True, but some of the evolutionary steps have permitted an order of magnitude improvement. For example, the invention of excimer laser lithography has permitted chip density to increase by a factor of several hundred (i.e. by well over a factor of 10, but in 2 dimensions).
I know that in the UK, the drugs laws were basically created by some members of the rich educated elite in order to ensure that they remained that. In particular, the doctors. Given the pretty dumb state of real medicine back then (late victorian IIRC), as soon as they lose their grip on the control of narcotics and the like, they're out of a job, as everyone would self-medicate. You'll notice that everything that was made an illegal drug was actually a prescription drug, the ambiguity in that four-letter word is no coincidence.
I meant what I wrote, nothing more, nor less. That which is later cannot influence that which was earlier.
I presume the original image poster was implying that the image did not correspond to what the original scribes intended. Posting a definition created between 120 and 170 years later in no way changes either the image, or the intention of those scribes. And therefore doesn't change the image poster's point.
A posting containing the dozen revisions that were proposed and debated before it was finally codified into the amendments, however, would provide clear insights into their intentions - their word choice, definitions and use of language contructs. Some time in 2013 there was such a post, I wish I'd kept a copy of it, it was most enlightening.
organising - yes, I'll grant you that arming, yup disciplining, yup governing, yup training, yup
Not seeing "defining" in that list.
Were future (relative to 1791) congress to have define militia as "all the honey bees", do you think that fits in with what was intended? If not, then you agree that congress does not have the power to arbitrarily define what is meant by "militia".
OK, thanks for that. I do remember a story very much like this one coming up a few years ago, and that time it was framed as suckers liking adverts (and the misinterpretation of that as endorsing the product).
From my position of almost total ignorance and not giving flying monkey bollock, I'd say that once a sucker's asked facebook to associate himself with a business or celebrity, then he's given permission for facebook to associate that business or celebrity with you. And the fact that association is called "like" (localised too, so no excuses for foreigners), should be a clue that that association will be presented in a positive light.
Maybe there should be a "stalk" option which lets you follow updates on a page without being associated with it. (As some have said that they like to keep tabs on enemies, which seems to be rather a waste of energy, and almost certainly gives the enemy too many "strokes" in TA terms, which will only encourage them.)
A few local pubs and live music venues offer discounts, for many of their events to those who have "like"d that venue/event. For them, it's hard for it to have anything apart from negative value. Unless those "like"ing them are so fickle that they wouldn't turn up if it were a euro more. But is that really the kind of market you want to rely on and cater to?
Never having used facebook (or even successfully viewed a page on it, when I've ended up following fb links, I've been served nothing but a login screen, which is quite useless), I might not have this right, but as far as I've read when you "like", you're only liking a single message - such as a funny advertising image/video. And whilst you may like that single image/vid, that should not be taken as endorsing the product being advertised. So you didn't actually ``"Like" the product''/per se/.
You're indeed right and make some very good points. I had presumed that Steamboat Willy (nearly) expiring was the trigger for the US racing ahead, but instead it was just barely catching up. Thanks for the correction. Of course, things have spiralled quite insanely since then in the field of IP law.
However, everything that has been relevant to the above paragraph - 1886, 1909, 1976, etc. are all irrelevant to my initial idealistic (perhaps naive) point - as all of those codify terms which are way longer than the kinds of terms that were originally discussed as being reasonable. In the absense of any actual numbers in the US constitution's Enumeration of Powers clause, the US's 1790 Law is a good thing to fall back on as "original" - there they decided upon 14 years (+14 if still alive, notice that offspring weren't considered relevant - quite the opposite). That matches the UK's 1710 law. That number worked fine for 119 years (in the UK it lasted for 132), and I see no reason why it wouldn't also have worked as is for the 105 years since that - as long as every other country had done the same.
And yes, it is indeed an international collusion, as it's an international market.
Whilst I mostly agree, a newspaper could contain an editorial opinion piece about, for example, the outgoing two-time president's legacy that is as pithy a work as any textbook, perhaps more so. That work is hot for a lot longer than two months (imagine text-book authors wanting to get their mitts on it to reduce the workload for their next book). Why should a cartoon in a newspaper have a shorter copyright than the same cartoon in an anthology of an author's work? Alas the more complex a rule is, the less workable it probably is, as people will just dick around with loopholes.
All the pirate DVDs I've seen in street markets have boldly had things like the name "Rihanna" on Rihanna's work, and "Peter Jackson" on Peter Jackson's work. I don't think trying to re-sell things as if you yourself created them is the problem the content creators are trying to protect themselves against.
Well, it probably was capable of working. The only problem was they kept making it more and more invasive and pervasive. If it had stayed at what was originally agreed was sensible, none of the current major issues that people have with it would even exist (there would be no DMCA, no region-coding of DVDs, etc.). We've not had a long-enough running experiment to test whether the original concept is viable, due to corporate greed.
Just look at the geke.us venn diagrams showing the overlap between content creators/distributors and the US government for some insights into why these changes may have occured there. Alas the EU's rather weak (some states less so than others), and tends to follow the US's lead, no matter how dumb it is. (I had to pay piracy tax on the blank DVDs I use to back up my own work, for example, when I was in Finland.)
Imagine different levels of grip (e.g. gritting, or surface melt) on ice - a car attempting to go in a straight line will go marginally faster on the grippier side, and thus turn even though the drive is the same on both sides, and to the driver's perspective he's just going "forward" all the time.
(You may recognise this from one of the less-popular-amongst-physicists analogies for the Higgs boson.)
View the experiment from right above the central mass, looking directly down. With one eye. Pay no attention to that 3rd dimension - from the point of view of the surface and the things that lie on it, that 3rd dimension doesn't exist (technically it's a 2-dimensional "manifold" embedded in 3D). All you then see is the ball that was travelling in a straight line getting pulled off its previous path as it nears the central mass.
Perform the experiment in outer-space, and use electo-magnetism in order to distort the surface if you will, the fact that the typical experiment uses gravity to do so is a red herring.
The third dimension and newtonian gravity is simply the tool with which we attempt to demonstrate an effect on a 2-dimensional thing, because it's easy to do so. One could probably create a similar experiment with some varying refractive index glass, for example, but that would be hard to make (not impossible, multi-mode fibre-optics are the similar), and would show far less of an effect, and would probably be a flop that nobody paid attention to or remembered. At least you remember the ball on a sheet experiment.
How would you demonstrate how simple newtonian gravity causes elliptical satelite orbits to people living in a microgravity environment in a space craft in deep space? If you say you'd use some other force to provide the necessary attration, then, using your complaint above, I could respond "but that just demonstrates a different force, not gravity".
Have you ever performed the two-slit experiment with water? That's an analogy for the wave behavior of light that shows the same interference effects, no? Well, no, as the water has a mass, and the medium in which light travels (space-time) has no intrinsic mass. And the water has surface tension. And the water's being pulled at by gravity. And...
Analogues are always different somehow, otherwise they wouldn't be analogues, they'd be the actual effect.
> > What you are proposing would be like demanding mandatory labels on WiFi routers saying 'emits radiation.
> Well, every material above 0 kelvin temperature emits radiation.
Yeah, but not everything above 0 kelvin requires an FCC approval. And a label indicating that it's got said approval. Oh, maybe we do demand such mandatory labels for routers after all.
"it is a mind-blowing example of a natural transgenic process in the so-called higher life forms."
But we've known about such things in what might be called lower life forms for a long time. Isn't large chunks of our own DNA supposed to be inactive bits of stuff that viruses spliced into us? I notice that some have made reference to there possibly being the involvement of a virus in the mechanics this seaslug splicing.
Don't get me wrong, it's fascinating stuff, but deep down the Burj Khalifa is just another building.
I'm not so sure. However, right now I'm imagining the GMO method being performed by drunk blind dyslexic microbiologists.
I wonder if the mutation-breeding researchers nuke their bollocks every night, just on the offchance it gives them healthier offspring? If they were real scientists, they would volunteer in an instant!
They are not giving us a free and open universal video codec.
They are letting us currently have free use of a proprietory video codec.
https://chromium.googlesource.com/webm/libvpx/+/2344e3a2e1600a2a31e63d2a82a9bbd0b91912b0/LICENSE """ Copyright (c) 2010, The WebM Project authors. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
distribution.
* Neither the name of Google, nor the WebM Project, nor the names
of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
derived from this software without specific prior written
permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. """
This is not a "Free" licence (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html), nor is it an "Open" license (http://opensource.org/osd).
> If you're a professional the licensing of the codec is completely irrelevant, it's a poor economy if the quality is even remotely compromised.
This!!!
I have worked with both stills, and with audio, and the shortest version of our mantra was "the signal is god", and your statement fits in with that mantra very well. However as you hint, the people who work in that realm are effectively a minority, alas a minority almost hidden in an almost invisible black box. The consumers are fed by the distribution network, and that's pretty much the only interface that's relevant when it comes to how money gets in to lubricate the cogs of the business. The bulk of consumers pretty much don't care what you're doing. I have noticed that the distributors are now actually distributing shit quality a lot of the time (visible blocking artefacts on TV, even to me who's got pretty poor eyesight), which an insult to the content creators' work. The view from the ivory tower may alas be irrelevant in the long run.
Help out someone whose only native language is English:
buffalo (v.)
"alarm, overawe," 1900, from buffalo (n.). Probably from the animals' tendency to mass panic. Related: Buffaloed; buffaloing. -- http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=buffalo
2 buffalo transitive verb buffaloed buffalo·ing Definition of BUFFALO : bewilder, baffle; also : bamboozle First Known Use of BUFFALO 1891 -- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/buffalo
Those two are quite different methods of persuasion. Which did you mean?
Frauhoffer say that VP9 has 8.4% worse bitrate (at same PSNR) than H.264/MPEG-AVC, and has encoding rates that are 100x slower. See page 3 here: http://iphome.hhi.de/marpe/download/Performance_HEVC_VP9_X264_PCS_2013_preprint.pdf
I see no incentive to move in the direction of VP9. It's google very persuasively shoving their proprietory format on everyone, that's all. We criticised MicroSoft for doing that in the past, we shouldn't pretend that google is anything apart from an enormous multinational that wants to control a monoculture.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but some of the evolutionary steps have permitted an order of magnitude improvement. For example, the invention of excimer laser lithography has permitted chip density to increase by a factor of several hundred (i.e. by well over a factor of 10, but in 2 dimensions).
to the tune of a couple of hundred million per year:
http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=tobacco
I know that in the UK, the drugs laws were basically created by some members of the rich educated elite in order to ensure that they remained that. In particular, the doctors. Given the pretty dumb state of real medicine back then (late victorian IIRC), as soon as they lose their grip on the control of narcotics and the like, they're out of a job, as everyone would self-medicate. You'll notice that everything that was made an illegal drug was actually a prescription drug, the ambiguity in that four-letter word is no coincidence.
> To bring this back to Moore's Law, let's work on better explaining the value of tech to non-techies.
We can now do stupid things more quickly and in vaster quantity?
I meant what I wrote, nothing more, nor less. That which is later cannot influence that which was earlier.
I presume the original image poster was implying that the image did not correspond to what the original scribes intended. Posting a definition created between 120 and 170 years later in no way changes either the image, or the intention of those scribes. And therefore doesn't change the image poster's point.
A posting containing the dozen revisions that were proposed and debated before it was finally codified into the amendments, however, would provide clear insights into their intentions - their word choice, definitions and use of language contructs. Some time in 2013 there was such a post, I wish I'd kept a copy of it, it was most enlightening.
organising - yes, I'll grant you that
arming, yup
disciplining, yup
governing, yup
training, yup
Not seeing "defining" in that list.
Were future (relative to 1791) congress to have define militia as "all the honey bees", do you think that fits in with what was intended? If not, then you agree that congress does not have the power to arbitrarily define what is meant by "militia".
OK, thanks for that. I do remember a story very much like this one coming up a few years ago, and that time it was framed as suckers liking adverts (and the misinterpretation of that as endorsing the product).
From my position of almost total ignorance and not giving flying monkey bollock, I'd say that once a sucker's asked facebook to associate himself with a business or celebrity, then he's given permission for facebook to associate that business or celebrity with you. And the fact that association is called "like" (localised too, so no excuses for foreigners), should be a clue that that association will be presented in a positive light.
Maybe there should be a "stalk" option which lets you follow updates on a page without being associated with it. (As some have said that they like to keep tabs on enemies, which seems to be rather a waste of energy, and almost certainly gives the enemy too many "strokes" in TA terms, which will only encourage them.)
A few local pubs and live music venues offer discounts, for many of their events to those who have "like"d that venue/event. For them, it's hard for it to have anything apart from negative value. Unless those "like"ing them are so fickle that they wouldn't turn up if it were a euro more. But is that really the kind of market you want to rely on and cater to?
Never having used facebook (or even successfully viewed a page on it, when I've ended up following fb links, I've been served nothing but a login screen, which is quite useless), I might not have this right, but as far as I've read when you "like", you're only liking a single message - such as a funny advertising image/video. And whilst you may like that single image/vid, that should not be taken as endorsing the product being advertised. So you didn't actually ``"Like" the product'' /per se/.
Isn't that definition from 1958?
The authors of a document from the 1790s were not using a definition codified in 1958 when they were writing.
You're indeed right and make some very good points. I had presumed that Steamboat Willy (nearly) expiring was the trigger for the US racing ahead, but instead it was just barely catching up. Thanks for the correction. Of course, things have spiralled quite insanely since then in the field of IP law.
However, everything that has been relevant to the above paragraph - 1886, 1909, 1976, etc. are all irrelevant to my initial idealistic (perhaps naive) point - as all of those codify terms which are way longer than the kinds of terms that were originally discussed as being reasonable. In the absense of any actual numbers in the US constitution's Enumeration of Powers clause, the US's 1790 Law is a good thing to fall back on as "original" - there they decided upon 14 years (+14 if still alive, notice that offspring weren't considered relevant - quite the opposite). That matches the UK's 1710 law. That number worked fine for 119 years (in the UK it lasted for 132), and I see no reason why it wouldn't also have worked as is for the 105 years since that - as long as every other country had done the same.
And yes, it is indeed an international collusion, as it's an international market.
Whilst I mostly agree, a newspaper could contain an editorial opinion piece about, for example, the outgoing two-time president's legacy that is as pithy a work as any textbook, perhaps more so. That work is hot for a lot longer than two months (imagine text-book authors wanting to get their mitts on it to reduce the workload for their next book). Why should a cartoon in a newspaper have a shorter copyright than the same cartoon in an anthology of an author's work? Alas the more complex a rule is, the less workable it probably is, as people will just dick around with loopholes.
All the pirate DVDs I've seen in street markets have boldly had things like the name "Rihanna" on Rihanna's work, and "Peter Jackson" on Peter Jackson's work. I don't think trying to re-sell things as if you yourself created them is the problem the content creators are trying to protect themselves against.
Well, it probably was capable of working. The only problem was they kept making it more and more invasive and pervasive. If it had stayed at what was originally agreed was sensible, none of the current major issues that people have with it would even exist (there would be no DMCA, no region-coding of DVDs, etc.). We've not had a long-enough running experiment to test whether the original concept is viable, due to corporate greed.
Just look at the geke.us venn diagrams showing the overlap between content creators/distributors and the US government for some insights into why these changes may have occured there. Alas the EU's rather weak (some states less so than others), and tends to follow the US's lead, no matter how dumb it is. (I had to pay piracy tax on the blank DVDs I use to back up my own work, for example, when I was in Finland.)
Imagine different levels of grip (e.g. gritting, or surface melt) on ice - a car attempting to go in a straight line will go marginally faster on the grippier side, and thus turn even though the drive is the same on both sides, and to the driver's perspective he's just going "forward" all the time.
(You may recognise this from one of the less-popular-amongst-physicists analogies for the Higgs boson.)
I wonder if the scientists reject the pendulum as demonstrating simple harmonic motion? After all, x + O(x^3) is not x.
View the experiment from right above the central mass, looking directly down. With one eye. Pay no attention to that 3rd dimension - from the point of view of the surface and the things that lie on it, that 3rd dimension doesn't exist (technically it's a 2-dimensional "manifold" embedded in 3D). All you then see is the ball that was travelling in a straight line getting pulled off its previous path as it nears the central mass.
...
Perform the experiment in outer-space, and use electo-magnetism in order to distort the surface if you will, the fact that the typical experiment uses gravity to do so is a red herring.
The third dimension and newtonian gravity is simply the tool with which we attempt to demonstrate an effect on a 2-dimensional thing, because it's easy to do so. One could probably create a similar experiment with some varying refractive index glass, for example, but that would be hard to make (not impossible, multi-mode fibre-optics are the similar), and would show far less of an effect, and would probably be a flop that nobody paid attention to or remembered. At least you remember the ball on a sheet experiment.
How would you demonstrate how simple newtonian gravity causes elliptical satelite orbits to people living in a microgravity environment in a space craft in deep space? If you say you'd use some other force to provide the necessary attration, then, using your complaint above, I could respond "but that just demonstrates a different force, not gravity".
Have you ever performed the two-slit experiment with water? That's an analogy for the wave behavior of light that shows the same interference effects, no? Well, no, as the water has a mass, and the medium in which light travels (space-time) has no intrinsic mass. And the water has surface tension. And the water's being pulled at by gravity. And
Analogues are always different somehow, otherwise they wouldn't be analogues, they'd be the actual effect.
> > What you are proposing would be like demanding mandatory labels on WiFi routers saying 'emits radiation.
> Well, every material above 0 kelvin temperature emits radiation.
Yeah, but not everything above 0 kelvin requires an FCC approval. And a label indicating that it's got said approval. Oh, maybe we do demand such mandatory labels for routers after all.
"it is a mind-blowing example of a natural transgenic process in the so-called higher life forms."
But we've known about such things in what might be called lower life forms for a long time. Isn't large chunks of our own DNA supposed to be inactive bits of stuff that viruses spliced into us? I notice that some have made reference to there possibly being the involvement of a virus in the mechanics this seaslug splicing.
Don't get me wrong, it's fascinating stuff, but deep down the Burj Khalifa is just another building.
I'm not so sure. However, right now I'm imagining the GMO method being performed by drunk blind dyslexic microbiologists.
I wonder if the mutation-breeding researchers nuke their bollocks every night, just on the offchance it gives them healthier offspring? If they were real scientists, they would volunteer in an instant!
They are not giving us a free and open universal video codec.
They are letting us currently have free use of a proprietory video codec.
https://chromium.googlesource.com/webm/libvpx/+/2344e3a2e1600a2a31e63d2a82a9bbd0b91912b0/LICENSE
"""
Copyright (c) 2010, The WebM Project authors. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
distribution.
* Neither the name of Google, nor the WebM Project, nor the names
of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
derived from this software without specific prior written
permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
"""
This is not a "Free" licence (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html), nor is it an "Open" license (http://opensource.org/osd).
Oh, I forgot to say:
> If you're a professional the licensing of the codec is completely irrelevant, it's a poor economy if the quality is even remotely compromised.
This!!!
I have worked with both stills, and with audio, and the shortest version of our mantra was "the signal is god", and your statement fits in with that mantra very well. However as you hint, the people who work in that realm are effectively a minority, alas a minority almost hidden in an almost invisible black box. The consumers are fed by the distribution network, and that's pretty much the only interface that's relevant when it comes to how money gets in to lubricate the cogs of the business. The bulk of consumers pretty much don't care what you're doing. I have noticed that the distributors are now actually distributing shit quality a lot of the time (visible blocking artefacts on TV, even to me who's got pretty poor eyesight), which an insult to the content creators' work. The view from the ivory tower may alas be irrelevant in the long run.
Help out someone whose only native language is English:
buffalo (v.)
"alarm, overawe," 1900, from buffalo (n.). Probably from the animals' tendency to mass panic. Related: Buffaloed; buffaloing.
-- http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=buffalo
2 buffalo
transitive verb
buffaloed buffalo·ing
Definition of BUFFALO
: bewilder, baffle; also : bamboozle
First Known Use of BUFFALO
1891
-- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/buffalo
Those two are quite different methods of persuasion. Which did you mean?
Frauhoffer say that VP9 has 8.4% worse bitrate (at same PSNR) than H.264/MPEG-AVC, and has encoding rates that are 100x slower. See page 3 here:
http://iphome.hhi.de/marpe/download/Performance_HEVC_VP9_X264_PCS_2013_preprint.pdf
I see no incentive to move in the direction of VP9. It's google very persuasively shoving their proprietory format on everyone, that's all. We criticised MicroSoft for doing that in the past, we shouldn't pretend that google is anything apart from an enormous multinational that wants to control a monoculture.
And the sound quality is awful - all you get is this constant "wooshing" noise.