Eh, BFD. They're designing launch vehicles. Hell, many aerospace companies in the US have been involved in designing launch vehicles (including the big boys, like Boeing), both in the past and today. This certainly doesn't amount to privatizing the space flight business, though. After all, who would be willing and able to buy and launch these vehicles? Why, governments, of course...
One should keep in mind, though, that you can't always import these things easily, as climate, etc, plays a HUGE role in forest fires. For example, it's my understanding that Thailand is very humid. By contrast, the areas in California being affected by fires are incredibly dry right now. Moreover, the types of vegetation in the area, amount of rainfall and subsurface water, etc, play very large roles in the behavior of fire and our ability to control it. So don't assume that the techniques these Thai farmers use would necessarily work in other places.
The problem with this pipe dream is that the cost of entering the space flight market is beyond enormous. It requires the kinds of R&D investment that's beyond the capabilities of many nations, let alone individual companies. Moreover, while there's profit to be had (launching satellites, subcontracting for the government, etc), it strikes me as doubtful that any company in this day and age would feel that future potential justifies the startup costs. After all, we live in a world of quarterly earnings reports and year-long planning horizons. How can you honestly expect a large corporation (or a small one, for that matter) to invest in something which won't turn a profit for 10 years?
Actually, I disagree. I've done both of these, and it's certainly possible. You just have to have the right gear, and be in proper shape (ie, don't *start* biking in the dead of winter or the middle summer). In fact, there's quite an online presence for winter cyclists... it's something that's enjoyable in a way that's hard to describe.
Incidentally, the coldest days I've cycled on, it was around -25C, or about -13F, and with the proper equipment, it's quite a comfortable ride (in fact, rather enjoyable... the quiet of a morning after a fresh dump of snow is sublime, IMHO). What one must realize is that the human body can produce a LOT of heat during cardiovascular exercise. So, properly insulated, temperature is not a problem. The only thing to worry about, then, is things like black ice, etc. But, with proper studded tires, even this is not really a problem. Although, keep in mind, if you live in an area which salts roads, it's necessary to keep a separate winter bike... you go through them quickly, what with all the rust.:)
During the summer, as long as you drink plenty of water, it's not really a big deal.
The fact is, if someone is really serious about cycle commuting, weather does not need to be a problem. The problem is, most people aren't serious about cycle commuting.:)
Regarding your.sig, I'm just curious, is that quote deliberately selected for it's irony, or am I the only one who finds it funny that Jefferson claimed to "[swear] on the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man"... something in which religion (and Christianity/Catholicism in particular) has played an integral role?
The problem is who gets to choose which machines are Audited?
Uhh... no one? Hence the term "random auditing". You have a pool of known voting machines, and you randomly select a sample of these and audit. This is a perfectly valid (and frequently used) technique for evaluation of a system.
Sure. They also point out (unlike the pro-life propaganda page) that this procedure is used in a tiny minority of cases (and if regulations are followed, ONLY when the woman's health is at risk, or if the fetus is not viable), and as such, is unfairly targetted by pro-life campaigners. In fact, they've campaigned so effectively that they've all but convinced people that this is a primary mode of abortion, which it's not. As such, a myriad of laws have been passed (and then shot down) in an attempt to outlaw the supposed scourge that is D-X abortions; laws which typically outlaw many other types of abortion while not providing any sort of escape clause in the case of health risk for the woman.
Moreover, the site I linked to provides information on the procedure, it's alternatives, and why D-X is favored in some circumstances. My point is, yes, the procedure occurs, but one should understand when, why, etc, before passing immediate judgement (something which the pro-life propaganda site does not allow).
I believe that the personhood of corporations has more to do with liability than with rights.
Sorry, but that's totally incorrect. Corporate personhood gives all the same rights to the corp as it would to a regular person, which was the whole point in the first place. This includes various rights (including the right to free speech), the ability to own copyrights, patents, and trademarks, and MANY other things. I would seriously consider reading up on the history of corporate personhood to really understand what it is, what it means, and how it came about. It's quite an interesting topic...
"we are making a law respecting the establishment of the religion of athiesm."
No, it could not be made. If you changed the text to say "no god" instead of "under god", you would be correct. But removal of the phrase "under god" explicitely leaves the question unanswered, as it should be (by the government). The government, if you truly believe in separation of church and state, should make absolutely no mention, none, nadda, zero, of God, period.
Hence the comment about native popup blocking. After all, if you're using someone else's computer, or a commonly shared computer, you may not want to, or even be allowed to, install additional software. So, yeah, the googlebar is great on your particular machine. But the minute you have to use someone else's, you're screwed.
Without reading the patent (of course), my guess is that it probably contains text which says the document must contain a reference to an external object which is then loaded automatically. With the DHTML solution, this isn't quite the case... the document executes code contained in another file which generates the reference. This is subtly, but sufficiently, different from what was patented.
You see, the key to patents is that they must be both broad and narrow... as such, it can (sometimes) be very easy (if awkward) to get around a patent, as long as you deviate sufficiently from it in key ways.
The movie was slower paced than most Americans like...
Wow, an anti-American troll... and I'm not even an American. Idiot.
Nonetheless, you evidentally spent too much time drooling over the PVC-clad Kate Beckinsale to notice that Underworld was no slower or more complex than other, superior movies, like The Matrix, X-Men, LOTR, etc.
I took it as a silly "trick" to try to build suspense.
Aha, I see... yes, in retrospect, you are, in all probability, right. Then again, Hollywood isn't exactly shy about assuming the audience is morbidly stupid. Example:
Morpheus: We marvelled at our own magnificence as we gave birth to AI.
Neo: AI? You mean artificial intelligence?
Now, don't me wrong, I love The Matrix, but... what the hell?!
calling the werewolves "Lycans" -- as if I'm too stupid to know what a Lycanthrope is
Funny, I had a different take on this. While it was a rather lame, I found it surprising that they would use the term "Lycan" without explaining it. IMHO, this means they were assuming the audience new what a Lycanthrope was... which, of course, is the exact opposite conclusion that you came to.:)
Bah, that happens all the time with teenaged girls as well. It's equally creepy, IMHO, but don't go thinking it's somehow unique to the gay community.
Re:Were the copyright violations fixed? (yet?)
on
Mplayer Revisited
·
· Score: 1
Woudn't mplayer have to dump dvd support to come completely clean?
Err... why? Mplayer doesn't contain any proprietary code for decoding DVDs. It relies on an external library (libcss) to provide this functionality. So, no DVD support is not a problem.
Actually, comparing an EULA to the GPL is like comparing apples to elephants. An EULA is a usage license, which says that, if you use this software, which you already purchased, you must agree to these additional terms. The GPL is a distribution license. It says if you want to distribute this copyrighted work (or derivatives of it), you must abide by these terms and conditions. The former has never been tested in court. The latter is standard operating procedure for anyone who owns a copyright on something.
A few hundred bucks could be worth thousands if the GPL, which has no real legal ground yet, fails to impress the courts.
SCO succeeding or failing has absolute nothing, zero, nada to do with the legal validity of the GPL. That's really just a red herring. In fact, an invalid GPL would make SCOs distribution of the Linux kernel illegal (as it would fall back to regular Berne convention rules) and open them up to a class-action copyright infringement suit by the various kernel developers.
No, real the first question is, was SCOs copyrighted material placed in the kernel illegally? By all indications, probably not (since they've been hiding their evidence all along, which buys them nothing in the long run). The second question is, does SCOs Unix license also apply to IBMs work (JFS, various SMP-related technologies, etc). This is somewhat less cut-and-dried, although I'm leaning in IBMs favour for this one, simply because I can't imagine IBMs legal team signing a deal as onerous as that.
Now, me, I consider the chances of SCO actually succeeding in litigation to be slim at best. They're up against a goliath with claims which, IMHO, are pretty weak. So shorting the stock could very well make sense... it really depends on what you consider SCOs chances of winning are.
Careful. By definition, a study like this can NOT show a causal relationship. This study shows a *correlation*, and that is all. The only way to prove causation is by determining *how* the emissions from a cell tower could affect the subjects, and then proving that that's what's happening.
Of course, that doesn't make this study any less useful or significant. Just be careful when you start talking about causation... otherwise you're no better than the average US news organization.:)
The problem is when the industry is corrupt and thus screws the customer. Take fuel prices in Canada, for instance. They aren't regulated (and I'd never claim that they should be), but the industry practices regular price gouging (for example, hiking gas prices by as much as 15% just before a long weekend). Similarly, the insurance industry has been regularly increasing rates, as well as practicing price discrimination based on age and gender, thus screwing a rather lucratice customer sector.
My point is that in a tight, relatively closed market (like, say, power generation... after all, it takes a LOT of capital to get into that business) it's possible for the players in the market to collude and fix prices with the intent to gouge customers. 'course, as you say, *unreasonable* pricing regulation, where businesses are *forced* to sell at a loss is obviously bad policy. But I'm not entirely convinced that flexible price control by the government is necessarily a bad thing.
Lossless recordings for live shows has nothing to do with quality. If you'd read any of the FAQs available online (for example, here), you'd discover that the reason to use lossless codecs is because, in the trading process, an audio file may go through multiple generations before reaching a given individual. For example, a concert may be recorded, compressed, then burned to a CD which is mailed to someone, which is then ripped, re-compressed, etc, etc. Yes, this is a somewhat contrived example, I know, but it DOES HAPPEN. Now, if you used a lossy codec, every time a re-encode occured, data would be lost, resulting in degradation at each generation. This does not happen when lossless codecs (such as FLAC or SHN) are used.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh, BFD. They're designing launch vehicles. Hell, many aerospace companies in the US have been involved in designing launch vehicles (including the big boys, like Boeing), both in the past and today. This certainly doesn't amount to privatizing the space flight business, though. After all, who would be willing and able to buy and launch these vehicles? Why, governments, of course...
One should keep in mind, though, that you can't always import these things easily, as climate, etc, plays a HUGE role in forest fires. For example, it's my understanding that Thailand is very humid. By contrast, the areas in California being affected by fires are incredibly dry right now. Moreover, the types of vegetation in the area, amount of rainfall and subsurface water, etc, play very large roles in the behavior of fire and our ability to control it. So don't assume that the techniques these Thai farmers use would necessarily work in other places.
They're also not building vehicles which go to orbit. Until they do that, I'll remain unconvinced.
The problem with this pipe dream is that the cost of entering the space flight market is beyond enormous. It requires the kinds of R&D investment that's beyond the capabilities of many nations, let alone individual companies. Moreover, while there's profit to be had (launching satellites, subcontracting for the government, etc), it strikes me as doubtful that any company in this day and age would feel that future potential justifies the startup costs. After all, we live in a world of quarterly earnings reports and year-long planning horizons. How can you honestly expect a large corporation (or a small one, for that matter) to invest in something which won't turn a profit for 10 years?
Actually, I disagree. I've done both of these, and it's certainly possible. You just have to have the right gear, and be in proper shape (ie, don't *start* biking in the dead of winter or the middle summer). In fact, there's quite an online presence for winter cyclists... it's something that's enjoyable in a way that's hard to describe.
:)
:)
Incidentally, the coldest days I've cycled on, it was around -25C, or about -13F, and with the proper equipment, it's quite a comfortable ride (in fact, rather enjoyable... the quiet of a morning after a fresh dump of snow is sublime, IMHO). What one must realize is that the human body can produce a LOT of heat during cardiovascular exercise. So, properly insulated, temperature is not a problem. The only thing to worry about, then, is things like black ice, etc. But, with proper studded tires, even this is not really a problem. Although, keep in mind, if you live in an area which salts roads, it's necessary to keep a separate winter bike... you go through them quickly, what with all the rust.
During the summer, as long as you drink plenty of water, it's not really a big deal.
The fact is, if someone is really serious about cycle commuting, weather does not need to be a problem. The problem is, most people aren't serious about cycle commuting.
Regarding your .sig, I'm just curious, is that quote deliberately selected for it's irony, or am I the only one who finds it funny that Jefferson claimed to "[swear] on the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man"... something in which religion (and Christianity/Catholicism in particular) has played an integral role?
:)
No, this isn't *supposed* to be flamebait...
The problem is who gets to choose which machines are Audited?
Uhh... no one? Hence the term "random auditing". You have a pool of known voting machines, and you randomly select a sample of these and audit. This is a perfectly valid (and frequently used) technique for evaluation of a system.
Sure. They also point out (unlike the pro-life propaganda page) that this procedure is used in a tiny minority of cases (and if regulations are followed, ONLY when the woman's health is at risk, or if the fetus is not viable), and as such, is unfairly targetted by pro-life campaigners. In fact, they've campaigned so effectively that they've all but convinced people that this is a primary mode of abortion, which it's not. As such, a myriad of laws have been passed (and then shot down) in an attempt to outlaw the supposed scourge that is D-X abortions; laws which typically outlaw many other types of abortion while not providing any sort of escape clause in the case of health risk for the woman.
Moreover, the site I linked to provides information on the procedure, it's alternatives, and why D-X is favored in some circumstances. My point is, yes, the procedure occurs, but one should understand when, why, etc, before passing immediate judgement (something which the pro-life propaganda site does not allow).
You seem to have a informed opinions on several issues ... how then would you reconcile your views with this [lifeissues.org]?
Simple. Disinformation.
I believe that the personhood of corporations has more to do with liability than with rights.
Sorry, but that's totally incorrect. Corporate personhood gives all the same rights to the corp as it would to a regular person, which was the whole point in the first place. This includes various rights (including the right to free speech), the ability to own copyrights, patents, and trademarks, and MANY other things. I would seriously consider reading up on the history of corporate personhood to really understand what it is, what it means, and how it came about. It's quite an interesting topic...
"Extending this analogy (and assuming physicalism even holds true), all matter in the universe is made up of millions of "simple processors"-- atoms."
Umm... no. Atoms are not inherently "processors" in any sense, unlike, say, neurons. Nice horribly flawed logic, though.
"we are making a law respecting the establishment of the religion of athiesm."
No, it could not be made. If you changed the text to say "no god" instead of "under god", you would be correct. But removal of the phrase "under god" explicitely leaves the question unanswered, as it should be (by the government). The government, if you truly believe in separation of church and state, should make absolutely no mention, none, nadda, zero, of God, period.
Hence the comment about native popup blocking. After all, if you're using someone else's computer, or a commonly shared computer, you may not want to, or even be allowed to, install additional software. So, yeah, the googlebar is great on your particular machine. But the minute you have to use someone else's, you're screwed.
Without reading the patent (of course), my guess is that it probably contains text which says the document must contain a reference to an external object which is then loaded automatically. With the DHTML solution, this isn't quite the case... the document executes code contained in another file which generates the reference. This is subtly, but sufficiently, different from what was patented.
You see, the key to patents is that they must be both broad and narrow... as such, it can (sometimes) be very easy (if awkward) to get around a patent, as long as you deviate sufficiently from it in key ways.
The movie was slower paced than most Americans like...
Wow, an anti-American troll... and I'm not even an American. Idiot.
Nonetheless, you evidentally spent too much time drooling over the PVC-clad Kate Beckinsale to notice that Underworld was no slower or more complex than other, superior movies, like The Matrix, X-Men, LOTR, etc.
I took it as a silly "trick" to try to build suspense.
Aha, I see... yes, in retrospect, you are, in all probability, right. Then again, Hollywood isn't exactly shy about assuming the audience is morbidly stupid. Example:
Morpheus: We marvelled at our own magnificence as we gave birth to AI.
Neo: AI? You mean artificial intelligence?
Now, don't me wrong, I love The Matrix, but... what the hell?!
calling the werewolves "Lycans" -- as if I'm too stupid to know what a Lycanthrope is
:)
Funny, I had a different take on this. While it was a rather lame, I found it surprising that they would use the term "Lycan" without explaining it. IMHO, this means they were assuming the audience new what a Lycanthrope was... which, of course, is the exact opposite conclusion that you came to.
Bah, that happens all the time with teenaged girls as well. It's equally creepy, IMHO, but don't go thinking it's somehow unique to the gay community.
Woudn't mplayer have to dump dvd support to come completely clean?
Err... why? Mplayer doesn't contain any proprietary code for decoding DVDs. It relies on an external library (libcss) to provide this functionality. So, no DVD support is not a problem.
Actually, comparing an EULA to the GPL is like comparing apples to elephants. An EULA is a usage license, which says that, if you use this software, which you already purchased, you must agree to these additional terms. The GPL is a distribution license. It says if you want to distribute this copyrighted work (or derivatives of it), you must abide by these terms and conditions. The former has never been tested in court. The latter is standard operating procedure for anyone who owns a copyright on something.
A few hundred bucks could be worth thousands if the GPL, which has no real legal ground yet, fails to impress the courts.
SCO succeeding or failing has absolute nothing, zero, nada to do with the legal validity of the GPL. That's really just a red herring. In fact, an invalid GPL would make SCOs distribution of the Linux kernel illegal (as it would fall back to regular Berne convention rules) and open them up to a class-action copyright infringement suit by the various kernel developers.
No, real the first question is, was SCOs copyrighted material placed in the kernel illegally? By all indications, probably not (since they've been hiding their evidence all along, which buys them nothing in the long run). The second question is, does SCOs Unix license also apply to IBMs work (JFS, various SMP-related technologies, etc). This is somewhat less cut-and-dried, although I'm leaning in IBMs favour for this one, simply because I can't imagine IBMs legal team signing a deal as onerous as that.
Now, me, I consider the chances of SCO actually succeeding in litigation to be slim at best. They're up against a goliath with claims which, IMHO, are pretty weak. So shorting the stock could very well make sense... it really depends on what you consider SCOs chances of winning are.
to show that their is a causal relationship.
:)
Careful. By definition, a study like this can NOT show a causal relationship. This study shows a *correlation*, and that is all. The only way to prove causation is by determining *how* the emissions from a cell tower could affect the subjects, and then proving that that's what's happening.
Of course, that doesn't make this study any less useful or significant. Just be careful when you start talking about causation... otherwise you're no better than the average US news organization.
The problem is when the industry is corrupt and thus screws the customer. Take fuel prices in Canada, for instance. They aren't regulated (and I'd never claim that they should be), but the industry practices regular price gouging (for example, hiking gas prices by as much as 15% just before a long weekend). Similarly, the insurance industry has been regularly increasing rates, as well as practicing price discrimination based on age and gender, thus screwing a rather lucratice customer sector.
My point is that in a tight, relatively closed market (like, say, power generation... after all, it takes a LOT of capital to get into that business) it's possible for the players in the market to collude and fix prices with the intent to gouge customers. 'course, as you say, *unreasonable* pricing regulation, where businesses are *forced* to sell at a loss is obviously bad policy. But I'm not entirely convinced that flexible price control by the government is necessarily a bad thing.
Lossless recordings for live shows has nothing to do with quality. If you'd read any of the FAQs available online (for example, here), you'd discover that the reason to use lossless codecs is because, in the trading process, an audio file may go through multiple generations before reaching a given individual. For example, a concert may be recorded, compressed, then burned to a CD which is mailed to someone, which is then ripped, re-compressed, etc, etc. Yes, this is a somewhat contrived example, I know, but it DOES HAPPEN. Now, if you used a lossy codec, every time a re-encode occured, data would be lost, resulting in degradation at each generation. This does not happen when lossless codecs (such as FLAC or SHN) are used.
Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles! [unmasks them]
[audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[murmurs]
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away!
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
[Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat]