Gregg invented in the laserdisc in 1958 (!), selling patent to MCA who developed commercially with Philips. Sony contributed some work on error correction to the Red Book standard, but the hard work of hardware design and modulation technique came from Philips, building on their laserdisc work.
What Sony did, and has ever done since, was see a market to exploit.
Douglas argues that when your speech causes a panic, it can be prosecuted. In your original post, you said the opposite of this. Ergo, you were wrong.
No. Douglas says:
"a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused"
Is that clear? He says that the overt acts actually caused can be prosecuted. He does not say that the speech can be prosecuted. He does not say that speech can be prosecuted because it causes a panic. He doesn't say that speech can be prosecuted if it is deemed by the court to have been likely to cause panic.
Claiming it's the consequences themselves which are prosecuted is blindingly stupid, since that means you'd prosecute the people who panic,
No. It means that, in Douglas' opinion, the speaker is reponsible for consequences. Please entertain me with a different interpretation of Douglas' very clear phrase above, if you have one.
Yelling something that could cause a panic and result in people dying is the very definition of saying something that would incite "imminent lawless action"
No, it isn't. Panic per se is not defined anywhere as a lawless action.
And it is not even reasonable to believe that yelling "fire!" in a modern crowded theatre will cause any sort of panic which leads to dangerous acts. If you have any research showing otherwise, now's the time to cite it.
is utterly false-- the only MENTION of the phrase "fire in a crowded theatre" is by Douglass, where his statement COMPLETELY contradicts your assertion. They did NOT uphold that right.
It doesn't matter how many times you type the same thing, it doesn't make your simplistic and fallacious argument any more correct.
(i) He only talks about non-immunity from the consequences of the speech, not about the speech itself;
(ii) Douglas' statement does not form legal precedent. Only the majority opinion of the court does. And the majority opinion of the court overruled Schenck v. US.
Im suggesting that people are prone to panic, and that people in a panic are prone to do foolish and dangerous things; and that a person bears some responsibility for his speech (which is well understood in many areas-- from this scenario, to perjury, to laws on threats).
Yes, a person may bear some responsibility for his speech. Now, on what basis today is it not permitted to shout fire in a crowded theatre? Don't give an answer which relies on an overruled decision, and if you even manage that, don't give an answer which relies on responsibility for the consequences of that speech.
Did you not read those court cases? The supreme court, which you invoked in your own defense, disagrees with you.
A single judge in a concurring opinion asserts that the consequences of such speech are prosecutable. This is not the same as considering the speech prosecutable, nor is it regarded as the precent-forming opinion of the court.
You're skimming over words but you're ignoring the language and the context.
Do tell, do you think that during Sept 11, 2001, folks in the Trade Center towers were being orderly? Or do you suppose there was a degree of panic?
I'm assuming someone in the towers alerted his colleagues to the plane which had just rammed into the building. Are you suggesting that people there died from a stampede?
(1) Douglas clarifies that he considers no immunity from prosecution for the consequences of the speech. You said "such an action is prosecutable", whereas Douglas is saying that the consequences of such an action are prosecutable.
(2) The decision re limits of free speech was majority and legally binding. The caveat was merely part of a concurring opinion. You may be arguing that no-one has actually used this case specifically to prosecute/defend someone shouting fire in a crowded theatre, but to me it seems clear that the majority decision (regardless of any caveats by individual judges) is putting clear limits on the limits to free speech such that imminent lawless action (which doesn't include "fire!") is the new test, not clear and present danger (which may include "fire!").
The difference is that you could have no reasonable expectation that saying "the government is doing bad things" would directly, in itself, be responsible for pushing someone to commit a murder.
In itself? Saying anything doesn't "directly, in itself" cause anything. As for whether loudly announcing the evils of the government may cause someone to be influenced into targetting government official - of course that's a reasonable expectation. What's all the government security for if not to stop those who have been convinced that the government is evil from taking down its representatives directly?
Any 10 year old could understand that yelling fire or pulling a fire alarm in a crowded theatre has a moderate risk of causing a dangerous stampede.
I don't perceive that at all. Maybe it was a credible risk before fire regulations limited crowding in a theatre. If merely yelling "fire!" is likely to cause a dangerous stampede then there's already something very wrong either with the theatre layout or with its patrons or staff.
(1) Prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused - Douglas is providing an exception to immunity for actual consequences of the speech, while Japan is trying to make the speech itself illegal;
(2) Concurring opinions are not majority opinions, so are not binding precedent.
Why aren't the uninsured voting for a legislature which does something about it?
I have at least one uninsured Texan friend who already has high medical debts and who doesn't go to the doctor out of fear of further bills - and there is no chance of her today being able to afford decent coverage. She works a difficult six-day week around looking after children (whose insurance I think her ex pays for), but her workplace (despite being related to the medical industry!) doesn't offer any insurance scheme.
Note that she takes no interest in politics. Is it perhaps as simple as that?
It's getting tiresome to hear this example. The right to falsely "shout fire in a crowded theat[er]" principle is upheld in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the only legitimate restriction to free speech considered that which might incite a riot before the police could arrive.
Have you even thought about the implications of making myself responsible for the outcome of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre? It means that any alert I make results in my becoming responsible both for the actions and the environment of people who respond to my alert. Consider my saying, "The government is sending troops to an illegitimate war!"
Now imagine someone reads into that, "The government must be stopped!" (You must get out of the theatre.)
And then, "The government must be stopped by force!" (You must get out of the theatre by force.)
And then, "The representatives of government must be stopped by force!" (You must get out of the theatre by force against other people.)
And then, "The representatives of government must be killed!" (You must get out of the theatre by hurting people.)
For saying something bad is happening in government, even if I am wrong, I'm suddenly responsible for potentially influencing someone to kill some member of the government.
Free speech must include the right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre.
There are so many scientific and social theories which have been overturned over the past couple of centuries.
However, people still spout conclusions derived from crude early models of a free market.
To summarise: there is no such thing as a perfectly informed, rational consumer provided with a set of reasonable alternatives. It's like the physicist joke beginning "consider a spherical cow...", except economists don't speak jokingly.
If the patient is diseased you do not kill the patient.
You do not kill the village to save it.
If some entity is too powerful you can't reduce its power by neutering the only challenger strong enough to temper it.
In short, you're swallowing the shit hook, line and sinker. The intention in the past 3 decades has been to corrupt government precisely so you can then say, "Look! Gov is corrupt! You don't want gov! Let us take over!"
The correct response is, "Yes! You corrupted it! Now it's time to remove corrupt elements."
Libertarian = mostly free market. Government is evil for everything except policing and defence.
Social democrat = mostly free market. Government is evil for everything except policing, defence, limited welfare, limited regulation.
Slavish devotion to government doesn't feature in principle in either (nor in practice in the social democrat case; we can't say for libertarianism as it's never been implemented). It might be featured in authoritarianism or command economies.
When will we get to stage that swathes of the US stop regarding everyone "left" of GWB as Pol Pot reincarnate? It's one thing to disagree with some philosophy. But to base your entire conception of political debate on straw men is just... self-defeating. For example: why is Texas, with the highest proportion of uninsured in the country, so anti-universal coverage? What is the thought process? Have people been convinced that A leads to Z?
You're reading more into my post than was written.
Anyway, comparing the investment in mathematics PhDs with one of the most expensive pieces of scientific experimentation kit ever built is just silly. No group of mathematicians(*) in a particular field has ever demanded a budget of $9 billion.
(*) We do not include economists, even though they have an at least passing notion of numbers and freshman algebra and calculus. If we did, I'd concede the argument immediately, as economology is the biggest exploiter of time and waster of money on this planet.
I wondered whether they're being made, not whether they're hoping/expecting to make them. Although certain exercises are more likely to lead to new discoveries than others, and there's a difference between exploring new ideas as you develop theories and merely verifying an existing body of work.
OOI as someone who has no connection with the LHC and doesn't even know much physics beyond a few modules as part of a mathematics degree, are the scientists working with it particularly bright? My understanding has been that, so far, it's a very high maintenance (albeit necessary) way of checking various existing theories in the mound of increasingly untested theoretical physics. IOW, it's more of an engineering feat than a scientific one. Or are unexpected observations being made leading to new physics?
Is that a legally stipulated procedure? You go straight to the registrar, which isn't even necessarily hosting any content? And the registrar itself is liable somehow if it doesn't comply?
Can the DMCA be used to take down whole domains immediately now?
Does that mean I can find one infringing film on youtbe and disable youtube for a week or two?
What exactly is the legal basis for what's happening here, and what technical method was used to stop access to the site? The article doesn't make it clear.
Rather than protest, threaten, intimidate, cause destruction and generally be a major pest
That sentence reads like, "Rather than smoke marijuana, have a healthy relationship with someone a year below AoC, evade taxes and brutally murder babies, prisoners should...."
they should volunteer themselves in place of the animals.
Well, I certainly put my body where my mouth is. I've taken part in human medical trials in academic settings where the only payment is the chance to have a nice chat with a keen medical researcher about his work while you're lying back in the chair with a drip in your arm.
I also choose soaps etc not tested on animals.
As for the aesthetics/cosmetics industry...
The animals don't get tested on, the labs get real human skin to test on (rather than using animal skin as an approximation), and the protesters succeed in their goal, with the added benefit of aiding the rest of humanity.
...the idea that someone producing anti-ageing and other reality denial creams is "aiding humanity" is laugable at best, and opposing the truth at worst. At least the firms involved have a sense of humour about it.
I would have thought the obvious solution to the question of animal testing would be to require those who have a pecuniary interest in the business selling the cream to test the cream on themselves. They're humans with skin, aren't they? Deserving all the reward because they took all the risk, right?
(Bah, capitalism's been self-contradictory ever since the invention of the limited company. Wouldn't it be cool if the worker with an interest in X could set up a little fund for X and if he goes into huge debt there he can just write off that area of interest with no consequence and carry on?)
Looking at the universe as a whole, we're all irrelevant and useless. The moment you write someone else off, you're just a short walk along the spectrum you've created from signing your own death warrant.
How can you have a friendly venue for a particular sort of legal case? Isn't there any sort of oversight which deals with what is an obvious sign of partiality? I can see a jury being biased in some way by being picked from, say, a very religious area... but why have judges at all if they're even less likely to impartially apply the law?
The exceptional reputation step was clearly expressed as a shortcut, meaning you'll be in demand rather than the other way round. It doesn't apply to most people - certainly not to me - but it applies to others, some of whom are having their exceptional talents completely wasted because they've transitioned from an active researcher to a sort of trophy/ambassador (aka PR) role.
Top school - I expressed that this was an advantage, but neither necessary nor sufficient. For all the meritocracy, the old boy benefit is still clear.
Re recent changes - true, I haven't looked into it in the past few years. Glad they've dumped the puzzle crap.
Re subjective "how would you improve" thing - it seems that's a known question for certain roles. I'm not surprised - it's a common management type question, but it's not very useful unless you're given time to research and answer the problem in more concrete terms.
I had a mixture of algorithm-type questions, OO design and programming questions (C++ and Java), and some system design questions. All of these topics are applicable to a software engineering position.
No, I'd say that being given an appropriate amount of time to tackle a realistic software engineering problem is applicable to a software engineering position - even if that means going the classical IBM way and providing long probationary challenges. Knowing basic algorithmic complexity/OO stuff is just repeating the tests you took when you got the good grades at school, and I think such exercises are just the interviewer wanting to play teacher.
No one at Microsoft or Google gives a shit if you can memorize standards.
Random search corroborates: HTTP cookies, TCP congestion, API knowledge, etc.
No one at Google or Microsoft is going to ask you questions about your attitude or motivations, except perhaps your recruiter (who doesn't have any say in whether you get hired).
No, but they're asking questions which are engineered to guesstimate this information, just as any employer does - even quirky questions like the Stormtrooper one. If you don't spot this (or, specifically, never reacted in a way which suggests that you've noticed the purpose of a certain question) then, erm, maybe that works to your advantage. Contrast academia where I've found a certain amount of exploring the purpose of a question is encouraged.
Slashdot Mirror
Gregg invented in the laserdisc in 1958 (!), selling patent to MCA who developed commercially with Philips. Sony contributed some work on error correction to the Red Book standard, but the hard work of hardware design and modulation technique came from Philips, building on their laserdisc work.
What Sony did, and has ever done since, was see a market to exploit.
Douglas argues that when your speech causes a panic, it can be prosecuted. In your original post, you said the opposite of this. Ergo, you were wrong.
No. Douglas says:
"a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused"
Is that clear? He says that the overt acts actually caused can be prosecuted. He does not say that the speech can be prosecuted. He does not say that speech can be prosecuted because it causes a panic. He doesn't say that speech can be prosecuted if it is deemed by the court to have been likely to cause panic.
Claiming it's the consequences themselves which are prosecuted is blindingly stupid, since that means you'd prosecute the people who panic,
No. It means that, in Douglas' opinion, the speaker is reponsible for consequences. Please entertain me with a different interpretation of Douglas' very clear phrase above, if you have one.
Yelling something that could cause a panic and result in people dying is the very definition of saying something that would incite "imminent lawless action"
No, it isn't. Panic per se is not defined anywhere as a lawless action.
And it is not even reasonable to believe that yelling "fire!" in a modern crowded theatre will cause any sort of panic which leads to dangerous acts. If you have any research showing otherwise, now's the time to cite it.
is utterly false-- the only MENTION of the phrase "fire in a crowded theatre" is by Douglass, where his statement COMPLETELY contradicts your assertion. They did NOT uphold that right.
It doesn't matter how many times you type the same thing, it doesn't make your simplistic and fallacious argument any more correct.
(i) He only talks about non-immunity from the consequences of the speech, not about the speech itself;
(ii) Douglas' statement does not form legal precedent. Only the majority opinion of the court does. And the majority opinion of the court overruled Schenck v. US.
Im suggesting that people are prone to panic, and that people in a panic are prone to do foolish and dangerous things; and that a person bears some responsibility for his speech (which is well understood in many areas-- from this scenario, to perjury, to laws on threats).
Yes, a person may bear some responsibility for his speech. Now, on what basis today is it not permitted to shout fire in a crowded theatre? Don't give an answer which relies on an overruled decision, and if you even manage that, don't give an answer which relies on responsibility for the consequences of that speech.
Did you not read those court cases? The supreme court, which you invoked in your own defense, disagrees with you.
A single judge in a concurring opinion asserts that the consequences of such speech are prosecutable. This is not the same as considering the speech prosecutable, nor is it regarded as the precent-forming opinion of the court.
You're skimming over words but you're ignoring the language and the context.
Do tell, do you think that during Sept 11, 2001, folks in the Trade Center towers were being orderly? Or do you suppose there was a degree of panic?
I'm assuming someone in the towers alerted his colleagues to the plane which had just rammed into the building. Are you suggesting that people there died from a stampede?
(1) Douglas clarifies that he considers no immunity from prosecution for the consequences of the speech. You said "such an action is prosecutable", whereas Douglas is saying that the consequences of such an action are prosecutable.
(2) The decision re limits of free speech was majority and legally binding. The caveat was merely part of a concurring opinion. You may be arguing that no-one has actually used this case specifically to prosecute/defend someone shouting fire in a crowded theatre, but to me it seems clear that the majority decision (regardless of any caveats by individual judges) is putting clear limits on the limits to free speech such that imminent lawless action (which doesn't include "fire!") is the new test, not clear and present danger (which may include "fire!").
Again, no. You're simplistically misinterpreting both what Douglas actually said and how the law works.
The difference is that you could have no reasonable expectation that saying "the government is doing bad things" would directly, in itself, be responsible for pushing someone to commit a murder.
In itself? Saying anything doesn't "directly, in itself" cause anything. As for whether loudly announcing the evils of the government may cause someone to be influenced into targetting government official - of course that's a reasonable expectation. What's all the government security for if not to stop those who have been convinced that the government is evil from taking down its representatives directly?
Any 10 year old could understand that yelling fire or pulling a fire alarm in a crowded theatre has a moderate risk of causing a dangerous stampede.
I don't perceive that at all. Maybe it was a credible risk before fire regulations limited crowding in a theatre. If merely yelling "fire!" is likely to cause a dangerous stampede then there's already something very wrong either with the theatre layout or with its patrons or staff.
As for ther rest of your post, no.
(1) Prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused - Douglas is providing an exception to immunity for actual consequences of the speech, while Japan is trying to make the speech itself illegal;
(2) Concurring opinions are not majority opinions, so are not binding precedent.
Try again.
Why aren't the uninsured voting for a legislature which does something about it?
I have at least one uninsured Texan friend who already has high medical debts and who doesn't go to the doctor out of fear of further bills - and there is no chance of her today being able to afford decent coverage. She works a difficult six-day week around looking after children (whose insurance I think her ex pays for), but her workplace (despite being related to the medical industry!) doesn't offer any insurance scheme.
Note that she takes no interest in politics. Is it perhaps as simple as that?
It's getting tiresome to hear this example. The right to falsely "shout fire in a crowded theat[er]" principle is upheld in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the only legitimate restriction to free speech considered that which might incite a riot before the police could arrive.
Have you even thought about the implications of making myself responsible for the outcome of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre? It means that any alert I make results in my becoming responsible both for the actions and the environment of people who respond to my alert. Consider my saying, "The government is sending troops to an illegitimate war!"
Now imagine someone reads into that, "The government must be stopped!" (You must get out of the theatre.)
And then, "The government must be stopped by force!" (You must get out of the theatre by force.)
And then, "The representatives of government must be stopped by force!" (You must get out of the theatre by force against other people.)
And then, "The representatives of government must be killed!" (You must get out of the theatre by hurting people.)
For saying something bad is happening in government, even if I am wrong, I'm suddenly responsible for potentially influencing someone to kill some member of the government.
Free speech must include the right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre.
There are so many scientific and social theories which have been overturned over the past couple of centuries.
However, people still spout conclusions derived from crude early models of a free market.
To summarise: there is no such thing as a perfectly informed, rational consumer provided with a set of reasonable alternatives. It's like the physicist joke beginning "consider a spherical cow...", except economists don't speak jokingly.
Stupid debates about homosexuality and abortion are such a chronic and surprisingly effective distraction in the US.
The Western world has pretty much reduced political debate to arguing about the colour of the bikeshed.
If the patient is diseased you do not kill the patient.
You do not kill the village to save it.
If some entity is too powerful you can't reduce its power by neutering the only challenger strong enough to temper it.
In short, you're swallowing the shit hook, line and sinker. The intention in the past 3 decades has been to corrupt government precisely so you can then say, "Look! Gov is corrupt! You don't want gov! Let us take over!"
The correct response is, "Yes! You corrupted it! Now it's time to remove corrupt elements."
Libertarian = mostly free market. Government is evil for everything except policing and defence.
Social democrat = mostly free market. Government is evil for everything except policing, defence, limited welfare, limited regulation.
Slavish devotion to government doesn't feature in principle in either (nor in practice in the social democrat case; we can't say for libertarianism as it's never been implemented). It might be featured in authoritarianism or command economies.
When will we get to stage that swathes of the US stop regarding everyone "left" of GWB as Pol Pot reincarnate? It's one thing to disagree with some philosophy. But to base your entire conception of political debate on straw men is just... self-defeating. For example: why is Texas, with the highest proportion of uninsured in the country, so anti-universal coverage? What is the thought process? Have people been convinced that A leads to Z?
Yeah, BP's spill hasn't got the whole world demanding that we review use of oil.
More accurately, there's no-one paying politicians to use it as an excuse to change national policy.
You're reading more into my post than was written.
Anyway, comparing the investment in mathematics PhDs with one of the most expensive pieces of scientific experimentation kit ever built is just silly. No group of mathematicians(*) in a particular field has ever demanded a budget of $9 billion.
(*) We do not include economists, even though they have an at least passing notion of numbers and freshman algebra and calculus. If we did, I'd concede the argument immediately, as economology is the biggest exploiter of time and waster of money on this planet.
I wondered whether they're being made, not whether they're hoping/expecting to make them. Although certain exercises are more likely to lead to new discoveries than others, and there's a difference between exploring new ideas as you develop theories and merely verifying an existing body of work.
Seem very bright.
OOI as someone who has no connection with the LHC and doesn't even know much physics beyond a few modules as part of a mathematics degree, are the scientists working with it particularly bright? My understanding has been that, so far, it's a very high maintenance (albeit necessary) way of checking various existing theories in the mound of increasingly untested theoretical physics. IOW, it's more of an engineering feat than a scientific one. Or are unexpected observations being made leading to new physics?
Is that a legally stipulated procedure? You go straight to the registrar, which isn't even necessarily hosting any content? And the registrar itself is liable somehow if it doesn't comply?
Can the DMCA be used to take down whole domains immediately now?
Does that mean I can find one infringing film on youtbe and disable youtube for a week or two?
What exactly is the legal basis for what's happening here, and what technical method was used to stop access to the site? The article doesn't make it clear.
Rather than protest, threaten, intimidate, cause destruction and generally be a major pest
That sentence reads like, "Rather than smoke marijuana, have a healthy relationship with someone a year below AoC, evade taxes and brutally murder babies, prisoners should...."
they should volunteer themselves in place of the animals.
Well, I certainly put my body where my mouth is. I've taken part in human medical trials in academic settings where the only payment is the chance to have a nice chat with a keen medical researcher about his work while you're lying back in the chair with a drip in your arm.
I also choose soaps etc not tested on animals.
As for the aesthetics/cosmetics industry...
The animals don't get tested on, the labs get real human skin to test on (rather than using animal skin as an approximation), and the protesters succeed in their goal, with the added benefit of aiding the rest of humanity.
...the idea that someone producing anti-ageing and other reality denial creams is "aiding humanity" is laugable at best, and opposing the truth at worst. At least the firms involved have a sense of humour about it.
I would have thought the obvious solution to the question of animal testing would be to require those who have a pecuniary interest in the business selling the cream to test the cream on themselves. They're humans with skin, aren't they? Deserving all the reward because they took all the risk, right?
(Bah, capitalism's been self-contradictory ever since the invention of the limited company. Wouldn't it be cool if the worker with an interest in X could set up a little fund for X and if he goes into huge debt there he can just write off that area of interest with no consequence and carry on?)
Looking at the universe as a whole, we're all irrelevant and useless. The moment you write someone else off, you're just a short walk along the spectrum you've created from signing your own death warrant.
How can you have a friendly venue for a particular sort of legal case? Isn't there any sort of oversight which deals with what is an obvious sign of partiality? I can see a jury being biased in some way by being picked from, say, a very religious area... but why have judges at all if they're even less likely to impartially apply the law?
The exceptional reputation step was clearly expressed as a shortcut, meaning you'll be in demand rather than the other way round. It doesn't apply to most people - certainly not to me - but it applies to others, some of whom are having their exceptional talents completely wasted because they've transitioned from an active researcher to a sort of trophy/ambassador (aka PR) role.
Top school - I expressed that this was an advantage, but neither necessary nor sufficient. For all the meritocracy, the old boy benefit is still clear.
Re recent changes - true, I haven't looked into it in the past few years. Glad they've dumped the puzzle crap.
Re subjective "how would you improve" thing - it seems that's a known question for certain roles. I'm not surprised - it's a common management type question, but it's not very useful unless you're given time to research and answer the problem in more concrete terms.
I had a mixture of algorithm-type questions, OO design and programming questions (C++ and Java), and some system design questions. All of these topics are applicable to a software engineering position.
No, I'd say that being given an appropriate amount of time to tackle a realistic software engineering problem is applicable to a software engineering position - even if that means going the classical IBM way and providing long probationary challenges. Knowing basic algorithmic complexity/OO stuff is just repeating the tests you took when you got the good grades at school, and I think such exercises are just the interviewer wanting to play teacher.
No one at Microsoft or Google gives a shit if you can memorize standards.
Random search corroborates: HTTP cookies, TCP congestion, API knowledge, etc.
No one at Google or Microsoft is going to ask you questions about your attitude or motivations, except perhaps your recruiter (who doesn't have any say in whether you get hired).
No, but they're asking questions which are engineered to guesstimate this information, just as any employer does - even quirky questions like the Stormtrooper one. If you don't spot this (or, specifically, never reacted in a way which suggests that you've noticed the purpose of a certain question) then, erm, maybe that works to your advantage. Contrast academia where I've found a certain amount of exploring the purpose of a question is encouraged.