I specifically suggested defining "wedlock" as (a) having the means to, and (b) the commitment to, raising a child and not as traditional marriage. Call it "childlock" if you prefer: making kids while not able to support them or not committing to support them (this can include adoption out if approved by a court), should be a crime punishable by death.
Make abortion criminal as well (which will attract the support of the fundies), and you have a perfect opportunity to find enough of the fucking "useless third" to legitimately kill them off to make room for us responsible folk.
Suddenly too poor to support your kids? Well, kill those people too, if they can't adopt their kids out. After all, it's a small step beyond jailing them (which costs the taxpayer money), and we currently do jail single parents who have suddenly become far poorer and can't support their kids. Google what qualifies as "Deadbead Dad". Basically, if you earn less than you once did, and can't afford to give your kids what you once did, you are a deadbeat and will be jailed.
It's not that much of a stretch to advance to killing newly poor parents, is it?
Simple. Criminalize abortion with the penalty being death.
I am not personally opposed to abortion, but I do think we have too many people in the world, and need a "moral" method of how to chose to get rid of, oh, say three billion or so.
Laws which call for the execution of those who risk making more of us without evidence of being able to sustain their progeny strike me as a good start. Make pregnancy out of "wedlock", with a legal definition of "wedlock" altered to focus on support of progeny, rather than present interpretations of "marriage", punishable by death, and it would be a good start.
Just think! You'd get all the religious nutjobs backing the idea! (Though, in retrospect, prohibitions against bastardy did serve a social purpose -- too bad they were tied up in religion instead of economics.)
Frankly, I don't buy that "study", either: are people working in call centers where they can overhear other one-sided conversations distracted by them? No.
Here's a test: would anyone be annoyed by a half-duplex bilingual conversation: one party speaking one language and the other speaking a different one? (Sometimes one comprehends better than one can speak, and their counterpart does as well in the exact opposite manner: this used to be common with English and French in some parts of Quebec, though over time it devolves into "Frenglish") I don't think so.
I think the people annoyed are because they are distracted by the novelty, more than anything else. Well, suck it up and get used to the technology. I can imagine the first television sets giving people headaches because they had to look as well as listen.
Exactly! Voltage is certainly the "push" behind current, but without a compliant (that is conductive) return path, you get nowhere.
In particular, voltage can't "push" power anywhere. Look at all the 120 VAC outlets in the wall. They're all "pushing" what kind of power? Zip. Nada.
Now, add a load, which admits a current, and the voltage doing the "pushing" has something to push. But still, no 100V source is gonna push current to deliver 100W into a one megohm load. To do that, you need a 100 ohm load. (Exceptions noted for so-called "current sources" which will adjust their voltage upward as necessary to overcome the load resistance so as to deliver the desired current, but even these have practical limits.)
In practical terms, your source has an impedance, as does the cable, and the sink. Delivering the maximum power to the sink requires matching the impedance of source and sink.
Now, 100V on a cable "trying" to push current can give a nasty shock, but PoE samples the sink current and only applies "I mean business" levels of voltage when an expected load is detected. At that point, once the end gets some power, it can negotiate how much it wants.
You don't "push" 100W. The equipment either draws it, or not.
Now, to push more current, you do need a higher voltage, but again, that can be negotiated after making an initial connection. PoE already allows for such things.
If it's PoE (power over ethernet) based, that's not really a problem.
The PoE source samples the target DC impedence presented between pairs of differential signal lines and determines if the target supports PoE, or not.
There are a couple of standard variations (using spare pairs, muxing DC and data on different differntial pairs), but the basic principle is this:
Data signals are sent differentially on a pair of wires (this protects against common mode noise, since the difference between received signals is what matters). Imagine transformer coupling at each end, with a center-tap on the "line side" of the transformers. Now, take the two center-taps on two such differential pairs and place a DC voltage across them. Voila! You can tap that DC voltage off the receiving side. A little DC to DC conversion and "Bob's your uncle."
The neat thing is that you can plug in an ordinary non-PoE piece of equipment and it will work just fine, because it will not tap across differential pairs.
All good in theory. However, all it takes to arrest you is "probable cause", and to hold you is a judge upholding a finding of "probable cause".
You will likely be arrested, for being difficult, argumentative, and most importantly, acting suspiciously around a sensitive area.
Either you have an attorney, which will cost you significant $$$, or you will be assigned a public defender, who will, in 95% of the cases stipulate (that is, agree), to probable cause. Bail will be set (very high, if your address can not be immediately verified, and this can take a few days), or not (if you are a suspected terrorist), and if you can not pay, you will be stuck in jail. If you can, you can expect to be called before the court and formally charged and asked to enter a plea within two weeks. More $$$ spent on a lawyer.
Now, if the case is really weak, the district attorney might decide to drop it, but they are generally evaluated and rewarded for being "tough on crime", especially terrorism, so expect the I-dotting and T-crossing of formal charges and a criminal trial. If the DA thinks the case is weak, you might be offered a plea bargain for something like "disorderly conduct", placed on probation, and fined a few hundred or thousand dollars. The third option, is that charges will not be formally pressed, but can be pending until the statute of limitations runs out. 97% of criminal cases never go to trial: many are plea-bargained out.
So, you decide to stand for your principles and face trial. Good for you! This will cost you plenty. Simply being arrested might have gotten you fired, particularly in an "at-will" employment state.
The chances are pretty good that your defense will stand up. But, expect it to be very expensive. Justice does not come cheap, unfortunately.
And, yes, this can have a very chilling effect on lawful public actions. In fact, people who fight for civil rights are USED to being impoverished, unemployed, and spending significant lengths of time in jail.
How do I know? I went down this road after being arrested (and never formally charged) with felony child abuse for preventing my young son from not running into the middle of a busy highway. See, in his struggle, he managed to get a clothing abrasion mark on himself. I chose to plead guilty to disorderly conduct to FORCE (well, encourage: no DA can turn down the chance for another conviction in their notch) the DA to drop the charges rather than wait out the statute of limitations (and technically, I WAS guilty of disorderly conduct: acting in a manner (possibly trying to kidnap a child) that might incite someone to assault me (to "save" said child). Ironically, protecting him from himself would be an affirmative defense against assault, but would not be against DC.).
Further, I reasoned that (a) charges could be laid any time within the statute of limitations, (b) my daughter had desired to leave her mother and live with me and pending felony assault charges would do me no good in that case, and (c) spending the money on a legal defense would arguably not be in the best interest of my children and therefore be used as evidence to charge me with neglect and abuse. The laws being what they are, if you have kids, the state owns you (and that's a subject for another rant).
Now, if I was responsible for no one but myself, then Hell, f***ing yeah! Bring it on, a**holes!, and spend a lot of money and risk 10 to 20 in jail. I would think, however, that maybe one in a hundred are in a position where they are not responsible for the welfare of others, and of those, one in a thousand would risk incarceration to fight for their principles. Those of us who have responsibilities, or are otherwise cowardly in this regard, should therefore, vocally and peacefully support those who DO stand up for principle.
I am inclined to agree, but this can have a chilling effect on seeking redress for government corruption through the political process. Consider the example where an ostensibly "good law" has the unintended consequence of rewarding government workers who do "bad things" under the guise of that law, and therefore leads to widespread corruption. Consider further, that vocal opponents of the present law suffer mysterious deaths. (I won't go into details, but I am thinking of a cause supported bu a former Georgia senator that died under unusual circumstances attributed to a murder/suicide.)
What are your options?
Politically, if you want a law changed, you petition for a ballot measure. But, if exposing your name places you in harm's way, by drawing attention to your opposition to the government, would you sign? And, if participation in the political process is chilled in this manner, what is left? Armed revolution? Methinks it best to make the political process available and remove the chilling effect. And that can only be achieved with anonymity.
The counter, of course, is how to verify petitions are signed by those eligible to vote while preserving their anonymity?
The solution is not complex: one signs an electronic petition with a private key associated with the public key in an X509 certificate signed by the state body. Anonymity is preserved by gating groups of people through voter eligibility checkpoints en masse into an area where their certs are signed without recording the identity of the cert holder. (Yes, this can be hacked with hidden cameras, etc. But read on.)
An alternative would be for validated individuals to draw a cert/key pair from a sealed box. While anonymity could be preserved this way (since we don't know who draws what cert/key pair), impersonation is possible, unless the source of the cert/key pairs can be trusted to not reveal the key to others. I believe this is easier to accomplish than signing a cert anonymously.
Or, the techniques can be combined: ALL eligible voters have their certs signed when they vote, and later, large groups of them gather for a marathon swap-session, so we don't know which voter has which cert.
The point is that, for some acceptable degree of security against identification or impersonation, it should be possible to identify if an otherwise anonumous individual has some desired characteristic (right to vote, for example).
The legal hurdle to have this accepted would, of course, involve showing that public petition signatures have a chilling effect on the political process, and that this alternative retains the ability to validate voter eligibility.
Yeah, I know. Montreal, too (I lived there for 36 years.)
But, it's not like they get "big ones" there... lots of little ones. I read one argument was that the St. Lawrence river flow helps lubricate the slip between the plates so significant stress never builds up, but have no idea if there is enough ingress into the deep inter-plate area from that water source for that to be true.
Still, the argument to "evacuate" rather than "stop, drop, cover" continues to escape me.
I dunno. HDMI 1.4 now sports ethernet and audio return channels. About the only thing absent is USB for low/high speed data (keyboards or mice / disk drives: 100 Mb/s ethernet is a little slow for disks).
So, I suppose it will factor out to three cable types: HDMI for "media" connections that are video-centric, ethernet for long distance data and networking connections, and USB for local data and peripherals. Maybe add 1394 (firewire) for video capture and control, though GbE and even 100 Mb/s ethernet could serve that purpose (my Motorola DCH3200 has an ethernet port on it, but video is transferred over 1394).
Is four cable types too much?
Considering that each type already has a primary purpose, and that it lets us get rid of serial, mouse, keyboard, and parallel cables, I think it's still an improvement.
We just had a mandatory OSHA safety review here in Seattle, WA, and the policy for earthquake is NOT to evacuate but to "stop, drop, and cover" under our work desks. Evacuation occurs after the safety officer issues the all clear.
Granted, earthquakes are a bit more of a concern here, but I would think, if anything, building codes for dynamic stress (as opposed to things like roof snow load) might be less stringent in Canada, and therefore it would be more advisable to "stop, drop, and cover".
You know, it's illegal for me to kill you when you do not threaten my life.
However that is a law of man and not of physics: if I put a loaded gun to your head, and pull the trigger, you will almost certainly die.
Similarly, things like the constitution are worth less than the toilet paper you wipe your ass with unless you are prepared to back up the ideas they promote with the force necessary to defend them.
Cue the whole "blood of tyrants and patriots" speech.
When I started with computers, processing audio was hard and clunky, and video unheard of. But, increasingly, non-computer devices are getting more intelligent (in terms of really being computers under the hood), to the point where they look and feel like computers, with different peripherals.
When I first viewed video on a computer monitor, it was clunky, and in a window. Even in full screen mode, one would eventually escape back to the windowing UI, that made the TV stop looking like one, and more like a computer. 10 foot interfaces have changed all this, of course. And yet, if one does want to switch from a video entertainment device "mode" to an "internet browsing" mode to view YouTube videos, for example, the computer UI looks normal and not out of place. We are getting used to the browser being our interface to the world around us.
The point is that computers are becoming ubiquitous. From TVs to phones, to ebook readers, to netbooks, and iPads, we are using computers to present content as well as organize it. If I were to desire a "universal" remote control, I would seriously consider a netbook for the purpose because it could add so much more functionality over a universal "remote", and actually costs less than many of them! Why we still have 38khz IR remote controls instead of web-based UIs available over 802.11b/g/n escapes me, but I am sure that will start to change with the first "networked" remote, and "IR hubs" with 802.11b/g/n in and IR blasters "out" for legacy equipment. Why can't I use my smartphone as a remote? Oh wait! I can!
Just look at how UpNP has shaken out into DNLA-based equipment.
I just retired a 400 disk CD/DVD changer and replaced it with a MythTV box. I had done that before, but with false starts, and things weren't smooth enough to really retire the changer. Now, the MythTV box is quiet enough, and powerful enough, to make the thought of actually handling media for anything more than "one of" playback archaic.
Look at HDMI, at least the latest incarnations. Not only does it integrate uncompressed video and audio in a single cable, 100 Mb/s datalink layer ethernet, and SPDIF "back channels" are included. Literally, "one cable to link them all". And, it's not an expensive interface, only found on high end equipment: it is becoming the standard for computer monitors and televisions (the difference really becoming blurred).
So, certainly because of competition and "technology catchup", phones and consumer electronics are evolving at a dizzying pace, whereas computers have stagnated. but, perhaps we've reached the point where computers already do everything we want them to: compute, process, store, and retrieve data. As far as presentation of entertainment content goes, a traditional computer offers little more than storage, and second rate display: it is non portable and the display or audio capabilities are poor compared to alternative: smaller display but complete mobility in phones, netbooks, and iPads, and massive displays in flat-screen TVs. And these are the areas where we are seeing advances.
So, you have proof that you responded within 7 days? That should cover your arses if it goes to trial. Of course, IANAL, and you should have consulted one.
Look, if I ask "Where can I buy a copy of Sweeny Todd?" and someone, in good faith, sends me to a shop selling pirate copies, they are not guilty of any crime. they have to KNOW the copy is illegal.
Dunno if I got the math right, though. I did that calculation once before and got a figure closer to the orbit of Mars, and that's suspiciously close to 2.54 AU to make me think I may have forgot to drop a couple of zeros somewhere.
It's a fun calculation to do, though.
Of course, what would happen would be that the tremendous pressure within such a sphere of water would compress the core and the rest would follow.
Yes, but the density within an event horizon of radius r falls off as the square of r.
So, for very large r, the average density can actually be very small, and, as you consider the size of the known universe, as if it were a sphere, one finds that interstellar space appears to have sufficient density for the universe to have an event horizon.
Do not confuse the volume inside the event horizon with the volume inside the singularity.
I think it's clear that talk of the density of a black hole refers to the density inside the event horizon and not at the singularity which would be infinite.
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly, *whoosh*!
I specifically suggested defining "wedlock" as (a) having the means to, and (b) the commitment to, raising a child and not as traditional marriage. Call it "childlock" if you prefer: making kids while not able to support them or not committing to support them (this can include adoption out if approved by a court), should be a crime punishable by death.
Make abortion criminal as well (which will attract the support of the fundies), and you have a perfect opportunity to find enough of the fucking "useless third" to legitimately kill them off to make room for us responsible folk.
Suddenly too poor to support your kids? Well, kill those people too, if they can't adopt their kids out. After all, it's a small step beyond jailing them (which costs the taxpayer money), and we currently do jail single parents who have suddenly become far poorer and can't support their kids. Google what qualifies as "Deadbead Dad". Basically, if you earn less than you once did, and can't afford to give your kids what you once did, you are a deadbeat and will be jailed.
It's not that much of a stretch to advance to killing newly poor parents, is it?
Simple. Criminalize abortion with the penalty being death.
I am not personally opposed to abortion, but I do think we have too many people in the world, and need a "moral" method of how to chose to get rid of, oh, say three billion or so.
Laws which call for the execution of those who risk making more of us without evidence of being able to sustain their progeny strike me as a good start. Make pregnancy out of "wedlock", with a legal definition of "wedlock" altered to focus on support of progeny, rather than present interpretations of "marriage", punishable by death, and it would be a good start.
Just think! You'd get all the religious nutjobs backing the idea! (Though, in retrospect, prohibitions against bastardy did serve a social purpose -- too bad they were tied up in religion instead of economics.)
Well, screw them for eavesdropping, then.
Frankly, I don't buy that "study", either: are people working in call centers where they can overhear other one-sided conversations distracted by them? No.
Here's a test: would anyone be annoyed by a half-duplex bilingual conversation: one party speaking one language and the other speaking a different one? (Sometimes one comprehends better than one can speak, and their counterpart does as well in the exact opposite manner: this used to be common with English and French in some parts of Quebec, though over time it devolves into "Frenglish") I don't think so.
I think the people annoyed are because they are distracted by the novelty, more than anything else. Well, suck it up and get used to the technology. I can imagine the first television sets giving people headaches because they had to look as well as listen.
How is it any more annoying or distracting than talking to someone who is present?
Why do people insist on looking down at those who talk to their friends that just don't happen to be proximate?
I mean, jeez! There you go, yacking away with your homies and I can't do the same 'cause mine are not beside me?
What kind of technophobe are you?
Exactly! Voltage is certainly the "push" behind current, but without a compliant (that is conductive) return path, you get nowhere.
In particular, voltage can't "push" power anywhere. Look at all the 120 VAC outlets in the wall. They're all "pushing" what kind of power? Zip. Nada.
Now, add a load, which admits a current, and the voltage doing the "pushing" has something to push. But still, no 100V source is gonna push current to deliver 100W into a one megohm load. To do that, you need a 100 ohm load. (Exceptions noted for so-called "current sources" which will adjust their voltage upward as necessary to overcome the load resistance so as to deliver the desired current, but even these have practical limits.)
In practical terms, your source has an impedance, as does the cable, and the sink. Delivering the maximum power to the sink requires matching the impedance of source and sink.
Now, 100V on a cable "trying" to push current can give a nasty shock, but PoE samples the sink current and only applies "I mean business" levels of voltage when an expected load is detected. At that point, once the end gets some power, it can negotiate how much it wants.
You don't "push" 100W. The equipment either draws it, or not.
Now, to push more current, you do need a higher voltage, but again, that can be negotiated after making an initial connection. PoE already allows for such things.
If it's PoE (power over ethernet) based, that's not really a problem.
The PoE source samples the target DC impedence presented between pairs of differential signal lines and determines if the target supports PoE, or not.
There are a couple of standard variations (using spare pairs, muxing DC and data on different differntial pairs), but the basic principle is this:
Data signals are sent differentially on a pair of wires (this protects against common mode noise, since the difference between received signals is what matters). Imagine transformer coupling at each end, with a center-tap on the "line side" of the transformers. Now, take the two center-taps on two such differential pairs and place a DC voltage across them. Voila! You can tap that DC voltage off the receiving side. A little DC to DC conversion and "Bob's your uncle."
The neat thing is that you can plug in an ordinary non-PoE piece of equipment and it will work just fine, because it will not tap across differential pairs.
All good in theory. However, all it takes to arrest you is "probable cause", and to hold you is a judge upholding a finding of "probable cause".
You will likely be arrested, for being difficult, argumentative, and most importantly, acting suspiciously around a sensitive area.
Either you have an attorney, which will cost you significant $$$, or you will be assigned a public defender, who will, in 95% of the cases stipulate (that is, agree), to probable cause. Bail will be set (very high, if your address can not be immediately verified, and this can take a few days), or not (if you are a suspected terrorist), and if you can not pay, you will be stuck in jail. If you can, you can expect to be called before the court and formally charged and asked to enter a plea within two weeks. More $$$ spent on a lawyer.
Now, if the case is really weak, the district attorney might decide to drop it, but they are generally evaluated and rewarded for being "tough on crime", especially terrorism, so expect the I-dotting and T-crossing of formal charges and a criminal trial. If the DA thinks the case is weak, you might be offered a plea bargain for something like "disorderly conduct", placed on probation, and fined a few hundred or thousand dollars. The third option, is that charges will not be formally pressed, but can be pending until the statute of limitations runs out. 97% of criminal cases never go to trial: many are plea-bargained out.
So, you decide to stand for your principles and face trial. Good for you! This will cost you plenty. Simply being arrested might have gotten you fired, particularly in an "at-will" employment state.
The chances are pretty good that your defense will stand up. But, expect it to be very expensive. Justice does not come cheap, unfortunately.
And, yes, this can have a very chilling effect on lawful public actions. In fact, people who fight for civil rights are USED to being impoverished, unemployed, and spending significant lengths of time in jail.
How do I know? I went down this road after being arrested (and never formally charged) with felony child abuse for preventing my young son from not running into the middle of a busy highway. See, in his struggle, he managed to get a clothing abrasion mark on himself. I chose to plead guilty to disorderly conduct to FORCE (well, encourage: no DA can turn down the chance for another conviction in their notch) the DA to drop the charges rather than wait out the statute of limitations (and technically, I WAS guilty of disorderly conduct: acting in a manner (possibly trying to kidnap a child) that might incite someone to assault me (to "save" said child). Ironically, protecting him from himself would be an affirmative defense against assault, but would not be against DC.).
Further, I reasoned that (a) charges could be laid any time within the statute of limitations, (b) my daughter had desired to leave her mother and live with me and pending felony assault charges would do me no good in that case, and (c) spending the money on a legal defense would arguably not be in the best interest of my children and therefore be used as evidence to charge me with neglect and abuse. The laws being what they are, if you have kids, the state owns you (and that's a subject for another rant).
Now, if I was responsible for no one but myself, then Hell, f***ing yeah! Bring it on, a**holes!, and spend a lot of money and risk 10 to 20 in jail. I would think, however, that maybe one in a hundred are in a position where they are not responsible for the welfare of others, and of those, one in a thousand would risk incarceration to fight for their principles. Those of us who have responsibilities, or are otherwise cowardly in this regard, should therefore, vocally and peacefully support those who DO stand up for principle.
Sure. Let the manufacturer get a court order to restrain my speech. After all, its just their claim that the shop sells pirate content.
I am inclined to agree, but this can have a chilling effect on seeking redress for government corruption through the political process. Consider the example where an ostensibly "good law" has the unintended consequence of rewarding government workers who do "bad things" under the guise of that law, and therefore leads to widespread corruption. Consider further, that vocal opponents of the present law suffer mysterious deaths. (I won't go into details, but I am thinking of a cause supported bu a former Georgia senator that died under unusual circumstances attributed to a murder/suicide.)
What are your options?
Politically, if you want a law changed, you petition for a ballot measure. But, if exposing your name places you in harm's way, by drawing attention to your opposition to the government, would you sign? And, if participation in the political process is chilled in this manner, what is left? Armed revolution? Methinks it best to make the political process available and remove the chilling effect. And that can only be achieved with anonymity.
The counter, of course, is how to verify petitions are signed by those eligible to vote while preserving their anonymity?
The solution is not complex: one signs an electronic petition with a private key associated with the public key in an X509 certificate signed by the state body. Anonymity is preserved by gating groups of people through voter eligibility checkpoints en masse into an area where their certs are signed without recording the identity of the cert holder. (Yes, this can be hacked with hidden cameras, etc. But read on.)
An alternative would be for validated individuals to draw a cert/key pair from a sealed box. While anonymity could be preserved this way (since we don't know who draws what cert/key pair), impersonation is possible, unless the source of the cert/key pairs can be trusted to not reveal the key to others. I believe this is easier to accomplish than signing a cert anonymously.
Or, the techniques can be combined: ALL eligible voters have their certs signed when they vote, and later, large groups of them gather for a marathon swap-session, so we don't know which voter has which cert.
The point is that, for some acceptable degree of security against identification or impersonation, it should be possible to identify if an otherwise anonumous individual has some desired characteristic (right to vote, for example).
The legal hurdle to have this accepted would, of course, involve showing that public petition signatures have a chilling effect on the political process, and that this alternative retains the ability to validate voter eligibility.
Yeah, I know. Montreal, too (I lived there for 36 years.)
But, it's not like they get "big ones" there... lots of little ones. I read one argument was that the St. Lawrence river flow helps lubricate the slip between the plates so significant stress never builds up, but have no idea if there is enough ingress into the deep inter-plate area from that water source for that to be true.
Still, the argument to "evacuate" rather than "stop, drop, cover" continues to escape me.
I dunno. HDMI 1.4 now sports ethernet and audio return channels. About the only thing absent is USB for low/high speed data (keyboards or mice / disk drives: 100 Mb/s ethernet is a little slow for disks).
So, I suppose it will factor out to three cable types: HDMI for "media" connections that are video-centric, ethernet for long distance data and networking connections, and USB for local data and peripherals. Maybe add 1394 (firewire) for video capture and control, though GbE and even 100 Mb/s ethernet could serve that purpose (my Motorola DCH3200 has an ethernet port on it, but video is transferred over 1394).
Is four cable types too much?
Considering that each type already has a primary purpose, and that it lets us get rid of serial, mouse, keyboard, and parallel cables, I think it's still an improvement.
We just had a mandatory OSHA safety review here in Seattle, WA, and the policy for earthquake is NOT to evacuate but to "stop, drop, and cover" under our work desks. Evacuation occurs after the safety officer issues the all clear.
Granted, earthquakes are a bit more of a concern here, but I would think, if anything, building codes for dynamic stress (as opposed to things like roof snow load) might be less stringent in Canada, and therefore it would be more advisable to "stop, drop, and cover".
However that is a law of man and not of physics: if I put a loaded gun to your head, and pull the trigger, you will almost certainly die.
Similarly, things like the constitution are worth less than the toilet paper you wipe your ass with unless you are prepared to back up the ideas they promote with the force necessary to defend them.
Cue the whole "blood of tyrants and patriots" speech.
I know, I could write that every decade or so.
When I started with computers, processing audio was hard and clunky, and video unheard of. But, increasingly, non-computer devices are getting more intelligent (in terms of really being computers under the hood), to the point where they look and feel like computers, with different peripherals.
When I first viewed video on a computer monitor, it was clunky, and in a window. Even in full screen mode, one would eventually escape back to the windowing UI, that made the TV stop looking like one, and more like a computer. 10 foot interfaces have changed all this, of course. And yet, if one does want to switch from a video entertainment device "mode" to an "internet browsing" mode to view YouTube videos, for example, the computer UI looks normal and not out of place. We are getting used to the browser being our interface to the world around us.
The point is that computers are becoming ubiquitous. From TVs to phones, to ebook readers, to netbooks, and iPads, we are using computers to present content as well as organize it. If I were to desire a "universal" remote control, I would seriously consider a netbook for the purpose because it could add so much more functionality over a universal "remote", and actually costs less than many of them! Why we still have 38khz IR remote controls instead of web-based UIs available over 802.11b/g/n escapes me, but I am sure that will start to change with the first "networked" remote, and "IR hubs" with 802.11b/g/n in and IR blasters "out" for legacy equipment. Why can't I use my smartphone as a remote? Oh wait! I can!
Just look at how UpNP has shaken out into DNLA-based equipment.
I just retired a 400 disk CD/DVD changer and replaced it with a MythTV box. I had done that before, but with false starts, and things weren't smooth enough to really retire the changer. Now, the MythTV box is quiet enough, and powerful enough, to make the thought of actually handling media for anything more than "one of" playback archaic.
Look at HDMI, at least the latest incarnations. Not only does it integrate uncompressed video and audio in a single cable, 100 Mb/s datalink layer ethernet, and SPDIF "back channels" are included. Literally, "one cable to link them all". And, it's not an expensive interface, only found on high end equipment: it is becoming the standard for computer monitors and televisions (the difference really becoming blurred).
So, certainly because of competition and "technology catchup", phones and consumer electronics are evolving at a dizzying pace, whereas computers have stagnated. but, perhaps we've reached the point where computers already do everything we want them to: compute, process, store, and retrieve data. As far as presentation of entertainment content goes, a traditional computer offers little more than storage, and second rate display: it is non portable and the display or audio capabilities are poor compared to alternative: smaller display but complete mobility in phones, netbooks, and iPads, and massive displays in flat-screen TVs. And these are the areas where we are seeing advances.
So, you have proof that you responded within 7 days? That should cover your arses if it goes to trial. Of course, IANAL, and you should have consulted one.
And.... Google knows it is illicitly hosted?
Look, if I ask "Where can I buy a copy of Sweeny Todd?" and someone, in good faith, sends me to a shop selling pirate copies, they are not guilty of any crime. they have to KNOW the copy is illegal.
Google OWNS Youtube. This does not mean they direct its day to day operation.
If I am a BP investor, does that mean I am responsible for the Gulf Oil Spill (arguably yes, but legally, no).
At worst, Youtube stock would take a beating if some of its directors got jailed.
But, as far as I can see, Youtube currently responds well to DMCA takedown notices.
Try again.
I don't get it.
Google does not host material it indexes.
Material it indexes is offered publicly.
People who follow the search results ALSO get authorized copies. It's only if they copy them that they might run afoul.
Google has no more contributed to copyright violation than a shop selling copyright materials advertising its wares.
Ain't that the truth.
Dunno if I got the math right, though. I did that calculation once before and got a figure closer to the orbit of Mars, and that's suspiciously close to 2.54 AU to make me think I may have forgot to drop a couple of zeros somewhere.
It's a fun calculation to do, though.
Of course, what would happen would be that the tremendous pressure within such a sphere of water would compress the core and the rest would follow.
I think the title describes the only warning the Constitution requires.
Yes, but the density within an event horizon of radius r falls off as the square of r.
So, for very large r, the average density can actually be very small, and, as you consider the size of the known universe, as if it were a sphere, one finds that interstellar space appears to have sufficient density for the universe to have an event horizon.
Do not confuse the volume inside the event horizon with the volume inside the singularity.
I think it's clear that talk of the density of a black hole refers to the density inside the event horizon and not at the singularity which would be infinite.