If you are going to classify drugs as hard or soft, then you really need to classify alchohol as a hard drug -- certainly alchohol has ruined more lives than all illegal drugs put together, by a long shot.
The reason we classify alchohol as a "soft" drug is because it is legal, and lots of people use it -- and we can see that the overwhelming majority of alchohol users are able to use it responsibly. There is no reason to believe that other drugs couldn't be used responsibly as well.
There is always going to be a certain subset of the population that is going to overuse or overdo something to the point where it affects their lives in a detrimental way -- be it alchohol, heroin, or Dungeons and Dragons -- but the majority of people can deal with all of the things in a responsible manner.
I don't understand why people feel a need to restrict what other folks do with their own lives. And don't rely on the argument that they will get in a car and crash or whatever -- people already do this with alchohol (a "soft" drug, remember?), and we already have an infrastructure to deal with this.
Police want to stop drug use because they feel it would reduce crime, and there's probably a lot of truth to this. Drug users (and people who just want the government out of their personal lives) say if drugs weren't illegal then people wouldn't be breaking so many laws to get them. There seems to be a lot of truth to this as well, but in places where gambling is illegal there's still a lot of people who commit crimes to feed their addictions. It's a complicated problem with no easy answer
True, even if drugs were legalized, some people would still commit crimes to get more drugs, just as some gamblers commit crimes to feed their need to gamble. However, by legalizing drugs, we focus our enforcement efforts on those you have demonstrated that they can't handle things, versus arresting everyone, even those who can responsibly use drugs. We don't arrest people for going to Las Vegas and playing the slots, we arrest those who gamble and then commit a crime to support their gambling habit. Those without a gambling problem can continue to gamble without having to worry about going to prison.
The creator doesn't waive his rights, he sells them to the publisher. If a creator wanted to waive his rights he's free to do so, of course, but a publsiher is actually buying the copyright from the creator.
I'm actually starting law school this Fall -- the school I will be going to actually has an international hgh tech property program to go along with its high tech intellectual property program and international program.
but there is a difference between what is a right and what is simply legal or illegal. Rights (in the US) are spelled out in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights -- everything else may be legal or illegal, but not a "right".
Your supermarket example doesn't match the Microsoft example, because in the case above, the pirate is selling something acquired illegally (even if they bought it, they are forbidden by license to redistribute it). M$ doesn't have a "right" to make a profit -- but they have the law on their side when it comes to piracy.
Similarly, in the case of the supermarket, of course the convenience does not have a "right" to stop the supermarket from selling food -- but if the supermarket STOLE the food from the convenience store (or otherwise obtained the food illegally), the the convenience store would have LEGAL recourse against the supermarket.
Piracy is not competition. Anyone can undersell someone else if they do not have to pay for the product they are selling and the other guy has to.
Good call. The latest unemployment figures released say that nationwide, unemployment is at 4.5% or so, the highest level in 2 years.
Well, that means that 2 years ago, unemployment was higher than it is now. Two years ago, people were excited at how low the unemployement numbers were...
From an economic point of view, 3-4% unemployment is considered full employment from a practical standpoint anyway. Yeah, there are a lot of layoffs going on now -- I know a bunch of people who have been laid off (I've been lucky so far), but they've pretty much all gotten jobs again pretty quickly, so I don't think the end of the world is upon us yet...
I am not 100% sure on this, but I think that the rule is is that you do not have to publish info on your product until you actually are issued the patent -- once the patent is issued, it becomes publicly available (but protected by the patent).
Until the patent is issued, I don't think you have to publish any info on your product -- if you decide on your own to let info out (say by marketing and selling your product before the patent is issued) the patent pending label is strictly to let people know that if they copy your product and a patent is issued, they will be caught.
I worked at Novellus when Applied Materials sued us for violating a patent they had filed ~10 years earlier. We didn't file a patent on the technology because we assumed it was in the public domain (oops). AMAT waited until NVLS had sold several hundred systems using a TEOS-based deposition chemistry, then got the patent awarded and proceded to sue NVLS for violating their patent, eventually resulting in a >$75 million settlement and a stiff licensing fee...
Actually, this time lapse between filing and issuing is used routinely by companies in the semiconductor space to trap their competitors. A company files for a patent at a certain time, but holds off on pushing for approval until they see the technology being developed an adapted by their competitors. Then they push the patent forward, and when it is issued, they sue their competitors for patent infringement. This is called a submarine patent, since it hides in the deeps and surfaces only when it can cause the most harm. Check out some of the IP cases between Applied Materials and Novellus Systems, especially surrounding TEOS...
What I meant to say was this:
Actually, you can't prove Theories -- you can only disprove theories, or show that they work every time you try -- but you can't prove that they are always right. A law (in the scientific sense, not the mathematical) is simply a theory that has stuck around for a while. Laws are not proven either. Newton's "Laws" of motion were eventually found to be the limiting cases (for velocities much less than the velocity of light) of Einstein's special theory of relativity.
Laws aren't proven any more than theories are -- Newton's "Law's" are approximations of a more general "theory" -- special relativity. If you want to read more, I wrote up a page on this a while back: you can check it out here if you want.
Actually, you can't prove Theories -- you can only disprove theories, or show that they work every time you try -- but you can't prove that they are always right.
A law (in the scientific sense, not the mathematical) is simply a theory that has stuck around for a while. Laws are not proven either. Newton's "Laws" of motion were eventually found to be the limiting cases (for velocities here
Actually, I don't really want to be a lawyer, as most people (myself included) think of lawyers. I'm doing my MBA in international management, and I'll do my JD work in comparative international law -- I'm more interested in seeing how different countries can work together versus suing people and such.
Besides, I'll probably do a joint JD/MA program, with the MA in international relations -- maybe I'll end up as a diplomat or something...
Good post. If capitalism in the U.S. works so poorly, why aren't there hordes of programmers migrating to Europe, or to India?
Wasn't it Churchill that said something along the lines of "Democracy in America and England is the worst form of government -- except for every other form of government"
I'm sorta on the same path, but a little bit further along. BS/MS in physics, 8 years in semiconductor engineering, 3 years in software -- finishing up my MBA in a couple of months, then off to Law School in the Fall...
Change is good.
To split some more hairs, actually Newton's gravitational theory is more properly defined as an approximation of a more general theory (General Theory of Relativity), just as Newton's Laws of Motion are the zero-velocity limits of Special Relativity.
While it is true that resteraunts are gnerally privately owned, that doesn't mean they can set the rules any way they want to. They can't discriminate on the basis of race, for example. They can't serve alcohol to people under 21. They have to maintain a certain level of cleanliness. The list of regulations is long, and smoking is just one more on the list.
Now, that said, I am a non-smoker and a libertarian, and I don't agree with this (and most other) laws and regulations.
You're looking at two different things here. First, the supercooled chip stopped working at low temps due to a lack of free electrons. Semiconductors are insulators at very low temperatures, and their conductivity rises with increasing temperature, because the extra energy (from the heat) enables electrons to move from a bound state into a free state (jump from the valence band to the conduction band). Go to a low enough temp, the free electron become bound drop back into the valence band), no conductivity, the transistors stop working.
Superconductors are, as the name implies, conductors. Conductors (unlike semiconductors) have a conductivity that is a maximum at low temperatures, and decreases with increasing temperature (the opposite of semiconductors). Superconductors are a class of materials that conduct with zero resistance (i.e., infinite conductivity) below some threshold temperature. Virtually all conductors become superconductors at a low enough temperature (~0 K). High-temp superconductors have a threshold temperature significantly higher than 0 K.
I really can't stand this whole "it's just a theory" thing. The word "theory" as used by scientists is much different than the common usage. In science, a theory is a big deal. For a hypothesis to become a valid scientific theory, it must have three properties:
It must explain all known relevant phenomenon. If a hypothesis can't even explain what we have already observed, it is no good.
It must predict new phenomenon. A theory is useless if all it does is explain what we already know -- and besides, if it didn't predict new stuff, it would fail number 3:
It must be testable and falsifiable -- that is, it must be able to be tested in such a way that it could be proven false.
Note that being falsifiable doesn't necessarily mean that it must physicaly be able to be tested -- the big bang theory, for example, we can't just run that in the lab -- it just means that you can come up with a valid experiment that, if it worked, would show that the hypothesis was incorrect. Of course, theories that we can't test currently are more suspect than theories we can test, but that doesn't mean they are any less valid.
The point is this -- if a hypothesis has made it to the level of theory, it is elevated above the status of a mere hypothesis, and it shouldn't be discounted because it is a "theory" -- science doesn't deal in "facts", because any day any theory could be shot down by new evidence -- but the evidence had better be extremely convincing, and it is up to the person who brings up the new evidence to show that it violates the theory -- it is not up to science to shoot down every crackpot hypothesis that comes down the pike. And finally, a "law" is nothing more than a theory that has been successful for a long enough period of time.
Finely-divided (ground) uranium (and plutonium) is pyrophoric -- it would burst into flames spontaneously when you dumped it out of the plane. It would turn into Uranium Oxide -- U2O5, if I remember right -- which can be quite poisonous if inhaled (just like any heavy metal oxide), but is really heavy -- it would more likely drop to the ground and stay there.
Because the half-lives of uranium and plutonium are so long, the level of radioactivity is quite low -- plus they're alpha emitters, and alpha particles can't penetrate your skin. If you dumped uranium dust out of a plane, long term, some folks who breathed it in on the way down would have higher incidences of lung cangers, but that would be about it.
The real fallout danger from a nuclear burst is all of the short-halflife crap -- strontium-90, cesium-137 (I think that's the one), etc. -- that gets created when everyday dirt gets hit with a big neutron flux. The fallout danger from uranium or any other alpha emitter is negligible. There's lots and lots of uranium and thorium in the dirt already.
I agree with what you have to say here. I think what's interesting about that article is that it was written in 1991, with all of the referenced data being collected in the 80's and even the 70's. While I do believe that stereotyping still exists, I think it would be more relevent to look at what's going on in industry today, rather than what went on a decade ago. Maybe things have stayed the same, but I doubt it.
Kip Thorne's book is "Black Holes and Time Warps.".
If you REALLY want to learn about gravity and general relativity, read the book Kip Thorne co-wrote with John Wheeler and Charles Misner, "Gravitaion". That'll keep you busy for a few days...
The weak force is responsible for beta radiation (the emission of an electron or positron) -- this can be the result of neutron decay, for example.
There are other types of radiation as well that are not associated with the weak force: nuclear fission is governed by the relationship between the strong force, which tries to bind the nucleus together, and the electromagnetic force, which tries to tear the nucleus apart. Fission results in the emission of neutrons.
Alpha particles are emitted directly from the nucleus -- alpha particles are two neutrons and two protons bound together (essentially a doubly-ionized helium atom). Finally, there are gamma rays and x-rays. Gamma rays and x-rays are the same thing, namely high-energy photons. The difference is in the definitions: gamma rays are the result of some sort of nuclear transformation (rearrangement of the nucleons in the nucleus, or the nuclear capture of an electron, for example), while x-rays are the result of an electron (atomic) tranformation, such as a valence electron changing energy states.
The Standard Model has way to many arbitrary constants -- the mass of the electron, the electric charge of the electron, the fine-structure constant, etc. -- ideally, a complete unified theory would predict these values instead of having to 'tune' the theory so that these constants turn out right...
Slashdot Mirror
The reason we classify alchohol as a "soft" drug is because it is legal, and lots of people use it -- and we can see that the overwhelming majority of alchohol users are able to use it responsibly. There is no reason to believe that other drugs couldn't be used responsibly as well.
There is always going to be a certain subset of the population that is going to overuse or overdo something to the point where it affects their lives in a detrimental way -- be it alchohol, heroin, or Dungeons and Dragons -- but the majority of people can deal with all of the things in a responsible manner.
I don't understand why people feel a need to restrict what other folks do with their own lives. And don't rely on the argument that they will get in a car and crash or whatever -- people already do this with alchohol (a "soft" drug, remember?), and we already have an infrastructure to deal with this.
True, even if drugs were legalized, some people would still commit crimes to get more drugs, just as some gamblers commit crimes to feed their need to gamble. However, by legalizing drugs, we focus our enforcement efforts on those you have demonstrated that they can't handle things, versus arresting everyone, even those who can responsibly use drugs. We don't arrest people for going to Las Vegas and playing the slots, we arrest those who gamble and then commit a crime to support their gambling habit. Those without a gambling problem can continue to gamble without having to worry about going to prison.
The creator doesn't waive his rights, he sells them to the publisher. If a creator wanted to waive his rights he's free to do so, of course, but a publsiher is actually buying the copyright from the creator.
The right time indeed.
Your supermarket example doesn't match the Microsoft example, because in the case above, the pirate is selling something acquired illegally (even if they bought it, they are forbidden by license to redistribute it). M$ doesn't have a "right" to make a profit -- but they have the law on their side when it comes to piracy.
Similarly, in the case of the supermarket, of course the convenience does not have a "right" to stop the supermarket from selling food -- but if the supermarket STOLE the food from the convenience store (or otherwise obtained the food illegally), the the convenience store would have LEGAL recourse against the supermarket.
Piracy is not competition. Anyone can undersell someone else if they do not have to pay for the product they are selling and the other guy has to.
Good call. The latest unemployment figures released say that nationwide, unemployment is at 4.5% or so, the highest level in 2 years.
Well, that means that 2 years ago, unemployment was higher than it is now. Two years ago, people were excited at how low the unemployement numbers were...
From an economic point of view, 3-4% unemployment is considered full employment from a practical standpoint anyway. Yeah, there are a lot of layoffs going on now -- I know a bunch of people who have been laid off (I've been lucky so far), but they've pretty much all gotten jobs again pretty quickly, so I don't think the end of the world is upon us yet...
I've heard it said that "companies that have unions deserve them."
I am not 100% sure on this, but I think that the rule is is that you do not have to publish info on your product until you actually are issued the patent -- once the patent is issued, it becomes publicly available (but protected by the patent). Until the patent is issued, I don't think you have to publish any info on your product -- if you decide on your own to let info out (say by marketing and selling your product before the patent is issued) the patent pending label is strictly to let people know that if they copy your product and a patent is issued, they will be caught. I worked at Novellus when Applied Materials sued us for violating a patent they had filed ~10 years earlier. We didn't file a patent on the technology because we assumed it was in the public domain (oops). AMAT waited until NVLS had sold several hundred systems using a TEOS-based deposition chemistry, then got the patent awarded and proceded to sue NVLS for violating their patent, eventually resulting in a >$75 million settlement and a stiff licensing fee...
Check out what I wrote here -- thread This may be part of the explanation...
Actually, this time lapse between filing and issuing is used routinely by companies in the semiconductor space to trap their competitors. A company files for a patent at a certain time, but holds off on pushing for approval until they see the technology being developed an adapted by their competitors. Then they push the patent forward, and when it is issued, they sue their competitors for patent infringement. This is called a submarine patent, since it hides in the deeps and surfaces only when it can cause the most harm. Check out some of the IP cases between Applied Materials and Novellus Systems, especially surrounding TEOS...
What I meant to say was this: Actually, you can't prove Theories -- you can only disprove theories, or show that they work every time you try -- but you can't prove that they are always right. A law (in the scientific sense, not the mathematical) is simply a theory that has stuck around for a while. Laws are not proven either. Newton's "Laws" of motion were eventually found to be the limiting cases (for velocities much less than the velocity of light) of Einstein's special theory of relativity. Laws aren't proven any more than theories are -- Newton's "Law's" are approximations of a more general "theory" -- special relativity. If you want to read more, I wrote up a page on this a while back: you can check it out here if you want.
Actually, you can't prove Theories -- you can only disprove theories, or show that they work every time you try -- but you can't prove that they are always right. A law (in the scientific sense, not the mathematical) is simply a theory that has stuck around for a while. Laws are not proven either. Newton's "Laws" of motion were eventually found to be the limiting cases (for velocities here
Besides, I'll probably do a joint JD/MA program, with the MA in international relations -- maybe I'll end up as a diplomat or something...
No ambulance chasing for me...
Good post. If capitalism in the U.S. works so poorly, why aren't there hordes of programmers migrating to Europe, or to India? Wasn't it Churchill that said something along the lines of "Democracy in America and England is the worst form of government -- except for every other form of government"
I'm sorta on the same path, but a little bit further along. BS/MS in physics, 8 years in semiconductor engineering, 3 years in software -- finishing up my MBA in a couple of months, then off to Law School in the Fall... Change is good.
To split some more hairs, actually Newton's gravitational theory is more properly defined as an approximation of a more general theory (General Theory of Relativity), just as Newton's Laws of Motion are the zero-velocity limits of Special Relativity.
Your rant is one of the best posts I'vew seen on this subject yet...
Now, that said, I am a non-smoker and a libertarian, and I don't agree with this (and most other) laws and regulations.
Superconductors are, as the name implies, conductors. Conductors (unlike semiconductors) have a conductivity that is a maximum at low temperatures, and decreases with increasing temperature (the opposite of semiconductors). Superconductors are a class of materials that conduct with zero resistance (i.e., infinite conductivity) below some threshold temperature. Virtually all conductors become superconductors at a low enough temperature (~0 K). High-temp superconductors have a threshold temperature significantly higher than 0 K.
Note that being falsifiable doesn't necessarily mean that it must physicaly be able to be tested -- the big bang theory, for example, we can't just run that in the lab -- it just means that you can come up with a valid experiment that, if it worked, would show that the hypothesis was incorrect. Of course, theories that we can't test currently are more suspect than theories we can test, but that doesn't mean they are any less valid.
The point is this -- if a hypothesis has made it to the level of theory, it is elevated above the status of a mere hypothesis, and it shouldn't be discounted because it is a "theory" -- science doesn't deal in "facts", because any day any theory could be shot down by new evidence -- but the evidence had better be extremely convincing, and it is up to the person who brings up the new evidence to show that it violates the theory -- it is not up to science to shoot down every crackpot hypothesis that comes down the pike. And finally, a "law" is nothing more than a theory that has been successful for a long enough period of time.
Finely-divided (ground) uranium (and plutonium) is pyrophoric -- it would burst into flames spontaneously when you dumped it out of the plane. It would turn into Uranium Oxide -- U2O5, if I remember right -- which can be quite poisonous if inhaled (just like any heavy metal oxide), but is really heavy -- it would more likely drop to the ground and stay there. Because the half-lives of uranium and plutonium are so long, the level of radioactivity is quite low -- plus they're alpha emitters, and alpha particles can't penetrate your skin. If you dumped uranium dust out of a plane, long term, some folks who breathed it in on the way down would have higher incidences of lung cangers, but that would be about it. The real fallout danger from a nuclear burst is all of the short-halflife crap -- strontium-90, cesium-137 (I think that's the one), etc. -- that gets created when everyday dirt gets hit with a big neutron flux. The fallout danger from uranium or any other alpha emitter is negligible. There's lots and lots of uranium and thorium in the dirt already.
I agree with what you have to say here. I think what's interesting about that article is that it was written in 1991, with all of the referenced data being collected in the 80's and even the 70's. While I do believe that stereotyping still exists, I think it would be more relevent to look at what's going on in industry today, rather than what went on a decade ago. Maybe things have stayed the same, but I doubt it.
If you REALLY want to learn about gravity and general relativity, read the book Kip Thorne co-wrote with John Wheeler and Charles Misner, "Gravitaion". That'll keep you busy for a few days...
There are other types of radiation as well that are not associated with the weak force: nuclear fission is governed by the relationship between the strong force, which tries to bind the nucleus together, and the electromagnetic force, which tries to tear the nucleus apart. Fission results in the emission of neutrons.
Alpha particles are emitted directly from the nucleus -- alpha particles are two neutrons and two protons bound together (essentially a doubly-ionized helium atom). Finally, there are gamma rays and x-rays. Gamma rays and x-rays are the same thing, namely high-energy photons. The difference is in the definitions: gamma rays are the result of some sort of nuclear transformation (rearrangement of the nucleons in the nucleus, or the nuclear capture of an electron, for example), while x-rays are the result of an electron (atomic) tranformation, such as a valence electron changing energy states.