The more important issue is that technology more easily replaces low-skilled workers. Computers have reduced the demand for secretarial work; robots and other industrial automation reduce the demand for factory workers, and so on. This increases the returns to IQ and education, and reduces the number of well-paying jobs available to less-educated workers. But this seems inevitable, and needs to be solved by changing the attitudes of society toward education rather than by hamstringing technological progress.
Do think think most people are low-skilled just because of a poor attitude? The Peter Principle is saying everyone has a level of incompetence they will eventually reach on their career ladder, well robots taking over the menial work is like chopping the bottom off that ladder. Eventually you're going to have people who can't get on the ladder at all and "just climb higher" isn't going to work for them. So far robots have mostly outperformed humans in terms of things like strength, speed, accuracy, reproducibility but if they start outwitting people you're starting to run out of reasons to hire people at all. I'm sure you've met developers who you'd just not want on your team, you'd finish faster and better without them. Take that and scale it up to the workforce, imagine the whole job market saying we don't need you or at least not so many of you.
Taxi drivers are only the tip of the iceberg, most people are employed transporting goods B2B, B2C or C2B. Who do you think brings the groceries to the grocery store? Deliver you pizza? Collect your trash? A self-driving car would solve the hardest part, being able to load up a truck and have someone meet it at the other end would be huge. Also imagine all the people who can be more effective by doing paperwork and such while going site to site instead of driving, that too should let fewer people do the same work. A self-driving car is going to be an Industrial Revolution-class change.
Shareholders judge CEOs according to how stock prices have moved and how dividends have been released.
That's a rather circular definition because stock prices move according to what other shareholders think about the stock, not what the CEO is doing as such. Reality is that the market is a moving target and shareholders are often rather clueless as to whether the CEO's performance has actually contributed to or detracted from the company's stock performance, like if you were producing SUVs you simply were in the wrong place at the wrong time and any CEO's sales would tank - but more or less because of the CEO? And whether the CEO is heading the company in the right direction or not is more reading tea leaves than an science, a lot of CEOs have made plans that look great on paper and has driven the stock sky high on projected growths and profits only to collapse like a paper tiger. If things go great it's because you're a great CEO and if things go bad they'd be even worse off without you. That's why a lot of CEOs that suffer huge losses are rehired, it's the "they've been in a storm before, hence they're more experienced and better able to ride off the next one" logic.
This is different from, say, Europe, where mobile phones are assigned numbers in special mobile-only prefixes. The person calling a mobile phone pays a slight premium, while the person receiving a call on their mobile pays nothing.
Yes, but at least here in Norway it's only cheaper to call a landline from another landline as the cell phone operators only offer you one price per minute for both. This means there's no incentive to have a landline, you can't control how others can be reached (so people prefer the cell phone for convenience) and you pay nothing to recieve either way. Result: 5.7 million cell phones (113% coverage), a total of 1.5 million fixed lines of which 0.5 are broadband phones and 1.0 genuine landlines (PSTN/ISDN). And the fixed lines have been dropping with >100k/year for the last 5 years, even if you have a landline the chances of you calling another landline is dropping year for year. Personally I have fiber + cell phone and that's redundancy enough for me. If I can't reach anyone on fiber (where I don't have a broadband phone but email and skype) or on my cell phone then the world must be truly fucked as those are two very separate sets of infrastructure.
Now, some (even many) members of/contributors to SETI may be 100% convinced that there is intelligent alien life out there right now that wants to communicate with us, despite zero evidence so far. They're the nut jobs. But someone who contributes isn't necessarily a nutjob.
Current estimates is that the universe has 10^22-10^24 stars and that on average they have >1 planet/star so 10^22-10^24 planets as well. So it takes 1/1000000000000000000000000 planets with alien life that wants to communicate with us (note: that doesn't mean the same as able to) for that statement to be true. Or we can believe that we're alone in the universe. My impression is that there's a lot more people who firmly believe that, despite no evidence to support that the rest of the universe is uninhabited or uninhabitable. Particularly those who think the world started with God creating Adam and Eve in God's own image, which covers Christians, Muslims and Jews. Outside of the divine, I find it extremely unlikely that whatever conditions existed here on Earth to create life doesn't exist anywhere else in the universe. I wonder who's really the nutjob...
In the real world, developers must have access to the RTM bits before [general availability].
I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but is this really true?
Well I guess in the "real world" there's no open source software, since developers and users get access to the same code at the same time. Honestly, is there really going to be a day one rush to upgrade your OS? Maybe in the slashdot crowd but the "market" will take their sweet time.
Now, you could've gone to one of your favorite open source projects and said: I want feature x - here is $5k for whatever freelance developer wants to take it on, that would've worked. I am always available to work on certain projects...
Well yes but it'd be silly to make it just random windfall for one developer (unless there is only one main developer, but I'm assuming it's a bit bigger than that), but if they have some sort of organization set up and it can't be a donation (corporate policy, whatever) then I'd suggest that with a twist, basically pick a small feature or one that was going to be in the next release anyway, work is "donated" to the organization and the organization bills them $5000 for custom development. As long as it is declared somewhere and the IRS gets their cut, it's probably fine.
Missing option: The general public, because one thing is if the government can chip away my privacy through defective democracy but what would be even worse is a government with the people at its back saying "if you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear". I'm really starting to think privacy peaked 1991-2001 as the Cold War has ended and nobody saw terrorists around every corner and in every bush, since then it's been going downhill at an alarming pace.
The idea that men are "naturally" more interested in programming is something that's possible but should be treated with appropriate skepticism. It's not like there were programming contests a million years ago that were evolved into us, and it's not like obvious different circumstances like pregnancy go particularly well with a lot of other currently-female-dominated jobs (e.g. nursing). So either there's some very indirect inherent cause, or there's some cultural motivation.
For at least a few million years up until about 12000 years ago, all humans and proto-humans lived as hunter-gatherers and men did most the hunting which is pretty much all about results, if you fail you go hungry and it's all about means to a goal. Gathering on the other hand is more tedious hard labor with fruits, nuts, berries and so on that is relatively stationary with little need to be quiet, much better suited for caring for the young and socializing. For a hunter who killed the deer is huge, while two gathers probably both picked a decent basket. I think that still lives on, making a computer do what you want is more like planning the steps to chase a deer into the trap while trying to play the social game with a computer just doesn't work. You just can't wipe out a million years of evolutionary pressure with a pen.
A similar debate recently showed up in the local media over the n'th article showing that apart from the pregnancy leave which is rather biologically determined women work less overtime, take more part-time work, leave early to pick up more often from daycare, stay more at home with sick children, pick lesser challenging jobs that are more easily combined with family life and so lag behind in career and wage development. And then some cry for lack of equality, well my opinion is simple: Equal work for equal pay, if you want equal career and wage development then chase dad home to take care of the kid 50% of the time. You be the one working late, he the one picking up at daycare and so on, I'm not going to blame you if you choose family first but then accept that you put career and wages second.
As a practical matter, we cannot allow spying to be considered a reason to go to war, because by it's nature it is hard to prove and easy to fake; it would basically be giving states the right to start a war whenever they want. At times in history we've tried that, such when most of the states of Europe were basically the persons of kings, and it didn't work out so we came up with rules.
Who are "we" and what are they going to do about it? Terrorists blow up a couple of buildings and the US declares war on Afghanistan for harboring them, that's not according to the rules. The US just declared the attacks an act of war and said if the Taliban are harboring them they're a valid target too and the rest of the world is either with us or against us. Who was really going to argue, much less intervene? An "act of war" is anything that pisses off a nation state bad enough it wants to go to war, whether it falls in the "permitted" categories or not and spying is generally not serious enough, but say Israel finds out Iran has stolen their nuke blueprints then I'm sure that's casus belli enough. Or rather, excuse enough to invade before they get to build any of them.
Things die for business reasons, not technological reasons. And I'd say rovers that explore Mars on their own is far more advanced than having humans do everything like on Apollo. The Concord died yes, but there are supersonic jets in private ownership (ex-military), it's all a matter of cost. Some things haven't changed much but smart phones, medicine, lots of things have become very much more technologically advanced. It just depends on where you're looking, I'd much rather be in a hospital in 2013 than 1963, thank you very much.
I bet Microsoft is tired of supporting XP, it's been 12 years since the initial release - same year as Linux 2.4.0, which was EOL'd in 2011. Honestly, Windows 7 is the new XP - doesn't matter what crap comes before or after, it's the slam dunk obvious upgrade path with hardly any user pain. If your "enterprise" software still can't cope 4 years after release then replace that crappy vendor. Or if it's really that bad, then use a VM.
The whole issue didn't exist when I was 12, the way to turn off location tracking was "hey mom, we're going out to play", no cell phone, no beacon. Sometimes we did have a specific place in mind, sometimes we didn't, sometimes it changed on the way so really the only reliable information was that if we said we'd be back at seven we made sure to be back at seven. And nobody had phone cameras, okay we had a family camera that took film that needed developing but it wasn't going to be around. If you did stupid shit, nobody had anything to record it with. I'd say privacy was largely something you didn't have to defend back then, it just came naturally. If I was growing up today, I'd be way more concerned about my privacy than I was then. I'd go as far as to say we were mostly oblivious to it. Fuck I'm in my 30s and this thread makes me feel oooold.
Its 2013. Tagging is where its at. Obscure Structured directories are so 1999.
Different needs, different uses. Directories are great for namespacing, foo/README.TXT is different from bar/README.txt. When the entire "work" is contained in a single file with an unique title (artist/title/album/series/season/episode) then I agree, tagging works better. Still, for anything that takes huge amounts of space (anything >10GB at least) I want to know where I keep it, in case I need to clear up my SSD, move HDDs or whatever. But for eBooks.... well the whole collection will fit in a tiny little corner anyway.
No intelligent lawyer would dare claim that a 31 second clip where that extra second actually conveys some important information (thus why it still needs to be included) is in violation of copyright just because it is 31 seconds long and not 30.
But if 31 seconds is fair use, surely a 32 second clip is too as one second can hardly make a difference. Then someone makes a 33 second clip because hey, when all these 32 second clips are fair use... and so it goes. It's hard to say which little step crosses the invisible boundary from fair to non-fair use, but if "the amount and substantiality of the portion taken" is the deciding factor in the four factor test then one of those steps will be one step too far. And you won't actually know until you've gone too far, been taken to court and lost. Any reasonable lawyer must then say "I can't with certainty say whether this is legal or not" and then as an administrator I wouldn't want to take responsibility for a policy of questionable legality nor let my employees carry them out. The institution will be at trial here, not the employee.
What possible reason does such a company have for an Ethernet MAC that receives only?
Anything from a higher classified system that is to deliver data to a lower classified system, for example you need to get data from extremely sensitive military satellites to battle commanders in the field and it needs to happen in real time, you can't have total network separation. Then you generate a one-way feed where there is physically no possible way for anyone to connect to the feed and hack themselves backwards through routers into the satellites. And of course you put a ton of code review, surveillance and logging on the sending system to make sure it doesn't send more than it should, but that's not relevant to this discussion. So there's a lot of valid reasons for the military to buy this besides the NSA.
The old fans would be far too busy hating on the new captain not being a Kirk or Picard or Sisko (or even Janeway or Archer) to ever be trusted to support something new. Even "Lord of the Rings" got lots of nerd rage for cutting out Tom Bombadil, replacing about a million elfs with Galadriel and Elrond, adding humor to Gimli's character not to mention the whole Aragon/Galadriel love story which was too much of a chic flick taking away from the Frodo/Sam story and the list goes on and on. And really, what people want to see has gotten darker. Even a child/teen movie series like Harry Potter is way darker than what you'd show in the past, compare old Batman movies to new Batman movies, really the fairy tale Star Trek wouldn't please anyone anymore. You think you do out of nostalgia but really you'd quickly be bored out of your wits.
Bullshit. Incitement to violence is illegal in the US. Hate speech is not that, or rather it's vastly broader: it's politically unacceptable speech. Yeah, the government protects my rights to politically acceptable speech - that's some freedom there.
Direct, imminent and specific incitement to violence yes, speech to condition a population into going along with genocide or other violations of fundamental civil rights no. Hitler (yeah, pretty hard not to Godwin this thread) didn't go out and say "kill all the jews", but he likened them to rats and other pests. He left people to work out on their own - with fairly obvious clues - that what Nazi Germany needed was pest control. He didn't need to it directly, it didn't need to be imminent and he didn't have to point out any specific targets or methods but the overall meaning was very clear. It's like claiming the Mafia isn't making a threat when they're saying "Pretty shop you got there, it would be a shame if anything were to happen to it". Hate speech has the same goal, it's just wrapped in a nicer package.
Yeah and if anything I suspect the passengers have the least to worry about. If traffic only consisted of other cars it should be easy, there's not many huge metal boxes on the road except cars, they are easy to detect and they move fairly predictable within fixed lanes. Now pedestrians, bicycles, pets, wild animals and so on are another matter. Just to take one lesson that I still remember from my driving instructor some 15 years ago, if you see a ball bouncing across the road what should you do? Hit the brakes, not because of the ball but because of the kid who might be running after it. It's going to be hard to catch all those kinds of situations, then again who knows who many people react well.
Nope, since a VM can't talk to the TPM there's no way they'd require it at the OS level, way too many enterprise customers do VDI today.
It'll be just another layer in the signature chain, your TPM-signed OS will only run under a TPM-signed virtualization tool that runs on a TPM-enabled machine and so it'll be digitally signed all the way down, just like an application running on a TPM-enabled OS.
Normal means, "according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle". Think normal distribution.
Funny, since the "normal" in normal distribution has nothing to do with the definition you quoted. That would be definition 5c:
(of an orthogonal system of real functions) defined so that the integral of the square of the absolute value of any function is 1.
Many of the antonyms to normal are insults, like for example normal vs sick people, normal vs insane people, normal vs handicapped people, normal vs disturbing behavior, normal vs perverted desires and so on. There are some inoffensive meanings that deal with common vs obscure and average vs extreme, but generally not being counted to one of the "normals" can be rather grossly insulting. Like "there's no elevator so you have to take the stairs but that shouldn't be a problem for normal people".
My personal experience is that even the largest and most sensitive AO system in the world (NIRC II on Keck II with laser guide star) still really struggles make an observation in 20 minutes that Hubble can do in 5 minutes. If anyone were to launch a >3 m aperture visual-band space telescope (NOT JWST, that's IR), it would blow all these AO systems out of the water.
Yes, but "Hubble resolution, at a price" makes it sound like Hubble was the expensive one.
From its original total cost estimate of about US$400 million, the telescope had by now cost over $2.5 billion to construct. Hubble's cumulative costs up to this day are estimated to be several times higher still, roughly US$10 billion as of 2010.
That figure is including amortization of the $73 million dollar ($3,665,250*20) investment so $200 million total over 20 years. This means you can get 50 AOs for the cost of one Hubble, now which one comes "at a price" again?
Slashdot Mirror
The more important issue is that technology more easily replaces low-skilled workers. Computers have reduced the demand for secretarial work; robots and other industrial automation reduce the demand for factory workers, and so on. This increases the returns to IQ and education, and reduces the number of well-paying jobs available to less-educated workers. But this seems inevitable, and needs to be solved by changing the attitudes of society toward education rather than by hamstringing technological progress.
Do think think most people are low-skilled just because of a poor attitude? The Peter Principle is saying everyone has a level of incompetence they will eventually reach on their career ladder, well robots taking over the menial work is like chopping the bottom off that ladder. Eventually you're going to have people who can't get on the ladder at all and "just climb higher" isn't going to work for them. So far robots have mostly outperformed humans in terms of things like strength, speed, accuracy, reproducibility but if they start outwitting people you're starting to run out of reasons to hire people at all. I'm sure you've met developers who you'd just not want on your team, you'd finish faster and better without them. Take that and scale it up to the workforce, imagine the whole job market saying we don't need you or at least not so many of you.
Most people?
Show some numbers, I highly doubt most people are employed in the trucking industry.
That was supposed to be:
Taxi drivers are only the tip of the iceberg, most drivers are employed transporting goods B2B, B2C or C2B.
Taxi drivers are only the tip of the iceberg, most people are employed transporting goods B2B, B2C or C2B. Who do you think brings the groceries to the grocery store? Deliver you pizza? Collect your trash? A self-driving car would solve the hardest part, being able to load up a truck and have someone meet it at the other end would be huge. Also imagine all the people who can be more effective by doing paperwork and such while going site to site instead of driving, that too should let fewer people do the same work. A self-driving car is going to be an Industrial Revolution-class change.
Shareholders judge CEOs according to how stock prices have moved and how dividends have been released.
That's a rather circular definition because stock prices move according to what other shareholders think about the stock, not what the CEO is doing as such. Reality is that the market is a moving target and shareholders are often rather clueless as to whether the CEO's performance has actually contributed to or detracted from the company's stock performance, like if you were producing SUVs you simply were in the wrong place at the wrong time and any CEO's sales would tank - but more or less because of the CEO? And whether the CEO is heading the company in the right direction or not is more reading tea leaves than an science, a lot of CEOs have made plans that look great on paper and has driven the stock sky high on projected growths and profits only to collapse like a paper tiger. If things go great it's because you're a great CEO and if things go bad they'd be even worse off without you. That's why a lot of CEOs that suffer huge losses are rehired, it's the "they've been in a storm before, hence they're more experienced and better able to ride off the next one" logic.
An expert in tanking companies at the helm of Microsoft? I can't wait.
This is different from, say, Europe, where mobile phones are assigned numbers in special mobile-only prefixes. The person calling a mobile phone pays a slight premium, while the person receiving a call on their mobile pays nothing.
Yes, but at least here in Norway it's only cheaper to call a landline from another landline as the cell phone operators only offer you one price per minute for both. This means there's no incentive to have a landline, you can't control how others can be reached (so people prefer the cell phone for convenience) and you pay nothing to recieve either way. Result: 5.7 million cell phones (113% coverage), a total of 1.5 million fixed lines of which 0.5 are broadband phones and 1.0 genuine landlines (PSTN/ISDN). And the fixed lines have been dropping with >100k/year for the last 5 years, even if you have a landline the chances of you calling another landline is dropping year for year. Personally I have fiber + cell phone and that's redundancy enough for me. If I can't reach anyone on fiber (where I don't have a broadband phone but email and skype) or on my cell phone then the world must be truly fucked as those are two very separate sets of infrastructure.
Now, some (even many) members of/contributors to SETI may be 100% convinced that there is intelligent alien life out there right now that wants to communicate with us, despite zero evidence so far. They're the nut jobs. But someone who contributes isn't necessarily a nutjob.
Current estimates is that the universe has 10^22-10^24 stars and that on average they have >1 planet/star so 10^22-10^24 planets as well. So it takes 1/1000000000000000000000000 planets with alien life that wants to communicate with us (note: that doesn't mean the same as able to) for that statement to be true. Or we can believe that we're alone in the universe. My impression is that there's a lot more people who firmly believe that, despite no evidence to support that the rest of the universe is uninhabited or uninhabitable. Particularly those who think the world started with God creating Adam and Eve in God's own image, which covers Christians, Muslims and Jews. Outside of the divine, I find it extremely unlikely that whatever conditions existed here on Earth to create life doesn't exist anywhere else in the universe. I wonder who's really the nutjob...
In the real world, developers must have access to the RTM bits before [general availability].
I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but is this really true?
Well I guess in the "real world" there's no open source software, since developers and users get access to the same code at the same time. Honestly, is there really going to be a day one rush to upgrade your OS? Maybe in the slashdot crowd but the "market" will take their sweet time.
Now, you could've gone to one of your favorite open source projects and said: I want feature x - here is $5k for whatever freelance developer wants to take it on, that would've worked. I am always available to work on certain projects...
Well yes but it'd be silly to make it just random windfall for one developer (unless there is only one main developer, but I'm assuming it's a bit bigger than that), but if they have some sort of organization set up and it can't be a donation (corporate policy, whatever) then I'd suggest that with a twist, basically pick a small feature or one that was going to be in the next release anyway, work is "donated" to the organization and the organization bills them $5000 for custom development. As long as it is declared somewhere and the IRS gets their cut, it's probably fine.
Missing option: The general public, because one thing is if the government can chip away my privacy through defective democracy but what would be even worse is a government with the people at its back saying "if you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear". I'm really starting to think privacy peaked 1991-2001 as the Cold War has ended and nobody saw terrorists around every corner and in every bush, since then it's been going downhill at an alarming pace.
The idea that men are "naturally" more interested in programming is something that's possible but should be treated with appropriate skepticism. It's not like there were programming contests a million years ago that were evolved into us, and it's not like obvious different circumstances like pregnancy go particularly well with a lot of other currently-female-dominated jobs (e.g. nursing). So either there's some very indirect inherent cause, or there's some cultural motivation.
For at least a few million years up until about 12000 years ago, all humans and proto-humans lived as hunter-gatherers and men did most the hunting which is pretty much all about results, if you fail you go hungry and it's all about means to a goal. Gathering on the other hand is more tedious hard labor with fruits, nuts, berries and so on that is relatively stationary with little need to be quiet, much better suited for caring for the young and socializing. For a hunter who killed the deer is huge, while two gathers probably both picked a decent basket. I think that still lives on, making a computer do what you want is more like planning the steps to chase a deer into the trap while trying to play the social game with a computer just doesn't work. You just can't wipe out a million years of evolutionary pressure with a pen.
A similar debate recently showed up in the local media over the n'th article showing that apart from the pregnancy leave which is rather biologically determined women work less overtime, take more part-time work, leave early to pick up more often from daycare, stay more at home with sick children, pick lesser challenging jobs that are more easily combined with family life and so lag behind in career and wage development. And then some cry for lack of equality, well my opinion is simple: Equal work for equal pay, if you want equal career and wage development then chase dad home to take care of the kid 50% of the time. You be the one working late, he the one picking up at daycare and so on, I'm not going to blame you if you choose family first but then accept that you put career and wages second.
As a practical matter, we cannot allow spying to be considered a reason to go to war, because by it's nature it is hard to prove and easy to fake; it would basically be giving states the right to start a war whenever they want. At times in history we've tried that, such when most of the states of Europe were basically the persons of kings, and it didn't work out so we came up with rules.
Who are "we" and what are they going to do about it? Terrorists blow up a couple of buildings and the US declares war on Afghanistan for harboring them, that's not according to the rules. The US just declared the attacks an act of war and said if the Taliban are harboring them they're a valid target too and the rest of the world is either with us or against us. Who was really going to argue, much less intervene? An "act of war" is anything that pisses off a nation state bad enough it wants to go to war, whether it falls in the "permitted" categories or not and spying is generally not serious enough, but say Israel finds out Iran has stolen their nuke blueprints then I'm sure that's casus belli enough. Or rather, excuse enough to invade before they get to build any of them.
Things die for business reasons, not technological reasons. And I'd say rovers that explore Mars on their own is far more advanced than having humans do everything like on Apollo. The Concord died yes, but there are supersonic jets in private ownership (ex-military), it's all a matter of cost. Some things haven't changed much but smart phones, medicine, lots of things have become very much more technologically advanced. It just depends on where you're looking, I'd much rather be in a hospital in 2013 than 1963, thank you very much.
I bet Microsoft is tired of supporting XP, it's been 12 years since the initial release - same year as Linux 2.4.0, which was EOL'd in 2011. Honestly, Windows 7 is the new XP - doesn't matter what crap comes before or after, it's the slam dunk obvious upgrade path with hardly any user pain. If your "enterprise" software still can't cope 4 years after release then replace that crappy vendor. Or if it's really that bad, then use a VM.
The whole issue didn't exist when I was 12, the way to turn off location tracking was "hey mom, we're going out to play", no cell phone, no beacon. Sometimes we did have a specific place in mind, sometimes we didn't, sometimes it changed on the way so really the only reliable information was that if we said we'd be back at seven we made sure to be back at seven. And nobody had phone cameras, okay we had a family camera that took film that needed developing but it wasn't going to be around. If you did stupid shit, nobody had anything to record it with. I'd say privacy was largely something you didn't have to defend back then, it just came naturally. If I was growing up today, I'd be way more concerned about my privacy than I was then. I'd go as far as to say we were mostly oblivious to it. Fuck I'm in my 30s and this thread makes me feel oooold.
Its 2013. Tagging is where its at. Obscure Structured directories are so 1999.
Different needs, different uses. Directories are great for namespacing, foo/README.TXT is different from bar/README.txt. When the entire "work" is contained in a single file with an unique title (artist/title/album/series/season/episode) then I agree, tagging works better. Still, for anything that takes huge amounts of space (anything >10GB at least) I want to know where I keep it, in case I need to clear up my SSD, move HDDs or whatever. But for eBooks.... well the whole collection will fit in a tiny little corner anyway.
No intelligent lawyer would dare claim that a 31 second clip where that extra second actually conveys some important information (thus why it still needs to be included) is in violation of copyright just because it is 31 seconds long and not 30.
But if 31 seconds is fair use, surely a 32 second clip is too as one second can hardly make a difference. Then someone makes a 33 second clip because hey, when all these 32 second clips are fair use... and so it goes. It's hard to say which little step crosses the invisible boundary from fair to non-fair use, but if "the amount and substantiality of the portion taken" is the deciding factor in the four factor test then one of those steps will be one step too far. And you won't actually know until you've gone too far, been taken to court and lost. Any reasonable lawyer must then say "I can't with certainty say whether this is legal or not" and then as an administrator I wouldn't want to take responsibility for a policy of questionable legality nor let my employees carry them out. The institution will be at trial here, not the employee.
What possible reason does such a company have for an Ethernet MAC that receives only?
Anything from a higher classified system that is to deliver data to a lower classified system, for example you need to get data from extremely sensitive military satellites to battle commanders in the field and it needs to happen in real time, you can't have total network separation. Then you generate a one-way feed where there is physically no possible way for anyone to connect to the feed and hack themselves backwards through routers into the satellites. And of course you put a ton of code review, surveillance and logging on the sending system to make sure it doesn't send more than it should, but that's not relevant to this discussion. So there's a lot of valid reasons for the military to buy this besides the NSA.
Ah, using the evil bit I see... don't move, unmarked black choppers will be with you shortly.
The old fans would be far too busy hating on the new captain not being a Kirk or Picard or Sisko (or even Janeway or Archer) to ever be trusted to support something new. Even "Lord of the Rings" got lots of nerd rage for cutting out Tom Bombadil, replacing about a million elfs with Galadriel and Elrond, adding humor to Gimli's character not to mention the whole Aragon/Galadriel love story which was too much of a chic flick taking away from the Frodo/Sam story and the list goes on and on. And really, what people want to see has gotten darker. Even a child/teen movie series like Harry Potter is way darker than what you'd show in the past, compare old Batman movies to new Batman movies, really the fairy tale Star Trek wouldn't please anyone anymore. You think you do out of nostalgia but really you'd quickly be bored out of your wits.
Bullshit. Incitement to violence is illegal in the US. Hate speech is not that, or rather it's vastly broader: it's politically unacceptable speech. Yeah, the government protects my rights to politically acceptable speech - that's some freedom there.
Direct, imminent and specific incitement to violence yes, speech to condition a population into going along with genocide or other violations of fundamental civil rights no. Hitler (yeah, pretty hard not to Godwin this thread) didn't go out and say "kill all the jews", but he likened them to rats and other pests. He left people to work out on their own - with fairly obvious clues - that what Nazi Germany needed was pest control. He didn't need to it directly, it didn't need to be imminent and he didn't have to point out any specific targets or methods but the overall meaning was very clear. It's like claiming the Mafia isn't making a threat when they're saying "Pretty shop you got there, it would be a shame if anything were to happen to it". Hate speech has the same goal, it's just wrapped in a nicer package.
Yeah and if anything I suspect the passengers have the least to worry about. If traffic only consisted of other cars it should be easy, there's not many huge metal boxes on the road except cars, they are easy to detect and they move fairly predictable within fixed lanes. Now pedestrians, bicycles, pets, wild animals and so on are another matter. Just to take one lesson that I still remember from my driving instructor some 15 years ago, if you see a ball bouncing across the road what should you do? Hit the brakes, not because of the ball but because of the kid who might be running after it. It's going to be hard to catch all those kinds of situations, then again who knows who many people react well.
Nope, since a VM can't talk to the TPM there's no way they'd require it at the OS level, way too many enterprise customers do VDI today.
It'll be just another layer in the signature chain, your TPM-signed OS will only run under a TPM-signed virtualization tool that runs on a TPM-enabled machine and so it'll be digitally signed all the way down, just like an application running on a TPM-enabled OS.
Normal means, "according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle". Think normal distribution.
Funny, since the "normal" in normal distribution has nothing to do with the definition you quoted. That would be definition 5c:
(of an orthogonal system of real functions) defined so that the integral of the square of the absolute value of any function is 1.
Many of the antonyms to normal are insults, like for example normal vs sick people, normal vs insane people, normal vs handicapped people, normal vs disturbing behavior, normal vs perverted desires and so on. There are some inoffensive meanings that deal with common vs obscure and average vs extreme, but generally not being counted to one of the "normals" can be rather grossly insulting. Like "there's no elevator so you have to take the stairs but that shouldn't be a problem for normal people".
My personal experience is that even the largest and most sensitive AO system in the world (NIRC II on Keck II with laser guide star) still really struggles make an observation in 20 minutes that Hubble can do in 5 minutes. If anyone were to launch a >3 m aperture visual-band space telescope (NOT JWST, that's IR), it would blow all these AO systems out of the water.
Yes, but "Hubble resolution, at a price" makes it sound like Hubble was the expensive one.
From its original total cost estimate of about US$400 million, the telescope had by now cost over $2.5 billion to construct. Hubble's cumulative costs up to this day are estimated to be several times higher still, roughly US$10 billion as of 2010.
Compared to that, the Magellan telescopes
Total annual costs $10,437,639
That figure is including amortization of the $73 million dollar ($3,665,250*20) investment so $200 million total over 20 years. This means you can get 50 AOs for the cost of one Hubble, now which one comes "at a price" again?