Yeah, my doctor couldn't see enough detail in my head x-ray, so he used Photoshop's "content-aware fill" to fix it, and now apparently I need surgery to remove the 3rd half of my brain. I get to keep the 2 extra eyeballs, though.
(actually, I really really want to see that applied to medical x-rays)
I'm not sure about the currency you got there, but it doesn't really matter: 100 currency units is cheap for 3-5 hours of flying, no matter what currency! I'd have to pay almost 3-5 times more than that for flying.
Yeah, it's almost as if he meant to say that it cost him 3-5 times 100...
When i was flying with my own money as a teenager it was costing me a few 100 per month for the 3-5 hours of flying time.
True. However, the summary indicates testing was done over the Gulf of Mexico, although the article isn't clear. It does say they exceeded Mach 1, which is generally prohibited over populated areas except in emergencies, so that's another indicator they were over water.
And military pilots are expected to be able to handle 9G with a G-suit, but only briefly, and the structural limits for the F16 are beyond a human's limits for sustained G-forces, so there's a potentially great improvement in performance.
As an aside, I read that the Blue Angels (and presumably the Thunderbirds) pull sustained 7G during their maneuvers without a G-suit, which is impressive.
This also happens a lot without texting being a factor. I've seen it plenty of times when the driver sees the car in front go, then hits the accelerator while checking mirrors, cross traffic, something other than the car in front of him. In this particular case the woman was at fault for distracted driving.
What, so now the cop has to see which app on your tiny screen you were using when he saw you? If it's colored a certain way, it's OK, but if it's colored differently it's not OK? And if I am pulled over texting-while-driving, do I just need a double-click-the-button app to pop up the maps quick so I can tell the cop I was just using a map? I don't disagree with the cop tagging someone for using the map app in that way, because it would be impossible to enforce it any other way.
Well, if you're driving distracted, that's an offense, regardless of what you were doing on your phone or GPS or whatever. That should be the offense that's being enforced. I think that's why the "GPS Nav is ok on dedicated device, not ok on phone" laws are stupid - because the devices capabilities are irrelevant; what matters is the driver's behavior. In your example, if a texter was driving distracted and endangering others, it doesn't matter what app he shows the officer. If he wasn't distracted or dangerous, why write a ticket? This is why I don't like the cell-phone related laws: any possible endangerment is already covered by existing law, and you're creating blanket injustice.
... Speeding, drunk driving, texting, etc., none of those actions actually causes harm. They only increase risks, such as the risk of increased injury in an accident due to higher speeds, or the risk of actually getting into an accident because you're distracted or intoxicated. But the only thing that actually causes harm is an actual accident.
Well, that's true, but it's like saying spraying an automatic weapon into a crowd is only harmful if the bullets hit someone. The point is you're endangering the public safety.
If your accident takes another person's life, you go to jail for life. If those were the laws, and they were enforced, people might actually think before they try something stupid. That way each person would be responsible for their own actions at all times....You limit your own behavior because you're responsible for the consequences of your actions.
Of course, that would require people to think and to take responsibility for themselves, two things that most people suck at.
You've pointed out the flaw in your own argument - people do not act responsibly now, so if you say "drunk driving is no longer a ticketable offense in and of itself," what effect to you think that will have on drunk drivers? If people are already willing to take that risk, they're not going to say "whoa, the penalty for an accident is harsher now, better not drive drunk," they're going to say "well I can't get a DUI anymore, so I'll just drive slow and careful and won't hit anyone, so I'm good!"
I understand your point, but I think there's a justification for laws that prohibit reckless public endangerment, even if nothing bad happens. Yes, there's potential for abuse there.
Well, everyone knows that the likelihood of a statement being sarcasm is directly proportional to the ratio of exclamation points to sentences! Science!!
Well if ones creations are not protected the group that invests (often large amounts of) money in creating something new and unique then Joe Schmuck will purchase the product when it is first available then copy it and sell it (usually cheaper) and the creator is then unable to recoup their development costs. This the discourages the creation and money put into creating new things.
This is a good summary of the arguments for the benefits of patents. However, the same reasoning applies to software patents:
Actually it doesn't. Patents are supposed to protect the implementation, not the idea. For example the one click patent, I should be able to implement one click patent myself, if I do it differently than the way Amazon does it. But I don't really know how Amazon does it, cause I can't see their code. Nor can I truly understand the patent itself.
Actually, it does. What you have done is point out a flaw in the argument. But the argument, as stated, can apply to software patents.
The other issue with software patents is the majority of them are not really patent-able, as they are not novel or they have prior art.
That was the key point of my previous post. One-click, even if no one had done it before, was trivial and should not have been patentable.
Well if ones creations are not protected the group that invests (often large amounts of) money in creating something new and unique then Joe Schmuck will purchase the product when it is first available then copy it and sell it (usually cheaper) and the creator is then unable to recoup their development costs. This the discourages the creation and money put into creating new things.
This is a good summary of the arguments for the benefits of patents. However, the same reasoning applies to software patents:
Well if one's software is not protected: the group invests (often large amounts of) money in creating new and unique software, then Joe Schmuck will reverse-engineer the software when it is first available, then write similar software and sell it (usually cheaper) and the creator is then unable to recoup their development costs. This discourages the creation and money put into creating new software.
So I'm not sure how you get
4) Software falls under copyright and trademark laws and therefore patents do not apply.
I'm not saying whether we should have software patents or not, but the fact is that a lot of the same reasoning applies. Also, it's worth considering that perhaps the design of the system is fine, but the implementation is terrible. I believe that a significant part of the problem is that the patent office has a tendency to rubber-stamp every broad, vague, "but on a computer", or similar bogus software patent it sees. You'll have the same problems if they do this with physical inventions.
I think the fact that there is so much software patent litigation is proof that this is the problem: if it were a truly novel and non-obvious invention, then you wouldn't have to sue 40 companies that all had the same idea and implemented it independently.
Fascinating! From my casual observations of men's height among subway riders, I figured about 1 in 20 guys were at least as tall as I am, and that table shows me right exactly at the 95% percentile! Science!
Morally, by not testifying to the truth, I am guilty of your crime. I allowed you to murder another person with no repercussions.
Not guilty of, but complicit in (i.e. you share guilt, but not in the same way as the perpetrator), which is why the penalty is less. Other than that you're correct.
All citizens have a shared duty to promote justice, and testifying as a witness falls under that duty. So does serving on a jury. Just as refusing to testify against the perpetrator of a crime is unjust to the victim, so is refusing to testify to the innocence of the accused an injustice to the accused. Either way, if you have some knowledge that may serve the cause of justice, and you refuse to provide it, you're obstructing justice, an objectively Bad Thing (assuming you view "justice" as a good to be striven for).
This is presumably why witnesses don't get out of testifying, because there's no legitimate reason not to, if they're not suspected of being complicit in the crime, and thus don't risk incriminating themselves. The reasons for the fifth amendment, as repeated ad nauseum elsewhere, are 1) to prevent coerced confessions by the state, and 2) it's pointless except to pile on perjury charges if the accused denies guilt.
If she can be sent to jail, she's not an innocent third-party witness, and would be able to refuse to testify.
Presumably the complaint is that she could be sent to jail for contempt of court, which is unrelated to the original crime being prosecuted, so she could be innocent UNTIL she refuses to testify. I believe that's the OP's contention.
Which would all be relevant if Zimmerman had confronted Martin and had the chance to identify himself. It doesn't matter if you're an idiot or a plainclothes cop, if you're attacked ("jumped from behind" in Zimmerman's account), you have a right to defend yourself.
According to Zimmerman, he was complying with law enforcement's requests for more information, so your charge of "was not qualified to do what he was trying" doesn't apply here. He was trying to give information about a suspicious person to a 911 dispatcher, the act of which is not typically considered dangerous to a community.
not sure how calling out the Pope makes him an asshole. More power to him.
Because the Pope had previously been friendly toward him and interested in his ideas, and actually asked him to write a book that explained his ideas vs. other systems in an impartial way. The pope further asked that his own questions on the topic be included. Galileo wrote a dialog which (probably unintentionally) came off as mocking the character promoting the geocentric view, who voiced the pope's arguments. So it looked like he was bashing the guy who asked him to explain his ideas.
Once the pope was under political pressure, he threw Galileo under the bus. See Wikipedia for a decent summary of the situation.
But the existence of someone else with a different opinion means someone thinks I'm wrong. That's insulting. If they were as smart as me and knew what I know, they should have the same opinion. Fuck you and your "tolerance". We don't allow that on the Internet.
Best 5-sentence summary of the internet right here. Well, the part that isn't porn or cat pictures. 75% porn, 20% cat pictures, 5% this ^^^.
But in all seriousness, if people could understand that their life experience was not the authoritative example of the human condition and that therefore everyone who disagrees is wrong/stupid/evil, the world would be a better place.
Dear internet: don't take yourself so damn seriously. Look at some more cat pictures.
Looking back at my history, it seems like I post a few times per week on average, and it seems like I get 15 mod points (at a time) at least once per week. I'm a "conservative" (wacko-ness is subjective), but I try to post constructive or at least innocuous comments. Most don't have anything to do with politics or ideology one way or another. My karma is "excellent."
Although there are plenty of partisans here, the Slashdot community is not so ideologically-driven that mods only award points to posts they agree with. Certainly that happens, but I've had "conservative" posts modded up, and I know I've modded up posts that espoused an ideology that I disagree with, but I nevertheless thought were good posts that contributed to the discussion.
So there are mods that assign points for all sorts of reasons. Fashionable posts get modded up. Good posts get modded up too. If there's anything the Slashdot community is not, it's "monolithic".
Is there a structural problem with computer-aided pilot's ability to fly visual approaches?
Parse fail. I've even had my 3 cups of coffee and I got nothin'.
Either
"Is there a systemic problem with the ability of pilots these days, using computer aids, to fly 'visual approaches' (not ILS-controlled descent; manually controlled, looking out the window)?"
or
"Is there some structural problem with the plane or airport that inhibits the pilot's ability to fly a visual approach while using computer aids?"
I think the answer to both is no. Landing a plane like this is complicated - however, pilots are trained to do it. They still make mistakes, but usually the worst result is a go-around. Crashes are very rare, and typically require the combination of multiple mistakes and/or equipment failures. When was the last time you heard of a commercial pilot that crashed simply because he "misjudged the approach" with no other contributing factors?
Seems to be when there is more than one congressman with that last name. The state is used to identify which one. I can't find a duplicate name for every instance, though.
I've come to the conclusion that there's just no way to guarantee innovator's rights via software patents. I agree with Becker, some harm will come, but less than is being done by a system which includes: 1) overly-broad patents 2) patent litigation by trolls not using their patent for anything besides litigation 3) perverse business incentive for people to abuse 1 & 2
I've changed my mind because I haven't heard a way yet that allows "good" software patents to exist without far worse elements in the system. Perhaps if you had an army of tech-knowledgeable patent attorneys working as examiners that could see through the BS, and yet were more competent and efficient than any American bureaucracy ever...
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, my doctor couldn't see enough detail in my head x-ray, so he used Photoshop's "content-aware fill" to fix it, and now apparently I need surgery to remove the 3rd half of my brain. I get to keep the 2 extra eyeballs, though.
(actually, I really really want to see that applied to medical x-rays)
I'm not sure about the currency you got there, but it doesn't really matter: 100 currency units is cheap for 3-5 hours of flying, no matter what currency! I'd have to pay almost 3-5 times more than that for flying.
Yeah, it's almost as if he meant to say that it cost him 3-5 times 100...
When i was flying with my own money as a teenager it was costing me a few 100 per month for the 3-5 hours of flying time.
I couldn't figure out if this was awesome or total BS until I RTFA.
True. However, the summary indicates testing was done over the Gulf of Mexico, although the article isn't clear. It does say they exceeded Mach 1, which is generally prohibited over populated areas except in emergencies, so that's another indicator they were over water.
And military pilots are expected to be able to handle 9G with a G-suit, but only briefly, and the structural limits for the F16 are beyond a human's limits for sustained G-forces, so there's a potentially great improvement in performance.
As an aside, I read that the Blue Angels (and presumably the Thunderbirds) pull sustained 7G during their maneuvers without a G-suit, which is impressive.
He's not really trolling - it's brilliant meta performance art!
This also happens a lot without texting being a factor. I've seen it plenty of times when the driver sees the car in front go, then hits the accelerator while checking mirrors, cross traffic, something other than the car in front of him. In this particular case the woman was at fault for distracted driving.
What, so now the cop has to see which app on your tiny screen you were using when he saw you? If it's colored a certain way, it's OK, but if it's colored differently it's not OK? And if I am pulled over texting-while-driving, do I just need a double-click-the-button app to pop up the maps quick so I can tell the cop I was just using a map? I don't disagree with the cop tagging someone for using the map app in that way, because it would be impossible to enforce it any other way.
Well, if you're driving distracted, that's an offense, regardless of what you were doing on your phone or GPS or whatever. That should be the offense that's being enforced. I think that's why the "GPS Nav is ok on dedicated device, not ok on phone" laws are stupid - because the devices capabilities are irrelevant; what matters is the driver's behavior. In your example, if a texter was driving distracted and endangering others, it doesn't matter what app he shows the officer. If he wasn't distracted or dangerous, why write a ticket? This is why I don't like the cell-phone related laws: any possible endangerment is already covered by existing law, and you're creating blanket injustice.
... Speeding, drunk driving, texting, etc., none of those actions actually causes harm. They only increase risks, such as the risk of increased injury in an accident due to higher speeds, or the risk of actually getting into an accident because you're distracted or intoxicated. But the only thing that actually causes harm is an actual accident.
Well, that's true, but it's like saying spraying an automatic weapon into a crowd is only harmful if the bullets hit someone. The point is you're endangering the public safety.
If your accident takes another person's life, you go to jail for life. If those were the laws, and they were enforced, people might actually think before they try something stupid. That way each person would be responsible for their own actions at all times. ...You limit your own behavior because you're responsible for the consequences of your actions.
Of course, that would require people to think and to take responsibility for themselves, two things that most people suck at.
You've pointed out the flaw in your own argument - people do not act responsibly now, so if you say "drunk driving is no longer a ticketable offense in and of itself," what effect to you think that will have on drunk drivers? If people are already willing to take that risk, they're not going to say "whoa, the penalty for an accident is harsher now, better not drive drunk," they're going to say "well I can't get a DUI anymore, so I'll just drive slow and careful and won't hit anyone, so I'm good!"
I understand your point, but I think there's a justification for laws that prohibit reckless public endangerment, even if nothing bad happens. Yes, there's potential for abuse there.
Because it's more fun! Save the manuals!
Well, everyone knows that the likelihood of a statement being sarcasm is directly proportional to the ratio of exclamation points to sentences! Science!!
Well if ones creations are not protected the group that invests (often large amounts of) money in creating something new and unique then Joe Schmuck will purchase the product when it is first available then copy it and sell it (usually cheaper) and the creator is then unable to recoup their development costs. This the discourages the creation and money put into creating new things.
This is a good summary of the arguments for the benefits of patents. However, the same reasoning applies to software patents:
Actually it doesn't. Patents are supposed to protect the implementation, not the idea. For example the one click patent, I should be able to implement one click patent myself, if I do it differently than the way Amazon does it. But I don't really know how Amazon does it, cause I can't see their code. Nor can I truly understand the patent itself.
Actually, it does. What you have done is point out a flaw in the argument. But the argument, as stated, can apply to software patents.
The other issue with software patents is the majority of them are not really patent-able, as they are not novel or they have prior art.
That was the key point of my previous post. One-click, even if no one had done it before, was trivial and should not have been patentable.
Well if ones creations are not protected the group that invests (often large amounts of) money in creating something new and unique then Joe Schmuck will purchase the product when it is first available then copy it and sell it (usually cheaper) and the creator is then unable to recoup their development costs. This the discourages the creation and money put into creating new things.
This is a good summary of the arguments for the benefits of patents. However, the same reasoning applies to software patents:
Well if one's software is not protected: the group invests (often large amounts of) money in creating new and unique software, then Joe Schmuck will reverse-engineer the software when it is first available, then write similar software and sell it (usually cheaper) and the creator is then unable to recoup their development costs. This discourages the creation and money put into creating new software.
So I'm not sure how you get
4) Software falls under copyright and trademark laws and therefore patents do not apply.
I'm not saying whether we should have software patents or not, but the fact is that a lot of the same reasoning applies. Also, it's worth considering that perhaps the design of the system is fine, but the implementation is terrible. I believe that a significant part of the problem is that the patent office has a tendency to rubber-stamp every broad, vague, "but on a computer", or similar bogus software patent it sees. You'll have the same problems if they do this with physical inventions.
I think the fact that there is so much software patent litigation is proof that this is the problem: if it were a truly novel and non-obvious invention, then you wouldn't have to sue 40 companies that all had the same idea and implemented it independently.
Fascinating! From my casual observations of men's height among subway riders, I figured about 1 in 20 guys were at least as tall as I am, and that table shows me right exactly at the 95% percentile! Science!
Can you spell Gestapo?
Yes, I think it's spelled G-O-D-W-I-N.
Morally, by not testifying to the truth, I am guilty of your crime. I allowed you to murder another person with no repercussions.
Not guilty of, but complicit in (i.e. you share guilt, but not in the same way as the perpetrator), which is why the penalty is less. Other than that you're correct.
All citizens have a shared duty to promote justice, and testifying as a witness falls under that duty. So does serving on a jury. Just as refusing to testify against the perpetrator of a crime is unjust to the victim, so is refusing to testify to the innocence of the accused an injustice to the accused. Either way, if you have some knowledge that may serve the cause of justice, and you refuse to provide it, you're obstructing justice, an objectively Bad Thing (assuming you view "justice" as a good to be striven for).
This is presumably why witnesses don't get out of testifying, because there's no legitimate reason not to, if they're not suspected of being complicit in the crime, and thus don't risk incriminating themselves. The reasons for the fifth amendment, as repeated ad nauseum elsewhere, are 1) to prevent coerced confessions by the state, and 2) it's pointless except to pile on perjury charges if the accused denies guilt.
If she can be sent to jail, she's not an innocent third-party witness, and would be able to refuse to testify.
Presumably the complaint is that she could be sent to jail for contempt of court, which is unrelated to the original crime being prosecuted, so she could be innocent UNTIL she refuses to testify. I believe that's the OP's contention.
Which would all be relevant if Zimmerman had confronted Martin and had the chance to identify himself. It doesn't matter if you're an idiot or a plainclothes cop, if you're attacked ("jumped from behind" in Zimmerman's account), you have a right to defend yourself.
According to Zimmerman, he was complying with law enforcement's requests for more information, so your charge of "was not qualified to do what he was trying" doesn't apply here. He was trying to give information about a suspicious person to a 911 dispatcher, the act of which is not typically considered dangerous to a community.
not sure how calling out the Pope makes him an asshole. More power to him.
Because the Pope had previously been friendly toward him and interested in his ideas, and actually asked him to write a book that explained his ideas vs. other systems in an impartial way. The pope further asked that his own questions on the topic be included. Galileo wrote a dialog which (probably unintentionally) came off as mocking the character promoting the geocentric view, who voiced the pope's arguments. So it looked like he was bashing the guy who asked him to explain his ideas.
Once the pope was under political pressure, he threw Galileo under the bus. See Wikipedia for a decent summary of the situation.
But the existence of someone else with a different opinion means someone thinks I'm wrong. That's insulting. If they were as smart as me and knew what I know, they should have the same opinion. Fuck you and your "tolerance". We don't allow that on the Internet.
Best 5-sentence summary of the internet right here. Well, the part that isn't porn or cat pictures. 75% porn, 20% cat pictures, 5% this ^^^.
But in all seriousness, if people could understand that their life experience was not the authoritative example of the human condition and that therefore everyone who disagrees is wrong/stupid/evil, the world would be a better place.
Dear internet: don't take yourself so damn seriously. Look at some more cat pictures.
Looking back at my history, it seems like I post a few times per week on average, and it seems like I get 15 mod points (at a time) at least once per week. I'm a "conservative" (wacko-ness is subjective), but I try to post constructive or at least innocuous comments. Most don't have anything to do with politics or ideology one way or another. My karma is "excellent."
Although there are plenty of partisans here, the Slashdot community is not so ideologically-driven that mods only award points to posts they agree with. Certainly that happens, but I've had "conservative" posts modded up, and I know I've modded up posts that espoused an ideology that I disagree with, but I nevertheless thought were good posts that contributed to the discussion.
So there are mods that assign points for all sorts of reasons. Fashionable posts get modded up. Good posts get modded up too. If there's anything the Slashdot community is not, it's "monolithic".
Corporate Pot, meet Government Kettle. People: Meet hard place in between.
Did... Did you just say caught between a pot and a kettle? I think you may have mixed your metaphors...
Yeah, see, it's worse than a rock and a hard place, because you find yourself in hot water. When they spill. Or something.
Is there a structural problem with computer-aided pilot's ability to fly visual approaches?
Parse fail. I've even had my 3 cups of coffee and I got nothin'.
Either
"Is there a systemic problem with the ability of pilots these days, using computer aids, to fly 'visual approaches' (not ILS-controlled descent; manually controlled, looking out the window)?"
or
"Is there some structural problem with the plane or airport that inhibits the pilot's ability to fly a visual approach while using computer aids?"
I think the answer to both is no. Landing a plane like this is complicated - however, pilots are trained to do it. They still make mistakes, but usually the worst result is a go-around. Crashes are very rare, and typically require the combination of multiple mistakes and/or equipment failures. When was the last time you heard of a commercial pilot that crashed simply because he "misjudged the approach" with no other contributing factors?
Seems to be when there is more than one congressman with that last name. The state is used to identify which one. I can't find a duplicate name for every instance, though.
And thanks to the emergence of electric cars, drivers will use most of that.
Rumor has it the new thorium reactors will put out 640 kW, which oughta be enough for everybody.
I've come to the conclusion that there's just no way to guarantee innovator's rights via software patents. I agree with Becker, some harm will come, but less than is being done by a system which includes:
1) overly-broad patents
2) patent litigation by trolls not using their patent for anything besides litigation
3) perverse business incentive for people to abuse 1 & 2
I've changed my mind because I haven't heard a way yet that allows "good" software patents to exist without far worse elements in the system. Perhaps if you had an army of tech-knowledgeable patent attorneys working as examiners that could see through the BS, and yet were more competent and efficient than any American bureaucracy ever...
Can it be fixed?