Patents USED to be used as a means of providing an inventor time to get an invention manufactured.
No. An inventor could do that simply by keeping everything wrapped tightly in secrecy. The purpose of patents was to provide a mechanism for information to be distributed, to promote progress. The mechanism in question is to provide inventors a way to be sure of profiting without having to maintain secrecy.
I think you don't understand what patents are for.
The idea is to allow people to more easily build on other work. In a world without patents, there's a motive to keep the details of your invention secret so you can prevent others from duplicating the results of your work without giving you any of the profits. Patents are intended to provide a method of protecting your investment without having to keep it secret, so that others can take your ideas and build on them.
If an engineer is using the patent database as a library of solutions, then there is nothing new being developed.
Sure there is -- whatever the engineer creates in the time he saved by not needlessly duplicating what's already been done.
If the engineer develops something on their own, then innovation has occurred.
Not if the invention has already been created. If it has, then it's no longer innovative, even if the guy doing it doesn't know that.
Without patents, it would be even easier for medium/large/mega cooperation to prey on small companies inventions, I write even because just having a patent today do not mean that your immune against this behavior.
That's the oft-quoted theory. In practice, little guys almost never win in patent disputes. Instead, they're bankrupted by legal bills and never see a dime of the royalties they should get. In theory, patents should help the little guy. In practice, they favor large corporations.
IMHO, the patent system is broken. Badly broken. We would be well advised to carefully -- very carefully -- scrap the thing. Software patents would be a terrific place to start.
I think there's a clear and simple test that allows us to evaluate the effectiveness of the patent system: Is it common for engineers to look for patents they can license rather than having to find solutions to their problems on their own?
If the answer is "yes", then the system is working as designed, increasing innovation rather than stifling it.
If the answer is "no", then the system is not encouraging progress.
In the case of software patents, I think it is very telling that most software development companies' legal counsel advises software developers to avoid doing patent searches.
To be clear, I'm not claiming that the risk is greater than the risk of having a police sketch artist do the same thing. It may be greater, less or the same. It may even depend on the witness.
The memory is not an immutable thing. It's quite possible that in the process of generating the sketch you are leading the witness on, even implanting memories. So what happens if you generate a sketch that doesn't look like the actual criminal, and present that to a jury and get a conviction. Is that going to be counted as a success?
They won't present the sketch as evidence to the jury. They will call the witness and ask him to identify the suspect.
... based on memories that have been partially implanted/modified by the sketching process.
There is some risk here.
They will be able to do other things like take fingerprints and DNA samples from the scene and match them to the suspect.
Assuming there is other evidence, great. If not... people do get convicted on the word of a single eyewitness.
Once they find that person they can interview him, get an ID from witnesses, obtain fingerprints, get a search warrant, and all the other stuff that goes along with a criminal investigation.
It's not that uncommon for someone to be convicted on nothing more than a witness identification, perhaps with a little weak circumstantial evidence along for the ride. The risk of something like this (and the risk also exists with police sketches) is that a vague memory will be "firmed up" by viewing the completed sketch. The police then find someone that looks like the sketch, but who maybe only looked vaguely like the actual criminal and put them in a lineup. Based on the original memory, perhaps the witness wouldn't be able to identify the suspect with much assurance, but having had their memory "strengthened" by looking at the sketch, however generated, they then become quite sure that the individual who looks like the sketch is the one they saw.
None of this is inherently bad, mind you. It often does find the right person, and even if it doesn't that's still more or less okay as long as the defense attorney does a good job of exploring this memory issue with the jury, to help them give the witness ID the weight it actually deserves. If the defense attorney sucks, though, this process can easily send the wrong man to prison. And even if the defender is good and the jury returns a not-guilty verdict it still sucks to have had to be tried for a crime you didn't commit, but what can we do?
Note that I'm not saying I think this technology changes the situation much. It's possible that the evolving sketch may allow the witness to settle on an image that is further from the criminal's real appearance than would be achieved with a police sketch artist. Or perhaps the evolution does a better job. Testing is needed to know for sure. My point is that the whole process, however done, tends to pollute the witness' already-fallible memory and is of less value than might be thought.
If you really think that's a good idea, how about this: Let's forcibly addict all teenagers to meth and crack.
I don't recall promoting the forced traumatizing of teenagers. Rather, I was stating that the "worst case scenario" of zero regulation on the content/interactions on social websites would/could actually have a net positive gain for society.
And my point was that there's no reason to believe that this would result in a net positive gain for society. I didn't mean to imply that you were arguing for forcible trauma, but you were arguing that trauma may be good, hence my response that if trauma is good, why not amp it up?
Clearly, because trauma is not good.
Note that I also don't advocate any kind of regulation. The only intervention I would support is by parents who choose not to allow their own kids to participate, especially kids who are more vulnerable.
Regulation isn't the answer. And not all parents will do the right thing. There *isn't* an answer. All we can really do is sit back and watch, to see what the outcome is. It may be good, and it undoubtedly will have good aspects, but I strongly suspect that on balance it will be bad. Eventually, we as a society will adapt to the changes. Perhaps for the better, perhaps for the worse, most likely it'll be a mixed bag like nearly everything.
The ultimate underlying premise/principle that I'm arguing for is the greatest amount of personal liberty for all individuals, and in this case I believe that the greatest liberty (and least government regulation) would also result in a stronger society, although that is not the ultimate end that I'm arguing for the sake of.
I'm devoted to the principles of personal liberty, but I think that if you expect the results of maximal liberty/minimal regulation to always be good, you're fooling yourself. Liberty is important not because it always leads to positive results (though it usually does), but because liberty is of sufficient value in and of itself to justify the pain and suffering that sometimes results.
I hear a lot of pigshit about how "emotionally traumatizing" online comments are. Well guess what, they aren't nearly as traumatizing as the ones said to your face, verbally, with a crowd of onlookers preventing you from leaving, demanding a response, and when you give one, you get to have your face literally smashed into the ground while the larger, stronger kid taunts you with even more verbal abuse.
True for boys, I think. Not for girls.
I was in your place when I was a kid. I see where my daughter is now.
The thing about insults thrown while kicking and scratching is that there's little thought behind them. And the pen and paper slander lacks the speed or smooth and instant feedback channels.
I've also seen both in action. And for all of the reasons I tediously explained already, plus more, the on-line, public, fights are far worse.
Another possibility is that the next generation is going to grow up almost universally traumatized and defensive.
I sure hope so! Then those with any degree of emotional fortitude will have all the greater advantage because of their willingness to take more social "risks". Success and greatness will come to those who risk, even more so than before because of all the opportunities not being taken advantage of by the cowards.
Social Darwinism is a somewhat debatable philosophy in general, but even if we grant that it's a good idea, you're ignoring the fact that many potentially valuable members of society may be significantly damaged, reducing their value.
If you really think that's a good idea, how about this: Let's forcibly addict all teenagers to meth and crack. The ones with real willpower and force of character will kick it, rise to the top, and have significantly improved opportunities of success because of the heavily winnowed competition.
The meth/crack plan probably really *would* be beneficial to those who manage to rise above it. They'd have learned a lot about themselves and would be better people for it. And there's no doubt that much of their potential competition would be removed. But I hardly think anyone would consider it a way to improve society as a whole (note: don't confuse this argument with the argument over decriminalization, which is a good idea).
If they're now insulting each other over the Internet, then it sounds quite tame by comparison
You've got that backwards, because you don't understand teenage girls. Pulled hair and a few scratches they can bounce back from. Words produce far more lasting damage, for multiple reasons.
One of the biggest is that on Facebook these fights happen in public. It's not just a handful of people nearby that hear the hurtful comments and maybe a little gossip that gets passed around fifth-hand. The entire school reads it, nearly in real-time. SMS fights aren't nearly as bad.
Relative anonymity also facilitates dirt-digging, and if you think face-to-face rumors spread fast, on-line they're lightning.
Another is, seriously, the LACK of the physical option. At the point in a fight where the nails would come out, online there's nothing to do but dig deeper, looking for the most vicious lie possible or -- even worse -- the most vicious truth possible. Whether lie or truth, the entire school will know it in minutes.
Another big problem is the "flash mob" effect. Flash mobs are usually planned, but among teenage girls on Facebook, they arise spontaneously. A personal fight (often triggered by something *completely* innocuous, because a comment unaccompanied by body language was taken wrong) quickly spirals out of control, bringing dozens of people piling on whoever appears to be losing.
And when it gets REALLY bad is when the boys join in, something that hardly ever happens in meatspace catfights. When an ex-boyfriend decided to toss his favorite anti-target anecdote into the mix, for all of the other girls to pounce on, all of the rivalry gets amped up by hormones and puppy love gone wrong. Kids get emotionally destroyed. Seriously.
Anecdotally, I see these on-line fights triggering many suicides. I expect in a few years we'll see studies showing that kids who make heavy use of Facebook, etc. kill themselves in significantly greater numbers, and suffer from more mental illness.
There's nothing to be done but to see what happens, to see how society will learn to deal with this new communication channel that seriously changes the dynamics of social interaction among young people who are only just learning how to interact. Hopefully, responsible parents will keep their more vulnerable children off of Facebook, etc.
Maybe instead stop being so bloody touchy about stupid things stupid people write? What is it we've told our children for ages - "stop caring, don't give it attention"?
That's a nice theory, but it's a really hard thing for people, especially immature people, to do.
Teenagers in particular are extremely sensitive to criticism, and often respond poorly. Spend some time watching the interactions of a group of, say, 14 year-old girls on Facebook. Vicious doesn't begin to describe it. People in general are willing to say things behind the shield of their computer that they would never say face to face. Add to that some low self-esteem and peer approval dependency and you have a recipe for a whole lot of heartache. Kids have always been mean to one another, and always will, but online interaction raises it to a new level.
Kids in college are a little more mature and self-confident, but only a little. And there's a lot of variability, so you can expect these online fora to be filled with the spew of the least mature, the least secure and the most vicious.
It will indeed be interesting to see how society evolves in response. Hopefully we'll all develop a thicker skin and learn to be more forgiving of all sorts of errors. That would be a good solution, and would actually make the world a better place than it used to be. Another possibility is that the next generation is going to grow up almost universally traumatized and defensive.
The only solution is to raise up a contervailing power. The way our nation was designed, the counterweight to federal authority was state authority, but we've gutted that.
The movement to repeal the 17th Amendment is gaining some steam. Though it's probably too late.
Probably. It would be good if we could do it. It would be REALLY good to repeal the 16th amendment, but that idea doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.
I'm curious about this point because under a previous LHC article, someone commented that "11 trillion electron volts sounds impressive, but when I flick something with my finger, far more energy is transferred." (paraphrase, obviously)
Could someone more versed in physics tell a layman how this scales up?
I'm not a physicist, but I typed "11 TeV in Joules" into Google and it says "1.76239411 × 10-6 joules". That's not very much energy. It's enough to accelerate 1.7 micrograms from rest to a velocity of one meter per second -- a gnat's whisker to a slow walk. Yeah, flicking a finger is far more energetic.
However, that's the energy in the most energetic particles in the particle stream. There are a lot of particles in the stream, so their total energy is much higher.
"It would be the equivalent of having 87kg of TNT dumped into your body." jamie wants big boom
LOL!
I clicked through here specifically to post that. Whether or not it's "myth", it would make for a pretty cool Mythbusters episode. They could travel to CERN and tour the LHC, interview some scientists about the cool stuff going on there and then blow up a pig or two!
It would be exceptionally cool if the guys at the LHC would let them blow up a pig by putting it into the particle stream, but I'm sure that would do too much damage to the LHC, which is having enough trouble as-is.
The title of the story is, "Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned" except that the story has nothing to do with Obama and calling this the 'Obama Administration' is a bit of a stretch as well.
The president always gets the blame/credit for anything done by the executive branch under his watch. Bush got blamed for a bunch of stuff he personally had nothing to do with (and for a bunch of stuff he did -- I'm no fan of Bush, just making a point), as has every other president.
It's just part of the job. Unfair? Sure. Or it would be if the president didn't also get credit for a bunch of stuff he has nothing to do with.
For me, voting for Obama was never about thinking he would fix things or be much different from any of today's politicians. Until we reform the way elections are held, financed and decided, the whole system will remain horribly corrupt.
Even that won't fix it. No matter what you do, whoever is in office will always wish to seek more power for that office.
The only solution is to raise up a contervailing power. The way our nation was designed, the counterweight to federal authority was state authority, but we've gutted that.
Seriously... When will Americans realize that both parties have exactly the same goal: To control and manipulate everything that every citizen possesses or can produce - even thoughts/minds/beliefs - for their own gain alone.
You're still missing the point: It has nothing to do with this party or that party or the other party -- governments always seek to expand their power and influence. It's related to the ancient axiom that "power corrupts". Anyone in a job wants more tools with which to do the job better, and in the case of governance, those tools nearly always come at the expense of citizens' power and liberty. Whatever the candidates may say while running, often in complete honesty, their perspective changes once they have the job.
The founders understood this. That's why they set up a system that was designed to be so limiting to each governmental organization. And not only did they intend the three branches of the federal government to constantly check one another, they also intended the federal government to be limited in scope and while they did give it power over the states, they left the power of the purse in the hands of the states, and they instituted the Senate to be the representative of the states. Unfortunately, we threw away most of the state/federal balance when we passed the 16th and 17th amendments, and then we tossed the rest of it over time, bit by bit, without even bothering to amend the Constitution accordingly.
The result is that now the only checks we're left with are between the three branches, and the legislative and executive manage much of the time to operate in concert, leaving only the judiciary to oppose them. Except that the judiciary has also mostly bought into the powerful central government as well, so rulings like this are few and far between and limited to relatively insubstantial matters.
The fix to the problem is to restore the power of the states. It's unlikely to happen.
The point of functional programming is that you don't have to think about locks or how to manage contention on your data structures because there is no such thing such thing as mutable data.
Great, now you get a whole bunch of cache misses, and your CPU is sitting at 10%.
Actually, cache utilization by functional programs tends to be excellent. The compiler optimizes most of the duplication of data away in tight loops, so where it matters for performance, data actually is modified in place.
Really, you should learn something about functional programming before dismissing it.
Perhaps in this case, or perhaps not. There are plenty of people who have confessed and plead guilty and then later been proved innnocent. Confessions are overrated and there are all kinds of reasons why people plead guilty when they're not.
Slashdot Mirror
Patents USED to be used as a means of providing an inventor time to get an invention manufactured.
No. An inventor could do that simply by keeping everything wrapped tightly in secrecy. The purpose of patents was to provide a mechanism for information to be distributed, to promote progress. The mechanism in question is to provide inventors a way to be sure of profiting without having to maintain secrecy.
These days patents are used as extortion tools.
Exactly my point.
That's what it does, but you need to look into why patents exist. What's the underlying rationale that motivates us to even have a patent system?
I think you may have your logic reversed.
I think you don't understand what patents are for.
The idea is to allow people to more easily build on other work. In a world without patents, there's a motive to keep the details of your invention secret so you can prevent others from duplicating the results of your work without giving you any of the profits. Patents are intended to provide a method of protecting your investment without having to keep it secret, so that others can take your ideas and build on them.
If an engineer is using the patent database as a library of solutions, then there is nothing new being developed.
Sure there is -- whatever the engineer creates in the time he saved by not needlessly duplicating what's already been done.
If the engineer develops something on their own, then innovation has occurred.
Not if the invention has already been created. If it has, then it's no longer innovative, even if the guy doing it doesn't know that.
Without patents, it would be even easier for medium/large/mega cooperation to prey on small companies inventions, I write even because just having a patent today do not mean that your immune against this behavior.
That's the oft-quoted theory. In practice, little guys almost never win in patent disputes. Instead, they're bankrupted by legal bills and never see a dime of the royalties they should get. In theory, patents should help the little guy. In practice, they favor large corporations.
IMHO, the patent system is broken. Badly broken. We would be well advised to carefully -- very carefully -- scrap the thing. Software patents would be a terrific place to start.
I think there's a clear and simple test that allows us to evaluate the effectiveness of the patent system: Is it common for engineers to look for patents they can license rather than having to find solutions to their problems on their own?
If the answer is "yes", then the system is working as designed, increasing innovation rather than stifling it.
If the answer is "no", then the system is not encouraging progress.
In the case of software patents, I think it is very telling that most software development companies' legal counsel advises software developers to avoid doing patent searches.
There is some risk here
To be clear, I'm not claiming that the risk is greater than the risk of having a police sketch artist do the same thing. It may be greater, less or the same. It may even depend on the witness.
The memory is not an immutable thing. It's quite possible that in the process of generating the sketch you are leading the witness on, even implanting memories. So what happens if you generate a sketch that doesn't look like the actual criminal, and present that to a jury and get a conviction. Is that going to be counted as a success?
They won't present the sketch as evidence to the jury. They will call the witness and ask him to identify the suspect.
... based on memories that have been partially implanted/modified by the sketching process.
There is some risk here.
They will be able to do other things like take fingerprints and DNA samples from the scene and match them to the suspect.
Assuming there is other evidence, great. If not... people do get convicted on the word of a single eyewitness.
Once they find that person they can interview him, get an ID from witnesses, obtain fingerprints, get a search warrant, and all the other stuff that goes along with a criminal investigation.
It's not that uncommon for someone to be convicted on nothing more than a witness identification, perhaps with a little weak circumstantial evidence along for the ride. The risk of something like this (and the risk also exists with police sketches) is that a vague memory will be "firmed up" by viewing the completed sketch. The police then find someone that looks like the sketch, but who maybe only looked vaguely like the actual criminal and put them in a lineup. Based on the original memory, perhaps the witness wouldn't be able to identify the suspect with much assurance, but having had their memory "strengthened" by looking at the sketch, however generated, they then become quite sure that the individual who looks like the sketch is the one they saw.
None of this is inherently bad, mind you. It often does find the right person, and even if it doesn't that's still more or less okay as long as the defense attorney does a good job of exploring this memory issue with the jury, to help them give the witness ID the weight it actually deserves. If the defense attorney sucks, though, this process can easily send the wrong man to prison. And even if the defender is good and the jury returns a not-guilty verdict it still sucks to have had to be tried for a crime you didn't commit, but what can we do?
Note that I'm not saying I think this technology changes the situation much. It's possible that the evolving sketch may allow the witness to settle on an image that is further from the criminal's real appearance than would be achieved with a police sketch artist. Or perhaps the evolution does a better job. Testing is needed to know for sure. My point is that the whole process, however done, tends to pollute the witness' already-fallible memory and is of less value than might be thought.
If you really think that's a good idea, how about this: Let's forcibly addict all teenagers to meth and crack.
I don't recall promoting the forced traumatizing of teenagers. Rather, I was stating that the "worst case scenario" of zero regulation on the content/interactions on social websites would/could actually have a net positive gain for society.
And my point was that there's no reason to believe that this would result in a net positive gain for society. I didn't mean to imply that you were arguing for forcible trauma, but you were arguing that trauma may be good, hence my response that if trauma is good, why not amp it up?
Clearly, because trauma is not good.
Note that I also don't advocate any kind of regulation. The only intervention I would support is by parents who choose not to allow their own kids to participate, especially kids who are more vulnerable.
Regulation isn't the answer. And not all parents will do the right thing. There *isn't* an answer. All we can really do is sit back and watch, to see what the outcome is. It may be good, and it undoubtedly will have good aspects, but I strongly suspect that on balance it will be bad. Eventually, we as a society will adapt to the changes. Perhaps for the better, perhaps for the worse, most likely it'll be a mixed bag like nearly everything.
The ultimate underlying premise/principle that I'm arguing for is the greatest amount of personal liberty for all individuals, and in this case I believe that the greatest liberty (and least government regulation) would also result in a stronger society, although that is not the ultimate end that I'm arguing for the sake of.
I'm devoted to the principles of personal liberty, but I think that if you expect the results of maximal liberty/minimal regulation to always be good, you're fooling yourself. Liberty is important not because it always leads to positive results (though it usually does), but because liberty is of sufficient value in and of itself to justify the pain and suffering that sometimes results.
I hear a lot of pigshit about how "emotionally traumatizing" online comments are. Well guess what, they aren't nearly as traumatizing as the ones said to your face, verbally, with a crowd of onlookers preventing you from leaving, demanding a response, and when you give one, you get to have your face literally smashed into the ground while the larger, stronger kid taunts you with even more verbal abuse.
True for boys, I think. Not for girls.
I was in your place when I was a kid. I see where my daughter is now.
The thing about insults thrown while kicking and scratching is that there's little thought behind them. And the pen and paper slander lacks the speed or smooth and instant feedback channels.
I've also seen both in action. And for all of the reasons I tediously explained already, plus more, the on-line, public, fights are far worse.
Watch for those suicide studies. They're coming.
Another possibility is that the next generation is going to grow up almost universally traumatized and defensive.
I sure hope so! Then those with any degree of emotional fortitude will have all the greater advantage because of their willingness to take more social "risks". Success and greatness will come to those who risk, even more so than before because of all the opportunities not being taken advantage of by the cowards.
Social Darwinism is a somewhat debatable philosophy in general, but even if we grant that it's a good idea, you're ignoring the fact that many potentially valuable members of society may be significantly damaged, reducing their value.
If you really think that's a good idea, how about this: Let's forcibly addict all teenagers to meth and crack. The ones with real willpower and force of character will kick it, rise to the top, and have significantly improved opportunities of success because of the heavily winnowed competition.
The meth/crack plan probably really *would* be beneficial to those who manage to rise above it. They'd have learned a lot about themselves and would be better people for it. And there's no doubt that much of their potential competition would be removed. But I hardly think anyone would consider it a way to improve society as a whole (note: don't confuse this argument with the argument over decriminalization, which is a good idea).
If they're now insulting each other over the Internet, then it sounds quite tame by comparison
You've got that backwards, because you don't understand teenage girls. Pulled hair and a few scratches they can bounce back from. Words produce far more lasting damage, for multiple reasons.
One of the biggest is that on Facebook these fights happen in public. It's not just a handful of people nearby that hear the hurtful comments and maybe a little gossip that gets passed around fifth-hand. The entire school reads it, nearly in real-time. SMS fights aren't nearly as bad.
Relative anonymity also facilitates dirt-digging, and if you think face-to-face rumors spread fast, on-line they're lightning.
Another is, seriously, the LACK of the physical option. At the point in a fight where the nails would come out, online there's nothing to do but dig deeper, looking for the most vicious lie possible or -- even worse -- the most vicious truth possible. Whether lie or truth, the entire school will know it in minutes.
Another big problem is the "flash mob" effect. Flash mobs are usually planned, but among teenage girls on Facebook, they arise spontaneously. A personal fight (often triggered by something *completely* innocuous, because a comment unaccompanied by body language was taken wrong) quickly spirals out of control, bringing dozens of people piling on whoever appears to be losing.
And when it gets REALLY bad is when the boys join in, something that hardly ever happens in meatspace catfights. When an ex-boyfriend decided to toss his favorite anti-target anecdote into the mix, for all of the other girls to pounce on, all of the rivalry gets amped up by hormones and puppy love gone wrong. Kids get emotionally destroyed. Seriously.
Anecdotally, I see these on-line fights triggering many suicides. I expect in a few years we'll see studies showing that kids who make heavy use of Facebook, etc. kill themselves in significantly greater numbers, and suffer from more mental illness.
There's nothing to be done but to see what happens, to see how society will learn to deal with this new communication channel that seriously changes the dynamics of social interaction among young people who are only just learning how to interact. Hopefully, responsible parents will keep their more vulnerable children off of Facebook, etc.
I don't particularly think it "raises the level"
I do. They say a lot of things they wouldn't say face to face.
You spend time watching 14 year old girls, on facebook?
I watch my 14 year-old daughter's interactions with her friends.
Maybe instead stop being so bloody touchy about stupid things stupid people write? What is it we've told our children for ages - "stop caring, don't give it attention"?
That's a nice theory, but it's a really hard thing for people, especially immature people, to do.
Teenagers in particular are extremely sensitive to criticism, and often respond poorly. Spend some time watching the interactions of a group of, say, 14 year-old girls on Facebook. Vicious doesn't begin to describe it. People in general are willing to say things behind the shield of their computer that they would never say face to face. Add to that some low self-esteem and peer approval dependency and you have a recipe for a whole lot of heartache. Kids have always been mean to one another, and always will, but online interaction raises it to a new level.
Kids in college are a little more mature and self-confident, but only a little. And there's a lot of variability, so you can expect these online fora to be filled with the spew of the least mature, the least secure and the most vicious.
It will indeed be interesting to see how society evolves in response. Hopefully we'll all develop a thicker skin and learn to be more forgiving of all sorts of errors. That would be a good solution, and would actually make the world a better place than it used to be. Another possibility is that the next generation is going to grow up almost universally traumatized and defensive.
The only solution is to raise up a contervailing power. The way our nation was designed, the counterweight to federal authority was state authority, but we've gutted that.
The movement to repeal the 17th Amendment is gaining some steam. Though it's probably too late.
Probably. It would be good if we could do it. It would be REALLY good to repeal the 16th amendment, but that idea doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.
I'm curious about this point because under a previous LHC article, someone commented that "11 trillion electron volts sounds impressive, but when I flick something with my finger, far more energy is transferred." (paraphrase, obviously)
Could someone more versed in physics tell a layman how this scales up?
I'm not a physicist, but I typed "11 TeV in Joules" into Google and it says "1.76239411 × 10-6 joules". That's not very much energy. It's enough to accelerate 1.7 micrograms from rest to a velocity of one meter per second -- a gnat's whisker to a slow walk. Yeah, flicking a finger is far more energetic.
However, that's the energy in the most energetic particles in the particle stream. There are a lot of particles in the stream, so their total energy is much higher.
"It would be the equivalent of having 87kg of TNT dumped into your body." jamie wants big boom
LOL!
I clicked through here specifically to post that. Whether or not it's "myth", it would make for a pretty cool Mythbusters episode. They could travel to CERN and tour the LHC, interview some scientists about the cool stuff going on there and then blow up a pig or two!
It would be exceptionally cool if the guys at the LHC would let them blow up a pig by putting it into the particle stream, but I'm sure that would do too much damage to the LHC, which is having enough trouble as-is.
The title of the story is, "Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned" except that the story has nothing to do with Obama and calling this the 'Obama Administration' is a bit of a stretch as well.
The president always gets the blame/credit for anything done by the executive branch under his watch. Bush got blamed for a bunch of stuff he personally had nothing to do with (and for a bunch of stuff he did -- I'm no fan of Bush, just making a point), as has every other president.
It's just part of the job. Unfair? Sure. Or it would be if the president didn't also get credit for a bunch of stuff he has nothing to do with.
For me, voting for Obama was never about thinking he would fix things or be much different from any of today's politicians. Until we reform the way elections are held, financed and decided, the whole system will remain horribly corrupt.
Even that won't fix it. No matter what you do, whoever is in office will always wish to seek more power for that office.
The only solution is to raise up a contervailing power. The way our nation was designed, the counterweight to federal authority was state authority, but we've gutted that.
Seriously... When will Americans realize that both parties have exactly the same goal: To control and manipulate everything that every citizen possesses or can produce - even thoughts/minds/beliefs - for their own gain alone.
You're still missing the point: It has nothing to do with this party or that party or the other party -- governments always seek to expand their power and influence. It's related to the ancient axiom that "power corrupts". Anyone in a job wants more tools with which to do the job better, and in the case of governance, those tools nearly always come at the expense of citizens' power and liberty. Whatever the candidates may say while running, often in complete honesty, their perspective changes once they have the job.
The founders understood this. That's why they set up a system that was designed to be so limiting to each governmental organization. And not only did they intend the three branches of the federal government to constantly check one another, they also intended the federal government to be limited in scope and while they did give it power over the states, they left the power of the purse in the hands of the states, and they instituted the Senate to be the representative of the states. Unfortunately, we threw away most of the state/federal balance when we passed the 16th and 17th amendments, and then we tossed the rest of it over time, bit by bit, without even bothering to amend the Constitution accordingly.
The result is that now the only checks we're left with are between the three branches, and the legislative and executive manage much of the time to operate in concert, leaving only the judiciary to oppose them. Except that the judiciary has also mostly bought into the powerful central government as well, so rulings like this are few and far between and limited to relatively insubstantial matters.
The fix to the problem is to restore the power of the states. It's unlikely to happen.
Very interesting post. Thanks.
The point of functional programming is that you don't have to think about locks or how to manage contention on your data structures because there is no such thing such thing as mutable data. Great, now you get a whole bunch of cache misses, and your CPU is sitting at 10%.
Actually, cache utilization by functional programs tends to be excellent. The compiler optimizes most of the duplication of data away in tight loops, so where it matters for performance, data actually is modified in place.
Really, you should learn something about functional programming before dismissing it.
The guilty plea pretty much means he did it
Perhaps in this case, or perhaps not. There are plenty of people who have confessed and plead guilty and then later been proved innnocent. Confessions are overrated and there are all kinds of reasons why people plead guilty when they're not.