That is only true in the short term. Advertising agencies measure the impact of their campaigns. If a large fraction of subscribers throw the paper directly in the recycling bin (because they already read it on-line) then the impact of the campaign is lowered. Next time around the advertiser will not be prepared to pay as much (per subscriber) for an ad in the same paper.
When somebody starts making ad hominem arguments you know they are losing the debate. There are several good arguments to be made against these types of lawsuits, but "the plaintiffs are porn producers" is not one of them.
Comparing Berlusconi to Satan isn't really a good metaphor. Hanging out with the wrong people, shouting insults, having wild parties - that's more like a spoiled teenager.
Torturing PoW:s in order to produce false evidence for starting a war that you have a strong personal financial interest in - that's what the Devil would do.
Voting for either is perhaps stupid beyond compare, but Cheney had a much worse influence on the U.S. than Berlusconi has had on Italy, and he was reelected after that, too. Democracy is a flawed system.
On a scale of "stupid" voting an anti-pedo authoritarian cunt into the EU paralment is not as bad as voting a pedophile authoritarian cunt president of Italy. And neither is as bad as voting Bush/Vader president/vice president of the USA.
If automatic drivers initially reduce congestion (due to smoother driving) that effect will soon be diminished by increasing amounts of traffic.
Judging by my friends, most of them seem to prefer driving their own car if it will take them no more than 1.5 times as long as using the subway. If they had automatic drivers, they would probably accept even longer delays, so they might take their car instead of the subway even in rush hour when it would take more than 3 times as long.
This will also reduce incentives to move closer to your place of work or taking other measures to reduce your dependence on cars.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for this technology. But make sure to combine with substantially increased gasoline taxes or you will be spending a large part of your life trapped inside a car.
Note that the study is not saying that psychopaths speak different from ordinary people. They compared 14 psychopathic murderers to 38 murderers who were not diagnosed as psychopaths.
My interpretation would be that the average murderer has below average English skills, while psychopaths try blend in with the non-murderers. Hence they sound different.
Wouldn't it be very easy for the police to infiltrate this sort of thing? Just respond to a couple of ads on craiglist, then trace the packages to their final destination.
Telling whom? It's not like their customers don't know they're paying twice what it would cost to build the same factory in Europe or Asia. (In fact they're paying even more, because they also have to pay their own lawyers throughout the process.)
In the end, they usually don't buy anything, because they realize they cant compete with the factories in Asia.
If the mass can be accelerated at 30 m/s^2 downwards, then it fulfills the "vertical direction" requirement.;-)
My father works for a company that builds factories all over the world. When they sell to the U.S. they double the quote compared to when they sell to Europe or Asia, because they know they will need an army of lawyers to battle both their customer and their subcontractors.
In other parts of the world, you don't screw your customer over, because you want to maintain your image and get repeat business. Everybody wins (except the lawyers).
Capsaicin, above, claims to be a lawyer, and says that they can confiscate your camera/film/whatever as long as they post a note by the door saying they will.
Of course, lawyers are known to be lying from time to time...
Are you sure that they can 'include an agreement to surrender all "... equipment; film; and other media to Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC or its authorised agents" on breaching said condition.' ?
If so - can I set up a store in the U.K. and put a sign up at the entrance saying "by entering, you agree to pay me a thousand pounds" and then confiscate the money in the wallets of all those who are stupid enough pass through a door without reading the fine print?
I know that in Sweden, you can simply claim that I did not see the sign, and so (with the exception of military installations) you are free to take photographs until somebody points out to you that it is forbidden.
It seems almost every commenter here has missed the point. TFA is not about infinite monkeys. It is about "going viral".
On the programming side, this guy has managed to randomly recreate 9 consecutive characters of Shakespeare's texts (several times over). Not a great achivement. - Not even a mediocre one. Still he has managed to get a lot of publicity, including being featured on/. twice.
I am sure many of the readers here have projects of their own that are far more interesting than his, but which are getting very little attention. Why not read TFA, and learn from somebody who succeded?
Yes, they managed to get facebook to use their image for a thumbnail. That says absolutely nothing about their ability to detect malicious links. (Rickrolling is not considerered a malicious link in this context.) The request for the thumbnail probably originated from facebook's own servers. The malicious link detection is comes from other IP addresses. TFA explains this.
If the problem is that the law targets individual editors who live in Italy, then there should be a very simple solution: just let them apply the mandated "correction" with a specific edit summary (e.g. "paragraph 29 correction" or the equivalent in Italian). Five seconds later, a bot comes along (operated from outside of Italy) and reverts the "correction".
TFA fails to explain why this proposed Italian legislation affects Wikipedia. As far as as I know, the Wikimedia foundation and the main servers are located in Florida, and subject to U.S. law.
Some clothes are transparent to IR because long wavelengths are scattered less than shorter wavelengths. (The same reason why the sunset is red and the sky is blue.)
UV, on the other hand, is scattered more than visible light, so no transparent clothing.
(Please mod this up before a bunch of/. pervs go through unnecessary cataract surgery.)
No necessarily, no. Under Swedish law, the looser pays the winner's court costs, but if, for example, the company that stole the picture agreed to pay some ridiculously small amount from the start, then the court may decide that there is no winner or looser, and each part pays his own costs.
The court may even decide that the photographer asked for too much, so he should pay the costs of the company that stole the picture, after they pay whatever the court thinks is reasonable for the photo.
These laws are great if the MAFIAA sues you for a billion because you downloaded one movie, but as I said: It sucks if you're the copyright owner.
The same is true where I live. From a photographer's perspective, it sucks. Some companies steal pictures all the time. When they get away with it, they pay nothing. When dragged before court, they only pay what they should have paid in the first place.
The password is not stored in any form, of course. But if there's encrypted data on the card, and that data can be decrypted using only the password, then you can just try every possible password until you find one that doesn't result in gibberish. This is called a known-plaintext attack.
"Hydrogen-Oxygen explosions are no joke." - Yes they are!
Few fuels contain as little energy per unit volume as hydrogen at atmospheric pressure. Two gallons of H2 is less than the fuel in a cigarette lighter.
My high school chemistry teacher used to fill balloons with H2 and O2 at stoichiometric ratio and hold them over a bunsen burner (on a 1 meter stick). They make a large pop of course, but the effect is not much larger than when the balloon is filled with pure O2 and the only fuel is the balloon itself.
Hydrogen *is* dangerous in very large quantities, or when combined with other fuels, because it ignites in a very large range of fuel/air ratios, but bomb-making-material it is not.
But we do know the price of these things. Or at least we have a lower bound. They are ordinary silicon-based solar cells, covered with catalysts on both sides. So they cost at least as much as solar cells (per square meter) or at least four times as much (per Watt).
If the only advantage over ordinary solar cells is that you are also purifying water, then it is not worth the extra cost.
My point is this: solar cells made out of the same "inexpensive" materials are barely competitive at 10 % efficiency. Adding catalysts to the sides drops efficiency down to 2.5 %, meaning that you pay four times as much for the same installed power (assuming that the catalysts themselves cost no more than the electric conductors that they replace).
There's no way this is *ever* going to be a good idea, as it can never compete with the same solar cell without the catalyst coatings.
From the article: "The new device is not yet ready for commercial production, since systems to collect, store and use the gases remain to be developed."
Yeah, right. This would be in commercial production right now, if only there were compressors and hydrogen tanks.
The reason why this is not in production is obvious. The energy capturing efficiency (and hence cost effectiveness) of the solar cell is reduced by 75 %. (Then another 50 % will be lost if the hydrogen is converted back to electricity.)
Slashdot Mirror
That is only true in the short term. Advertising agencies measure the impact of their campaigns. If a large fraction of subscribers throw the paper directly in the recycling bin (because they already read it on-line) then the impact of the campaign is lowered. Next time around the advertiser will not be prepared to pay as much (per subscriber) for an ad in the same paper.
When somebody starts making ad hominem arguments you know they are losing the debate. There are several good arguments to be made against these types of lawsuits, but "the plaintiffs are porn producers" is not one of them.
Comparing Berlusconi to Satan isn't really a good metaphor. Hanging out with the wrong people, shouting insults, having wild parties - that's more like a spoiled teenager.
Torturing PoW:s in order to produce false evidence for starting a war that you have a strong personal financial interest in - that's what the Devil would do.
Voting for either is perhaps stupid beyond compare, but Cheney had a much worse influence on the U.S. than Berlusconi has had on Italy, and he was reelected after that, too. Democracy is a flawed system.
On a scale of "stupid" voting an anti-pedo authoritarian cunt into the EU paralment is not as bad as voting a pedophile authoritarian cunt president of Italy. And neither is as bad as voting Bush/Vader president/vice president of the USA.
If automatic drivers initially reduce congestion (due to smoother driving) that effect will soon be diminished by increasing amounts of traffic.
Judging by my friends, most of them seem to prefer driving their own car if it will take them no more than 1.5 times as long as using the subway. If they had automatic drivers, they would probably accept even longer delays, so they might take their car instead of the subway even in rush hour when it would take more than 3 times as long.
This will also reduce incentives to move closer to your place of work or taking other measures to reduce your dependence on cars.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for this technology. But make sure to combine with substantially increased gasoline taxes or you will be spending a large part of your life trapped inside a car.
Note that the study is not saying that psychopaths speak different from ordinary people. They compared 14 psychopathic murderers to 38 murderers who were not diagnosed as psychopaths.
My interpretation would be that the average murderer has below average English skills, while psychopaths try blend in with the non-murderers. Hence they sound different.
Wouldn't it be very easy for the police to infiltrate this sort of thing? Just respond to a couple of ads on craiglist, then trace the packages to their final destination.
Telling whom? It's not like their customers don't know they're paying twice what it would cost to build the same factory in Europe or Asia. (In fact they're paying even more, because they also have to pay their own lawyers throughout the process.)
In the end, they usually don't buy anything, because they realize they cant compete with the factories in Asia.
If the mass can be accelerated at 30 m/s^2 downwards, then it fulfills the "vertical direction" requirement. ;-)
My father works for a company that builds factories all over the world. When they sell to the U.S. they double the quote compared to when they sell to Europe or Asia, because they know they will need an army of lawyers to battle both their customer and their subcontractors.
In other parts of the world, you don't screw your customer over, because you want to maintain your image and get repeat business. Everybody wins (except the lawyers).
Capsaicin, above, claims to be a lawyer, and says that they can confiscate your camera/film/whatever as long as they post a note by the door saying they will.
Of course, lawyers are known to be lying from time to time...
Are you sure that they can 'include an agreement to surrender all " ... equipment; film; and other media to Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC or its authorised agents" on breaching said condition.' ?
If so - can I set up a store in the U.K. and put a sign up at the entrance saying "by entering, you agree to pay me a thousand pounds" and then confiscate the money in the wallets of all those who are stupid enough pass through a door without reading the fine print?
I know that in Sweden, you can simply claim that I did not see the sign, and so (with the exception of military installations) you are free to take photographs until somebody points out to you that it is forbidden.
http://xkcd.com/501/
It seems almost every commenter here has missed the point. TFA is not about infinite monkeys. It is about "going viral".
On the programming side, this guy has managed to randomly recreate 9 consecutive characters of Shakespeare's texts (several times over). Not a great achivement. - Not even a mediocre one. Still he has managed to get a lot of publicity, including being featured on /. twice.
I am sure many of the readers here have projects of their own that are far more interesting than his, but which are getting very little attention. Why not read TFA, and learn from somebody who succeded?
Yes, they managed to get facebook to use their image for a thumbnail. That says absolutely nothing about their ability to detect malicious links. (Rickrolling is not considerered a malicious link in this context.) The request for the thumbnail probably originated from facebook's own servers. The malicious link detection is comes from other IP addresses. TFA explains this.
If the problem is that the law targets individual editors who live in Italy, then there should be a very simple solution: just let them apply the mandated "correction" with a specific edit summary (e.g. "paragraph 29 correction" or the equivalent in Italian). Five seconds later, a bot comes along (operated from outside of Italy) and reverts the "correction".
TFA fails to explain why this proposed Italian legislation affects Wikipedia. As far as as I know, the Wikimedia foundation and the main servers are located in Florida, and subject to U.S. law.
If they did that, they would have no excuse for intercepting and tracking the links you click.
Some clothes are transparent to IR because long wavelengths are scattered less than shorter wavelengths. (The same reason why the sunset is red and the sky is blue.)
UV, on the other hand, is scattered more than visible light, so no transparent clothing.
(Please mod this up before a bunch of /. pervs go through unnecessary cataract surgery.)
No necessarily, no. Under Swedish law, the looser pays the winner's court costs, but if, for example, the company that stole the picture agreed to pay some ridiculously small amount from the start, then the court may decide that there is no winner or looser, and each part pays his own costs.
The court may even decide that the photographer asked for too much, so he should pay the costs of the company that stole the picture, after they pay whatever the court thinks is reasonable for the photo.
These laws are great if the MAFIAA sues you for a billion because you downloaded one movie, but as I said: It sucks if you're the copyright owner.
The same is true where I live. From a photographer's perspective, it sucks. Some companies steal pictures all the time. When they get away with it, they pay nothing. When dragged before court, they only pay what they should have paid in the first place.
The password is not stored in any form, of course. But if there's encrypted data on the card, and that data can be decrypted using only the password, then you can just try every possible password until you find one that doesn't result in gibberish. This is called a known-plaintext attack.
"Hydrogen-Oxygen explosions are no joke." - Yes they are!
Few fuels contain as little energy per unit volume as hydrogen at atmospheric pressure. Two gallons of H2 is less than the fuel in a cigarette lighter.
My high school chemistry teacher used to fill balloons with H2 and O2 at stoichiometric ratio and hold them over a bunsen burner (on a 1 meter stick). They make a large pop of course, but the effect is not much larger than when the balloon is filled with pure O2 and the only fuel is the balloon itself.
Hydrogen *is* dangerous in very large quantities, or when combined with other fuels, because it ignites in a very large range of fuel/air ratios, but bomb-making-material it is not.
But we do know the price of these things. Or at least we have a lower bound. They are ordinary silicon-based solar cells, covered with catalysts on both sides. So they cost at least as much as solar cells (per square meter) or at least four times as much (per Watt).
If the only advantage over ordinary solar cells is that you are also purifying water, then it is not worth the extra cost.
Yes, it is like a solar still only much, much, more expensive.
My point is this: solar cells made out of the same "inexpensive" materials are barely competitive at 10 % efficiency. Adding catalysts to the sides drops efficiency down to 2.5 %, meaning that you pay four times as much for the same installed power (assuming that the catalysts themselves cost no more than the electric conductors that they replace).
There's no way this is *ever* going to be a good idea, as it can never compete with the same solar cell without the catalyst coatings.
From the article: "The new device is not yet ready for commercial production, since systems to collect, store and use the gases remain to be developed."
Yeah, right. This would be in commercial production right now, if only there were compressors and hydrogen tanks.
The reason why this is not in production is obvious. The energy capturing efficiency (and hence cost effectiveness) of the solar cell is reduced by 75 %. (Then another 50 % will be lost if the hydrogen is converted back to electricity.)