Our universe exists 'on' the 4-dimensional soft skin of an 'onion'. Matter and energy as we see it deforms the surface of the skin, and it is this deformation that we perceive as gravity. What we call dark matter is simply the cumulative effect of the (contents of the) other skins of the onion on ours, which we cannot yet directly measure, having no way to 'focus our measurements' outside our universe.
Several solutions exist for special cases of the three body problem, but I'm sure you're after a general solution. As it happens a general solution to the three body problem has been shown to exist, by Karl F Sundman, which takes the form of a convergent infinite series, but as the series takes so long to converge it is practically useless.
Having taken a somewhat different approach to the problem, I have discovered a more practical and surprisingly elegant solution, but unfortunately/.s character limit is too low to allow me to post it here...
*I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out which bits are which;-)
Recently I have been reading The Geek Manifesto and one of the many interesting points it makes involves Republicans and science:
"We need to be careful, though, that in making science a political issue we don't allow it to become a polarizing one. It would be dangerous for its interests to become too closely aligned with those of a single party. The risk is that the other side will see us as hostile opponents they will never win over, and fail to give us the hearing we deserve... excess politicization of this sort has been a significant factor in the damaging breakdown in relations between science and the Republican Party in the US."
In other words, faced with perceived attacks on their worldview they have retrenched, creating additional walls. One of the problems here is that these walls cannot simply be smashed down, it's a battle that cannot be won by 'violence'.
Unfortunately it is also the case that there are a number of people who benefit from the continuing 'war' between the Republican Party and science, I think we have an inkling as to who they might be.
I wish I could see, and suggest, an easy solution to the problem, as we'd all benefit from everyone, on all sides of the political spectrum, seeing slightly more clearly, and being less antagonistic to each other. Then again, perhaps that is part of the answer, be less antagonistic to people who do not share our opinions. Be prepared to listen to them, I mean really listen, and look forward to that golden moment when they say something that causes us to change our mind, however ridiculously unlikely that may seem.
I too am not sure I agree, but, there's one thing I'm particularly curious about, and that's the role of the truck driver in the crash.
I'm not familiar with the 'rules of the road' in the US, but I did look at the police sketch of the accident scene. The truck turned left, crossing oncoming traffic. The truck driver is reported as saying "The Tesla was moving so fast I didn't even see it" or words to that effect.
Yet, as far as I can tell, there's no indication that the Tesla was exceeding the speed limit for the road it was on. Moreover, the diagram of the road indicates that visibility along the lane the Tesla was travelling was good. Why did the truck driver turn across the road when he did, if it was not safe? Is visibility on that junction actually insufficient to allow for safe turning, given the speed limit at that location? Did the truck driver think "Ah sod it, I'm in a hurry, I'm sure those oncoming drivers will slow down, and this will merely inconvenience them"? Was he distracted (or at least as distracted as the driver of the Tesla)?
Yes, of course this crash does raise questions about the safety of auto-drive systems, and suggests, to me at least, that radar detection, if technically feasible, might be a useful addition to the collision avoidance systems, but I'm not sure I'd lay the entire fault with either a failing in the car, or with the driver of the Tesla.
Watching re-runs (if there were any) of the 70's show Blake's 7 would be more enjoyable, 30 odd years difference, and the plots, dialogue, and acting all got worse.
It's called an ellipsis, and the use of it signifies that there are words missing. When used at the end of a sentence they imply there's more to be said, but the reader should be able to fill in the blanks, from the context of whatever has already been written.
I'm sure you'd know this if you had any great ability in, or facility with, the English language...
I think this is because of the options set by the poster of the original 'story' you're seeing.
If a post is Public, and you see it, there's no problem with emoting or posting.
If a friend of yours emotes or comments on a post that's intended for friends only, and you are not a friend of the original poster you can now see the post, but are unable to emote or comment on it.
The entire situation is further complicated by the custom privacy options, including exclusion lists (damn, did I just say that:-/ ).
Disclaimer: The above is almost certainly a simplification. There's rather more important things to worry about than an inability to comment on a random Facebook post.
You seem to be convinced that the people who voted to leave the EU are little more than gullible fools too stupid to figure out that the "Leave" side wasn't always entirely honest...as though the "Stay" side was!
How do you tell when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving...
I'm sure that the majority of those that voted to leave the EU did so in good faith, and for, to them at least, good reasons. Without knowing what specifically those reasons were I can't really comment on whether I'd agree with them or not, nor the reason for any disagreement I might have with those reasons. I do not, generally, question the intelligence of voters on either side.
We're all guilty of being gullible (if you care to term it in such a negatively emotive fashion) however, at some point, on some subjects, and, given the way that our brains work, it can be, in the right circumstances, relatively easy to 'push our buttons', thus sidestepping any rational thought processes we might otherwise have used, in favour of a quick, and wrong, 'answer'.
I suspect it was exactly this kind of sneering arrogance by supporters of "Stay" along with their obvious belief that money is the answer to all questions, that played a pivotal role in yesterday's vote.
I'm sorry that you consider my post to be sneering. I'm sorry if it came across as arrogant to you. Neither was my intention.
I'm also sorry that a single mention of a monetary figure within my post was enough to 'convince' you that I'm motivated by money, or that I believe money is the answer to all questions. Nothing could actually be further from the truth. The fact is though that many people are motivated by money, or, more strongly, motivated by fear of losing what money they have. It is this last point that both sides of the, to my mind ugly public campaign, focused on to a large extent.
I guess you could say that any of the factors that played a role in people's decision making process were the pivotal factor, at the end of the day it only takes one final straw, whichever one that happens to be among the many.
And speaking of straws, at the end of the day that's what I'm clutching at. I am desperate, and can you blame me? We have been a member of the EU for two, possibly three, generations now. While it certainly has issues, it is be no means perfect, it has had a positive impact on all our lives in the areas of consumer regulations, employment law, the environment, and, almost certainly though more controversially, the economy. And that's just for starters...
The results were so close that I think it would be fair to say that there is, currently, no clear cut mandate to make such a radical and irreversible change to the way this country operates, both locally and on the international stage. A second referendum would clear that up. People, pretty much everybody, from both sides of the debate, are now much more aware of what the outcome of leaving will be. A second referendum would give everybody the opportunity to benefit from that awareness. And if the vote goes the same way there can be no denying the informed will of the people, and it will go a long way towards healing any rifts between the two sides of the campaign, politically and socially.
For the benefit of UK readers of this site (and, incidentally the rest of Europe, imo), I am going to copy a post of mine that I've made elsewhere.
There is a method by which members of the public can petition parliament, with that petition forming the basis for a commons debate. The parliament website says that it will "take the existing threshold of 100,000 signatures for a petition to be considered for debate in the House as a starting-point. But it also noted that there may be occasions when a debate is not appropriate—such as when a debate has already taken place in the House on the same subject"
It doesn't have quite the rationale I'd have used - personally I'd have gone with something like "Whereas the leave campaign grossly misrepresented their position and flat out lied to the voting public we the undersigned..." but there's no point filing multiple petitions to the same end, as that could potentially split the vote, resulting in a much weaker case for a second referendum.
Of course, parliament has already debated the issue, so the chances of getting a second referendum are slim indeed. But slim is not nil! If enough signatures are gathered, if there is an overwhelming show of support, there is always a chance. What counts as overwhelming? Well, considering about seventeen and a half million people voted to leave the EU, I'd say about twenty million signatures would be required to guarantee a second chance. How can we get that many signatures? One at a time!
Bearing in mind that in the immediate aftermath following the results about £150 billion was wiped off our national worth, one of the leaders of the leave campaign admitted that the campaign (not him, of course, never him) lied about at least one of its major promises, and, listening to Nicola Sturgeon we are facing the breakup of Great Britain itself, we simply cannot sit back and do nothing.
So, if you voted to remain in the EU, I'm sure you need little persuading. Please sign the petition.
If you did not vote, and, like me, are aghast at what has happened, and what will almost inevitably happen, please sign the petition.
If you voted to leave the EU, in all good conscience, and are now realising that you were misled by the leave campaign, and are, similarly, shocked by the reactions and revelations that have followed, please, do the right thing, and sign the petition.
Finally, after you have signed the petition, hang on to some hope, there is still a faint glimmer of it, and share this post, share the shares, or, in any other way you can, make as many people as you can aware of the petition, and encourage them to sign it.
The problem they're talking about where artists get fucked by labels is a problem with copyright and is trivially solved by making copyright non-transferable from the author. That way the music industry can still offer them contracts and help them produce and sell, but can never take ownership of their creation and fuck off and make all the profits on it without paying the artist a penny.
Ah, copyright attributed to or 'owned by' an individual or individuals, not a corporation, with those individuals then able to grant performance and distribution rights to companies or other individuals. I love it. While we're at it, that's almost an essential first step in returning to a more sane, and ultimately fair, version of copyright, with respect to duration. I'd happily accept the (first) revision of the law allowing 28 years plus an additional 14 years if the author is still alive.
The reason it's unlikely to happen any time soon (well, read ever...) is written in the last sentence you wrote that I quoted. Money talks, and at the moment it's saying screw the creators, screw the consumers, and screw posterity.
Or, for that matter, one of the thousands of other companies that have trademarked specific representations of common, pre-existing, words.
If it wasn't already apparent, a word used as a trademark does not have to be a unique or original word, its representation does, so no, the existence of a carbonite explosive or a fictional means of 'freezing' an object inside a carbon block does not prevent a company creating a trademark using the word carbonite.
*Points to recent car accident, in which someone died*
How did seat belts help when *passenger* died in aforementioned car accident?
*cough*
Well, clearly in that specific instance they didn't. In the other thousand accidents in which no-one died they did.
Of course, it's an imperfect analogy, as it's impossible to point out attacks with illegal weapons that did not happen, as a result of those weapons being unavailable to use in the first place.
Tell me (irrespective of your, or my, position on gun ownership), can you at least see the logical error inherent within your question?
Having said that, there's clearly two separate issues at play here, and, unlike the GP, it pays to be clear as to the difference.
Firstly resale, which as you suggest should be perfectly fine. If Joe Random buys a ticket for an event he later finds himself unable to attend he should be allowed to sell it, and furthermore he should be allowed to sell it for whatever price he likes - that's not to say someone will be willing to pay that price, merely that I don't see that a third party has any right to dictate a price limit on that resale.
The second issue is that of botting, and this presents rather more of a concern. I'd like to use an analogy here. Imagine a free buffet, with plenty of food. You join the queue, but, just before you reach the table, the person in front of you pulls out a large bag, and proceeds to fill it with the remaining food from the buffet. He then offers to sell the food he has to anyone who's hungry. Most people would see a problem here, but it's a problem based on fairness, not law, after all the buffet was free, so the man with the bag hasn't actually stolen anything.
Because there is no 'morally' correct solution to the problem New York is simply attempting to change the problem domain from one of fairness to one of legality, thus creating an obvious (if not easy to implement) solution, arrest the perpetrators. In doing so however, it does create a conflict with other perfectly reasonable 'edge-cases'.
In a sense this is a perfect example of the adage "for every complex problem there is an answer which is clear, simple, and wrong."
You're free to dissent as long as: - You don't actually represent any real threat to "The Powers That Be". The moment you become effective you'll be shutdown real fast.
I'm not sure you have to represent a real threat... wait, let me rephrase that... I am certain that the authorities do come down on people who do not represent any kind of threat at all like a ton of bricks for the most ridiculous of reasons.
For example (and I'm paraphrasing, as I can't be bothered to look up the incident in question): posting on Facebook "Flying to Paris tomorrow from Manchester. It's going to be the bomb! Mad for it!" has had dire consequences for peoples' holiday plans, not to mention their criminal record.
Likewise, making any 'threats*' against politicians (especially), public figures, or events or locations, regardless of your ability to carry them out, is similarly 'unwise' and will likely see you arrested and charged.
Granted these examples fall somewhat to the side of dissent, but then the whole concept of free speech zones, or rather places where you cannot engage in free speech as dissent, demonstrate the error in your statement.
Funny and insightful, but...... I wonder why the author seems to think that "Per Capita Cheese Consumption" vs. "Number of People who Died by Becoming Tangled in their Bedsheets" is a spurious correlation. Seems perfectly legit to me.;-)
Point is, ethical decisions will have to be made, they are made now, and they cannot be avoided. So it will only be a matter of time before an autonomous car quite deliberately kills someone.
It strikes me that the priority for a self driving car should be, foremost, the safety of its passenger(s). If someone steps out onto the road in front of a self driving car, in a situation that makes it impossible for the self driving car to avoid hitting that person or something else (be that a wall, lamp post, tree, another vehicle, or another pedestrian), then the self driving car should hit the person who stepped into the road, whilst attempting to minimise any damaged caused, by braking as hard as possible.
Given the technical requirements for such a car in the first place there will be ample evidence to absolve the car (manufacturer) of any liability, and assign the responsibility firmly with the person who stepped into the car's path.
In addition, in using the phrase "deliberately kills someone" you are framing the situation in a very specific way. Another way of putting it would be "deliberately ensures the safety of its passenger(s)". There is a phrase used in the US: Suicide by cop. In such situations you could say the cop deliberately killed the individual in question, but it's certainly not as simple or clear cut as that, as I'm sure you're aware.
It will be interesting to see what the autonomous vehicle would do if it found itself in my shoes. Would it determine that the oncoming vehicle only had one person and just do a header into it? Maybe. Altogether too many proponents of AVs refuse to even speculate.
Obviously, and unhelpfully, it would do what it is programmed to do. If it were me doing that programming, and the program evaluated that it would be impossible (for the car and its passenger(s)) to safely avoid the bike, then the car would hit the bike, whilst, as said previously, doing its best to minimise damage by means of aggressive braking. At the end of the day, if a motorcyclist wants to commit suicide by autonomous vehicle, well, more power to them, just pity the passenger(s) in that vehicle.
As a slightly off-topic query / warning in relation to your suggestion:
While of no importance to businesses, anyone who plays multiplayer online games might have problems when using Deep Freeze. If your machine is actively frozen when you start a game protected by PunkBuster you will be kicked off the game after about 3 seconds for 'cheating'... or, at least, this used to be the case.
Does anyone know if this is still true, and / or if it applies to other anti-cheat mechanisms?
That 'etc' as you summarise it includes a whole host of stuff. Current US copyright law defines derivative works as follows:
"A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications,which, as a whole,represent an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work'"
Clearly Axanar's movie is 'based upon one or more preexisting works' [first sentence] thus making it a derivative work. Even if that is not enough to convince you, their film, while clearly being an original work in and of itself, consists of an elaboration of existing works thus making it a derivative work [second sentence].
Please don't get me wrong, I am wholly on Axanar's side here, for what that's worth, but following the letter of the law, as I read it, they are potentially 'infringing' CBS and Paramounts' copyrights on Star Trek.
Section 106 of the US Copyright Act states (italic emphasis mine):
"Exclusive Rights in Copyrighted Works
Subject to sections 107 through 122*, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1)... (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work (3)..."
So, while you and I may believe that CBS and Paramount are being complete douches, and, ultimately, hurting their own brand, they do seem to have legal standing. Of course, the courts will be the ones that get to decide that in the end, regardless of our opinions (and, if this case goes all the way, almost certainly in opposition to our opinions).
To be honest, I actually agree with the principle of this section, but, like the rest of copyright law, it has essentially been 'broken' by the various copyright extension acts over the years. This particular example is a perfect case in point: Star Trek hit our screens for the first time in September 1966, almost exactly 50 years ago; Gene Roddenberry passed away, about 25 years ago, in 1991 (RIP); The 1710 act [enshrining copyright as law] established the principles of authors' ownership of copyright and a fixed term of protection of copyrighted works (fourteen years, and renewable for fourteen more if the author was alive upon expiration).
I think we can all do the maths. Something has gone seriously wrong!
*Of sections 107-122, only section 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair use has any potential bearing on the case that I can see, and even that strikes me as grasping at straws:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
A potential loophole exists because the highlighted term "including such use" is not exclusive, i.e. other uses may exist. If a judge (or jury) find that the Axanar film falls into one on these unspecified categories then sections (3) and (4) would strike me as relevant to the case... again though, IANAL, just a relatively informed and dismayed bystander to yet another 'abuse' of copyright by a large corporation.
It's not a law, it's an acknowledgement of an inalienable right...
I think it fair to say that when approximately 95% of the world's population doesn't consider the right to bear arms as an inalienable right it's probably not actually inalienable after all.
Furthermore, inalienable rights are rights that everybody has, regardless of age, location, history, etc. Are you suggesting that people in prison, toddlers, schoolchildren, and so on, should be allowed to carry guns?
Then clearly, from the two above, we could adopt / co-opt the term 'Master Debater' for the elegant ones, the ones that are true to, as you perceive it, their original intent.
I'll accept any suggestions as to a term for the inelegant ones...
I'm a citizen of a country that made the tragic mistake to be part of the EU, hopefully not forever, and I see the EU itself as a threat to the sovereignty of my own homeland.
I'm going to guess you're British, I know I am. English before that, though I now reside in Wales. I have also resided elsewhere(s) around to world, at various times in my life. Any (international) agreement we enter into is, in a sense, a reaction to a 'threat' to our sovereignty. Once you accept that there are other individuals / tribes / nations / associations of nations you can enter into a conversation with them. There's nothing wrong with you or me as an individual being a part of any of those units on the 'scale of nations' as you seem to perceive it. [Of course I might be wrong about your slant, I'm just deducing from what (I think) you intimated in your post....
... "the EU" does not comply with these basic requirements, and it is composed by 29 nations that used to be at war with one another for more than 2K years. So please, don't spread the illusion of a non-existing "EU nationalism", recent elections and the skyrocketing results of anti-EU parties prove it is just bullshit.
The EU is not a nation, it's an association of nations, which could take a number of 'political' forms, certainly its 3 parlimentary structures are a little confusing at first glance. The question is whether we are better off not being an active internal particpant (and donor / recipient) of this association, at all, or better off being an active part of it now, and, now having the power (however little that may be, merely by virtue of being a member) to change the organisation, asking can we change it, and can we change it for the better of all within it?
I had been teetering on the fence for some while, sometimes leaning one way, other-times swaying the other or back again.
Now I'm 'certain. It is almost certainly better (for me, for you, for everyone else within the union, and potentially for everyone outside it too) to be (remain) in!*
While longer and larger the proof in TFA is not really any different... (to the proof I suggested)
I think I disagree with you there. They claim to have found a limit on (the solution space of) a conjecture. This proof (has to) is to prove that this limit is correct. A far different beast, as the patterns arising from / within the number line are completely different in the two cases
Slashdot Mirror
Our universe exists 'on' the 4-dimensional soft skin of an 'onion'. Matter and energy as we see it deforms the surface of the skin, and it is this deformation that we perceive as gravity. What we call dark matter is simply the cumulative effect of the (contents of the) other skins of the onion on ours, which we cannot yet directly measure, having no way to 'focus our measurements' outside our universe.
Several solutions exist for special cases of the three body problem, but I'm sure you're after a general solution. As it happens a general solution to the three body problem has been shown to exist, by Karl F Sundman, which takes the form of a convergent infinite series, but as the series takes so long to converge it is practically useless.
Having taken a somewhat different approach to the problem, I have discovered a more practical and surprisingly elegant solution, but unfortunately /.s character limit is too low to allow me to post it here...
*I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out which bits are which ;-)
Recently I have been reading The Geek Manifesto and one of the many interesting points it makes involves Republicans and science:
"We need to be careful, though, that in making science a political issue we don't allow it to become a polarizing one. It would be dangerous for its interests to become too closely aligned with those of a single party. The risk is that the other side will see us as hostile opponents they will never win over, and fail to give us the hearing we deserve ... excess politicization of this sort has been a significant factor in the damaging breakdown in relations between science and the Republican Party in the US."
In other words, faced with perceived attacks on their worldview they have retrenched, creating additional walls. One of the problems here is that these walls cannot simply be smashed down, it's a battle that cannot be won by 'violence'.
Unfortunately it is also the case that there are a number of people who benefit from the continuing 'war' between the Republican Party and science, I think we have an inkling as to who they might be.
I wish I could see, and suggest, an easy solution to the problem, as we'd all benefit from everyone, on all sides of the political spectrum, seeing slightly more clearly, and being less antagonistic to each other. Then again, perhaps that is part of the answer, be less antagonistic to people who do not share our opinions. Be prepared to listen to them, I mean really listen, and look forward to that golden moment when they say something that causes us to change our mind, however ridiculously unlikely that may seem.
I too am not sure I agree, but, there's one thing I'm particularly curious about, and that's the role of the truck driver in the crash.
I'm not familiar with the 'rules of the road' in the US, but I did look at the police sketch of the accident scene. The truck turned left, crossing oncoming traffic. The truck driver is reported as saying "The Tesla was moving so fast I didn't even see it" or words to that effect.
Yet, as far as I can tell, there's no indication that the Tesla was exceeding the speed limit for the road it was on. Moreover, the diagram of the road indicates that visibility along the lane the Tesla was travelling was good. Why did the truck driver turn across the road when he did, if it was not safe? Is visibility on that junction actually insufficient to allow for safe turning, given the speed limit at that location? Did the truck driver think "Ah sod it, I'm in a hurry, I'm sure those oncoming drivers will slow down, and this will merely inconvenience them"? Was he distracted (or at least as distracted as the driver of the Tesla)?
Yes, of course this crash does raise questions about the safety of auto-drive systems, and suggests, to me at least, that radar detection, if technically feasible, might be a useful addition to the collision avoidance systems, but I'm not sure I'd lay the entire fault with either a failing in the car, or with the driver of the Tesla.
See: "Gene Roddenberry's : Andromeda" ...
Take my advice, don't.
Watching re-runs (if there were any) of the 70's show Blake's 7 would be more enjoyable, 30 odd years difference, and the plots, dialogue, and acting all got worse.
It's called an ellipsis, and the use of it signifies that there are words missing. When used at the end of a sentence they imply there's more to be said, but the reader should be able to fill in the blanks, from the context of whatever has already been written.
I'm sure you'd know this if you had any great ability in, or facility with, the English language...
Pshaw! Nothing is more important than telling someone you don't know that they are wrong, especially online.
With respect, you could not be more wrong!
Now, if you'll excuse me, my house is on fire, and I must get back to putting it out...
I think this is because of the options set by the poster of the original 'story' you're seeing.
If a post is Public, and you see it, there's no problem with emoting or posting.
If a friend of yours emotes or comments on a post that's intended for friends only, and you are not a friend of the original poster you can now see the post, but are unable to emote or comment on it.
The entire situation is further complicated by the custom privacy options, including exclusion lists (damn, did I just say that:-/ ).
Disclaimer: The above is almost certainly a simplification. There's rather more important things to worry about than an inability to comment on a random Facebook post.
You seem to be convinced that the people who voted to leave the EU are little more than gullible fools too stupid to figure out that the "Leave" side wasn't always entirely honest...as though the "Stay" side was!
How do you tell when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving...
I'm sure that the majority of those that voted to leave the EU did so in good faith, and for, to them at least, good reasons. Without knowing what specifically those reasons were I can't really comment on whether I'd agree with them or not, nor the reason for any disagreement I might have with those reasons. I do not, generally, question the intelligence of voters on either side.
We're all guilty of being gullible (if you care to term it in such a negatively emotive fashion) however, at some point, on some subjects, and, given the way that our brains work, it can be, in the right circumstances, relatively easy to 'push our buttons', thus sidestepping any rational thought processes we might otherwise have used, in favour of a quick, and wrong, 'answer'.
I suspect it was exactly this kind of sneering arrogance by supporters of "Stay" along with their obvious belief that money is the answer to all questions, that played a pivotal role in yesterday's vote.
I'm sorry that you consider my post to be sneering. I'm sorry if it came across as arrogant to you. Neither was my intention.
I'm also sorry that a single mention of a monetary figure within my post was enough to 'convince' you that I'm motivated by money, or that I believe money is the answer to all questions. Nothing could actually be further from the truth. The fact is though that many people are motivated by money, or, more strongly, motivated by fear of losing what money they have. It is this last point that both sides of the, to my mind ugly public campaign, focused on to a large extent.
I guess you could say that any of the factors that played a role in people's decision making process were the pivotal factor, at the end of the day it only takes one final straw, whichever one that happens to be among the many.
And speaking of straws, at the end of the day that's what I'm clutching at. I am desperate, and can you blame me? We have been a member of the EU for two, possibly three, generations now. While it certainly has issues, it is be no means perfect, it has had a positive impact on all our lives in the areas of consumer regulations, employment law, the environment, and, almost certainly though more controversially, the economy. And that's just for starters...
The results were so close that I think it would be fair to say that there is, currently, no clear cut mandate to make such a radical and irreversible change to the way this country operates, both locally and on the international stage. A second referendum would clear that up. People, pretty much everybody, from both sides of the debate, are now much more aware of what the outcome of leaving will be. A second referendum would give everybody the opportunity to benefit from that awareness. And if the vote goes the same way there can be no denying the informed will of the people, and it will go a long way towards healing any rifts between the two sides of the campaign, politically and socially.
For the benefit of UK readers of this site (and, incidentally the rest of Europe, imo), I am going to copy a post of mine that I've made elsewhere.
There is a method by which members of the public can petition parliament, with that petition forming the basis for a commons debate. The parliament website says that it will "take the existing threshold of 100,000 signatures for a petition to be considered for debate in the House as a starting-point. But it also noted that there may be occasions when a debate is not appropriate—such as when a debate has already taken place in the House on the same subject"
The petition I have in mind is here:
Petition for a second EU Referendum
It doesn't have quite the rationale I'd have used - personally I'd have gone with something like "Whereas the leave campaign grossly misrepresented their position and flat out lied to the voting public we the undersigned..." but there's no point filing multiple petitions to the same end, as that could potentially split the vote, resulting in a much weaker case for a second referendum.
Of course, parliament has already debated the issue, so the chances of getting a second referendum are slim indeed. But slim is not nil! If enough signatures are gathered, if there is an overwhelming show of support, there is always a chance. What counts as overwhelming? Well, considering about seventeen and a half million people voted to leave the EU, I'd say about twenty million signatures would be required to guarantee a second chance. How can we get that many signatures? One at a time!
Bearing in mind that in the immediate aftermath following the results about £150 billion was wiped off our national worth, one of the leaders of the leave campaign admitted that the campaign (not him, of course, never him) lied about at least one of its major promises, and, listening to Nicola Sturgeon we are facing the breakup of Great Britain itself, we simply cannot sit back and do nothing.
So, if you voted to remain in the EU, I'm sure you need little persuading. Please sign the petition.
If you did not vote, and, like me, are aghast at what has happened, and what will almost inevitably happen, please sign the petition.
If you voted to leave the EU, in all good conscience, and are now realising that you were misled by the leave campaign, and are, similarly, shocked by the reactions and revelations that have followed, please, do the right thing, and sign the petition.
Finally, after you have signed the petition, hang on to some hope, there is still a faint glimmer of it, and share this post, share the shares, or, in any other way you can, make as many people as you can aware of the petition, and encourage them to sign it.
Please, before it's too late!
The problem they're talking about where artists get fucked by labels is a problem with copyright and is trivially solved by making copyright non-transferable from the author. That way the music industry can still offer them contracts and help them produce and sell, but can never take ownership of their creation and fuck off and make all the profits on it without paying the artist a penny.
Ah, copyright attributed to or 'owned by' an individual or individuals, not a corporation, with those individuals then able to grant performance and distribution rights to companies or other individuals. I love it. While we're at it, that's almost an essential first step in returning to a more sane, and ultimately fair, version of copyright, with respect to duration. I'd happily accept the (first) revision of the law allowing 28 years plus an additional 14 years if the author is still alive.
The reason it's unlikely to happen any time soon (well, read ever...) is written in the last sentence you wrote that I quoted. Money talks, and at the moment it's saying screw the creators, screw the consumers, and screw posterity.
Perhaps you'd like to tell that to Apple?
Or, for that matter, one of the thousands of other companies that have trademarked specific representations of common, pre-existing, words.
If it wasn't already apparent, a word used as a trademark does not have to be a unique or original word, its representation does, so no, the existence of a carbonite explosive or a fictional means of 'freezing' an object inside a carbon block does not prevent a company creating a trademark using the word carbonite.
Obligatory car analogy...
*Points to recent car accident, in which someone died*
How did seat belts help when *passenger* died in aforementioned car accident?
*cough*
Well, clearly in that specific instance they didn't. In the other thousand accidents in which no-one died they did.
Of course, it's an imperfect analogy, as it's impossible to point out attacks with illegal weapons that did not happen, as a result of those weapons being unavailable to use in the first place.
Tell me (irrespective of your, or my, position on gun ownership), can you at least see the logical error inherent within your question?
Wish I had mod points left.
Having said that, there's clearly two separate issues at play here, and, unlike the GP, it pays to be clear as to the difference.
Firstly resale, which as you suggest should be perfectly fine. If Joe Random buys a ticket for an event he later finds himself unable to attend he should be allowed to sell it, and furthermore he should be allowed to sell it for whatever price he likes - that's not to say someone will be willing to pay that price, merely that I don't see that a third party has any right to dictate a price limit on that resale.
The second issue is that of botting, and this presents rather more of a concern. I'd like to use an analogy here. Imagine a free buffet, with plenty of food. You join the queue, but, just before you reach the table, the person in front of you pulls out a large bag, and proceeds to fill it with the remaining food from the buffet. He then offers to sell the food he has to anyone who's hungry. Most people would see a problem here, but it's a problem based on fairness, not law, after all the buffet was free, so the man with the bag hasn't actually stolen anything.
Because there is no 'morally' correct solution to the problem New York is simply attempting to change the problem domain from one of fairness to one of legality, thus creating an obvious (if not easy to implement) solution, arrest the perpetrators. In doing so however, it does create a conflict with other perfectly reasonable 'edge-cases'.
In a sense this is a perfect example of the adage "for every complex problem there is an answer which is clear, simple, and wrong."
You're free to dissent as long as:
- You don't actually represent any real threat to "The Powers That Be". The moment you become effective you'll be shutdown real fast.
I'm not sure you have to represent a real threat ... wait, let me rephrase that ... I am certain that the authorities do come down on people who do not represent any kind of threat at all like a ton of bricks for the most ridiculous of reasons.
For example (and I'm paraphrasing, as I can't be bothered to look up the incident in question): posting on Facebook "Flying to Paris tomorrow from Manchester. It's going to be the bomb! Mad for it!" has had dire consequences for peoples' holiday plans, not to mention their criminal record.
Likewise, making any 'threats*' against politicians (especially), public figures, or events or locations, regardless of your ability to carry them out, is similarly 'unwise' and will likely see you arrested and charged.
Granted these examples fall somewhat to the side of dissent, but then the whole concept of free speech zones, or rather places where you cannot engage in free speech as dissent, demonstrate the error in your statement.
*For someone else's definition of 'threats'...
Funny and insightful, but... ... I wonder why the author seems to think that "Per Capita Cheese Consumption" vs. "Number of People who Died by Becoming Tangled in their Bedsheets" is a spurious correlation. Seems perfectly legit to me. ;-)
Point is, ethical decisions will have to be made, they are made now, and they cannot be avoided. So it will only be a matter of time before an autonomous car quite deliberately kills someone.
It strikes me that the priority for a self driving car should be, foremost, the safety of its passenger(s). If someone steps out onto the road in front of a self driving car, in a situation that makes it impossible for the self driving car to avoid hitting that person or something else (be that a wall, lamp post, tree, another vehicle, or another pedestrian), then the self driving car should hit the person who stepped into the road, whilst attempting to minimise any damaged caused, by braking as hard as possible.
Given the technical requirements for such a car in the first place there will be ample evidence to absolve the car (manufacturer) of any liability, and assign the responsibility firmly with the person who stepped into the car's path.
In addition, in using the phrase "deliberately kills someone" you are framing the situation in a very specific way. Another way of putting it would be "deliberately ensures the safety of its passenger(s)". There is a phrase used in the US: Suicide by cop. In such situations you could say the cop deliberately killed the individual in question, but it's certainly not as simple or clear cut as that, as I'm sure you're aware.
It will be interesting to see what the autonomous vehicle would do if it found itself in my shoes. Would it determine that the oncoming vehicle only had one person and just do a header into it? Maybe. Altogether too many proponents of AVs refuse to even speculate.
Obviously, and unhelpfully, it would do what it is programmed to do. If it were me doing that programming, and the program evaluated that it would be impossible (for the car and its passenger(s)) to safely avoid the bike, then the car would hit the bike, whilst, as said previously, doing its best to minimise damage by means of aggressive braking. At the end of the day, if a motorcyclist wants to commit suicide by autonomous vehicle, well, more power to them, just pity the passenger(s) in that vehicle.
As a slightly off-topic query / warning in relation to your suggestion:
While of no importance to businesses, anyone who plays multiplayer online games might have problems when using Deep Freeze. If your machine is actively frozen when you start a game protected by PunkBuster you will be kicked off the game after about 3 seconds for 'cheating' ... or, at least, this used to be the case.
Does anyone know if this is still true, and / or if it applies to other anti-cheat mechanisms?
That 'etc' as you summarise it includes a whole host of stuff. Current US copyright law defines derivative works as follows:
"A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications,which, as a whole,represent an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work'"
Clearly Axanar's movie is 'based upon one or more preexisting works' [first sentence] thus making it a derivative work. Even if that is not enough to convince you, their film, while clearly being an original work in and of itself, consists of an elaboration of existing works thus making it a derivative work [second sentence].
Please don't get me wrong, I am wholly on Axanar's side here, for what that's worth, but following the letter of the law, as I read it, they are potentially 'infringing' CBS and Paramounts' copyrights on Star Trek.
(Disclaimer: IANAL)
Section 106 of the US Copyright Act states (italic emphasis mine):
"Exclusive Rights in Copyrighted Works
Subject to sections 107 through 122*, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: ... ..."
(1)
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work
(3)
So, while you and I may believe that CBS and Paramount are being complete douches, and, ultimately, hurting their own brand, they do seem to have legal standing. Of course, the courts will be the ones that get to decide that in the end, regardless of our opinions (and, if this case goes all the way, almost certainly in opposition to our opinions).
To be honest, I actually agree with the principle of this section, but, like the rest of copyright law, it has essentially been 'broken' by the various copyright extension acts over the years. This particular example is a perfect case in point: Star Trek hit our screens for the first time in September 1966, almost exactly 50 years ago; Gene Roddenberry passed away, about 25 years ago, in 1991 (RIP); The 1710 act [enshrining copyright as law] established the principles of authors' ownership of copyright and a fixed term of protection of copyrighted works (fourteen years, and renewable for fourteen more if the author was alive upon expiration).
I think we can all do the maths. Something has gone seriously wrong!
*Of sections 107-122, only section 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair use has any potential bearing on the case that I can see, and even that strikes me as grasping at straws:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
A potential loophole exists because the highlighted term "including such use" is not exclusive, i.e. other uses may exist. If a judge (or jury) find that the Axanar film falls into one on these unspecified categories then sections (3) and (4) would strike me as relevant to the case ... again though, IANAL, just a relatively informed and dismayed bystander to yet another 'abuse' of copyright by a large corporation.
You're absolutely right.
(Credit where it's due - thanks "The IT Crowd")
Based on his love of litigation, I suggest he change his last name to File instead...
It's not a law, it's an acknowledgement of an inalienable right...
I think it fair to say that when approximately 95% of the world's population doesn't consider the right to bear arms as an inalienable right it's probably not actually inalienable after all.
Furthermore, inalienable rights are rights that everybody has, regardless of age, location, history, etc. Are you suggesting that people in prison, toddlers, schoolchildren, and so on, should be allowed to carry guns?
Then clearly, from the two above, we could adopt / co-opt the term 'Master Debater' for the elegant ones, the ones that are true to, as you perceive it, their original intent.
I'll accept any suggestions as to a term for the inelegant ones...
Wait, hasn't this been done before?
Perhaps we should call them 'ReCursives'.
In the 20th Century, the term 'God' became explicitly synonymous with the Christian flavor.
Not for everybody, but I suspect you'd have been right if you'd said most people conflate the term 'God' with only aspects of the Christian faith.
You make a couple of very good points though.
I'm a citizen of a country that made the tragic mistake to be part of the EU, hopefully not forever, and I see the EU itself as a threat to the sovereignty of my own homeland.
I'm going to guess you're British, I know I am. English before that, though I now reside in Wales. I have also resided elsewhere(s) around to world, at various times in my life. Any (international) agreement we enter into is, in a sense, a reaction to a 'threat' to our sovereignty. Once you accept that there are other individuals / tribes / nations / associations of nations you can enter into a conversation with them. There's nothing wrong with you or me as an individual being a part of any of those units on the 'scale of nations' as you seem to perceive it. [Of course I might be wrong about your slant, I'm just deducing from what (I think) you intimated in your post. ...
The EU is not a nation, it's an association of nations, which could take a number of 'political' forms, certainly its 3 parlimentary structures are a little confusing at first glance. The question is whether we are better off not being an active internal particpant (and donor / recipient) of this association, at all, or better off being an active part of it now, and, now having the power (however little that may be, merely by virtue of being a member) to change the organisation, asking can we change it, and can we change it for the better of all within it?
I had been teetering on the fence for some while, sometimes leaning one way, other-times swaying the other or back again.
Now I'm 'certain. It is almost certainly better (for me, for you, for everyone else within the union, and potentially for everyone outside it too) to be (remain) in!*
*IMO, YMMV...
While longer and larger the proof in TFA is not really any different... (to the proof I suggested)
I think I disagree with you there. They claim to have found a limit on (the solution space of) a conjecture. This proof (has to) is to prove that this limit is correct. A far different beast, as the patterns arising from / within the number line are completely different in the two cases