But society has beat it into all of your heads that it's evil and wrong, which in the way the Soviet Union had implemented it -- It is.
No, it's wrong in the way Marx himself envisioned it. I've read a bit of his work. He openly stated that his Communism would only work if it was implemented across the entire world, and only by force. That's right: he both knew and embraced the fact that the Communist Revolution would be violent. This is why all the serious attempts at his vision have, in fact, been violent: it's an inherent part of the system. Not only that, but since it has to operate world-wide, it must spread itself, again by force if necessary. That is why the US was so scared of Communism: because Communism, as Marx envisioned it, cannot survive unless it destroys its enemies. It's also why the USSR, and other Communist nations, have sought to conquer or convert others. It's inherent in the system. Marxist Communism sought to destroy all other forms of government and social order.
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Any system of government that seeks to force itself upon the world, whether other countries want it or not, is evil and wrong.
Seriously, did you even read the damned summary before you post? They controlled for demographic variables over time. The exact quote from the abstract is "Two fixed-effects regression models were used to estimate the relationship between emerald ash borer presence and county-level mortality from 1990 to 2007 in 15 U.S. states, while controlling for a wide range of demographic covariates." But yeah, I'm sure you identified the major problem with the whole study in 10 seconds. A study that was done over several years analyzing 17 years of collected data. But it's wrong, because there is absolutely no way they thought to correct for human behavior, no matter what the summary says.
Oh, hey, whats that, they controlled for income? Even spelled out that the effect of the ash borer was greater in wealthier regions thanks to the greater amounts of tree cover? Well, what do you know, scientists can sometimes actually know what they're talking about! Shocking, I know.
Next time, you could even try reading the full paper before you comment and call them "amateur scientists." Especially when they, you know, have already thought of everything you've pointed out.
Hmm, perhaps I was confusing the situation a bit. You are correct that producing a combination might count as self-incrimination, what I was thinking of is that the defendant can (in certain situations) be forced to produce a key, because that is a physical object, not a piece of information (although the defendant may say he doesn't know where the key is, he can't not say anything, unless knowing where the key is would somehow itself be incriminatory. Seems to be a large body of case law on the subject, UNITED STATES V. HUBBELL (99-166) 530 U.S. 27 seems to contain most relevant rulings).
But, it's highly situational: if the government already knows you know the combination, it could compel revealing it, because then the revelation isn't testimonial about anything: they already know you have access to the safe. At least, thats how I'm reading the rulings. Probably should add that IANAL, so I'm not sure (and even then, most lawyers probably don't know, the law is a bit complicated and highly specific).
It's actually a bit more complicated than that. You still have to answer a question if the answer alone is not itself incriminating. So, for example, a question like "where did you bury the person you murdered" would definitely not have to be answered (because knowing that implies you murdered the person in the first place). But a question like "what is the combination to your safe" would not necessarily be self-incrimination, because the combination itself doesn't incriminate you, and the court already knows you know, even if inside the safe are documents that show you committed a crime. The question of where that line is crossed isn't completely clear: hence, "judge", because they actually have to judge when that happens.
Two things. First, it's one thing to be "accepted" that it happens, and totally another to prove that it happens. Secondly, this experiment allowed them to trace how much it happened, which wasn't really known before, and allows you to say much more about how much of a role neurogenesis plays in the adult brain.
So, the game developers will just make their game require the Xbone's "cloud services." Sure, you can sell the *game*, but if it won't work without access to the *service* (which is independent of the game, at least conceptually), and since the service is precisely that (a service and not a product), it cannot be resold.
I very much doubt most carjackers will kill you. Stealing a car might get you on the cops list, but not terribly high. Murder will get you all the way to the top in an instant. Not to mention a bit more of a prison sentence.
P.S. --> the score in question from my previous post was for Cinebench 11.5, but there are many many others like it. And don't think that OpenCL holds any miracles for Trinity either, the 4600 is actually a better OpenCL part than it is a GPU.
Really? Because the one OpenCL benchmark I can find in TFA pegs the new chips at 2.5 times faster than the 4600 that comes with the i5-4670k. I wouldn't consider a part that is less than half as fast to be "better." Maybe that's just me? Could be. Also, I wouldn't say "at best" 20% faster when several benchmarks peg it at 30% or more. The Enemy Territory: Quake Wars high-res benchmark, in particular, is... hilariously one sided (and since most people are going to be playing at high-res settings, it's a benchmark that actually matters). Actually, all the high-res gaming tests are, with the new chips often coming in close to twice the Haswell chips. In fact, the Cinebench 11.5 tests peg the Richland at 60% faster than the i5-4670k, so I'm not sure where the hell you got any of your numbers from.
The number of people who actually make a true living playing chess (and they still get paid today to do so) is really small.
So is the number of people who make a living for playing video games.
But I see a difference between getting paid to be good at a mentally challenging game and being good at playing a game where you "blow stuff up".
Why? FPS playing is a combination of physical and intellectual skill (mechanical skill at actually shooting the enemy, and intellectual at outplaying them by finding better positioning and out-maneuvering them). If anything, the fact that eSports is more heavily reliant on physical skills makes it vastly less surprising that they'd get paid for it, considering all the people who play conventional sports professionally.
Then tell me, exactly how many millions of dollars has IBM or a similar company invested to design a computer that can beat the best human players at what 4Kings plays?
None, for the same reason IBM hasn't invested millions in a baseball playing robot. Chess is an interesting mathematical problem, and the question of how much computer power is required to beat a human consistently is an interesting question in the area of intelligence and AI theory. The actual game in question is practically irrelevant. Chess was chosen because it's fairly popular and extremely thoroughly studied, which not being so complex as to overwhelm any current computer (unlike Go, for example).
Best source I can find is this article, which lists the surface radiation as around.7 millisieverts a day, or around the same as low Earth Orbit (Mars atmosphere is extremely thin, so it doesn't give as much protection as Earth's does from cosmic rays). This is vastly more than people are exposed to on Earth, and could definitely pose long-term health risks for a colony or other one-way mission.
No, the teacher did not know about the experiment. The girl mixed the chemicals on the advice of "a friend." The administration overreacted, but she probably did deserve some form of punishment. Mixing chemicals in closed containers without knowing exactly what they do (she said she thought it would just produce some smoke), and without supervision, on school property? Extremely bad idea.
100 hrs/minute is 6,000 hrs/hr, so you'd need 6,000 people employed around the clock. It's probably close to minimum wage work, so $10/hr or so, puts that at $60,000 per hour or $1,000/minute.
There's absolutely no way anyone can realistically claim an LP isn't a 'derivative work' under copyright. As such, the game's maker -could- have the videos pulled and sue their ass into oblivion.
LPs contain far too much footage of the games in question to count as fair use. A couple of minutes in a review is fine; hours and hours of start to finish video is not.
The amount of footage isn't really relevant here. It's patently ridiculous to argue that a video recording of someone playing a game is anything remotely close to the experience of playing that game (i.e. the LP videos are not the game itself). A video recording of a movie is that movie, but a video recording of a game is not the game. Therefore it's not at all clear that a LP video would not be fair use, since the presentation is highly transformative (since the experience of playing the game and watching someone else play it are completely 100% different). To quote Judge Pierre N. Leval (as used by the SCOTUS in their explanation of fair use):
The use must be productive and must employ the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original....[If] the secondary use adds value to the original—if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings—this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society.
I would say that LP videos fit that understanding exactly. Standard disclaimer: IANAL.
Oh, and this is incredibly and unarguably a stupid decision on Nintendo's part. That much is certain.
The problem with that logic is that with sufficient effort you could show that any problem can be reduced to math. The question is not can something be reduced to math, but is it math itself. For example: geometry is a mathematical field, but not everything created using geometry is math. Another example: every video on Youtube. Every one of them is reduced to mathematics before being displayed (and quite often when it is made), but arguing that the video itself is math or a mathematical algorithm is patently ridiculous.
Oh, and also the burden of proof isn't on him to prove the statement isn't math, it's on people who claim it is math to prove it is.
It's a wearable always-on computing device with augmented reality capabilities. No, it isn't quite that yet, but the first cell phone was a heavy brick that ran out of battery in few hours. Early technology is (almost) always of questionable and limited usefulness.
No, 2,4,5-T is no longer widely used as a herbicide. 2,4-D is, but that isn't "Agent Orange", which specifically is the 50:50 mix of those two compounds. In fact, 2,4,5-T has been banned for use in the US for several decades now, and the toxic dioxin compounds in it are a side-effect of the manufacturing process. Even a highly rigorous manufacturing system will still produce them, albeit in a low concentration.
Besides, the fact that the large concentrations of dioxin in Agent Orange were a "mistake" does absolutely nothing to increase my confidence in Monsanto's ability to safely produce herbicides.
Quite right, Monsanto doesn't make drugs. They make chemicals like DDT, PCBs, and Agent Orange. Much much better than those nasty drug companies.
OK, to be fair, they don't make Agent Orange any more, and they swear (absolutely swear) that they've changed. Their current products are all 100% totally safe. I mean, they wouldn't sell them if they weren't, right? Right.
The beans he bought from the grain elevator were intended to be used as feedstock, not seedstock. The grain elevator (presumably) had no idea he was going to plant them, and in any case selling patented "technology" isn't illegal (especially given that selling them is the whole point of the elevator in the first place) unless Monsanto had a license deal with them that made them liable should anyone they sell the seeds to use them as seeds.
If it needs a 100m runway isn't it really just an untra-light plane?
A Helicopter is much closer to a flying car than this thing...
Really? I've never seen a helicopter that was capable of traveling on a road before. Could just be me, though.
Oh, you mean you automatically expect "flying car" to mean "VTOL capable"? Why? Sci-fi movies? Absolutely nothing in the concept of "flying car" in any way implies that it doesn't need a runway. All it means is that it is a car (i.e. capable of traveling on a public road or highway) that is also capable of some form of flight. This can do both, therefore it is a flying car.
The long-term associations held even after the researchers took other common factors into account.
"These findings imply that basic childhood skills, independent of how smart you are, how long you stay in school, or the social class you started off in, will be important throughout your life," say Ritchie and Bates.
So, assuming they did their research right, nope. The results have little or nothing to do with the socioeconomic status of the parents.
I don't know, Bioware made KOTOR and that was one of the better Star Wars games ever made.
Yes, but they made that *before* being bought out by EA. After being bought out, they made Star Wars The Old Republic (aka WoW, with lightsabers, but somehow still lame).
Slashdot Mirror
But society has beat it into all of your heads that it's evil and wrong, which in the way the Soviet Union had implemented it -- It is.
No, it's wrong in the way Marx himself envisioned it. I've read a bit of his work. He openly stated that his Communism would only work if it was implemented across the entire world, and only by force. That's right: he both knew and embraced the fact that the Communist Revolution would be violent. This is why all the serious attempts at his vision have, in fact, been violent: it's an inherent part of the system. Not only that, but since it has to operate world-wide, it must spread itself, again by force if necessary. That is why the US was so scared of Communism: because Communism, as Marx envisioned it, cannot survive unless it destroys its enemies. It's also why the USSR, and other Communist nations, have sought to conquer or convert others. It's inherent in the system. Marxist Communism sought to destroy all other forms of government and social order.
And if you don't believe me, let me quote the Communist Manifesto:
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Any system of government that seeks to force itself upon the world, whether other countries want it or not, is evil and wrong.
This energy radiation is only theoretical, and has not yet been observed. Not with any sort of certainty, at any rate.
Seriously, did you even read the damned summary before you post? They controlled for demographic variables over time. The exact quote from the abstract is "Two fixed-effects regression models were used to estimate the relationship between emerald ash borer presence and county-level mortality from 1990 to 2007 in 15 U.S. states, while controlling for a wide range of demographic covariates." But yeah, I'm sure you identified the major problem with the whole study in 10 seconds. A study that was done over several years analyzing 17 years of collected data. But it's wrong, because there is absolutely no way they thought to correct for human behavior, no matter what the summary says.
Oh, hey, whats that, they controlled for income? Even spelled out that the effect of the ash borer was greater in wealthier regions thanks to the greater amounts of tree cover? Well, what do you know, scientists can sometimes actually know what they're talking about! Shocking, I know.
Next time, you could even try reading the full paper before you comment and call them "amateur scientists." Especially when they, you know, have already thought of everything you've pointed out.
Hmm, perhaps I was confusing the situation a bit. You are correct that producing a combination might count as self-incrimination, what I was thinking of is that the defendant can (in certain situations) be forced to produce a key, because that is a physical object, not a piece of information (although the defendant may say he doesn't know where the key is, he can't not say anything, unless knowing where the key is would somehow itself be incriminatory. Seems to be a large body of case law on the subject, UNITED STATES V. HUBBELL (99-166) 530 U.S. 27 seems to contain most relevant rulings).
But, it's highly situational: if the government already knows you know the combination, it could compel revealing it, because then the revelation isn't testimonial about anything: they already know you have access to the safe. At least, thats how I'm reading the rulings. Probably should add that IANAL, so I'm not sure (and even then, most lawyers probably don't know, the law is a bit complicated and highly specific).
It's actually a bit more complicated than that. You still have to answer a question if the answer alone is not itself incriminating. So, for example, a question like "where did you bury the person you murdered" would definitely not have to be answered (because knowing that implies you murdered the person in the first place). But a question like "what is the combination to your safe" would not necessarily be self-incrimination, because the combination itself doesn't incriminate you, and the court already knows you know, even if inside the safe are documents that show you committed a crime. The question of where that line is crossed isn't completely clear: hence, "judge", because they actually have to judge when that happens.
Two things. First, it's one thing to be "accepted" that it happens, and totally another to prove that it happens. Secondly, this experiment allowed them to trace how much it happened, which wasn't really known before, and allows you to say much more about how much of a role neurogenesis plays in the adult brain.
So, the game developers will just make their game require the Xbone's "cloud services." Sure, you can sell the *game*, but if it won't work without access to the *service* (which is independent of the game, at least conceptually), and since the service is precisely that (a service and not a product), it cannot be resold.
So, not really any downsides to this, then.
I very much doubt most carjackers will kill you. Stealing a car might get you on the cops list, but not terribly high. Murder will get you all the way to the top in an instant. Not to mention a bit more of a prison sentence.
P.S. --> the score in question from my previous post was for Cinebench 11.5, but there are many many others like it. And don't think that OpenCL holds any miracles for Trinity either, the 4600 is actually a better OpenCL part than it is a GPU.
Really? Because the one OpenCL benchmark I can find in TFA pegs the new chips at 2.5 times faster than the 4600 that comes with the i5-4670k. I wouldn't consider a part that is less than half as fast to be "better." Maybe that's just me? Could be. Also, I wouldn't say "at best" 20% faster when several benchmarks peg it at 30% or more. The Enemy Territory: Quake Wars high-res benchmark, in particular, is... hilariously one sided (and since most people are going to be playing at high-res settings, it's a benchmark that actually matters). Actually, all the high-res gaming tests are, with the new chips often coming in close to twice the Haswell chips. In fact, the Cinebench 11.5 tests peg the Richland at 60% faster than the i5-4670k, so I'm not sure where the hell you got any of your numbers from.
The number of people who actually make a true living playing chess (and they still get paid today to do so) is really small.
So is the number of people who make a living for playing video games.
But I see a difference between getting paid to be good at a mentally challenging game and being good at playing a game where you "blow stuff up".
Why? FPS playing is a combination of physical and intellectual skill (mechanical skill at actually shooting the enemy, and intellectual at outplaying them by finding better positioning and out-maneuvering them). If anything, the fact that eSports is more heavily reliant on physical skills makes it vastly less surprising that they'd get paid for it, considering all the people who play conventional sports professionally.
Then tell me, exactly how many millions of dollars has IBM or a similar company invested to design a computer that can beat the best human players at what 4Kings plays?
None, for the same reason IBM hasn't invested millions in a baseball playing robot. Chess is an interesting mathematical problem, and the question of how much computer power is required to beat a human consistently is an interesting question in the area of intelligence and AI theory. The actual game in question is practically irrelevant. Chess was chosen because it's fairly popular and extremely thoroughly studied, which not being so complex as to overwhelm any current computer (unlike Go, for example).
Best source I can find is this article, which lists the surface radiation as around .7 millisieverts a day, or around the same as low Earth Orbit (Mars atmosphere is extremely thin, so it doesn't give as much protection as Earth's does from cosmic rays). This is vastly more than people are exposed to on Earth, and could definitely pose long-term health risks for a colony or other one-way mission.
No, the teacher did not know about the experiment. The girl mixed the chemicals on the advice of "a friend." The administration overreacted, but she probably did deserve some form of punishment. Mixing chemicals in closed containers without knowing exactly what they do (she said she thought it would just produce some smoke), and without supervision, on school property? Extremely bad idea.
100 hrs/minute is 6,000 hrs/hr, so you'd need 6,000 people employed around the clock. It's probably close to minimum wage work, so $10/hr or so, puts that at $60,000 per hour or $1,000/minute.
There's absolutely no way anyone can realistically claim an LP isn't a 'derivative work' under copyright. As such, the game's maker -could- have the videos pulled and sue their ass into oblivion.
LPs contain far too much footage of the games in question to count as fair use. A couple of minutes in a review is fine; hours and hours of start to finish video is not.
The amount of footage isn't really relevant here. It's patently ridiculous to argue that a video recording of someone playing a game is anything remotely close to the experience of playing that game (i.e. the LP videos are not the game itself). A video recording of a movie is that movie, but a video recording of a game is not the game. Therefore it's not at all clear that a LP video would not be fair use, since the presentation is highly transformative (since the experience of playing the game and watching someone else play it are completely 100% different). To quote Judge Pierre N. Leval (as used by the SCOTUS in their explanation of fair use):
The use must be productive and must employ the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original. ...[If] the secondary use adds value to the original—if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings—this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society.
I would say that LP videos fit that understanding exactly. Standard disclaimer: IANAL.
Oh, and this is incredibly and unarguably a stupid decision on Nintendo's part. That much is certain.
The radio alone probably generates insignificant heat. Easy enough to test, of course (all you need is a thermometer).
The problem with that logic is that with sufficient effort you could show that any problem can be reduced to math. The question is not can something be reduced to math, but is it math itself. For example: geometry is a mathematical field, but not everything created using geometry is math. Another example: every video on Youtube. Every one of them is reduced to mathematics before being displayed (and quite often when it is made), but arguing that the video itself is math or a mathematical algorithm is patently ridiculous.
Oh, and also the burden of proof isn't on him to prove the statement isn't math, it's on people who claim it is math to prove it is.
the first cell phone allowed people to make a phone call from their car
So did car phones.
what does google glass do that i can't do with an iphone or galaxy s4?
Hands free operation, inline with your regular vision.
so what is it?
It's a wearable always-on computing device with augmented reality capabilities. No, it isn't quite that yet, but the first cell phone was a heavy brick that ran out of battery in few hours. Early technology is (almost) always of questionable and limited usefulness.
No, 2,4,5-T is no longer widely used as a herbicide. 2,4-D is, but that isn't "Agent Orange", which specifically is the 50:50 mix of those two compounds. In fact, 2,4,5-T has been banned for use in the US for several decades now, and the toxic dioxin compounds in it are a side-effect of the manufacturing process. Even a highly rigorous manufacturing system will still produce them, albeit in a low concentration.
Besides, the fact that the large concentrations of dioxin in Agent Orange were a "mistake" does absolutely nothing to increase my confidence in Monsanto's ability to safely produce herbicides.
Quite right, Monsanto doesn't make drugs. They make chemicals like DDT, PCBs, and Agent Orange. Much much better than those nasty drug companies.
OK, to be fair, they don't make Agent Orange any more, and they swear (absolutely swear) that they've changed. Their current products are all 100% totally safe. I mean, they wouldn't sell them if they weren't, right? Right.
The beans he bought from the grain elevator were intended to be used as feedstock, not seedstock. The grain elevator (presumably) had no idea he was going to plant them, and in any case selling patented "technology" isn't illegal (especially given that selling them is the whole point of the elevator in the first place) unless Monsanto had a license deal with them that made them liable should anyone they sell the seeds to use them as seeds.
If it needs a 100m runway isn't it really just an untra-light plane? A Helicopter is much closer to a flying car than this thing...
Really? I've never seen a helicopter that was capable of traveling on a road before. Could just be me, though.
Oh, you mean you automatically expect "flying car" to mean "VTOL capable"? Why? Sci-fi movies? Absolutely nothing in the concept of "flying car" in any way implies that it doesn't need a runway. All it means is that it is a car (i.e. capable of traveling on a public road or highway) that is also capable of some form of flight. This can do both, therefore it is a flying car.
From TFA:
The long-term associations held even after the researchers took other common factors into account.
"These findings imply that basic childhood skills, independent of how smart you are, how long you stay in school, or the social class you started off in, will be important throughout your life," say Ritchie and Bates.
So, assuming they did their research right, nope. The results have little or nothing to do with the socioeconomic status of the parents.
I don't know, Bioware made KOTOR and that was one of the better Star Wars games ever made.
Yes, but they made that *before* being bought out by EA. After being bought out, they made Star Wars The Old Republic (aka WoW, with lightsabers, but somehow still lame).