Do you actually read what you write before you hit post?
"they're [indians are] intelligent and hard workers"
Are you implying that your race determines your intelligence and ability? Maybe I should go around saying that all British people are racist and have a stick up their arse (if I based my opinion of British just on you.) Or maybe Germans are beer loving dour Nazis who will string me up because I am Slavic. Maybe Americans are all bible thumping crazy warmongers? Or maybe they're all money grubbing power hungry imperialists?
It's the generalizations such as this that lead to situations such as the one in France.
Ahh, here comes the hate and argumentum ad hominem. Can't you accept that there is a racist element in this? Have you ever even lived in Europe? The Jacques Chirac a little more than a year ago warned against the growing problem of racism and anti-semitism.
The Indians you're referring to, though, live in England. France never had significant holdings in India so there was no major immigration from those territories to France. However, France did have many colonies in Africa and that is where these immigrants came from, mostly in the 1960's and 70's.
Freedom of speech is important. You can be free to say anything you want. However, no one is forced to still associate with you when you say it. That is the main reason why people who say such things are quickly surrounded only by like minded people.
If I went around saying that all right-wing silver-spoon-up-their-ass SUV-loving racist morons should be shot for gutting retirement funds and corrupting the government, I should get modded down too.
Just because you disagree with someone you shouldn't necessarily shoot them. You believe that dissatisfied people destroying property should be shot. Someone else might believe that rich people robbing retirement fund should be shot.
Neither of you is right.
(and this will probably be modded as offtopic, because it is).
No, it's 2005 France, which didn't have the privilege of having a Martin Luther King to hold the mirror to the nation. They haven't dealt with race relations. If you think that Europe is on the same level as US on that aspect you're wrong. US benefited from the 1960's Civil Rights movement but France (or any other EU country for that matter) did not have a similar experience.
There's more to life than just living. If you don't have opportunity to advance in life or to try to secure a better future for yourself and your children you'd quickly become dissillusioned and bitter too. Yes, the real cause of unemployment is in the mirror, the color of what it reflects. Remember also that they have to deal with people like you all the time. They have to listen to snide comments about how they should be thankful for what they have and to hurry up and shine their shoes. Pride is a hard feeling to stifle especially in someone who found the guts to uproot their whole family to come searching for a better life. They came and found that they could live here but not do more than make a living.
There is a very good reason the "pursuit of happiness" is listed among the inalienable rights.
You are correct. I've lived in Europe before moving to US and I can tell you that racial relations in the US are decades ahead of those in Europe. Again, most of the problem is in educating the people and making them sensitive to racial issues.
My most shocking moment was when I went back home for a summer and I was sitting down chatting with my mother's neighbor, half watching some kind of Spanish soap opera. In any case, the show portrayed some African slaves to which the neighbor commented how the slave features resembled those of monkeys. I was shocked. You'd never hear something like in US (at least I hope not).
The neighbor never had any contact with anyone of remotely African descent and had only media supplied notions of race. Since there are virtually no positively portrayed dark skinned people in the media (outside of US movies) it is easy to dehumanize them and peg them as antisocial.
From what I understand the majority of the so called North African immigrant community is actually already in it's second generation. Meaning they were born there and speak French.
However don't give crap that immigrants must conform. I'm an immigrant and I am not giving up my culture in order to conform to some American McStandard. However I have good luck to be white and male and I can thus get a good job. Many business owners think twice before hiring someone who is of North African descent precisely because of your kind of prejudice. They think the immigrants are lazy and just want to live off someone else. When you're in a situation where you're able and willing but no one will give you a job, you'd also get bitter after a year or two. More likely than not all you can get is some menial job sweeping streets or some other junk like that. No matter how smart you are.
Most likely you've never experienced true poverty so don't come judging here. I don't condone of the way they're expressing their dissatisfaction but I don't discount their feelings as frivolous and wrong.
First of all, why in the world would you need to construct the whole thing on the ground? Why would you construct the whole thing at all? Majority of the craft would be mass, probably useless anyway. I'd think that they'd want to build a craft that can either ensnare another asteroid from the belt and tow it to wherever it needs to be to affect the incoming asteroid, or just launch payload (over several launches from Earth. Alternatively you could carve out a piece of the Moon, and use that.
Also why would it have to be crewed? Even if you have to have it crewed part of the time you could build modular, so you have a crew capsule/module detacheable, thus you can have the crew in and out pretty quickly, independently from the main craft.
Why would you need to land it on Earth again? Stick it in orbit (far orbit) or just put it at Earth-moon LG point and let it sit there.
Who's going to pay for it? Well, if you reduce launch mass, you'd have lower cost.
In any case, the main problem I see is detection time. It seems to me that the X amount of time to move an asteroid an appreciable amount and the Y amount of time to fly to the asteroid add up to quite a few years. We'd need to be able to detect this threat far enough in advance to identify it. This is where the problem is, in my opinion.
The Therac-25 medical accelerator case involved exactly this. The previous version of the machine actuall did have electro-mechanical redundant safety systems. They were removed in the new (25) version. Thus when the previous version of the machine with the new software failed, the safety systems actually kicked in and stopped overexposure and the bug was not detected there.
The new machine was the problem. Without the safety systems the underlying bug was exposed and people died.
Most hospice patients actually leave hospice to go home to die. Hospice is there to give care to patients who would otherwise not receive adequate care or companionship at home. Most families can't afford to have someone stay with their child/family member at home all the time, and they certainly can't afford not having a parent working. Thus you have hospices, a community where a patient can get care they need. However they can't treat really serious conditions so for the last few months/weeks, the patient is usually at home or in a hospital.
Except that in Physics you can get a relatively closed system with few variables. Pool break is extreme because there are a relatively large number of balls with complex interactions between them. However they will all behave the same way when struck individually. Also, if you could observe all contact points and direct the cue ball at a precise strike point with a precise force you could apply known formulas and get and almost exact break paths. The reason we can't do the prediction of a pool break is due to the sheer number of interactions of imperfect objects.
Evolution is different in the way that it depends on the random changes, which will result in (currently) unknown results and different properties in the observed object/organism. We don't know what a particular gene mutation will do to an organism (unless it's a REALLY simple organism, but even then I doubt it), and that is what currently makes evolution a non-predictive science.
We can make general statements as in "In case of higher toxicity this organism MAY develop immunity. But it also MAY just die out if there is currently no organisms with immunity to that toxic environment." If you take the analogy to the pool table you could say, "If I hit that yellow ball with my cue ball just so it will roll into the pocket. However, if it suddenly changes properties (rougher surface, different weight, whatever) this will change the path and the ball will miss the pocket."
Erm...evolution is not predictive because it depends on the actual environmental state. Since you can't really predict environment and its state in the long term, you can't predict how a species might evolve in reaction to that state.
I guess the simplest example of evolution would be the existence of the "superbug". (you can also look up "Antibiotic resistance"). Bacteria existed for a long time with many different strains. Then penicilin came along and killed off a lot of bacteria, all except for the ones carrying the resistance genes. Now the superbug can multiply unhindered, since the death of competing bacteria left plenty of food and room.
Erm... Imagine you're working on a particular brand name. Then someone comes and hijacks your website. So whoever goes to (formerly) your website generates profit for the hijacker.
Probably opening up a whole new line of large scale scientfic research previously impossible due to Earth's gravity/atmosphere. For example a set of crucial immunity genes do not turn on in a simulated microgravity environment. This alone could lead to new areas of research. Another benefit of getting into space would be new mineral sources that could be exploited, first the moon, then the asteroid field. I seriously doubt that humanity will ever see any extra-solar space travel however since that would require either certain technologies that are beyond the scope of current science or giant self sustaining arcships which, while theoretically possible, are beyond our technical abilities and probably would never be feasible.
The suit is not about the fact that the Nano scratches. The suit is about the fact that Nano scratches so easily and heavily that you can't see the screen (IE use the product). RTFA
Mind you the article says that they're suing Apple because the scratches can get so severe it prevents one from seeing the screen. If that is the case in ALL of these "scratch" cases, sure, Apple should replace it. Notice how Apple is replacing the Nanos with cracked screens.
However, I seriously doubt that with REGULAR USE (meaning under normal conditions) wear and tear is such that majority of these Nanos actually can't see the screen.
Even if Sid was as gracious as an angel, Take 2 still owns the rights and can sue whoever they want whether or not he approves. He is warning people that others own the IP and can sue.
Hate to break it to you but many, MANY, Java developers know languages other than Java, PHP being one of them (shock! surprise!) I made prototypes in both PHP and Java (it's easy to download Tomcat and Struts and Eclipse) I actually gravitate toward Java when building prototypes but use PHP on my personal site because I am too lazy to set up my own hosted server to run my Java code.
The reason for the existence of copyright is to protect the artist and give them a means to survive and distribute art to multitudes of people as opposed to the rich. Although the Renaissance is full of great art and music, the great majority of those pieces were comissioned, and after they were completed they sat in someone's living room, or were performed at court a few times. Public had travelling minstrels and such, and even they performed for food and lodging.
You did not have the means of copying the content successfully so there was no need for copyright other than for professional reasons (IE Mozart wrote the piece X, not Rossini, etc).
Today, if you want new music to be made, you should pay for it. It's incredibly stupid to think that you're entitled to free music just because you exist. Also, legally, if you buy a CD you don't buy the duplication rights to the song. You buy the right to LISTEN to the song, yourself, in the privacy of your own home.
And, actually, if you give away the multimillion dollar idea, you do have a stick to get it back. It's called patenting the information. As long as you have the proof that you came up with it early (dated notes, etc) you can get the patent on the idea. SELLING the idea is something different. That means you're relinquishing the rights to the idea and giving them to someone else.
Consider this. I spend years perfecting my own style of play, practicing performaces, writing my own music until I make one just right. That ONE song or album might be good enough to attract a large audience. This ONE song or album must provide enough revenue to feed me and house me and clothe me so I have more/enough time that I can produce another song that does not suck. Contrary to popular opinion it takes a lot of time and work to create a good piece of music.
For IP rights in general... what if you had a great idea. Something that could improve the company/neighborhood/whatever enormously. You describe it to your friend. The friend goes and implements the idea (never telling anyone that it was your idea in the first place) and gets promotion/admiration in neighborhood/whatever, whereas you are left holding your hat. Under your rules, that is perfectly ok. Someone else went and profited off your idea.
Also, recording performances and copying official recordings are different beasts. In most cases the bands will allow bootlegs. The quality is usually not the greatest and they made all the cash they could off that PARTICULAR performance. Official recording is there for one reason. The band made a studio performance, probably over many takes, in order to give THE BEST POSSIBLE PERFORMANCE (that could be argued, but that is usually the intention). This is one unique performance that was specificaly meant for people to listen on their portables. Considering that concerts usually don't make much money but are often just de-facto advertisments for the CDs, that is the only opportunity for the band to actually make money.
Second, about this performance thingy.... Look closer at your movie ticket and you'll see what you're paying for: You're paying for the PRIVILEGE of sitting in a comfy seat, watching ONE screening on a big screen and then getting the hell out of the movie theatre. Concerts... you're paying for a privilege of watching a unique performance by a performer. If you'd like a CD, well, that wasn't included in the price. Most of the ticket cost goes toward covering renting the venue, paying stage hands etc. Or maybe you think that stage hands should work for free?
If you don't like it, well then...don't watch/listen to it. Simple.
I've one question though....what do you do for a living? Have you ever produced something unique? Something that tens of thousands of people would like to use? Would you just give it away?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you actually read what you write before you hit post?
"they're [indians are] intelligent and hard workers"
Are you implying that your race determines your intelligence and ability? Maybe I should go around saying that all British people are racist and have a stick up their arse (if I based my opinion of British just on you.) Or maybe Germans are beer loving dour Nazis who will string me up because I am Slavic. Maybe Americans are all bible thumping crazy warmongers? Or maybe they're all money grubbing power hungry imperialists?
It's the generalizations such as this that lead to situations such as the one in France.
Ahh, here comes the hate and argumentum ad hominem. Can't you accept that there is a racist element in this? Have you ever even lived in Europe? The Jacques Chirac a little more than a year ago warned against the growing problem of racism and anti-semitism.
The Indians you're referring to, though, live in England. France never had significant holdings in India so there was no major immigration from those territories to France. However, France did have many colonies in Africa and that is where these immigrants came from, mostly in the 1960's and 70's.
Freedom of speech is important. You can be free to say anything you want. However, no one is forced to still associate with you when you say it. That is the main reason why people who say such things are quickly surrounded only by like minded people.
If I went around saying that all right-wing silver-spoon-up-their-ass SUV-loving racist morons should be shot for gutting retirement funds and corrupting the government, I should get modded down too.
Just because you disagree with someone you shouldn't necessarily shoot them. You believe that dissatisfied people destroying property should be shot. Someone else might believe that rich people robbing retirement fund should be shot.
Neither of you is right.
(and this will probably be modded as offtopic, because it is).
No, it's 2005 France, which didn't have the privilege of having a Martin Luther King to hold the mirror to the nation. They haven't dealt with race relations. If you think that Europe is on the same level as US on that aspect you're wrong. US benefited from the 1960's Civil Rights movement but France (or any other EU country for that matter) did not have a similar experience.
There's more to life than just living. If you don't have opportunity to advance in life or to try to secure a better future for yourself and your children you'd quickly become dissillusioned and bitter too. Yes, the real cause of unemployment is in the mirror, the color of what it reflects. Remember also that they have to deal with people like you all the time. They have to listen to snide comments about how they should be thankful for what they have and to hurry up and shine their shoes.
Pride is a hard feeling to stifle especially in someone who found the guts to uproot their whole family to come searching for a better life. They came and found that they could live here but not do more than make a living.
There is a very good reason the "pursuit of happiness" is listed among the inalienable rights.
You are correct. I've lived in Europe before moving to US and I can tell you that racial relations in the US are decades ahead of those in Europe. Again, most of the problem is in educating the people and making them sensitive to racial issues.
My most shocking moment was when I went back home for a summer and I was sitting down chatting with my mother's neighbor, half watching some kind of Spanish soap opera. In any case, the show portrayed some African slaves to which the neighbor commented how the slave features resembled those of monkeys. I was shocked. You'd never hear something like in US (at least I hope not).
The neighbor never had any contact with anyone of remotely African descent and had only media supplied notions of race. Since there are virtually no positively portrayed dark skinned people in the media (outside of US movies) it is easy to dehumanize them and peg them as antisocial.
From what I understand the majority of the so called North African immigrant community is actually already in it's second generation. Meaning they were born there and speak French.
However don't give crap that immigrants must conform. I'm an immigrant and I am not giving up my culture in order to conform to some American McStandard. However I have good luck to be white and male and I can thus get a good job.
Many business owners think twice before hiring someone who is of North African descent precisely because of your kind of prejudice. They think the immigrants are lazy and just want to live off someone else.
When you're in a situation where you're able and willing but no one will give you a job, you'd also get bitter after a year or two. More likely than not all you can get is some menial job sweeping streets or some other junk like that. No matter how smart you are.
Most likely you've never experienced true poverty so don't come judging here. I don't condone of the way they're expressing their dissatisfaction but I don't discount their feelings as frivolous and wrong.
Please mod parent funny or (since I do think he's serious) flamebait... either that or lock him up.
First of all, why in the world would you need to construct the whole thing on the ground? Why would you construct the whole thing at all? Majority of the craft would be mass, probably useless anyway. I'd think that they'd want to build a craft that can either ensnare another asteroid from the belt and tow it to wherever it needs to be to affect the incoming asteroid, or just launch payload (over several launches from Earth. Alternatively you could carve out a piece of the Moon, and use that.
Also why would it have to be crewed? Even if you have to have it crewed part of the time you could build modular, so you have a crew capsule/module detacheable, thus you can have the crew in and out pretty quickly, independently from the main craft.
Why would you need to land it on Earth again? Stick it in orbit (far orbit) or just put it at Earth-moon LG point and let it sit there.
Who's going to pay for it? Well, if you reduce launch mass, you'd have lower cost.
In any case, the main problem I see is detection time. It seems to me that the X amount of time to move an asteroid an appreciable amount and the Y amount of time to fly to the asteroid add up to quite a few years. We'd need to be able to detect this threat far enough in advance to identify it. This is where the problem is, in my opinion.
The Therac-25 medical accelerator case involved exactly this. The previous version of the machine actuall did have electro-mechanical redundant safety systems. They were removed in the new (25) version. Thus when the previous version of the machine with the new software failed, the safety systems actually kicked in and stopped overexposure and the bug was not detected there.
The new machine was the problem. Without the safety systems the underlying bug was exposed and people died.
Most hospice patients actually leave hospice to go home to die. Hospice is there to give care to patients who would otherwise not receive adequate care or companionship at home. Most families can't afford to have someone stay with their child/family member at home all the time, and they certainly can't afford not having a parent working. Thus you have hospices, a community where a patient can get care they need. However they can't treat really serious conditions so for the last few months/weeks, the patient is usually at home or in a hospital.
Except that in Physics you can get a relatively closed system with few variables. Pool break is extreme because there are a relatively large number of balls with complex interactions between them. However they will all behave the same way when struck individually. Also, if you could observe all contact points and direct the cue ball at a precise strike point with a precise force you could apply known formulas and get and almost exact break paths. The reason we can't do the prediction of a pool break is due to the sheer number of interactions of imperfect objects.
Evolution is different in the way that it depends on the random changes, which will result in (currently) unknown results and different properties in the observed object/organism. We don't know what a particular gene mutation will do to an organism (unless it's a REALLY simple organism, but even then I doubt it), and that is what currently makes evolution a non-predictive science.
We can make general statements as in "In case of higher toxicity this organism MAY develop immunity. But it also MAY just die out if there is currently no organisms with immunity to that toxic environment." If you take the analogy to the pool table you could say, "If I hit that yellow ball with my cue ball just so it will roll into the pocket. However, if it suddenly changes properties (rougher surface, different weight, whatever) this will change the path and the ball will miss the pocket."
Erm...evolution is not predictive because it depends on the actual environmental state. Since you can't really predict environment and its state in the long term, you can't predict how a species might evolve in reaction to that state.
I guess the simplest example of evolution would be the existence of the "superbug". (you can also look up "Antibiotic resistance"). Bacteria existed for a long time with many different strains. Then penicilin came along and killed off a lot of bacteria, all except for the ones carrying the resistance genes. Now the superbug can multiply unhindered, since the death of competing bacteria left plenty of food and room.
I'd rather they figure out how to speed up switching. You wouldn't need to slow light down then.
Erm... Imagine you're working on a particular brand name. Then someone comes and hijacks your website. So whoever goes to (formerly) your website generates profit for the hijacker.
Probably opening up a whole new line of large scale scientfic research previously impossible due to Earth's gravity/atmosphere. For example a set of crucial immunity genes do not turn on in a simulated microgravity environment. This alone could lead to new areas of research.
Another benefit of getting into space would be new mineral sources that could be exploited, first the moon, then the asteroid field.
I seriously doubt that humanity will ever see any extra-solar space travel however since that would require either certain technologies that are beyond the scope of current science or giant self sustaining arcships which, while theoretically possible, are beyond our technical abilities and probably would never be feasible.
The suit is not about the fact that the Nano scratches. The suit is about the fact that Nano scratches so easily and heavily that you can't see the screen (IE use the product). RTFA
Mind you the article says that they're suing Apple because the scratches can get so severe it prevents one from seeing the screen. If that is the case in ALL of these "scratch" cases, sure, Apple should replace it. Notice how Apple is replacing the Nanos with cracked screens.
However, I seriously doubt that with REGULAR USE (meaning under normal conditions) wear and tear is such that majority of these Nanos actually can't see the screen.
Even if Sid was as gracious as an angel, Take 2 still owns the rights and can sue whoever they want whether or not he approves. He is warning people that others own the IP and can sue.
Hate to break it to you but many, MANY, Java developers know languages other than Java, PHP being one of them (shock! surprise!) I made prototypes in both PHP and Java (it's easy to download Tomcat and Struts and Eclipse) I actually gravitate toward Java when building prototypes but use PHP on my personal site because I am too lazy to set up my own hosted server to run my Java code.
The reason for the existence of copyright is to protect the artist and give them a means to survive and distribute art to multitudes of people as opposed to the rich. Although the Renaissance is full of great art and music, the great majority of those pieces were comissioned, and after they were completed they sat in someone's living room, or were performed at court a few times. Public had travelling minstrels and such, and even they performed for food and lodging.
You did not have the means of copying the content successfully so there was no need for copyright other than for professional reasons (IE Mozart wrote the piece X, not Rossini, etc).
Today, if you want new music to be made, you should pay for it. It's incredibly stupid to think that you're entitled to free music just because you exist. Also, legally, if you buy a CD you don't buy the duplication rights to the song. You buy the right to LISTEN to the song, yourself, in the privacy of your own home.
And, actually, if you give away the multimillion dollar idea, you do have a stick to get it back. It's called patenting the information. As long as you have the proof that you came up with it early (dated notes, etc) you can get the patent on the idea. SELLING the idea is something different. That means you're relinquishing the rights to the idea and giving them to someone else.
Consider this. I spend years perfecting my own style of play, practicing performaces, writing my own music until I make one just right. That ONE song or album might be good enough to attract a large audience. This ONE song or album must provide enough revenue to feed me and house me and clothe me so I have more/enough time that I can produce another song that does not suck. Contrary to popular opinion it takes a lot of time and work to create a good piece of music.
For IP rights in general... what if you had a great idea. Something that could improve the company/neighborhood/whatever enormously. You describe it to your friend. The friend goes and implements the idea (never telling anyone that it was your idea in the first place) and gets promotion/admiration in neighborhood/whatever, whereas you are left holding your hat. Under your rules, that is perfectly ok. Someone else went and profited off your idea.
Also, recording performances and copying official recordings are different beasts. In most cases the bands will allow bootlegs. The quality is usually not the greatest and they made all the cash they could off that PARTICULAR performance. Official recording is there for one reason. The band made a studio performance, probably over many takes, in order to give THE BEST POSSIBLE PERFORMANCE (that could be argued, but that is usually the intention). This is one unique performance that was specificaly meant for people to listen on their portables. Considering that concerts usually don't make much money but are often just de-facto advertisments for the CDs, that is the only opportunity for the band to actually make money.
Wow buddy, you really have it in for USA. I guess people trying to emigrate to US are just masochists because their countries are so much better.
Yes, there are things that suck in the US, no country is perfect.
First, I agree with everything Rycross said.
Second, about this performance thingy....
Look closer at your movie ticket and you'll see what you're paying for: You're paying for the PRIVILEGE of sitting in a comfy seat, watching ONE screening on a big screen and then getting the hell out of the movie theatre.
Concerts... you're paying for a privilege of watching a unique performance by a performer. If you'd like a CD, well, that wasn't included in the price. Most of the ticket cost goes toward covering renting the venue, paying stage hands etc. Or maybe you think that stage hands should work for free?
If you don't like it, well then...don't watch/listen to it. Simple.
I've one question though....what do you do for a living? Have you ever produced something unique? Something that tens of thousands of people would like to use? Would you just give it away?