I live in Austria, my brother lives in Northern Germany. With a normal gas engine car, it's a 9 hrs drive at 120 kph (75 mph) on average and one tank/dinner stop of 45 mins. With switching drivers and not too much traffic we can make it in 8 hrs. Your plan will take at least 13 hrs.
This is actually true, information wants to be free, and the knife thus cuts both ways.
You can copy everything that comes in data form as often as you want and for cheap. And the collection of data can be automated too, thus it is also cheap. For a data processing machine, the semantic of data makes no difference, even if we attach labels like "private information", "work of Art", "wellknown facts", "state secrets" or whatever to the data.
But it's the semantic that determines how we feel about the proliferation of information. Privacy means that we aren't even allowed to collect the information at all, less giving it away. Secrecy means that we might be allowed to collect the information ("need to know"), but not spread it etc.pp. As long as collection information and spreading it was somewhat cumbersome and a slow process, it was easy to weigh the costs of doing it anyway vs. the advantages of doing so, and the semantics remained mainly intact, private information remained mainly private, secrets sometimes stayed secret etc.pp. But with the cost going to zero, now we have to weigh the advantages of proliferation only against the retaliation of doing so, and the amount of retaliation is something we can influence or believe we could influence.
Yes, information wants to be free, now the cost is no longer attached to the collection and the spreading of information, but to the blocking of the collection and the proliferation. And the amount of effort we want to put into the blocking of information is open to discussion.
There is a small problem with this idea though - large numbers.
Lets say you want to build a Bayesian filter for email scanning. It works fine for single words, if you want to check for spam or other quite easily determinable categories. If you want to scan for word combinations of two words, your filter will already have 100,000 times 100,000 fields, and if you want to scan for short sentences up to 20 words, your filter has to provide 100,000 to the power of 20 fields, or around 10^100.
And this is just too large to store in the whole universe, as the universe has only around 10^91 elementary particles.
I don't use the car very often, in town, I prefer the bicycle. So it's basicly once a week for the weekend shopping. But if I really need the car, then it's going to be long distance. My parents live 400 mls from my home, my brother lives 660 mls away. Currently, they are out of reach for a one-day-trip on an all-electric car, I would have to stay overnight and recharge the car to get there.
This means that I would have to buy two cars, one for the short trips, and one for the long trips, which makes no sense. And an electric car just for the short trips and each time a rental car for the long ones is quite expensive to maintain. So it's still be better to buy a long distance going car, thus a gas engine, and use it also on short trips.
With an electric car with four times the current range, this changes. I could actually get an all-electric car and use it for both short and long distance.
Given that the person most likely to kill you is yourself, keeping weapons away from you will actually protect you from a statistical point of view. And given that the possession of a gun increases the probability of killing yourself, there is another good reason not to have a gun in the home(*). And given that the probability of being killed by a foreigner is lower than the probability of being killed by a person (except you), who has access to your weapons (e.g. spouse, acquaintance, children, parents), it further will increase your chance of survival if yo don't own a gun.
(*) Yes, gun suicides don't replace other means of suicide from a statistical point of view. Statistically speaking, they are an additional risk of suicide. Gun owners commit suicide more often than non gun owners.
The UN has exactly nothing from suppressing dissent and feedback. It is an organisation of states (and their respective governments). Governments can try to get more surveillance forced upon everyone via the UN, but they can also do it via bilateral contracts (as the U.S. does). It's not an UN problem at all.
What you are doing is moving responsibility as far as possible away from you, and the most far away organisatorial unit you can imagine is the UN.
It actually counts the complete amount of money spent on health care, through private means and through taxes (it even makes a difference between private spending and spending through taxes and other public money, so you can compare the shares). And there the U.S. invests 50% more than every other country on Earth.
Even after accounting for all money that flows into health care, the U.S. system is horribly inefficient compared to any other system.
It's my right of free speech to ridicule this PM's free speech. Nothing to see here.
It gets problematic if I want to forbid someone else's free speech.
Agreed. Basicly, the last traces of democracy in the Roman Empire were gone with the Diocletian restauration and the foundation of the Tetrarchy. This was late in the 3rd century AD, and when Constantine the Great proclaimed Christianity to be the official religion of the Roman Empire, he had long adopted the persian court protocol including the genuflection.
And when Muhammad created the Islamic religion in 622 AD, the greek speaking Byzantine Empire was all what was left of the former Roman Empire.
Most meat consumed is from farm animals, who basically exist to be someone's dinner. In that regard, nothing is going to go extinct because of a hamburger. Certainly not cattle.
In a certain way, this is wrong. Eating cattle has brought the wild cow to extinction about 1000 years ago. Because to grow domesticated cattle, we took all available land from the wild cows, the aurochs. Yes, there is the domesticated form left, but as far as we can tell, those animals are not able to live on their own in the wild.
Actually, I don't have any problem with a news outlet voicing an opinion. That's ok. That's the Freedom of the Press. And no, it's not the single duty of a journalist to report facts. That's what a scientist does. A journalist gives his own account on what happened today (french: journal [literally] = diary). Journalist ethics requires that there is a clear differentiation between information and comment, and that information is checked on a reasonable level.
This still leaves it open to the journalist, which facts he will report on, and what angle of reporting he will choose. But again -- that's the Freedom of the Press.
Internet Voting can not work for a simple reason. Internet Voting has to both ensure that each person which votes is clearly identified to make sure the person is eligible to voting and at the same time can not be identified to make sure the voting is secret, at the same time clearly identify the vote to make sure it is counted only once and at the same time not making the individual vote identifyable to keep the voting secret.
Paper-and-pen voting solves this problem by first identifying the person, handing the person a non-identifyable sheet of paper, the ballot, let the person vote in secret and then keep the vote in a closed box until the counting. (And the problems surrounding pen-and-paper-voting like ballot stuffing can be managed by making everything of the voting box except the actual voting public.)
Basicly your data means that the U.S. spend about 50% more on health care than any other country and gets just average results out of it. Must be that nationalized inefficiency in the U.S. health care system compared with the free market approach in about every other developed country.
The "discrete categories" aren't, as you seem to think, completely arbitrary.
They are for any non sexual species, like most microorganisms. Bacteria don't interbreed.
They are for many geographical species whose only reason of non-interbreeding is that they don't meet.
They are for species with a somewhat more complex live cycle than "parents generate offspring". My pet example is the common dandelion, whose generational cycle can span hundreds of generations, and where most individuals can't interbreed at all.
According to the article, they are in trouble because they threatened to sue people for patent infringement, when they had (1) not checked whatsoever if patent infringement had been committed, and when (2) they had no intent whatsoever to take anyone to court but only were interested in settlement payments.
Slashdot Mirror
I live in Austria, my brother lives in Northern Germany. With a normal gas engine car, it's a 9 hrs drive at 120 kph (75 mph) on average and one tank/dinner stop of 45 mins. With switching drivers and not too much traffic we can make it in 8 hrs. Your plan will take at least 13 hrs.
You can copy everything that comes in data form as often as you want and for cheap. And the collection of data can be automated too, thus it is also cheap. For a data processing machine, the semantic of data makes no difference, even if we attach labels like "private information", "work of Art", "wellknown facts", "state secrets" or whatever to the data.
But it's the semantic that determines how we feel about the proliferation of information. Privacy means that we aren't even allowed to collect the information at all, less giving it away. Secrecy means that we might be allowed to collect the information ("need to know"), but not spread it etc.pp. As long as collection information and spreading it was somewhat cumbersome and a slow process, it was easy to weigh the costs of doing it anyway vs. the advantages of doing so, and the semantics remained mainly intact, private information remained mainly private, secrets sometimes stayed secret etc.pp. But with the cost going to zero, now we have to weigh the advantages of proliferation only against the retaliation of doing so, and the amount of retaliation is something we can influence or believe we could influence.
Yes, information wants to be free, now the cost is no longer attached to the collection and the spreading of information, but to the blocking of the collection and the proliferation. And the amount of effort we want to put into the blocking of information is open to discussion.
Lets say you want to build a Bayesian filter for email scanning. It works fine for single words, if you want to check for spam or other quite easily determinable categories. If you want to scan for word combinations of two words, your filter will already have 100,000 times 100,000 fields, and if you want to scan for short sentences up to 20 words, your filter has to provide 100,000 to the power of 20 fields, or around 10^100.
And this is just too large to store in the whole universe, as the universe has only around 10^91 elementary particles.
I don't use the car very often, in town, I prefer the bicycle. So it's basicly once a week for the weekend shopping. But if I really need the car, then it's going to be long distance. My parents live 400 mls from my home, my brother lives 660 mls away. Currently, they are out of reach for a one-day-trip on an all-electric car, I would have to stay overnight and recharge the car to get there.
This means that I would have to buy two cars, one for the short trips, and one for the long trips, which makes no sense. And an electric car just for the short trips and each time a rental car for the long ones is quite expensive to maintain. So it's still be better to buy a long distance going car, thus a gas engine, and use it also on short trips.
With an electric car with four times the current range, this changes. I could actually get an all-electric car and use it for both short and long distance.
[...]there is the problem: power density.They don't mention what it is, but given that the voltage is half of lithium - we can deduce that it sucks.
They actually do, and they calculate it's four times that of Lithium-Ion.
If they copied it, the original would still be there.
(*) Yes, gun suicides don't replace other means of suicide from a statistical point of view. Statistically speaking, they are an additional risk of suicide. Gun owners commit suicide more often than non gun owners.
What you are doing is moving responsibility as far as possible away from you, and the most far away organisatorial unit you can imagine is the UN.
It's wiener, not weiner. From Wiener Wurst (german: sausage from Vienna).
It actually counts the complete amount of money spent on health care, through private means and through taxes (it even makes a difference between private spending and spending through taxes and other public money, so you can compare the shares). And there the U.S. invests 50% more than every other country on Earth.
Even after accounting for all money that flows into health care, the U.S. system is horribly inefficient compared to any other system.
In the end, cows are aurochs, and chickens are, well whatever chickens used to be.
Chickens used to be Red Junglefowls (Gallus gallus). Just saying.
It's my right of free speech to ridicule this PM's free speech. Nothing to see here. It gets problematic if I want to forbid someone else's free speech.
Agreed. Basicly, the last traces of democracy in the Roman Empire were gone with the Diocletian restauration and the foundation of the Tetrarchy. This was late in the 3rd century AD, and when Constantine the Great proclaimed Christianity to be the official religion of the Roman Empire, he had long adopted the persian court protocol including the genuflection. And when Muhammad created the Islamic religion in 622 AD, the greek speaking Byzantine Empire was all what was left of the former Roman Empire.
Depending on the dolphins. Bottlenose dolphins are well known for hunting down common porpoises and killing them just for the fun of it.
Most meat consumed is from farm animals, who basically exist to be someone's dinner. In that regard, nothing is going to go extinct because of a hamburger. Certainly not cattle.
In a certain way, this is wrong. Eating cattle has brought the wild cow to extinction about 1000 years ago. Because to grow domesticated cattle, we took all available land from the wild cows, the aurochs. Yes, there is the domesticated form left, but as far as we can tell, those animals are not able to live on their own in the wild.
This still leaves it open to the journalist, which facts he will report on, and what angle of reporting he will choose. But again -- that's the Freedom of the Press.
Blind signatures don't solve the problem of proving your own ballot was counted correctly.
Paper-and-pen voting solves this problem by first identifying the person, handing the person a non-identifyable sheet of paper, the ballot, let the person vote in secret and then keep the vote in a closed box until the counting. (And the problems surrounding pen-and-paper-voting like ballot stuffing can be managed by making everything of the voting box except the actual voting public.)
Basicly your data means that the U.S. spend about 50% more on health care than any other country and gets just average results out of it. Must be that nationalized inefficiency in the U.S. health care system compared with the free market approach in about every other developed country.
Instead of the per-ip-address stats?
C is not completely unrelated to metric in that 1 K means the same temperature difference than 1 Celsius.
After all, the metric system is a french idea, first codified 1790 at the French Academy of Science.
The "discrete categories" aren't, as you seem to think, completely arbitrary.
They are for any non sexual species, like most microorganisms. Bacteria don't interbreed.
They are for many geographical species whose only reason of non-interbreeding is that they don't meet.
They are for species with a somewhat more complex live cycle than "parents generate offspring". My pet example is the common dandelion, whose generational cycle can span hundreds of generations, and where most individuals can't interbreed at all.
Which is because they don't have much competition there.
According to the article, they are in trouble because they threatened to sue people for patent infringement, when they had (1) not checked whatsoever if patent infringement had been committed, and when (2) they had no intent whatsoever to take anyone to court but only were interested in settlement payments.
This was another one of the issues, yes.