That's not a sense (i.e. an input into your brain).. it's your brain's model your body's current position. And it can get out of sync with reality, which is why baseball players punch their mitt before making a catch.
It is a sense. If it was a model, someone could move your arm around and, if you weren't looking, you'd have no idea which way it was pointing, which is clearly not the case. It's a sense based upon perception of tissue tension, among other things. The reason baseball players punch their mitt is because it's not always a particularly accurate sense, and a misperception of position on the order of an inch or two can easily result in a missed catch. That punch is a last minute calibration, using a strong sensory input to generate multiple parallel data points which can be averaged.
Your sense of balance in your inner ear is your sixth sense (it's a sense of gravity). It just doesn't get any credit.
Yeah, the whole "five senses" thing is crap from ancient greek philosophy. It's more accurate than their "four elements", but it's still not correct. There are numerous other senses. Balance (as you mentioned), sensed by the motion of fluid in the inner ear; proprioception/kinesthesia (as another poster mentioned), sensing body position; There are several "internal" senses-- hunger, full bladder, etc.-- as well. Basically, anything that your nervous system consciously registers (internal or external) is a sense. Technically, that tingling feeling you get just before a lightning strike during a thunder storm could be called your "sense of lightning". At best, those five senses Aristotle and his contemporaries enumerated could be called "the five most obvious external senses".
The cost of nuclear fuel may be more than just the design of the plant.
Think of what happens when nuclear technology is exported to rouge nations?
Is this a cost?
And not building nuclear plants has done exactly what to prevent this?
How do we divide the lives and billions we will spend cleaning up N Korea into the KW geneated by the French nuclear industry.
I don't think the French nuclear industry is responsible for any mess that may or may not be in N.Korea, and (again) would the French not building nuclear power plants have prevented it?
One soldier per megawatt - does that sound "too cheap to meter" to you?
No, but you don't show how you arrived at that absurd figure. I likewise think that "one eyeball plucked out per kW", or "one baby burned alive per kW" would be an excessive cost.
It sounds expensive to me.
Of course it does. You chose the figure for that very purpose.
Saying nuclear is a cheap way to get energy is like saying "robbing a bank is the cheapest way to get money" It's true, but only in a distorted context in which the real costs of the transaction are convienently ignored.
The full cost of nuclear is a nuclear holocaust - in the form of chernoble, three mile island, or a terrorist in mamnhatten. You simply cannot generate tons of nuclear stuff and not expect some of it to get into the wrong hands - either by accident or malice.
Clearly the problem is you don't understand the difference between nuclear weapons and nuclear power. What is this "nuclear stuff" of which you speak? There isn't a whole lot of "stuff" from power plants anyway, and a standardized breeder reactor would actually reduce the amount of waste product by consuming it.
Standardized nuclear plant designs are the ideal solution. Your examples, in fact, prove my point. Chernobyl was a dangerous, outdated design. Three Mile Island, was an example of the idiosyncratic nature of those one-off plants in the US-- something that could have been avoided through standardized plant design. I'm not sure what you mean by "a terrorist in mamnhatten [sic]", as we've had no nuclear related terrorist activity anywhere in the world, much less Manhattan; but it stands to reason that cheaper nuclear power generation would reduce dependence on foreign oil-- a dependence that has a tendency to lead us to war and incite terrorist activity. Would we have cared about Kuwait in '90 if we weren't so dependent on oil from the region? Maybe, maybe not. The only thing we know for sure is that the Gulf War opened yet another can of worms that we're still trying to clean up.
I disagree. Nuclear was supposed to be "too cheap to meter" and it's more expensive than coal or natural gas.
So after spending billions on old nuclear, we spend billions more on fusion- the same people make the same promises and we're just supposed to believe it?
The only reason "old nuclear" has been so expensive is that ever single plant built in the US was designed and built separately. They essentially never got out of the "experimental design" mindset. France has standardized plant design and it's been relatively cheap as a result. The electricity isn't "too cheap to meter", but that line was from a 1950's "atomic energy will save the world" pipe dream anyway.
Well that's true, but, why is CowboyNeal approving stories in which the basis is 4 years old?
Well, between the rabid Google cheerleaders, the swirly-eyed conspiracy theorists, and the rational thinkers in the middle trying to calm them both down, this story will generate a lot of ad impressions. That, when you get right down to it, is his real job as editor.
I have a brother who used to work for Nynex... I am somewhat sure that Bell Atlantic ate up Nynex and essentially absorbed it completely before merging with GTE. The name change occurred when the Bell Atlantic/GTE merger took place.
You are correct. Bell Atlantic and NYNEX merged in 1997. The combined company dropped the NYNEX name entirely and just called itself Bell Atlantic (who can blame 'em; I always thought "Nynex" sounded like the name of a poisonous spider). GTE and Bell Atlantic merged in 2000 to become Verizon.
Gosh, perhaps it's possible that I was just saying that I doubted SBC would care based on similar (but not equal -- that was your interpretation) happenings.
And I can assure you it was more than just a simple name change when they bought SNET.
Gosh, and perhaps I was just pointing out that the "history" in question WRT AT&T is (in large part) actual stuff. It's not a reasonable comparison to say "look what they did to SNET", because I seriously doubt SNET (being just another RBOC) was sitting on a huge pile of historical artifacts that SBC tossed in a dumpster.
They didn't seem to give too much of a shit about preserving SNET's history when they bought them up back when I used to work there. Wasn't too bad when they were calling us "SBC/SNET"; that I could live with. But then they dropped it completely...bleh.
What history? They dropped the name. BFD. Southern New England Telephone co. was basically the first RBOC, but so what? Oh yeah, being "first" is a rich and voluminous history; and all that history was destroyed when SBC dropped the SNET from its name locally. [/sarcasm] In the case of AT&T here, were talking physical history (e.g. original antique phone books). Company names are (at best) just tradition.
do you think US special forces are going to be punching in artillery corrections on a ruggedized alphagrip instead of the L3 wrist keyboard that I'm told they used in the 1990s?
No. The point of the L3 is that it's always there, on your arm, ready to use. You really think a loose two handed controller dangling by a wire is a suitable replacement for that?
Carl Jung wrote about a collective unconscious. Was he a crack pot?
No, but people who think Jung was espousing some new-age cosmic oneness are. Jung wasn't talking about a psychic link, he was saying that (to quote wikipedia) "Symbols have a certain similarity and fall into similar patterns in different places and times, simply because all human minds are basically similar." Essentially, we have a tendency to think basically alike for the same reason we all tend to look basically alike. The "collective unconcious" has more to do with genetics than parapsychology.
So, instead of seeing a spike then looking for an event to fit it, they see an event then look for a spike to fit it.
And this is so much better why, exactly?
It's better from a PR standpoint because the first thing any reasonable person is going to say is "you can find a so-called major event to match any spike". By picking the events first, they derail the most obvious way of debunking such "science". The real beauty of "coming at it from the other way" is that they replace the obvious flaw with a flaw that can be obscured by statistics: they can always find a "spike" to fit* a pre-chosen event. The real problem is that it's still a one-way analysis. A truly rigorous examination would have them working the data both ways.
* I also found it amusing that a "match" could be anything from a "prediction" to a "reaction", thus not tying them down to finding a CLOSE match.
Could what they are trying to claim, be the root cause of deja-vue?
Nah, deja-vu is a pointer error in the brain. Your brain compares aspects of your current surroundings (stored in short term memory) to an index of long term memories in an attempt to set contexts. One of your index pointers gets erroneously pointed at short term memory by mistake and the sorting algorithm starts comparing data to itself an OMFG IT'S ALL A PERFECT MATCH!. THe fact that you cannot think of any single difference between the two incidents is clear evidence that they are, in fact, the same incident.
Add it all up and you'll find that just by chance, this machine is EXPECTED to have major spikes before world events.
Heh. Looking at it that way, I have a magic red shirt guaranteed to turn green as soon as no more major world events are going to happen. So far it's been solid red the whole time, so everyone should expect that, in the future major events will unfold...
Except the password on a piece of paper isn't encrypted.
Although there are lots of ways of obfuscating what's written without making it hard for you to read. One simple way is to write in a vertical "zig-zag" pattern. For example the password "ALPHABET123" would be written as:
APAE13
LHBT2
Obfuscation like this is particularly a good idea if you're going to put up post-its. Might as well put a little effort into it.
Enterprise has been a rather poor series from the start. It didn't follow the Star Trek theme at all, it didn't feel like Star Trek. It seemed more of a parody which could of been named "Hicks in space".
You know, when I watched it for the first time and that inappropriately folky Rod Stewart opening music started, I had a premonition that the whole series was going to be bad. I watched the first couple seasons anyway, just in case I was wrong. I wasn't. Somebody tell that shitbag Rick Berman I want those 40-odd hours of my life back.
I think it comes down to whether scultures and other visual artists have the same access to copyright law as do programmers, web designers, and other professions that are more Slashdot-friendly, or if it's a "some people are more equal than others" situation.
You're reading too much into the backlash. It has nothing to do with how "friendly" sculpture is to Slashdot readers. All those "friendly" examples you give, think about replaceing "sculpture" with those types of works. Should programmers get a royalty for a photograph containing part of their source code printed out in the background that's neither runable nor readable? Should a web designer get a royalty for a photograph of one page of the web site they designed being visible on the monitor behind the subject of the picture? That makes no more sense than people being chased out of a PUBLIC PARK because they wanted to take a picture of their grandmother with that 30' shiny thing in the backgrounds. It's not about some being "more equal" than others-- it's about applying common fucking sense.
On the other hand, do you really think the people punished got the exact same punishment they would have, if their errors had been uncovered under different circumstances?
In the hush-hush government secret world, the expected outcome is that you at least get canned for breaches of security, and count yourself lucky that you didn't fuck up bad enough to land in prison. If you know someone (or your boss is afraid he might get tarred with the same brush), and nobody higher up has found out about it, you might be able to to arrange to have a security breach swept under the rug; but if there's an official investigation, there ain't no room for shenanigans-- you're toast. This isn't so much a case of scapegoating as it is an unambiguous application of the rules as they stand.
Bear in mind that stealing a TV series from a store is beyond the purview of Federal law -- unless perhaps the store is for whatever reason outside the jurisdiction of any particular state. Might be Federal on military bases for all I know. *shrug*
I reckon stealing a TV from the PX on an army base would fall under federal law. Pretty sure it's the same stealing from a store in a National Park.
Lets try this one: I'm in a bank and you're in the same bank. You manage to illegally transfer funds from my account to your account but you don't remove any of the money. No physical property has moved, it's just a bunch of numbers changing hands, the bank is the same so it's not paid anything to anyone else and you haven't removed the money so its still there. So, nothing has disappeared right?
Nice try, but no dice. Those ephemeral numbers in the bank's computers represent the amount of government produced paper currency the bank must surrender to you upon demand. Illegal wire transfers like this are precisely the same as opening your wallet and taking your cash. The cash the bank owes you is your property. Similarly, I can go down to the county recorder's office and have the deed to your house transferred to my name. I have not removed the house or the land on which it stands but I have deprived you of your property.
A song copied over the internet diminishes nothing.
Where did you get your JD from? If I hack into your bank account and move a few bits from your account to mine, I haven't taken anything tangible, but I would bet you would think that was theft.
Without going into the history of currency, the US gold standard in the past, and the like, suffice to say that the bank's accounting system keeps track of the amount of physical money the bank owes you. There is a physical version of that number in the form of printed money. There is no physical equivalent to a digitized copy of a song.
""Future sales", or "sales that might have been" are worth exactly squat."
I guess you've never studied contract law...
Contract law is yet another area of law unto itself, and wholly unrelated to "theft" or "copyright infringement" in this case. Contracts are about agreements. Two people can enter contracts that say anything. "Future sales" and "sales that might have been" can be assigned value through a contract, but such things have no value without agreement. Care to bring up mining rights or some other unrelated issue next?
"This is why it's sheer folly to attempt to frame the copyright debate in the same terms as property rights. They are unrelated."
No, they are not. Copyright is a property right.
No, it's not a property right. It is a government granted monopoly on the performance and/or reproduction of "original works of authorship". Copyright is a means by which something that is fundamentally not property can be treated as if it were property.
Is it trite hollywood "left-wing lite" tripe to report that scientist are being forced to change their findings? Where in the article was this hand-wringing you speak of?
Who said anything about that particular article? GP post got modded flamebait for pointing out that the LA Times is a lock-step mouthpiece for whatever is the latest Democratic party pablum, which is dumb because it's TRUE. The LA Daily News is the local rag for the Republican party pablum. There is no decent newspaper here. Just the way it is. (shrug) Not saying neither of them ever get anything right.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a sense. If it was a model, someone could move your arm around and, if you weren't looking, you'd have no idea which way it was pointing, which is clearly not the case. It's a sense based upon perception of tissue tension, among other things. The reason baseball players punch their mitt is because it's not always a particularly accurate sense, and a misperception of position on the order of an inch or two can easily result in a missed catch. That punch is a last minute calibration, using a strong sensory input to generate multiple parallel data points which can be averaged.
Yeah, the whole "five senses" thing is crap from ancient greek philosophy. It's more accurate than their "four elements", but it's still not correct. There are numerous other senses. Balance (as you mentioned), sensed by the motion of fluid in the inner ear; proprioception/kinesthesia (as another poster mentioned), sensing body position; There are several "internal" senses-- hunger, full bladder, etc.-- as well. Basically, anything that your nervous system consciously registers (internal or external) is a sense. Technically, that tingling feeling you get just before a lightning strike during a thunder storm could be called your "sense of lightning". At best, those five senses Aristotle and his contemporaries enumerated could be called "the five most obvious external senses".
Isn't that paid for by the "No Child Left Behind" program?
And not building nuclear plants has done exactly what to prevent this?
How do we divide the lives and billions we will spend cleaning up N Korea into the KW geneated by the French nuclear industry.
I don't think the French nuclear industry is responsible for any mess that may or may not be in N.Korea, and (again) would the French not building nuclear power plants have prevented it?
One soldier per megawatt - does that sound "too cheap to meter" to you?
No, but you don't show how you arrived at that absurd figure. I likewise think that "one eyeball plucked out per kW", or "one baby burned alive per kW" would be an excessive cost.
It sounds expensive to me.
Of course it does. You chose the figure for that very purpose.
Saying nuclear is a cheap way to get energy is like saying "robbing a bank is the cheapest way to get money" It's true, but only in a distorted context in which the real costs of the transaction are convienently ignored.
The full cost of nuclear is a nuclear holocaust - in the form of chernoble, three mile island, or a terrorist in mamnhatten. You simply cannot generate tons of nuclear stuff and not expect some of it to get into the wrong hands - either by accident or malice.
Clearly the problem is you don't understand the difference between nuclear weapons and nuclear power. What is this "nuclear stuff" of which you speak? There isn't a whole lot of "stuff" from power plants anyway, and a standardized breeder reactor would actually reduce the amount of waste product by consuming it.
Standardized nuclear plant designs are the ideal solution. Your examples, in fact, prove my point. Chernobyl was a dangerous, outdated design. Three Mile Island, was an example of the idiosyncratic nature of those one-off plants in the US-- something that could have been avoided through standardized plant design. I'm not sure what you mean by "a terrorist in mamnhatten [sic]", as we've had no nuclear related terrorist activity anywhere in the world, much less Manhattan; but it stands to reason that cheaper nuclear power generation would reduce dependence on foreign oil-- a dependence that has a tendency to lead us to war and incite terrorist activity. Would we have cared about Kuwait in '90 if we weren't so dependent on oil from the region? Maybe, maybe not. The only thing we know for sure is that the Gulf War opened yet another can of worms that we're still trying to clean up.
The only reason "old nuclear" has been so expensive is that ever single plant built in the US was designed and built separately. They essentially never got out of the "experimental design" mindset. France has standardized plant design and it's been relatively cheap as a result. The electricity isn't "too cheap to meter", but that line was from a 1950's "atomic energy will save the world" pipe dream anyway.
Well, between the rabid Google cheerleaders, the swirly-eyed conspiracy theorists, and the rational thinkers in the middle trying to calm them both down, this story will generate a lot of ad impressions. That, when you get right down to it, is his real job as editor.
You are correct. Bell Atlantic and NYNEX merged in 1997. The combined company dropped the NYNEX name entirely and just called itself Bell Atlantic (who can blame 'em; I always thought "Nynex" sounded like the name of a poisonous spider). GTE and Bell Atlantic merged in 2000 to become Verizon.
Gosh, and perhaps I was just pointing out that the "history" in question WRT AT&T is (in large part) actual stuff. It's not a reasonable comparison to say "look what they did to SNET", because I seriously doubt SNET (being just another RBOC) was sitting on a huge pile of historical artifacts that SBC tossed in a dumpster.
Step 2: Sell the rover to gullible, security conscious firms?
Clearly their intention...though I think they'd end up making more money by simply doing:
2. Fire Rick Berman out of a cannon, charging $5 admission to watch
What history? They dropped the name. BFD. Southern New England Telephone co. was basically the first RBOC, but so what?
Oh yeah, being "first" is a rich and voluminous history; and all that history was destroyed when SBC dropped the SNET from its name locally. [/sarcasm] In the case of AT&T here, were talking physical history (e.g. original antique phone books). Company names are (at best) just tradition.
No. The point of the L3 is that it's always there, on your arm, ready to use. You really think a loose two handed controller dangling by a wire is a suitable replacement for that?
No, but people who think Jung was espousing some new-age cosmic oneness are. Jung wasn't talking about a psychic link, he was saying that (to quote wikipedia) "Symbols have a certain similarity and fall into similar patterns in different places and times, simply because all human minds are basically similar." Essentially, we have a tendency to think basically alike for the same reason we all tend to look basically alike. The "collective unconcious" has more to do with genetics than parapsychology.
And this is so much better why, exactly?
It's better from a PR standpoint because the first thing any reasonable person is going to say is "you can find a so-called major event to match any spike". By picking the events first, they derail the most obvious way of debunking such "science". The real beauty of "coming at it from the other way" is that they replace the obvious flaw with a flaw that can be obscured by statistics: they can always find a "spike" to fit* a pre-chosen event. The real problem is that it's still a one-way analysis. A truly rigorous examination would have them working the data both ways.
* I also found it amusing that a "match" could be anything from a "prediction" to a "reaction", thus not tying them down to finding a CLOSE match.
Nah, deja-vu is a pointer error in the brain. Your brain compares aspects of your current surroundings (stored in short term memory) to an index of long term memories in an attempt to set contexts. One of your index pointers gets erroneously pointed at short term memory by mistake and the sorting algorithm starts comparing data to itself an OMFG IT'S ALL A PERFECT MATCH!. THe fact that you cannot think of any single difference between the two incidents is clear evidence that they are, in fact, the same incident.
Heh. Looking at it that way, I have a magic red shirt guaranteed to turn green as soon as no more major world events are going to happen. So far it's been solid red the whole time, so everyone should expect that, in the future major events will unfold...
You're right. This is a pretty good scam.
Although there are lots of ways of obfuscating what's written without making it hard for you to read. One simple way is to write in a vertical "zig-zag" pattern. For example the password "ALPHABET123" would be written as:
Obfuscation like this is particularly a good idea if you're going to put up post-its. Might as well put a little effort into it.You know, when I watched it for the first time and that inappropriately folky Rod Stewart opening music started, I had a premonition that the whole series was going to be bad. I watched the first couple seasons anyway, just in case I was wrong. I wasn't. Somebody tell that shitbag Rick Berman I want those 40-odd hours of my life back.
Huh? GP poster implied the US sucks and that Canada would be preferable. He didn't "demand" anything.
You're reading too much into the backlash. It has nothing to do with how "friendly" sculpture is to Slashdot readers. All those "friendly" examples you give, think about replaceing "sculpture" with those types of works. Should programmers get a royalty for a photograph containing part of their source code printed out in the background that's neither runable nor readable? Should a web designer get a royalty for a photograph of one page of the web site they designed being visible on the monitor behind the subject of the picture? That makes no more sense than people being chased out of a PUBLIC PARK because they wanted to take a picture of their grandmother with that 30' shiny thing in the backgrounds. It's not about some being "more equal" than others-- it's about applying common fucking sense.
In the hush-hush government secret world, the expected outcome is that you at least get canned for breaches of security, and count yourself lucky that you didn't fuck up bad enough to land in prison. If you know someone (or your boss is afraid he might get tarred with the same brush), and nobody higher up has found out about it, you might be able to to arrange to have a security breach swept under the rug; but if there's an official investigation, there ain't no room for shenanigans-- you're toast. This isn't so much a case of scapegoating as it is an unambiguous application of the rules as they stand.
Offtopic? Fucking morons. The thread was about how under Carly they don't make good printers anymore.
I reckon stealing a TV from the PX on an army base would fall under federal law. Pretty sure it's the same stealing from a store in a National Park.
Nice try, but no dice. Those ephemeral numbers in the bank's computers represent the amount of government produced paper currency the bank must surrender to you upon demand. Illegal wire transfers like this are precisely the same as opening your wallet and taking your cash. The cash the bank owes you is your property. Similarly, I can go down to the county recorder's office and have the deed to your house transferred to my name. I have not removed the house or the land on which it stands but I have deprived you of your property.
A song copied over the internet diminishes nothing.
Without going into the history of currency, the US gold standard in the past, and the like, suffice to say that the bank's accounting system keeps track of the amount of physical money the bank owes you. There is a physical version of that number in the form of printed money. There is no physical equivalent to a digitized copy of a song.
""Future sales", or "sales that might have been" are worth exactly squat."
I guess you've never studied contract law...
Contract law is yet another area of law unto itself, and wholly unrelated to "theft" or "copyright infringement" in this case. Contracts are about agreements. Two people can enter contracts that say anything. "Future sales" and "sales that might have been" can be assigned value through a contract, but such things have no value without agreement. Care to bring up mining rights or some other unrelated issue next?
"This is why it's sheer folly to attempt to frame the copyright debate in the same terms as property rights. They are unrelated."
No, they are not. Copyright is a property right.
No, it's not a property right. It is a government granted monopoly on the performance and/or reproduction of "original works of authorship". Copyright is a means by which something that is fundamentally not property can be treated as if it were property.
Who said anything about that particular article? GP post got modded flamebait for pointing out that the LA Times is a lock-step mouthpiece for whatever is the latest Democratic party pablum, which is dumb because it's TRUE. The LA Daily News is the local rag for the Republican party pablum. There is no decent newspaper here. Just the way it is. (shrug) Not saying neither of them ever get anything right.