The difference is that Kinko's was acting in a way that specifically, by intent and desire, reduced the sale of the books and journals in question. Google, on the other hand, is digitizing the books so that people can find them and buy them. Those two are entirely different acts.
You have no right to full-text searches of books. Yea, it's great. Awesome, really. It helps a ton with research of all kinds, or just finding that quote in a particular book or set of books, but this is something that should most likely be part of a licensed database. People pay good money for access to databases to search published journals. This is of the same class.
Why? Published journals are a somewhat different class, since the original author isn't going to get money if the searcher buys the journal (generally). A book, on the other hand, they will.
And just because people pay money for it doesn't mean that is how it should be, either.
I don't know. Google doesn't seem much help. I think the frequency is too high (light is in the terahertz, while most radios only go up to giga-hertz at most). Logically, it should be possible (it is basically the same as radio antennas, but amazingly high frequency), but I cannot find any evidence anyone has done it.
Best example of this: radio waves. Hertz tried to prove that Maxwell's equations were bogus, because if they were correct there would be ridiculous things such as electromagnetic waves between antennas. It works, bitches!
Wrong. Hertz created setups to deliberately try to prove that electric fields (and magnetic, but same thing) move at a speed less than infinite, to prove that Maxwell was right, not that he was wrong. Hertz also showed that light was an electromagnetic wave (or, rather, that they traveled at the same speed), and speculated that you could create light directly by ultra-high-frequency AC currents.
I'm not sure either. In fact, I'm not sure anyone really does, as the legalities of Internet authority, given its international nature, still seem to be undefined. For.com, especially, since it is supposed to be generic (i.e. global). However, in at least some cases it is clear sites need to be able to be taken down (child porn would be an excellent example), and for such cases the country of the domain administrator seems like it should have authority. This case is not as clear cut, of course.
Tried the test for Opera, and it mostly worked (missed Newegg). Tried it in a private tab, didn't work at all. So, any site you don't want tracking you you load in a private tab. Which you should anyways.
Out of curiosity, I also tried the FF test (in Opera, still) and the IE test. The IE worked, better even than the dedicated test, while the FF test failed utterly. Curious.
And of course, as always, this test only works for the specific sites you test for, not generally. But that isn't surprising. Wasn't terribly fast, either, I'd certainly notice if you tested for hundreds or thousands of sites.
However, it was originally administered by the US DoD and is currently run by Verisign, whom you will note is a US based company and is therefore required to obey US laws. And TFS points out that the domains were "connected" (whatever the hell that means) to another US based company. So, everything about this was entirely US based, despite the sites being in Korean.
Not that that justifies ICE in any way shape or form, but they do have legal authority, or so it would appear.
There is some question, actually, if China can even do that reliably. The US has a Ballistic Missile Shield (called the Aegis BMD) with both land and sea based components. The missiles are capable of destroying LOE satellites, too, by all accounts. And a huge number of allied nations are beginning deployment of similar systems. It won't be long now before ballistic missiles are no longer a reliable method of delivery, except when used in vast quantities.
And China has nowhere near the airforce capability to deliver nuclear weapons that way. Certainly not as a first strike, they would need to destroy the carrier groups first.
The problem with ARMs is they only work if the radar stations are actually turned on. Common military doctrines states you only turn on a handful at a time, to prevent ARMs from targeting them. Really, you only need a couple of stations on at a time, and if they have, say, 30, they could keep radar coverage active for days by cycling them.
Note that modern ARMs will still work if the radar is switched off mid-flight, so you will still (usually) destroy the site, you just can't eliminate them all that way right away, which is extremely desirable. Even one functional station could completely fuck up an attack, so you find all of them beforehand so you know what to hit.
The people at Apple aren't the crazy ones. No, the crazy people are a) the legistlators who made the laws that Samsung is (supposedly) infringing on, and b) the judges who allow the laws to stand. In the US, at least, judges can invalidate laws if they find them bad enough (not sure how bad they have to be) and I imagine they can in other countries was well.
Apple is just using the system to get an advantage. Unfair, of course, but they don't care.
They think it is such a large portion because they look mostly at the discretionary budget (which the GP linked to). Defense is a huge portion of that... but that is only 38% of the total budget.
Same sort of budget games that allow people (congress critters looking to defame their opponents, mainly) to call increases in a budget "cuts", whenever the increase is less than what was originally proposed (doesn't even have to be less than inflation).
Also, OT:/. will never let you edit posts, but it would be nice if you could append a short notice to the post itself, rather than as a child post.
Well, as others point out I oversimplified things a bit. Quantum physics states that, in a sense, both and neither are vibrating so long as they are entangled, and only one actually vibrates once observed. However I believe that many view that as merely a mathematical system for approximating what is really going on (don't take my word for this, as I am by no means sure about this point), but that goes well past my knowledge. In your example, there is an objective reality about which box the ball is in. It may or may not (and experiments indicate not) be true that there is an objective reality about which diamond is vibrating prior to the observation.
No. The experiment took one photon, and sent it along two possible paths without recording which path it took, which causes a vibration in one (and only one) diamond. Since the path of the photon was random, and not recorded, you cannot say which diamond is vibrating. The way the researchers put it (better than the summary IMO) is "Neither the statement 'this diamond is vibrating' nor 'this diamond is not vibrating' is true.” You cannot selectively vibrate one. In fact knowing which one vibrates destroys the entanglement. It does, however, tell you the state of the other diamond (the opposite) without observing it directly, which creates a few paradoxes and is the source of the whole 'spooky action thing.'
Don't feel to bad if you don't understand it, even quantum physicists don't understand quantum physics very well. The mechanics behind what is really happening in entanglement is still unknown, there is only guesswork as to how it might happen.
No, since when you establish the vibrations you don't know in which one it occurs. So while you could establish vibrations in a distant diamond (or particle), at least theoretically, you never know when you do so which one is actually vibrating. When they set it up, they used 1 photon that could travel and strike either diamond, creating the vibrations. Without measuring the photon's path, they didn't know which one it hit and therefore which on would be vibrating. This caused the entanglement.
Two things: 1), the photon itself had to be able to strike both (so not FTL at all for this setup) and 2) no useful information was encoded in this experiment. One thing you could do, though, would be send one diamond one direction and the other another way. Either can know the other diamond's state by reading his own (the other is in the opposite), and no one else can, since anyone else reading it would collapse the state, and a second reading would have a different result (I believe this is more or less how quantum cryptography works). Quantum entanglement is useful for transferring information (in other cases), but the mechanics still don't allow FTL information transfer, they just allow you to encode more in less space by having two bits quantum entangled. I don't completely understand the physics of that.
Actually, no, because they are quantum entangled only one of them can vibrate at a time. So you can still only please one at at a time, you just don't know which one it will be until they tell you.
The main problem I see with what you say is this: very few people believed the AT&T-T-Mobile merger was a good thing before the Analysis. I only skimmed it briefly, but it seemed to approach the issue from the point of view that the onus is on AT&T to show that the merger is in the public interest, and not just AT&Ts (which they seem to grant.)
The "commitments" of a company with AT&T's history are worth less to me then the photons my screen used to display them to me. It should come as no surprise that the report is unbalanced: the truth is this merger is a bad idea, at many levels. If AT&T wants it to go through, they basically need to show that both companies absolutely needed it. The report seems to say they didn't show that, but only made broad claims.
In other words, the FCC is calling AT&T liars, and I agree. AT&T doesn't like that, and their response is laden with innuendo and falsities. For example, "The document is so obviously one-sided that any fair-minded person reading it is left with the clear impression that it is an advocacy piece..." So if you don't agree with AT&T's interpretation, you clearly aren't "fair minded." Yeah, that sort of language is only going to make me like you even less. If they really have valid points, fine. But even if they do, using that language is going to make me discard it as manipulative marketing.
Add in the fact that AT&T tried to withdraw the merger application so the report wouldn't be made public, and it really is a poor showing overall for AT&T.
Yep, I too strongly recommend zsh. The command line completion especially is far, far better than bash. Although you pretty much have to create (or download: there are quite a few good ones online) an extensive zshrc file to use it properly. Thanks for pointing out grml, I might have to look into using that in the future.
Well, that'll get you through... what, the first page of the manual?
The damn thing has a built-in tcp command system (ok, I think it's technically a "module"). The main man page is just a redirect page. Hell, it might even rival emacs for complexity. I know, I didn't think it was possible either...
This will be my last response, but I'll just drop this. That study, as referenced on that page, was conducted with no control group, by the not-so-good doctor himself (since his credibility is the question under consideration, his study cannot be used as proof of his validity.) There were 61 protocols on www.clinicaltrials.gov, with only 5 publications. Only one protocol is listed as completed. And the FDA issued a warning letter against the doctor's review board (long and short: those trials probably shouldn't have been approved). Further, the writer mentions he has never, in 36 years of clinical science, seen a clinical trial that requires payment. And, most importantly, lack of ability to reproduce any of Burzynski's results independently, which I already linked to. That last alone is enough to question his results extremely strongly. The rest is just massive fraud warning lights.
Incidentally, peer-review does not examine the possibility of fraud, it only examines the quality of the paper and method listed. He could have completely made it up, (people have) and it could still pass peer-review.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is that Kinko's was acting in a way that specifically, by intent and desire, reduced the sale of the books and journals in question. Google, on the other hand, is digitizing the books so that people can find them and buy them. Those two are entirely different acts.
You have no right to full-text searches of books. Yea, it's great. Awesome, really. It helps a ton with research of all kinds, or just finding that quote in a particular book or set of books, but this is something that should most likely be part of a licensed database. People pay good money for access to databases to search published journals. This is of the same class.
Why? Published journals are a somewhat different class, since the original author isn't going to get money if the searcher buys the journal (generally). A book, on the other hand, they will.
And just because people pay money for it doesn't mean that is how it should be, either.
I don't know. Google doesn't seem much help. I think the frequency is too high (light is in the terahertz, while most radios only go up to giga-hertz at most). Logically, it should be possible (it is basically the same as radio antennas, but amazingly high frequency), but I cannot find any evidence anyone has done it.
Best example of this: radio waves. Hertz tried to prove that Maxwell's equations were bogus, because if they were correct there would be ridiculous things such as electromagnetic waves between antennas. It works, bitches!
Wrong. Hertz created setups to deliberately try to prove that electric fields (and magnetic, but same thing) move at a speed less than infinite, to prove that Maxwell was right, not that he was wrong. Hertz also showed that light was an electromagnetic wave (or, rather, that they traveled at the same speed), and speculated that you could create light directly by ultra-high-frequency AC currents.
I'm not sure either. In fact, I'm not sure anyone really does, as the legalities of Internet authority, given its international nature, still seem to be undefined. For .com, especially, since it is supposed to be generic (i.e. global). However, in at least some cases it is clear sites need to be able to be taken down (child porn would be an excellent example), and for such cases the country of the domain administrator seems like it should have authority. This case is not as clear cut, of course.
Tried the test for Opera, and it mostly worked (missed Newegg). Tried it in a private tab, didn't work at all. So, any site you don't want tracking you you load in a private tab. Which you should anyways.
Out of curiosity, I also tried the FF test (in Opera, still) and the IE test. The IE worked, better even than the dedicated test, while the FF test failed utterly. Curious.
And of course, as always, this test only works for the specific sites you test for, not generally. But that isn't surprising. Wasn't terribly fast, either, I'd certainly notice if you tested for hundreds or thousands of sites.
Isn't there some kind of international thing that should be handling this?
Don't think so, I believe that is what ACTA is for.
If that is the other option, ICE doesn't seem so bad.
However, it was originally administered by the US DoD and is currently run by Verisign, whom you will note is a US based company and is therefore required to obey US laws. And TFS points out that the domains were "connected" (whatever the hell that means) to another US based company. So, everything about this was entirely US based, despite the sites being in Korean.
Not that that justifies ICE in any way shape or form, but they do have legal authority, or so it would appear.
There is some question, actually, if China can even do that reliably. The US has a Ballistic Missile Shield (called the Aegis BMD) with both land and sea based components. The missiles are capable of destroying LOE satellites, too, by all accounts. And a huge number of allied nations are beginning deployment of similar systems. It won't be long now before ballistic missiles are no longer a reliable method of delivery, except when used in vast quantities.
And China has nowhere near the airforce capability to deliver nuclear weapons that way. Certainly not as a first strike, they would need to destroy the carrier groups first.
The problem with ARMs is they only work if the radar stations are actually turned on. Common military doctrines states you only turn on a handful at a time, to prevent ARMs from targeting them. Really, you only need a couple of stations on at a time, and if they have, say, 30, they could keep radar coverage active for days by cycling them.
Note that modern ARMs will still work if the radar is switched off mid-flight, so you will still (usually) destroy the site, you just can't eliminate them all that way right away, which is extremely desirable. Even one functional station could completely fuck up an attack, so you find all of them beforehand so you know what to hit.
The people at Apple aren't the crazy ones. No, the crazy people are a) the legistlators who made the laws that Samsung is (supposedly) infringing on, and b) the judges who allow the laws to stand. In the US, at least, judges can invalidate laws if they find them bad enough (not sure how bad they have to be) and I imagine they can in other countries was well.
Apple is just using the system to get an advantage. Unfair, of course, but they don't care.
That's ok. We have Batma... I mean Christian Bale.
They think it is such a large portion because they look mostly at the discretionary budget (which the GP linked to). Defense is a huge portion of that... but that is only 38% of the total budget.
Same sort of budget games that allow people (congress critters looking to defame their opponents, mainly) to call increases in a budget "cuts", whenever the increase is less than what was originally proposed (doesn't even have to be less than inflation).
Also, OT: /. will never let you edit posts, but it would be nice if you could append a short notice to the post itself, rather than as a child post.
Well, as others point out I oversimplified things a bit. Quantum physics states that, in a sense, both and neither are vibrating so long as they are entangled, and only one actually vibrates once observed. However I believe that many view that as merely a mathematical system for approximating what is really going on (don't take my word for this, as I am by no means sure about this point), but that goes well past my knowledge. In your example, there is an objective reality about which box the ball is in. It may or may not (and experiments indicate not) be true that there is an objective reality about which diamond is vibrating prior to the observation.
No. The experiment took one photon, and sent it along two possible paths without recording which path it took, which causes a vibration in one (and only one) diamond. Since the path of the photon was random, and not recorded, you cannot say which diamond is vibrating. The way the researchers put it (better than the summary IMO) is "Neither the statement 'this diamond is vibrating' nor 'this diamond is not vibrating' is true.” You cannot selectively vibrate one. In fact knowing which one vibrates destroys the entanglement. It does, however, tell you the state of the other diamond (the opposite) without observing it directly, which creates a few paradoxes and is the source of the whole 'spooky action thing.'
Don't feel to bad if you don't understand it, even quantum physicists don't understand quantum physics very well. The mechanics behind what is really happening in entanglement is still unknown, there is only guesswork as to how it might happen.
No, since when you establish the vibrations you don't know in which one it occurs. So while you could establish vibrations in a distant diamond (or particle), at least theoretically, you never know when you do so which one is actually vibrating. When they set it up, they used 1 photon that could travel and strike either diamond, creating the vibrations. Without measuring the photon's path, they didn't know which one it hit and therefore which on would be vibrating. This caused the entanglement.
Two things: 1), the photon itself had to be able to strike both (so not FTL at all for this setup) and 2) no useful information was encoded in this experiment. One thing you could do, though, would be send one diamond one direction and the other another way. Either can know the other diamond's state by reading his own (the other is in the opposite), and no one else can, since anyone else reading it would collapse the state, and a second reading would have a different result (I believe this is more or less how quantum cryptography works). Quantum entanglement is useful for transferring information (in other cases), but the mechanics still don't allow FTL information transfer, they just allow you to encode more in less space by having two bits quantum entangled. I don't completely understand the physics of that.
Actually, no, because they are quantum entangled only one of them can vibrate at a time. So you can still only please one at at a time, you just don't know which one it will be until they tell you.
Oh hey look you made another account to goatse /. with. Good job.
The main problem I see with what you say is this: very few people believed the AT&T-T-Mobile merger was a good thing before the Analysis. I only skimmed it briefly, but it seemed to approach the issue from the point of view that the onus is on AT&T to show that the merger is in the public interest, and not just AT&Ts (which they seem to grant.)
The "commitments" of a company with AT&T's history are worth less to me then the photons my screen used to display them to me. It should come as no surprise that the report is unbalanced: the truth is this merger is a bad idea, at many levels. If AT&T wants it to go through, they basically need to show that both companies absolutely needed it. The report seems to say they didn't show that, but only made broad claims.
In other words, the FCC is calling AT&T liars, and I agree. AT&T doesn't like that, and their response is laden with innuendo and falsities. For example, "The document is so obviously one-sided that any fair-minded person reading it is left with the clear impression that it is an advocacy piece..." So if you don't agree with AT&T's interpretation, you clearly aren't "fair minded." Yeah, that sort of language is only going to make me like you even less. If they really have valid points, fine. But even if they do, using that language is going to make me discard it as manipulative marketing.
Add in the fact that AT&T tried to withdraw the merger application so the report wouldn't be made public, and it really is a poor showing overall for AT&T.
We agree with AT&T on one point however: the public should read the Analysis and Findings on AT&T’s proposed takeover.
Yep, I too strongly recommend zsh. The command line completion especially is far, far better than bash. Although you pretty much have to create (or download: there are quite a few good ones online) an extensive zshrc file to use it properly. Thanks for pointing out grml, I might have to look into using that in the future.
Well, that'll get you through... what, the first page of the manual?
The damn thing has a built-in tcp command system (ok, I think it's technically a "module"). The main man page is just a redirect page. Hell, it might even rival emacs for complexity. I know, I didn't think it was possible either...
I keep all my money in my house! Perfectly safe. No organized crooks gonna steal my money.
If this has anything to do with those stupid prequels, then this is a bad joke
Why? You can make jokes based on bad movies, especially the Star Wars prequels. Just about all they're good for.
This will be my last response, but I'll just drop this. That study, as referenced on that page, was conducted with no control group, by the not-so-good doctor himself (since his credibility is the question under consideration, his study cannot be used as proof of his validity.) There were 61 protocols on www.clinicaltrials.gov, with only 5 publications. Only one protocol is listed as completed. And the FDA issued a warning letter against the doctor's review board (long and short: those trials probably shouldn't have been approved). Further, the writer mentions he has never, in 36 years of clinical science, seen a clinical trial that requires payment. And, most importantly, lack of ability to reproduce any of Burzynski's results independently, which I already linked to. That last alone is enough to question his results extremely strongly. The rest is just massive fraud warning lights.
Incidentally, peer-review does not examine the possibility of fraud, it only examines the quality of the paper and method listed. He could have completely made it up, (people have) and it could still pass peer-review.