cannot provide services.
What is important is to make the tax burden both predictable and not excessive. A few per cent tax on the gross meets both criteria.
Another approach would be to tax assets. It boils down to a similar effect for corporations, because any business with a strong gross revenue arguably also has a nominal value, regardless of whether the profits "somehow" leak into the Cayman Islands.
It really is not so clear cut, because a rational argument can be made for the efficacy of judiciously applied placebos.
In fact, I believe that doctors incorrectly prescribe medications all the time. The reason this often "works" (and does not land the doctor into hot water) is because of the placebo effect.
Distilled water seems like it could be an improvement over simply misprescribing drugs..
Instead of obsessing over whether a student is learning or not, and spending time trying to evaluate others, just concentrate on transferring knowledge; if you want to give assignments, ask the students to figure out something you don't know how to do yet. Work with the students to further knowledge, instead of acting as their adversary and withholding knowledge "with the closed fist of the teacher who keeps some things back".
Congratulations, you have just reinvented the wheel.
The classic lecture system is an extremely resource efficient means of "transferring knowledge", because it has an attractive one-to-many broadcasting model. However it has proven deficiencies in the full concepts actually landing into mental schemas that yield usable skills. That is why competent teachers think about "whether a student is learning or not".
This is not a new discussion among professional educators. It goes back, oh, some 150 years, when the onset of the industrial revolution created a demand for technical professionals that far outstripped what the traditional apprenticeship model of education could provide.
Your suggestion (" ask the students to figure out something you don't know how to do yet") is not fundamentally a bad idea, not at all. But in actual implementation it is an expensive one. What if the student's project goes off the rails? What if the work is crappy? Most students need some amount of expert guidance, unless you are willing to let students fall through the cracks by the boatload. Or do you just let incompetent people get their degrees because you are above worrying about silly things like "whether a student is learning or not"?
Expert guidance means creating a mentor-apprentice model, even if a lightweight one. That is expensive.
She lives in NYC. I suspect there are enough machines in town. And ultimately the insurance company paid, so it was not for lack of coverage.
The question is whether neutron treatment of thorium-232 is genuinely more practical than similar treatment of uranim-238. As you correctly point out, the potential exists regardless of whether a single commercial thorium reactor is ever built.
Research reactors have excellent neutron fluxes, but are not optimized for the sample volumes to make this a very efficient at converting U238. Commercial reactors have large volumes but terrible neutron fluxes. The produce a good amount of plutonium in a reasonable amount of time, it is vastly easier to design a reactor for that exact purpose.
I wonder if the story is so different for thorium that we should care.
We cannot really stop a nation who is committed to building bombs, and thinks that spending a couple decades to built two or three is good enough. (And I would argue they would not be much of a proliferation problem, in the larger picture.)
MRIs for non-emergencies take months in the USA, as well. But the way they play the game here is to override the doctor's opinion and say "N. O." That way the patient never shows up on any waiting list. When the doctor asks for the 7th time, THEN the wait might be a couple weeks.
Rationing is rationing. Torturing the doctor with paperwork and playing a waiting game does not make capitalist healthcare rationing into something other than rationing.
My mother-in-law was begging her insurance company for 19 months to get the MRI her doctor authorized, as her hip painfully disintegrated. The insurance knew better than the doctor -- hey, surely another round of painkillers will be good enough.
When the insurance company finally relented, I think it only took a few weeks to get that MRI. So under the statistics about the awesome American health care system, her "wait" was ~14 days. Yet from her doctor's POV, her actual wait was, oh, 570 days. If only she were in the crappy land of Canada, her wait would have been, oh, 400 or 500 days less.
Lo and behold, her MRI showed such a dangerously disintegrated hip that she was ordered bed ridden until she could have an emergency hip replacement.
But WE do not ration in the USA. Oh, no, no, no, not evil socialist rationing. We just worship at the altar of the Free Market (and pretend that rationing is not rationing, even to the point of lying to ourselves.)
Shakespeare, the King James Bible, the Sistine Chapel, Beethoven's symphonies, the Seven Samurai (to pick a few random great works) have all clearly influenced follow on work in their fields.
Where's the evidence that Revenge of the Sith has influence future art in an arguably positive manner?
Frank Sinatra's singing career, Jerry Lewis, and the Mickey Mouse Club were all very popular in their day, but I think they will be rated flashes in the pan because they lacked an enduring influence. Where is the hip new art with clear Sith influences?
You are also indulging in anachronistic thinking. At a time when social order existed only under the implied threat of potential violence by men with swords, these rules may have made sense enough -- a little unfortunate bloodshed to avoid greater violence from clan on clan feuds within the city/tribe.
But that was then. This is now. We now know how to maintain social order with vastly less bloodletting.
Taking an ancient moral code and naively applying it to a modern context is not logically superior to taking a modern moral code and second-guessing those in the ancient context.
As for your particular example of adultery, it is simply a legal system that happens to not have kept up with modern science. But the foundational idea that any man worthy of the least consideration would take responsibility for the children of his wife is rooted in the ancient system -- it is not simply a modern problem. Such was true back in the Good Old Ancient Days, too. Ostracizing (or killing) your legal wife and her children were an option, but without clear proof recognized by the legal system doing so risked angering her well-armed male relatives.
The legal system now so happens to be written as if proving who is the biological father is difficult. Things will change.
The question is where the profits come from. Faced with short-sighted would be buyers, many enterprise software companies take a small loss on the original software sold and make their actual profit on the services getting it up and running, and maintenance charges of the same. It is an anti-virtuous circle, because a new company selling a product that is not plainly outright superior cannot charge a fair price for their software when the customer mindset works against the customer's own long termbest interest.
It's not a judge's job to help people negate legally-binding documents.
Of course it is. The law has always recognized different degrees of duty. One of the main points of even having courts and having judges is so that someone can sort out competing legal and ethical duties within complex relationships of multiple parties.
You claim I did not fulfill my legal duty to provide working conditions without debilitating forms of harassment. I ask the judge to bend the normal everyday rules to privacy to see some of your personal information. Happens all the time.
It may so happen that you have provisions in your apartment lease that limits the access of other visitors, yet that will never limit the right of a court to order the search of your domicile for reason.
It may so happen that a third party like Facebook might dive in with lawyers, arguing that you failing to fulfill the full terms of your mutual contract causes it material harm. In this kind of case, that would never happen. But, in principle, it is not for you to speculate about harm to Facebook based on nothing but a EULA. Of course, you can try. But unless it is such a strong argument that a FB lawyer comes running at your request, you would be simply ignored, as it should be.
Lots of highly competent people, albeit with thinner resumes, would take that job at a moderate pay rate. Getting "I saved a troubled large company" on your resume is worth something in terms of future job prospects. An overpaid CEO cannot save a company where an underpaid CEO might. But it would require management with the courage to figure out how to fix the problems, rather than whine and blame the unions for their own serial egregious failures.
Chastising the CEO for having a contract that is overpriced while support a union contract that is overpriced is a bit hypocritical.
The second problem might be successively corrected by a CEO who is not overpaid. The fact of him being perceived as being overpaid made him less competent at actually doing his job. That is a failure of management by the board of directors.
This is a pretty good publicity stunt if your intended market would be those who are easily swayed that the hunters are doing something illegal. And the craft can probably be recovered and repaired, so you are not out the full 4k.
Certainly, the business market is a nice enough place to -- most companies envy the "problems" MS has, even if those problems are quite real.
The question is how company like MS can justify a P/E of greater than ~12. Without some degree of excitement, MS is a stock that has been flat for 10 years and is going to stay flat for the next 10 years.
Your points are good ones, and I would agree that simply Obamacare or simply single-payer will not automatically make things better. It is more complicated than that.
But let's keep in mind that when we look at a couple hundred million people receive medical care in other industrialized nations, we can see the potential for savings is so huge that even a government medical facility that throws 25 cents of every dollar down the drain is not necessarily any worse than what we have.
Most industrialized nations can manage to provide healthcare of very similar quality to what insured Americans enjoy to their entire populace, and the total bill comes in at ~40% less than what Americans pay. Under single-payer, it is entirely plausible your bills will go *down* (and I can prove that possibility with more than a dozen real world examples).
I hold that America does not need to be uniquely incompetent at providing affordable healthcare forever.
The test of reasonableness is ultimately decided by 15 people: a police officer*, a prosecutor, a judge, and 12 jurors. Any single one of them can veto the whole shebang, which is a de facto decision that a violent response was reasonable enough. I would not advocate attacking the cameraman, but do you really think it is a good bet that not one single member of the 15 would be weirded out enough to decide the cameraman simply got what he deserved?
* While technically one might think that the police officer's judgement should not matter so much, in the real world the cameraman might be the one who gets arrested. As a practical matter the perp is never going to be re-labelled the victim once the wheels of the legal system start turning.
While I think this guy's actions are assholish at best, he does raise an excellent point.
That his actions are assholish at best IS the entire point. Surveillance cameras are no less assholish. So if you're opposed to this guy, you must also oppose surveillance cameras.
A person physically located a few feet away, staring intently, and not observing the social norms of personal space can be perceived as a menace by reasonable people -- that can generate a number of negative reactions, including FEAR. Adding a camera does not magically make this an innocent exercise. Nor does bringing along an ideological axe to grind.
A close physical presence out of line of social norms could be construed as purposefully menacing -- an implied threat of unwanted physical contact made with intent. Now we are in the realm of "assault" which does not require any actual physical contact for a conviction -- all it takes is for the jury to believe "he scared me". It might also persuade a jury, if someone were to beat this guy up.
Whether privacy is violated is not necessarily important here. The strong reactions are because he is violating the norms of personal space, which have an entirely different set of rules.
No, you are confusing yourself because you have an ideological axe to grind.
AC and MightyYar brought up the topic of "personal space". Privacy and personal space are not necessarily related at all. My privacy may be approximately nil in a crowd, while the crowd could still be very respectful of my personal space. Likewise, a full body cavity search may not violate my privacy in any important way (depending on my personal attitude about my details of biology), while it has everything to do with personal space.
He is violating social taboos very dear to most people, and violence is a likelihood. Juries are not going to sympathize with this fellow any more than they would sympathize with a naked man caught masturbating in front of a grade school.
Furthermore actions very close to another's personal space that a reasonable person might construe as purposefully menacing can be grounds for assault. "Assault", unlike "battery" does not require any actual physical contact. All it takes is a jury to believe "he scared me" from one victim and this guy could be in the hospital as warm up for his time in jail.
It is not that simple, because of the large capital costs of a new semiconductor fab line. Pretty much everyone competent easily makes money on the margin. The question is how the cost of capital spent in the past is being paid for, and how will the financial performance over the years will inform those with the money when the next new fab line needs to be built.
Losing money providing Apple with 100M widgets in the short term can easily bring the big win over the long haul, depending how the capital costs are folded into the calculation. Obviously one has to be careful because a fab line that does not eventually yield fat profits cannot justify being upgraded to the next generation of technology.