Bush's decision does not affect
Stanford's use of Clark's money in any way; Clark is just throwing a hissy-fit.
Not really; if he spends money to build a lab to do cutting-edge research, but most of the researchers are federally funded, then most of them wouldn't be able to use it on the kinds of stem cell research that he wants to be done in those labs.
I think Clark should take the money and donate it towards creating new lines for research, if he feels so strongly about the issue...
Incidentally, does anyone know if the Bush decision stops the use of federally-funded equipment with new cell lines, or just purchase of cells?
Bah, that's what injunctions are for... If you ever work for a tech company, their NDA doesn't say "we can tell you to shut up pending trial," they say "may cause irreparable harm... we're entitled to injunctive relief."
It should not breech a contract unless compelled to do so by a court. And the contract should not say "we can cut you off when we feel like it."
I agree. The problem (?) is that the property of flerbage explicitly excludes patents. While copyrights protect the instantiation of an idea, and can be protected (at least in theory) by contract law, patent law protects ideas, and inherently cannot be protected by contract law.
For example, if I invent "Brake pressure generator for a brake system exhibiting an anti-locking control" (US Patent 5,000,002), I could use contract law to prevent anyone who buys my product from disclosing or copying the use of this apparatus, but I would not be able to market the fact that my brakes are better than brand X brakes for this reason. In fact, my contract would need to extend to passengers riding in cars made with my brake pressure generator. And as soon as someone saw a car exhibiting anti-lock behavior, they could copy it, and all my work would be for naught.
Hence, the entire patent system is also patently anti-flerbage as well (pardon the pun). My point in the original post is to show that the goal of maximizing flerbage doesn't necessarily maximize value, and where you trade flerbage for prosperity is a question that each person needs to decide for themselves.
"I have the condition of flerbage when I can behave in the confidence that nobody will take my life, my physical property, or my time without my consent... I am pro-flerbage."
Copyright law is inherently anti-flerbage. If I buy a copy of Dinwoes, licensed under some proprietary license, I cannot copy it without the threat of the police coming to my house and dragging me off to jail. This is a result of copyright law, NOT contract law (IANAL). Even if you accept shrinkwrap licenses, I have not agreed to the license upon buying it; I agree upon installation. If I used Nulix to copy the Dinwoes CD, I haven't agreed to the contract provision of not copying it.
In a completely pro-flerbage world, this restriction on copying would be enforced in contract law: Sircomoft (or ESR) would say "I'll trade you this software for some money, and if you copy it, you're liable to me under contract law, and I can sue you for damages."
Unfortunately, most people don't have enough money to actually pay the damages that would be incurred if a copy of Dinwoes leaked into the marketplace without the contract-law protection against copying and redistribution. As a result, we have copyright law to allow people to sell copies of easily reproduced things, because protection against copying is enforced in criminal law, not in contract law. The theory is that this increases value: the US constitution gives the legislature authority to "promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" (Article I Section 8).
While I agree with ESR's conclusion, being pro-flerbage effectively means favoring abolishment of copyright law and replacing it soley with contract law, in which case only people who are extremely rich will be able to post enough bond to buy popular digital content. The street-artist's model would then prevail.
Doesn't spinning the CD and continuously running the laser suck some serious juice too? An MP3 CD player can do those at a _much_ reduced duty cycle. Also remember you don't have to buffer uncompressed stuff.
I've been very impressed with the battery life of my Rio Volt, and have pretty much switched to disposable alkalines from the NiMHs I was using with my traditional player.
They do something similar in Houston. Many of the roads (not just the toll roads) have the toll transponders. They clock some number of cars going along each segment, and there's a nice web interface to tell you how fast an entire route is: How it works.
This is already pretty Orwellian, but the one comfort about this system is there's an easy way to opt-out: don't keep a toll transponder in your car. While I'll mostly agree that turning off your cell phone/pager constitutes an opt-out system for the scheme mentioned in the article, it's quite an imposition: having a cell phone on, in the car (even a passenger) is asking to be tracked.
You almost certainly can't hack the Palm VIIs to work with other services, considering that it's ARDIS, and to adapt to CDPD you'd need a full-duplex airlink, plus RC4 over-the-air encryption... any other services and you're totally in the wrong frequency range. Considering that people don't "hack" European cell phones to work on GSM networks in the States (and that's a simple switch from 900/1800MHz to 1900MHz), the chances that someone's gonna mod a Palm VII to work even with CDPD are really slim.
Then again, with crank-powered linux boxes, you never know.
alternately, it could scan participating channels until it hits one that matches what you're listening to. In fact, if it has a sufficiently powerful DSP, it could simultaneously digitally tune all (or a large number of) participating channels.
Yay, finally someone who has a clue about radio propogation is posting! Not only do reflections make things interesting, you can't design a completely unidirectional antenna (sending or receiving); NP's south pointing transmitting antennas will leak to the north and enter other user's south pointing TV antennae, and the main signal will leak through the guard on the back of other's south pointing antennae and also create noise.
I disagree; Internet equipment is much more expensive than TVs, and it requires a monthly fee (because it's about maintaining infrastructure). Furthermore, whoever gets the license for that spectrum is gonna charge insane amounts (look at the guard bands that the FCC has recently auctioned off for hundreds of millions of bucks... junk bandwidth). If you don't license the spectrum, and use it for ISM, range is limited, and it's not of benefit to the people living out on the edge of a city.
Sounds great for geeks who are T3 connected and have a data-capable cell phone, but 80% of the general population would get screwed.
Cell phone usage in flight is banned by the FCC because being that high in the air gives you line-of-sight to way too many base stations, and it'll confuse the cellular infrastructure. This is a SATELLITE PHONE, which won't be confused by such things. Also electronics that send and receive signals could potentially disrupt the aviation electronics; presumably anything that's going up into space is well shielded enough (and rockets are pretty dumb).
though it's obnoxious when people popup boxes "sorry, you can't view source" Listen buddy, that's how I navigate, and if I wanted to view source, I could do that too.
"much-snake-oil,-few-insights?" I think anyone with a relatively strong background in crypto (I've had two grad level classes) and math (I'm a BS in pure math) understand that Rabin's got something to offer here.
Typically, breaking a code is compute-bound. That means you can store it, and wait a while for supercomputers to get faster, and then break it. Rabin has developed a system in which unlimited compute power in the future doesn't help you without unlimited storage power now.
You're wrong about insecurity being as bad as public-key. If you can securely trade keys once, you can chain (ie message 1 includes the key for message 2), since messages can't be remembered for decoding (otherwise you crack one message and get the rest for free)
The real challenge is finding a trusted source for random numbers at that high a rate.
It's not a one-time pad, since the pad can be public.
It's a lot like a Rip van Winkle cipher, as I pointed out before, and I doubt there are many people whi've thought of this very good idea before. If that's "few insights," perhaps you should start publishing in cryptography conferences.
He's not describing a one-time pad, since the "pad" is public. He's effectively describing a Rip van Winkle cipher, without the limitations of a Rip van Winkle cipher.
BTW Chinacat, I think you read the algorithm wrong. The unbreakable code is to zero the data. Depending on where the data's been stored before, it may be possible to break, but it's certainly not for lack of characters!
Hmmm, my argument shouldn't be any less strong due to an "irrelevant" example, only one that contradicts my original point. My point was "take thought/thought provoking stuff out of the feedback loop to [help] solve the problem"
"Destiny" is a Christian worldview thing, though you can secularize it as "something that winds up happening to you," ie a prison term.
Desires and habits are quite different:
my thoughts are that I want money
my actions then are to gain in dishonest ways
my habit then becomes to take advantage of others whenever possible
my character becomes that of a con man
my destiny is jail/hell/no friends
I'm not asking to expel people/call people dishonorable; I'm not perfect either. (Jn 8:7). And I have inadvertantly opened whitehouse.com while trying to find whitehouse.gov.
I'm not saying that Christian morality should be legislated; I'm using (my) Christian theology and worldview to understand the problem of child molestation and the role of porn in it. You're free to agree or disagree with two parts of Christianity separately: (a) the worldview and (b) the realness of the relationship with Christ. If you agree with neither, then it's pointless for you to respond to my post unless you have some evidence against what's presented here. Furthermore, had you bothered to read my conclusion, you wouldn't believe that I'm trying to cram my worldview down people's throats.
If Christianity is true, then porn does you harm whether you like it or not. Most major world religions don't work with "it could be true for me but not true for you." I'll just leave it at that, since it's not my job to convince you of the accuracy of the Christian worldview.
Incidentally, you didn't answer the question about sexual relationships through porn alone, in spite of the fact that you quoted it.
Your avowed pedophile actually said that he would molest children, were it accepted by society (in other words, the only thing stopping him is the fear of the law). Is that a strong enough barrier? Clearly it isn't for many people. (see how many people jaywalk, or speed? Obviously the level of fear is escalated from moving violations to felonies, but there are still a large number of drug offenders in jail) The pedophile goes on to say that child molestation is immoral, though he admitted he would have done it anyways!
There are two questions in your issue of "conditioning;" reinforcement is one and the indwelling and conviction of the Holy Spirit is the other. You probably understand conditioning, but if you've never experienced the presence and indwelling of the Holy Spirit, you're not qualified to say whether his "willing" away his homosexual desires is him at work or the HS at work. "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14 niv). If he believes he willed his homosexual desires away on his own strength, I have a long line of people who would like to talk to him about improving their self-control. If it's your view that he did it in his own strength through his own denials, then perhaps you're being too closed to the spiritual matters here.
Finally, I'm curious where your "10-100x storage" number comes from; that seems really inefficient to me, since I can't imagine that either someone would spend that much time touching up a photo (if you track mouse moves at 30Hz, and each sample is 20 bits deep, you'd have to work on something for 4 hours to get 1 MB of uncompressed samples). The intent is to protect actual children; using the presence of child porn as prima facie evidence of abuse makes it hard for the average user of child porn to defend themselves; "beyond reasonable doubt" is too hard to prosecute (and disadvantages defendants without good lawyers). Hence, using the lack of this carried "proof" to be prima facie evidence clears up the speech issue (mostly) and retains most of the protection to children.
Christian perspective inside; if you're adverse to that sort of thing, skip this.
I agree that it's our responsibility to remove sin from our own lives, otherwise we're not sinning because we're afraid of man, not because we fear God. I can't agree with the argument that "porn does me no harm" (for most people): Porn (as generally combined with masturbation) causes a feedback loop: porn is associated with masturbation which is associated with a sexual gratification, which then increases the desire for porn. Based on my understanding of how sin works, and based on personal experience. Unless your purpose for looking at porn is NOT sexual gratification (then what is it?).
Suprisingly (or maybe not so) a lot of pedophiles work with kids, and you'd never expect them to molest children. But they still do. Would giving them access to kiddie porn help? Those who argue "yes" argue that they could satisfy their longings by looking at porn, but honestly how many of you would be happy having no sexual relationships outside of looking at porn? So if your PRIMARY sexual gratification comes from imagining sex with children, the only thing that's going to stop you from actually molesting a child is the fear of the law.
The problem is that the thought leads to action, action leads to habits, habits lead to attitudes, attitudes lead to character, character leads to destiny. Lust after children needs to be fixed at the thought level. We can't legislate that, and we shouldn't, so...
For example, I have a friend who struggled with homosexuality. The way he beat it is by removing masturbation and porn from the feedback loop (and controlling his thoughts/resisting the devil).
Back to the point of the case, which is the legal (not ethical) perspective: I believe that the law should be that computer modified images should be legal, but subject to carrying "proof" (basically a list of Photoshop {re,un}doable commands) that it's from non-sexual sources.
As previous posters have pointed out, TeX runs on more than just Linux =)
There are a few problems with using TeX/LaTeX. The first is that TeX tries to do paragraph-by-paragraph layout, and often winds up in tight spots that it doesn't need to. The average user wouldn't have a clue about what to do with overfull hboxes.
Another problem is that it's not really possible to do WYSIWYG, and those people who use lots of spaces instead of tabs (even with variable width fonts, heh) will have a rough time adjusting to that. People will complain about things like "well in Word the line wraps this way..." BTW this is a problem with Word itself; it's figure placement is really screwy.
Finally, those of us in academia who write papers in LaTeX can no longer look down on those whose use of Word is obvious by the terrible aesthetics of their papers.
Obviously, there are lots of advantages, and for Microsoft, possibly the nicest thing about TeX is that there are no known bugs. (not that Microsoft will have any problem adding some...)
802.11 is high-power, Bluetooth is mostly low power
<p>
802.11 is CSMA/CA, Bluetooth doesn't even CSMA
<p>
802.11 has a broadcast mechanism, Bluetooth doesn't have an "everyone in range" broadcast mechanism
<p>
802.11 uses full-sized 48-bit MAC addrs at the link layer; Bluetooth cheats with on-again, off-again short addresses
<p>
802.11 allows distributed and point coordination, Bluetooth only allows point coordinator
<p>
802.11 has support for 2.4 ghz FHSS, 2.4ghz DHSS, 5ghz stuff, IR, 11mbps,... Bluetooth only has 1mbps fhss iirc.
<p>
Please don't insult 802.11 this way =) Bluetooth chipsets are supposed to be cheap, so they don't have all these cool features.
there are still ways of making non-SA-impaired GPS more accurate (beyond design limitations): differential based on the timing of the chips, differential based on the carrier's phase shift, etc. All you need is a fixed station.
Nothing can be flat to 20k and not reproduce 20001Hz (as people have mentioned about brickwall filters) However, if there were a legitimate reason for people (who build real systems, instead of waxing philosophic on manufacturer spec sheets) to capture >20kHz at least to master, don't you think the high-end equipment manufacturers would strive to get flatness out as far as they can?
Wrong; look at the specs of a Shure SM58 (50 to 15,000; http://www.shure.com/sm58.html) and the Earthworks T30K (+/-1dB 9-25k; +1/-3dB to 30kHz; http://www.earthwks.com/tc30spec.html)
Also please see Event's PS5 semipro active monitors: off at most 3dB 52Hz-19kHz (http://www.event1.com/product/ps_spec.htm)
It's decidely not true that you look at the flatness from 20-20k as a "standard spec range." People build and optimize for 20-20k because that's what people in the know buy. I'd pay no extra money for +/-1dB 20-50k than I would for +/-1dB 60-20k were I to use a mic as a vocal mic, for example.
I build real systems for real people, who put their money where my mouth is. How about you?
Slashdot Mirror
Not really; if he spends money to build a lab to do cutting-edge research, but most of the researchers are federally funded, then most of them wouldn't be able to use it on the kinds of stem cell research that he wants to be done in those labs.
I think Clark should take the money and donate it towards creating new lines for research, if he feels so strongly about the issue...
Incidentally, does anyone know if the Bush decision stops the use of federally-funded equipment with new cell lines, or just purchase of cells?
Bah, that's what injunctions are for... If you ever work for a tech company, their NDA doesn't say "we can tell you to shut up pending trial," they say "may cause irreparable harm... we're entitled to injunctive relief."
It should not breech a contract unless compelled to do so by a court. And the contract should not say "we can cut you off when we feel like it."
I agree. The problem (?) is that the property of flerbage explicitly excludes patents. While copyrights protect the instantiation of an idea, and can be protected (at least in theory) by contract law, patent law protects ideas, and inherently cannot be protected by contract law.
For example, if I invent "Brake pressure generator for a brake system exhibiting an anti-locking control" (US Patent 5,000,002), I could use contract law to prevent anyone who buys my product from disclosing or copying the use of this apparatus, but I would not be able to market the fact that my brakes are better than brand X brakes for this reason. In fact, my contract would need to extend to passengers riding in cars made with my brake pressure generator. And as soon as someone saw a car exhibiting anti-lock behavior, they could copy it, and all my work would be for naught.
Hence, the entire patent system is also patently anti-flerbage as well (pardon the pun). My point in the original post is to show that the goal of maximizing flerbage doesn't necessarily maximize value, and where you trade flerbage for prosperity is a question that each person needs to decide for themselves.
First, let's look at the definition of flerbage:
"I have the condition of flerbage when I can behave in the confidence that nobody will take my life, my physical property, or my time without my consent... I am pro-flerbage."
Copyright law is inherently anti-flerbage. If I buy a copy of Dinwoes, licensed under some proprietary license, I cannot copy it without the threat of the police coming to my house and dragging me off to jail. This is a result of copyright law, NOT contract law (IANAL). Even if you accept shrinkwrap licenses, I have not agreed to the license upon buying it; I agree upon installation. If I used Nulix to copy the Dinwoes CD, I haven't agreed to the contract provision of not copying it.
In a completely pro-flerbage world, this restriction on copying would be enforced in contract law: Sircomoft (or ESR) would say "I'll trade you this software for some money, and if you copy it, you're liable to me under contract law, and I can sue you for damages."
Unfortunately, most people don't have enough money to actually pay the damages that would be incurred if a copy of Dinwoes leaked into the marketplace without the contract-law protection against copying and redistribution. As a result, we have copyright law to allow people to sell copies of easily reproduced things, because protection against copying is enforced in criminal law, not in contract law. The theory is that this increases value: the US constitution gives the legislature authority to "promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" (Article I Section 8).
While I agree with ESR's conclusion, being pro-flerbage effectively means favoring abolishment of copyright law and replacing it soley with contract law, in which case only people who are extremely rich will be able to post enough bond to buy popular digital content. The street-artist's model would then prevail.
Doesn't spinning the CD and continuously running the laser suck some serious juice too? An MP3 CD player can do those at a _much_ reduced duty cycle. Also remember you don't have to buffer uncompressed stuff. I've been very impressed with the battery life of my Rio Volt, and have pretty much switched to disposable alkalines from the NiMHs I was using with my traditional player.
This is already pretty Orwellian, but the one comfort about this system is there's an easy way to opt-out: don't keep a toll transponder in your car. While I'll mostly agree that turning off your cell phone/pager constitutes an opt-out system for the scheme mentioned in the article, it's quite an imposition: having a cell phone on, in the car (even a passenger) is asking to be tracked.
As has been mentioned earlier, music equipment places have nice, cheaper racks:
12-Space, $29.95 rack
Other racks
You almost certainly can't hack the Palm VIIs to work with other services, considering that it's ARDIS, and to adapt to CDPD you'd need a full-duplex airlink, plus RC4 over-the-air encryption... any other services and you're totally in the wrong frequency range. Considering that people don't "hack" European cell phones to work on GSM networks in the States (and that's a simple switch from 900/1800MHz to 1900MHz), the chances that someone's gonna mod a Palm VII to work even with CDPD are really slim.
Then again, with crank-powered linux boxes, you never know.
alternately, it could scan participating channels until it hits one that matches what you're listening to. In fact, if it has a sufficiently powerful DSP, it could simultaneously digitally tune all (or a large number of) participating channels.
Yay, finally someone who has a clue about radio propogation is posting! Not only do reflections make things interesting, you can't design a completely unidirectional antenna (sending or receiving); NP's south pointing transmitting antennas will leak to the north and enter other user's south pointing TV antennae, and the main signal will leak through the guard on the back of other's south pointing antennae and also create noise.
I disagree; Internet equipment is much more expensive than TVs, and it requires a monthly fee (because it's about maintaining infrastructure). Furthermore, whoever gets the license for that spectrum is gonna charge insane amounts (look at the guard bands that the FCC has recently auctioned off for hundreds of millions of bucks... junk bandwidth). If you don't license the spectrum, and use it for ISM, range is limited, and it's not of benefit to the people living out on the edge of a city. Sounds great for geeks who are T3 connected and have a data-capable cell phone, but 80% of the general population would get screwed.
Cell phone usage in flight is banned by the FCC because being that high in the air gives you line-of-sight to way too many base stations, and it'll confuse the cellular infrastructure. This is a SATELLITE PHONE, which won't be confused by such things. Also electronics that send and receive signals could potentially disrupt the aviation electronics; presumably anything that's going up into space is well shielded enough (and rockets are pretty dumb).
Georouting is going to blow for routing in some tactical situations (like jungles, mountainous terrain, and urban warfare).
I don't think there are any manet protocols that will handle networks this big. Sounds like it should stay in research labs to cook for a while longer.
See impp and simple, both happening this week at IETF in Minneapolis. If you happen to be in the area, please drop by... 1001 Marquette
though it's obnoxious when people popup boxes "sorry, you can't view source" Listen buddy, that's how I navigate, and if I wanted to view source, I could do that too.
"much-snake-oil,-few-insights?" I think anyone with a relatively strong background in crypto (I've had two grad level classes) and math (I'm a BS in pure math) understand that Rabin's got something to offer here.
Typically, breaking a code is compute-bound. That means you can store it, and wait a while for supercomputers to get faster, and then break it. Rabin has developed a system in which unlimited compute power in the future doesn't help you without unlimited storage power now.
You're wrong about insecurity being as bad as public-key. If you can securely trade keys once, you can chain (ie message 1 includes the key for message 2), since messages can't be remembered for decoding (otherwise you crack one message and get the rest for free)
The real challenge is finding a trusted source for random numbers at that high a rate.
It's not a one-time pad, since the pad can be public.
It's a lot like a Rip van Winkle cipher, as I pointed out before, and I doubt there are many people whi've thought of this very good idea before. If that's "few insights," perhaps you should start publishing in cryptography conferences.
He's not describing a one-time pad, since the "pad" is public. He's effectively describing a Rip van Winkle cipher, without the limitations of a Rip van Winkle cipher.
BTW Chinacat, I think you read the algorithm wrong. The unbreakable code is to zero the data. Depending on where the data's been stored before, it may be possible to break, but it's certainly not for lack of characters!
"Destiny" is a Christian worldview thing, though you can secularize it as "something that winds up happening to you," ie a prison term.
Desires and habits are quite different:
I'm not asking to expel people/call people dishonorable; I'm not perfect either. (Jn 8:7). And I have inadvertantly opened whitehouse.com while trying to find whitehouse.gov.
I'm not saying that Christian morality should be legislated; I'm using (my) Christian theology and worldview to understand the problem of child molestation and the role of porn in it. You're free to agree or disagree with two parts of Christianity separately: (a) the worldview and (b) the realness of the relationship with Christ. If you agree with neither, then it's pointless for you to respond to my post unless you have some evidence against what's presented here. Furthermore, had you bothered to read my conclusion, you wouldn't believe that I'm trying to cram my worldview down people's throats.
If Christianity is true, then porn does you harm whether you like it or not. Most major world religions don't work with "it could be true for me but not true for you." I'll just leave it at that, since it's not my job to convince you of the accuracy of the Christian worldview.
Incidentally, you didn't answer the question about sexual relationships through porn alone, in spite of the fact that you quoted it.
Your avowed pedophile actually said that he would molest children, were it accepted by society (in other words, the only thing stopping him is the fear of the law). Is that a strong enough barrier? Clearly it isn't for many people. (see how many people jaywalk, or speed? Obviously the level of fear is escalated from moving violations to felonies, but there are still a large number of drug offenders in jail) The pedophile goes on to say that child molestation is immoral, though he admitted he would have done it anyways!
There are two questions in your issue of "conditioning;" reinforcement is one and the indwelling and conviction of the Holy Spirit is the other. You probably understand conditioning, but if you've never experienced the presence and indwelling of the Holy Spirit, you're not qualified to say whether his "willing" away his homosexual desires is him at work or the HS at work. "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14 niv). If he believes he willed his homosexual desires away on his own strength, I have a long line of people who would like to talk to him about improving their self-control. If it's your view that he did it in his own strength through his own denials, then perhaps you're being too closed to the spiritual matters here.
Finally, I'm curious where your "10-100x storage" number comes from; that seems really inefficient to me, since I can't imagine that either someone would spend that much time touching up a photo (if you track mouse moves at 30Hz, and each sample is 20 bits deep, you'd have to work on something for 4 hours to get 1 MB of uncompressed samples). The intent is to protect actual children; using the presence of child porn as prima facie evidence of abuse makes it hard for the average user of child porn to defend themselves; "beyond reasonable doubt" is too hard to prosecute (and disadvantages defendants without good lawyers). Hence, using the lack of this carried "proof" to be prima facie evidence clears up the speech issue (mostly) and retains most of the protection to children.
Christian perspective inside; if you're adverse to that sort of thing, skip this.
I agree that it's our responsibility to remove sin from our own lives, otherwise we're not sinning because we're afraid of man, not because we fear God. I can't agree with the argument that "porn does me no harm" (for most people): Porn (as generally combined with masturbation) causes a feedback loop: porn is associated with masturbation which is associated with a sexual gratification, which then increases the desire for porn. Based on my understanding of how sin works, and based on personal experience. Unless your purpose for looking at porn is NOT sexual gratification (then what is it?).
Suprisingly (or maybe not so) a lot of pedophiles work with kids, and you'd never expect them to molest children. But they still do. Would giving them access to kiddie porn help? Those who argue "yes" argue that they could satisfy their longings by looking at porn, but honestly how many of you would be happy having no sexual relationships outside of looking at porn? So if your PRIMARY sexual gratification comes from imagining sex with children, the only thing that's going to stop you from actually molesting a child is the fear of the law.
The problem is that the thought leads to action, action leads to habits, habits lead to attitudes, attitudes lead to character, character leads to destiny. Lust after children needs to be fixed at the thought level. We can't legislate that, and we shouldn't, so...
For example, I have a friend who struggled with homosexuality. The way he beat it is by removing masturbation and porn from the feedback loop (and controlling his thoughts/resisting the devil).
Back to the point of the case, which is the legal (not ethical) perspective: I believe that the law should be that computer modified images should be legal, but subject to carrying "proof" (basically a list of Photoshop {re,un}doable commands) that it's from non-sexual sources.
As previous posters have pointed out, TeX runs on more than just Linux =)
There are a few problems with using TeX/LaTeX. The first is that TeX tries to do paragraph-by-paragraph layout, and often winds up in tight spots that it doesn't need to. The average user wouldn't have a clue about what to do with overfull hboxes.
Another problem is that it's not really possible to do WYSIWYG, and those people who use lots of spaces instead of tabs (even with variable width fonts, heh) will have a rough time adjusting to that. People will complain about things like "well in Word the line wraps this way..." BTW this is a problem with Word itself; it's figure placement is really screwy.
Finally, those of us in academia who write papers in LaTeX can no longer look down on those whose use of Word is obvious by the terrible aesthetics of their papers.
Obviously, there are lots of advantages, and for Microsoft, possibly the nicest thing about TeX is that there are no known bugs. (not that Microsoft will have any problem adding some...)
802.11 is high-power, Bluetooth is mostly low power ... Bluetooth only has 1mbps fhss iirc.
<p>
802.11 is CSMA/CA, Bluetooth doesn't even CSMA
<p>
802.11 has a broadcast mechanism, Bluetooth doesn't have an "everyone in range" broadcast mechanism
<p>
802.11 uses full-sized 48-bit MAC addrs at the link layer; Bluetooth cheats with on-again, off-again short addresses
<p>
802.11 allows distributed and point coordination, Bluetooth only allows point coordinator
<p>
802.11 has support for 2.4 ghz FHSS, 2.4ghz DHSS, 5ghz stuff, IR, 11mbps,
<p>
Please don't insult 802.11 this way =) Bluetooth chipsets are supposed to be cheap, so they don't have all these cool features.
there are still ways of making non-SA-impaired GPS more accurate (beyond design limitations): differential based on the timing of the chips, differential based on the carrier's phase shift, etc. All you need is a fixed station.
Nothing can be flat to 20k and not reproduce 20001Hz (as people have mentioned about brickwall filters) However, if there were a legitimate reason for people (who build real systems, instead of waxing philosophic on manufacturer spec sheets) to capture >20kHz at least to master, don't you think the high-end equipment manufacturers would strive to get flatness out as far as they can?
Wrong; look at the specs of a Shure SM58 (50 to 15,000; http://www.shure.com/sm58.html) and the Earthworks T30K (+/-1dB 9-25k; +1/-3dB to 30kHz; http://www.earthwks.com/tc30spec.html)
Also please see Event's PS5 semipro active monitors: off at most 3dB 52Hz-19kHz (http://www.event1.com/product/ps_spec.htm)
It's decidely not true that you look at the flatness from 20-20k as a "standard spec range." People build and optimize for 20-20k because that's what people in the know buy. I'd pay no extra money for +/-1dB 20-50k than I would for +/-1dB 60-20k were I to use a mic as a vocal mic, for example.
I build real systems for real people, who put their money where my mouth is. How about you?