I drive an EV in Washington and there is a similar tax here. It's entirely reasonable. Like just about every service provided by the government, the ones who use the service ought to be the ones paying for it. For the roads that means drivers (and passengers, but let's assume passengers pay by paying the driver who then pays taxes).
Taxing is hard to make completely right. Ideally you'd pay per mile weighted by traffic heaviness which uses capacity plus some for weight * miles, which wears the roads, plus some tolls for special extra-expensive things like bridges. Tolls we can handle. But the other stuff is a lot of record keeping, and worse, it's an invasion of privacy. Until now we've worked around it by taxing gas as a proxy for mileage, ignoring the difference in time of day and gas mileage. That's been sub-optimal, but not a terrible tradeoff for privacy and costs of keeping records. We who use EVs completely dodge this tax and are basically using the roads free of charge, or at least free of being charged by this avenue. Now I think government is too big, taxes too much, and tries to do too much. But basic infrastructure is something it does and should provide, and the users should be the ones who pay for it. My EV uses those roads, so I absolutely should be charged for it.
Now for pie in the sky idealism. The best way to pay for roads would be something like tolltags on every public road everywhere but with some sort of cash equivalent but cryptographically secure tag that cannot be used to identify an individual. Gas taxes would still exist but they would be a lot lower, not intended to pay for road use but rather intended to pay for environmental damage.
It was the newspaper's right to publish the data they published. It was still a bad thing to do. The first amendment would also protect their right to publish lists of suspected communists or records of purchases of prophylactics and pregnancy tests. The first amendment protects their rights to publish that information. It doesn't make it not a violation of privacy and all around dick move. The second issue, of course, is the existence of the list to begin with. They got the list from the government, which compiled it through fairly straightforward violations of the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.
Sorry, I hold the patent for doing stuff without things. Doing stuff with things is just doing stuff without things but with things. You are hereby directed to cease and desist all doings. You may license the technology for the fair and reasonable obligation of twelve years indentured servitude. In the event your location prohibits such servitude, you may relocate prior to licensing. Please note that relocating and licensing both constitute doing stuff and will incur penalties unless you have already licensed the technology.
I wouldn't go that far. It's good to encourage companies to contribute to standards so that we actually do get standards and not every company for itself. But I think it would be a good idea for open licensing terms to be part of any standards submission. So Samsung can suggest patented tech X as a standard, but that needs to come along with a statement that X will be licensed for 3 cents per device to anyone who wants to use it. The license should cover all reasonably foreseeable use cases, and any that come up later get decided by the standards body. Nothing would stop Samsung from also offering a different license agreement to anyone, but the standard one would always also be on the table.
What is your objection to his statement? You said "in terms of biomass," and he lists the species with the highest total biomass. In what possible way does that indicate he failed to understand? I guess fail to understand you as well.
Since you asked. Real-world analogies where you wouldn't be held responsible:
You deliberately have no fence around your yard so that anyone who likes can walk across it from one side to the other. You will not be charged if someone flees from the police through your yard.
You and your neighbors pool various gardening tools and keep them in an unlocked tool shed so that anyone can use them with a policy being that you trust people to bring the tools back. You will not be charged if someone steal a shovel and uses it to kill someone.
You are zip car. Someone uses one to commit any of the ten million crimes you can commit with cars. You will not be charged.
It's 50/50. In one interpretation of quantum mechanics that means that the cat exists in a combination of both states prior to observing it. Observing it causes one or the other of the states to prevail.
It is the only interpretation that I am aware of (though its precise phrasing varies).
There are many other interpretations. The one where it exists in a combination of the possible states is the Copenhagen interpretation. Another popular one is the many words interpretation. Instead of the cat being in a combination of the possible states, there are multiple universes with each universe containing a different possible history (dies at T=1, dies at T=2, still alive, etc.) and there is a different version of the observer in each universe coming to a conclusion based on which universe he's in. In the relational interpretation observer 1 could take a peek, and know the cat is dead, while for observer 2, who hasn't peeked, the cat is still in both states. In the ensemble interpretation the cat is definitely either alive or dead, you just don't know which before making the observation. The probability distribution does not apply to a single cat, but rather to an ensemble of cats. Repeat the experiment 1000 times and you'll get about 500 alive and 500 dead.
Unlike what the original poster said, the cat is not already dead when you open the box. That is the whole point of the experiment. The cat is neither alive nor dead until the point in time in which you look, at which point it has already been alive/dead all along.
That interpretation is different from "the only interpretation [you] are aware of." As I said above the interpretation Schrodinger was discussing has the cat in a combination of both states. Not that it's not in "neither" state. It's in a combination of them. The AC above was pointing out that you might not be keeping the cat alive while peeking. You might be peeking while keeping the cat dead. Or as the article rather than the headline actually says, you get to peek and keep it in the superposition without collapsing it.
I think perhaps you may be the one confused. The point of the thought experiment is that you cannot know whether the cat is alive or dead before opening the box. It's 50/50. In one interpretation of quantum mechanics that means that the cat exists in a combination of both states prior to observing it. Observing it causes one or the other of the states to prevail.
Starship Troopers is better if you pretend it's a completely unrelated story that happens to have the same name, and then you watch it anyway - as a comedy.
Exactly. It's not supposed to be a big surprising revelation for the reader. It's supposed to be a revelation to Ender, but just confirmation of growing suspicion to the reader. At least that's how I read it. There were far too many hints to the reader for it to have been intended as a surprise, and I'm usually the guy who does get surprised by these sorts of things.
You got modded insightful for being intentionally obtuse. Now, because I just exercised my freedom of speech, you are obligated to like what I said. Similarly you must celebrate all gatherings of any kind, all religions, all news articles, and all handgun murders, being as they are, uses of a freedom. Oh, and lawyers. You have to celebrate lawyers. Bask in that.
You don't see how people are likely to feel differently about just plain seeing ads and seeing ads they explicitly asked not to see? Advertisers probably don't want there to be any way to block ads because they want to show them, and they probably don't want there to be any way to ask not to be tracked either. But if such a mechanism does exist, then they do have reason to honor it.
Slashdot Mirror
He had evidence of espionage and turned over that evidence to authorities who could act on it. Why does he need to justify that?
I drive an EV in Washington and there is a similar tax here. It's entirely reasonable. Like just about every service provided by the government, the ones who use the service ought to be the ones paying for it. For the roads that means drivers (and passengers, but let's assume passengers pay by paying the driver who then pays taxes).
Taxing is hard to make completely right. Ideally you'd pay per mile weighted by traffic heaviness which uses capacity plus some for weight * miles, which wears the roads, plus some tolls for special extra-expensive things like bridges. Tolls we can handle. But the other stuff is a lot of record keeping, and worse, it's an invasion of privacy. Until now we've worked around it by taxing gas as a proxy for mileage, ignoring the difference in time of day and gas mileage. That's been sub-optimal, but not a terrible tradeoff for privacy and costs of keeping records. We who use EVs completely dodge this tax and are basically using the roads free of charge, or at least free of being charged by this avenue. Now I think government is too big, taxes too much, and tries to do too much. But basic infrastructure is something it does and should provide, and the users should be the ones who pay for it. My EV uses those roads, so I absolutely should be charged for it.
Now for pie in the sky idealism. The best way to pay for roads would be something like tolltags on every public road everywhere but with some sort of cash equivalent but cryptographically secure tag that cannot be used to identify an individual. Gas taxes would still exist but they would be a lot lower, not intended to pay for road use but rather intended to pay for environmental damage.
It was the newspaper's right to publish the data they published. It was still a bad thing to do. The first amendment would also protect their right to publish lists of suspected communists or records of purchases of prophylactics and pregnancy tests. The first amendment protects their rights to publish that information. It doesn't make it not a violation of privacy and all around dick move. The second issue, of course, is the existence of the list to begin with. They got the list from the government, which compiled it through fairly straightforward violations of the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.
thousand million
I see what you did there.
Anyone else read the headline and think everyone was getting new prescription eyeglasses?
Sorry, I hold the patent for doing stuff without things. Doing stuff with things is just doing stuff without things but with things. You are hereby directed to cease and desist all doings. You may license the technology for the fair and reasonable obligation of twelve years indentured servitude. In the event your location prohibits such servitude, you may relocate prior to licensing. Please note that relocating and licensing both constitute doing stuff and will incur penalties unless you have already licensed the technology.
Those aren't mutually exclusive. Samsung is entirely capable of rationally deciding that retaliation maximizes near and long term value.
I wouldn't go that far. It's good to encourage companies to contribute to standards so that we actually do get standards and not every company for itself. But I think it would be a good idea for open licensing terms to be part of any standards submission. So Samsung can suggest patented tech X as a standard, but that needs to come along with a statement that X will be licensed for 3 cents per device to anyone who wants to use it. The license should cover all reasonably foreseeable use cases, and any that come up later get decided by the standards body. Nothing would stop Samsung from also offering a different license agreement to anyone, but the standard one would always also be on the table.
You remember the inquisition? I think we got ourselves a witch here, boys.
Literally two thirds of the people you meet have no idea how to use that word correctly.
What is your objection to his statement? You said "in terms of biomass," and he lists the species with the highest total biomass. In what possible way does that indicate he failed to understand? I guess fail to understand you as well.
Jan Pieterszoon Coen?
This is totally true.
So long as you define trivial programs to be a subset of programs that can be proven correct.
Since you asked. Real-world analogies where you wouldn't be held responsible:
You deliberately have no fence around your yard so that anyone who likes can walk across it from one side to the other. You will not be charged if someone flees from the police through your yard.
You and your neighbors pool various gardening tools and keep them in an unlocked tool shed so that anyone can use them with a policy being that you trust people to bring the tools back. You will not be charged if someone steal a shovel and uses it to kill someone.
You are zip car. Someone uses one to commit any of the ten million crimes you can commit with cars. You will not be charged.
How can we trust our government to any rogue who places such a high priority on stamina?
Absolutely right. And let me just add that anyone who disagrees is a Nazi.
-- Paid for by the mrchaotica fan club.
It's 50/50. In one interpretation of quantum mechanics that means that the cat exists in a combination of both states prior to observing it. Observing it causes one or the other of the states to prevail.
It is the only interpretation that I am aware of (though its precise phrasing varies).
There are many other interpretations. The one where it exists in a combination of the possible states is the Copenhagen interpretation.
Another popular one is the many words interpretation. Instead of the cat being in a combination of the possible states, there are multiple universes with each universe containing a different possible history (dies at T=1, dies at T=2, still alive, etc.) and there is a different version of the observer in each universe coming to a conclusion based on which universe he's in.
In the relational interpretation observer 1 could take a peek, and know the cat is dead, while for observer 2, who hasn't peeked, the cat is still in both states.
In the ensemble interpretation the cat is definitely either alive or dead, you just don't know which before making the observation. The probability distribution does not apply to a single cat, but rather to an ensemble of cats. Repeat the experiment 1000 times and you'll get about 500 alive and 500 dead.
Unlike what the original poster said, the cat is not already dead when you open the box. That is the whole point of the experiment. The cat is neither alive nor dead until the point in time in which you look, at which point it has already been alive/dead all along.
That interpretation is different from "the only interpretation [you] are aware of." As I said above the interpretation Schrodinger was discussing has the cat in a combination of both states. Not that it's not in "neither" state. It's in a combination of them. The AC above was pointing out that you might not be keeping the cat alive while peeking. You might be peeking while keeping the cat dead. Or as the article rather than the headline actually says, you get to peek and keep it in the superposition without collapsing it.
I think perhaps you may be the one confused. The point of the thought experiment is that you cannot know whether the cat is alive or dead before opening the box. It's 50/50. In one interpretation of quantum mechanics that means that the cat exists in a combination of both states prior to observing it. Observing it causes one or the other of the states to prevail.
Starship Troopers is better if you pretend it's a completely unrelated story that happens to have the same name, and then you watch it anyway - as a comedy.
The Legend of Bagger Vance. It's like four people on a vast empty tract of grassland.
Exactly. It's not supposed to be a big surprising revelation for the reader. It's supposed to be a revelation to Ender, but just confirmation of growing suspicion to the reader. At least that's how I read it. There were far too many hints to the reader for it to have been intended as a surprise, and I'm usually the guy who does get surprised by these sorts of things.
You got modded insightful for being intentionally obtuse. Now, because I just exercised my freedom of speech, you are obligated to like what I said. Similarly you must celebrate all gatherings of any kind, all religions, all news articles, and all handgun murders, being as they are, uses of a freedom. Oh, and lawyers. You have to celebrate lawyers. Bask in that.
You can celebrate the freedom without celebrating each usage of that freedom.
Get in the plane.
http://mostlymargaret.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/spruce-moose.jpg
You don't see how people are likely to feel differently about just plain seeing ads and seeing ads they explicitly asked not to see? Advertisers probably don't want there to be any way to block ads because they want to show them, and they probably don't want there to be any way to ask not to be tracked either. But if such a mechanism does exist, then they do have reason to honor it.