Exactly what right is a corporation or person taking away from you when it decides to hang up on your phone call? Surely you do not have a right to force someone else to listen to your speech.
Similarly with Youtube. There isn't anything in the Constitution that guarantees you the right to use somebody else's web site, printing press or megaphone to distribute your viewpoint. Such a concept would in fact infringe on other rights under the Fifth Amendment and the Constitional ban on bills of attainder. You can speak all you want - how you get your message to others is YOUR problem, not someone else's just because they have an jim-dandy established distribution channel that you might want to use to put forth your opinion because it would be a lot more work for you to build your own distribution channel.
The founders certainly DID NOT mean to abrogate property rights when they cast the First Amendment. Just because Youtube is a convenient forum you are not suddenly granted an inalienable right to use it however you want irrespective of the rights of the owners. If you want to get your message out there is no guarantee by anyone that they have to pay out (Youtube like any other web site has to pay for the bandwidth it uses) to give you a free ride for your crackpot theories.
Your concept of corporate power holding back your free speach is also ridiculous. Exactly what is Youtube doing that prevents you from setting up your own web site and publicizing it? Nothing.
They had no idea that the internet would put the ability to curtain free speech
Exactly what does the internet do to curtain(sic) free speach? To me it looks like it does exactly the opposite. $8.95 for a domain name and $10/month for a hosting package and you can spout off in almost unlimited fashion. In fact never before has it been as easy to get out whatever outlandish idea you might have.
Had they known that, I suspect rather strongly that they would have phrased the Bill of Rights differently.
In exactly what way? Even in the days of the Founders channels of distribution like the press were owned by individuals. In fact since such channels were more limited than what we have now it was much harder to get an idea out without significant financial backing.
The rights of corporations are secondary to the rights of individuals.
Poppycock. The two are exaactly the same. Corporations are the private property of individuals. By threating the two differently you are depriving these individuals of their property rights without due legal process as guaranteed by the Constitution. Forcing a corporation by law to carry your video is EXACTLY the same thing as forcing Joe Smith to pay a tax that will give you financial support for your package of wacko ideas. The idea is totally unacceptable and contrary to all basic ideas of life in modern society.
How is this a brilliant idea? Using off wind generated power for thermal applications like this as well as charging batteries, pumping water uphill to a resevoir, etc. to even out the varying power available from the wind has been around since the invention of the original windmill around 200 BC. Talk about prior art!!!
Yeah yeah... but who uses 1 GB anymore. Wonce you get to the LER you are dealing with 10 GB/s ports. What I want is a box that will do protocol classification and deep packet inspection at 10 GB/s.
How exactly is this chemistry? Chemistry is usually defined as the study of exchange or sharing of electrons in materials. These materials were formed by physical processes, not chemical ones.
I'm not so sure this is a particularly interesting experiment - the stiffness arises from the internal stresses in a two phase matrix rather than an intrinsic property of the material. As such this is going to have a relative small number of applications.
It is working for me. I started programming after working in chemical R&D for 25 years partly because I felt it was a less demanding career, and one that has more flexibility when I got to retirement. I started programming in early 2000 as a Perl web developer for a small boutique consultancy, learned Java, PHP and a few other things on the job, and for the past year or so have been working as an architect for a mid-sized company. I am 57 years old now. One thing that has been a big factor in my success is simply being able to communicate in English. There are a lot of good programmers out there who for one reason or another can't translate what they do into a coherent sentence. Another thing that has been helpful is a strong educational background - when you are in the job market it really opens a lot of doors even if you are an older person.
Most people working as scientists have gone through a process that includes MS, PhD and post-doctoral studies that take 7-10 years after completion of their BS level degrees. Some people manage to do it by starting at a lower level and gaining the equivalent in experience and study as they work. You are seriously missing this background. With an engineering BS you would be starting as a low level technician. To go and try to get this science background would take you years of additional study, if even you could find a program that would accept you at your age. By the time you completed this you would be near age 50.
I am not saying it is impossible, my father went for his PhD when he was about your age - but his circumstances were rather different - he had already been working in an R&D role for many years, and was able to get funding from a prestigious scholarship to pay both a salary and his college tuition because he had built up a strong reputation as a scientist without the PhD degree. People who can do this are pretty rare.
You might want to do some functional interviews - find companies that do what you are interested in, and go in and talk to them. Find out if it's really what you are interested.
Absolutely correct. Talk to your peers who are doing other things too. Join a professional society. It's all about networking.
I switched to software development after about 20 years working as a research chemist and as a chemical engineer. Since then I've done web development, operational support system development and am now working as a systems engineer. It's been hard at times, but it also has been interesting.
The problem with the view that all decisions should be left to an individual's economic gain or loss is that it does not provide for external diseconomies. As Hooker Chemical found out it was much cheaper to dump mercury into lake Erie than run it though a waste recovery process. Unless there is some restraint on that sort of thinking individuals will routinely act in ways that are beneficial to themselves, but harmful to their neighbors or society as a whole.
And of course if you live in California the use of incandescent lights increases your air conditioning load. Since air conditioning is much less electrically efficient than heating the addition to your electrical bill is multiplied significantly.
Banning incandescent lamps would have minimal effect on electricity consumption. Electrical heaters, air-conditioning, and industry all use so much more power.
Electrical lighting accounts for 9.4% of US electrical consumption. Reducing that by a factor of 4 is is significant.
None of your suggestions (halogen, LED) are as efficient as flourescent; in fact they are not really much different from incandescent. And the current compact flourescent designs with electronic ballasts do not flicker (flickering is due to the ballast design, not the bulb design), are not cold, in fact I think mine are warmer than incandescent, and certainly are not weak.
Now there are some experimental LEDs that are claiming 50-60, but there are no actual lighting products you can buy that use them.
Now in my opinion any regulation should be preformance based; I would have it that you can't sell a lighting system that gives less than 50 lumens/watt.
The other queston is whether regulation should be necessary. Personally given current global warming reports I think there is a strong case in favor of it, just like any other environmental rule.
I have yet to see any of GW Bush's aides sentanced to jail time, or news of him using government agencies (FBI, CIA, IRS) to systematically repress individuals who criticize him, or his VP have to resign due to proof of bribery, extortion and tax fraud being present by a US district attorney general.
Anyone who thinks the Dubya administration is worse than Nixon doesn't know their history. If anything should stand for proof it is the realization the Nixon was truly paranoid and far smarter than GWB.
In fact the ease of doing the illegal thing is probably slowing the uptake of Linux. If Microsoft were to become even more aggressive in enforcing its licensing provisions, and as well increasing OS prices, we would no doubt see more people and organizations turning to Linux.
The trend seems to favor this; every time I see a news item on Slashdot along these lines I give a small cheer. Let's hope that MS and DRM really make stealing Vista a much bigger big pain in the neck.
People in rural areas either get broadcast or satellite TV, both of which already support digital. What the howl will be is from people with 15 year old analog TVs who will need to replace them.
So why does he need a deinterlacer if he is outputting the movies in 1080p? All the deinterlacer can do is bugger things up (which appears to be the case here).
Apple would get creamed if they did this. Most PC's out there have hardware that Apple does not have drivers for, by decoupling the OS from the hardware people would be able to pirate the OS, and of course Apple makes more money on the hardware they sell than the OS.
Slashdot Mirror
So corporations can take away your rights?
Exactly what right is a corporation or person taking away from you when it decides to hang up on your phone call? Surely you do not have a right to force someone else to listen to your speech.
Similarly with Youtube. There isn't anything in the Constitution that guarantees you the right to use somebody else's web site, printing press or megaphone to distribute your viewpoint. Such a concept would in fact infringe on other rights under the Fifth Amendment and the Constitional ban on bills of attainder. You can speak all you want - how you get your message to others is YOUR problem, not someone else's just because they have an jim-dandy established distribution channel that you might want to use to put forth your opinion because it would be a lot more work for you to build your own distribution channel.
The founders certainly DID NOT mean to abrogate property rights when they cast the First Amendment. Just because Youtube is a convenient forum you are not suddenly granted an inalienable right to use it however you want irrespective of the rights of the owners. If you want to get your message out there is no guarantee by anyone that they have to pay out (Youtube like any other web site has to pay for the bandwidth it uses) to give you a free ride for your crackpot theories.
Your concept of corporate power holding back your free speach is also ridiculous. Exactly what is Youtube doing that prevents you from setting up your own web site and publicizing it? Nothing.
They had no idea that the internet would put the ability to curtain free speech
Exactly what does the internet do to curtain(sic) free speach? To me it looks like it does exactly the opposite. $8.95 for a domain name and $10/month for a hosting package and you can spout off in almost unlimited fashion. In fact never before has it been as easy to get out whatever outlandish idea you might have.
Had they known that, I suspect rather strongly that they would have phrased the Bill of Rights differently.
In exactly what way? Even in the days of the Founders channels of distribution like the press were owned by individuals. In fact since such channels were more limited than what we have now it was much harder to get an idea out without significant financial backing.
The rights of corporations are secondary to the rights of individuals.
Poppycock. The two are exaactly the same. Corporations are the private property of individuals. By threating the two differently you are depriving these individuals of their property rights without due legal process as guaranteed by the Constitution. Forcing a corporation by law to carry your video is EXACTLY the same thing as forcing Joe Smith to pay a tax that will give you financial support for your package of wacko ideas. The idea is totally unacceptable and contrary to all basic ideas of life in modern society.
How is this a brilliant idea? Using off wind generated power for thermal applications like this as well as charging batteries, pumping water uphill to a resevoir, etc. to even out the varying power available from the wind has been around since the invention of the original windmill around 200 BC. Talk about prior art!!!
Yeah yeah... but who uses 1 GB anymore. Wonce you get to the LER you are dealing with 10 GB/s ports. What I want is a box that will do protocol classification and deep packet inspection at 10 GB/s.
How exactly is this chemistry? Chemistry is usually defined as the study of exchange or sharing of electrons in materials. These materials were formed by physical processes, not chemical ones.
I'm not so sure this is a particularly interesting experiment - the stiffness arises from the internal stresses in a two phase matrix rather than an intrinsic property of the material. As such this is going to have a relative small number of applications.
Actually the word diamond is derived from the Greek word adamas, so in fact diamond is adamantium.
Or from the other viewpoint, how about some infanticide.
It is working for me. I started programming after working in chemical R&D for 25 years partly because I felt it was a less demanding career, and one that has more flexibility when I got to retirement. I started programming in early 2000 as a Perl web developer for a small boutique consultancy, learned Java, PHP and a few other things on the job, and for the past year or so have been working as an architect for a mid-sized company. I am 57 years old now. One thing that has been a big factor in my success is simply being able to communicate in English. There are a lot of good programmers out there who for one reason or another can't translate what they do into a coherent sentence. Another thing that has been helpful is a strong educational background - when you are in the job market it really opens a lot of doors even if you are an older person.
Einstein would also tell you that he was quite often wrong. My master's advisor won a piece of a Nobel Prize for work he started at age 70.
The reasons for the blockade failure were the buildup of escorts by the Canadian Navy, the US lend-lease and the capture of a German Enigma machine.
i c_(1939-1945)#The_.27Happy_Time.27_.28June_1940_.E 2.80.93_February_1941.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Atlant
Most people working as scientists have gone through a process that includes MS, PhD and post-doctoral studies that take 7-10 years after completion of their BS level degrees. Some people manage to do it by starting at a lower level and gaining the equivalent in experience and study as they work. You are seriously missing this background. With an engineering BS you would be starting as a low level technician. To go and try to get this science background would take you years of additional study, if even you could find a program that would accept you at your age. By the time you completed this you would be near age 50.
I am not saying it is impossible, my father went for his PhD when he was about your age - but his circumstances were rather different - he had already been working in an R&D role for many years, and was able to get funding from a prestigious scholarship to pay both a salary and his college tuition because he had built up a strong reputation as a scientist without the PhD degree. People who can do this are pretty rare.
You might want to do some functional interviews - find companies that do what you are interested in, and go in and talk to them. Find out if it's really what you are interested.
Absolutely correct. Talk to your peers who are doing other things too. Join a professional society. It's all about networking.
I switched to software development after about 20 years working as a research chemist and as a chemical engineer. Since then I've done web development, operational support system development and am now working as a systems engineer. It's been hard at times, but it also has been interesting.
The problem with the view that all decisions should be left to an individual's economic gain or loss is that it does not provide for external diseconomies. As Hooker Chemical found out it was much cheaper to dump mercury into lake Erie than run it though a waste recovery process. Unless there is some restraint on that sort of thinking individuals will routinely act in ways that are beneficial to themselves, but harmful to their neighbors or society as a whole.
And of course if you live in California the use of incandescent lights increases your air conditioning load. Since air conditioning is much less electrically efficient than heating the addition to your electrical bill is multiplied significantly.
The problem is not so much the quantity of mercury but high local concentrations in landfills.
Banning incandescent lamps would have minimal effect on electricity consumption. Electrical heaters, air-conditioning, and industry all use so much more power.
Electrical lighting accounts for 9.4% of US electrical consumption. Reducing that by a factor of 4 is is significant.
None of your suggestions (halogen, LED) are as efficient as flourescent; in fact they are not really much different from incandescent. And the current compact flourescent designs with electronic ballasts do not flicker (flickering is due to the ballast design, not the bulb design), are not cold, in fact I think mine are warmer than incandescent, and certainly are not weak.
Lumens / watt
Incandescent: 16
White LED: 17-18
Tubular Halogen: 20
compact fluorescents: 48-60
T8 fluorescent: 85-95
Now there are some experimental LEDs that are claiming 50-60, but there are no
actual lighting products you can buy that use them.
Now in my opinion any regulation should be preformance based; I would have it that you can't sell a lighting system that gives less than 50 lumens/watt.
The other queston is whether regulation should be necessary. Personally given current global warming reports I think there is a strong case in favor of it, just like any other environmental rule.
I have yet to see any of GW Bush's aides sentanced to jail time, or news of him using government agencies (FBI, CIA, IRS) to systematically repress individuals who criticize him, or his VP have to resign due to proof of bribery, extortion and tax fraud being present by a US district attorney general.
Anyone who thinks the Dubya administration is worse than Nixon doesn't know their history. If anything should stand for proof it is the realization the Nixon was truly paranoid and far smarter than GWB.
In fact the ease of doing the illegal thing is probably slowing the uptake of Linux. If Microsoft were to become even more aggressive in enforcing its licensing provisions, and as well increasing OS prices, we would no doubt see more people and organizations turning to Linux.
The trend seems to favor this; every time I see a news item on Slashdot along these lines I give a small cheer. Let's hope that MS and DRM really make stealing Vista a much bigger big pain in the neck.
I guess you have never heard of Richard M. Nixon.
People in rural areas either get broadcast or satellite TV, both of which already support digital. What the howl will be is from people with 15 year old analog TVs who will need to replace them.
So why does he need a deinterlacer if he is outputting the movies in 1080p? All the deinterlacer can do is bugger things up (which appears to be the case here).
Apple would get creamed if they did this. Most PC's out there have hardware that Apple does not have drivers for, by decoupling the OS from the hardware people would be able to pirate the OS, and of course Apple makes more money on the hardware they sell than the OS.
RTFA. It's 18% of the ONLINE population.
If it was a statistical sample, there would be no estimate of error rate
Anything you get from a sample is an estimate.
For any sample to be legit and extrapolated to an entire population it has to be random and representative
Yes, but what proof do you have that this was not represnetative? There isn't enough information either way.