According to this location, other research teams have managed to create element 116 directly. Maybe the Berkeley lab lied about 116, but it's been created other places.
As for the issue of broadcasting on one media affecting the revenue of broadcasting through another media, it's there already. Radio isn't complaining that they lose out to TV broadcasts, so I doubt it would come up here either.
I always thought the rights of broadcast were of the team along with Major League Baseball. A certain few games are broadcast (inter)nationally and the rest are at the say of the team. In fact, I believe that if a local station broadcasts a game and a national outlet also broadcasts it, there is a blackout imposed on the national broadcast in favor of the local broadcast. I would assume this would also apply here and teams would not be able to stop this pay broadcast, but they could also do their own broadcast, and free if need be. Add to this that possibly they could impose a blackout of sorts and require local ISPs to block the MLB broadcast in favor of the local one. If a team did this, it would certainly raise a fuss from Selig's office, it wouldn't go over well, they might fine them, but each team operates as an autonomous entity in terms of selling tickets and over local broadcasts, so I don't see how the teams couldn't provide a free broadcast locally to fans. Will this happen? Probably not. But I'd like to see a franchise have the guts and care about fans enough to try this, even if MLB and the other owners don't like it.
Well, what happens when something forms a black hole is you get a large amount of matter in a small area, and there's enough mass there that the force of gravity can overcome the Pauli exclusion principle and it can collapse beyond certain limits to a point in space. Assuming dark matter is distributed somewhat evenly throughout the universe, even if it is still massive, I doubt it'd collapse to a point. And besides, we don't really know what's out there or what mass we aren't seeing. There are theories about primordial black holes and other things of a similar nature.
The whole point of dark matter, though, is based on Freidmann models of whether the universe will collapse in on inself or will just keep expanding. Present calculations on the mass of the universe with known matter bring it to about 1% of what's needed for it to collapse in on itself. With dark matter, that goes to about 10% of the mass needed to cause the universe to begin to contract.
There are three Freidmann models. One is that the universe has enough mass that it will collapse in on itself. The second is it just barely does not have enough mass to collapse in on itself. The third is that it just keeps expanding, and the mass is well below the critical mass we calculate. Simply put, dark matter is matter that doesn't emit radiation that we can detect, because we only add in the mass of known matter to our calculations. We presume there is vast amounts of matter that aren't putting out detectable radiation. These could come from a number of sources, namely interstellar matter that never formed stars, burned out remnants of stars, and as long as these are distributed relatively evenly, these would not collapse to form a singularity for a very long time. I bring this all up, though, as dark matter was discussed because of the question of if the universe would collapse to a singularity, which seems to be related to your question.
For one, Napster was just for trading music, and from what I gather, this allows sharing of any files. Of course, they know that there will be pirated music and videos distributed, but I don't see how it's their responsibility to curtail it.
This would be absurd, and could be compared to several similar things, which I think we should all agree are just stupid to claim. First, it would be like saying it's the responsibility of an IRC network to curtail any channel and user that runs an fserve and to monitor it. While some smaller networks do this, it is extraordinarily stupid to expect a large network to monitor this sort of thing. Second, it would be like suing the authors of WS_FTP or Serv-U or any other ftp client or daemon because their software is used for distributing pirated music or videos. This should all seem absurd, because there are legitimate uses of these, and certainly the legitimate use far outweighs the possible abuses of it. I could come up with many more examples of this, but I think the point I'm trying to make is clear.
The worst thing for Aimster is that it specifically mentions in its help section about music and videos, which could be used against it in court. If I remember correctly, in one of the court rulings, they stated that Napster was fully aware that there was pirated music being distributed, and even though they said it wasn't allowed in their terms and conditions, they still were held responsible. Napster had the means to ban users for violating the rules, and did so when requested by Metallica, but that didn't influence the opinions of the courts either.
As for violating the DMCA to break the encryption, it seems unclear if a court would hear that argument, or know enough to understand the argument. Remember, Metallica broke Napster rules by using a bot to collect the lists of users distribuing their music, and that didn't seem to matter. Somehow, I doubt a court would hear that argument, but they would probably see it as a lot of petty theives stealing from an industry and a service that encourages theft, and on those grounds, they would shut it down. This has already been shown that judges without a good understanding of the technology have made rulings, and ones which are not necessarily right, just look at the Microsoft trial.
If they get a fair trial, they would have a decent chance of proving that their was a legitimate use of their service that outweighs the piracy that it would be used for. But it seems a bit unlikely that any service likes this will get a fair chance in the courts.
Well, I think that cutting NASA's budget even farther than it already has been cut isn't necessary.
For a time, the US put a much greater effort into the space program because we wanted to beat the USSR. It wasn't so much that it was necessary to put a man on the moon, but it looked good because for the US because they did it first. It's easy to tell where the priorities of Bush and Cheney are, that being defense spending and giving large tax cuts, a large percentage of which go to the wealthiest of Americans. It was said in one of Clinton's state of the union addresses that the United States is now the greatest superpower in the history of civilization, but that's not the story you'd get if you listen to the new administration. The new administration would have you believe that our military is in a bad state and it could be damaging to our country, and we need to put our money there. Forget that we have the most advanced military, even though we aren't at the levels during the cold war. Forget that we don't have any real threats and we're on peacekeeping missions and fighting rogue threats of terrorism. Forget that we no longer have an enemy with approximately equal our military power on the other side of the planet. Okay, enough with the sarcasm, it just seems that the spending is very much in the wrong area.
Science fuels the economy, and one which needs help. Greenspan overshot the mark with all the rate increases, and the longest peacetime expansion of the US economy could soon be over. The economy is in need of help, and fast, and the new administration is proposing spending and cuts that could send the nation back to deficits of the Reagan era. We're spending money we don't know if we really have from the projected surplus and there is a very real possibility that the money in question might not realy be there when we are looking for it in future budgets. Makes you wonder about the Bush/Cheney administration.
I'm not really sure why this would be, but I have a couple of ideas. The ideas for overclocking have also been applied to TI calculators, but those are overclocked usually by replacing a capacitor rather than the other methods described in the article.
Specifically referring to the TI-85, it was a much greater overclocking than what you're talking about here, because it would take a z80 running at 6MHz and increase the speed three or four times. This wasn't enough to overheat the CPU, but it was observed that at faster speeds, there was a higher error rate. It doesn't explain why this takes place, but it does make it seem that this is to be expected when overclocking a processor.
It's a shame that they only make a small mention of the Commodore 64, but unfortunately it, along with a few other systems, were forgotten for a number of reasons. At the time it came out, 1982, the Commodore 64 was superior in graphics and sound capability. The 16 color graphics display beat anything that any of the other major systems had out at the time. There were three channels for sound, which sounds like nothing now, but at the time, it was a big deal, and well ahead of any other systems in those areas. Sure, there was more memory on other systems such as the PC, but Commodore offered their system at much lower cost.
Perhaps the 64k limitation is one area where it was beat, but it wasn't much of a limitation, apparently, because of all the games that were created for it. And a well-written program could fit in 64k, and whatever disk space was necessary. I challange anyone to write some of those games in C for an x86 (DOS, Windows, whatever) and have the exe be less than 64k. Or even write it in assembly, I don't think it can easily be done. And if you know about the architcture of the Commodore 64, with the ROM in place, there's 48k available (8k BASIC, and 8k Kernel), though BASIC wasn't necessary for writing stuff in assembly. Also, the high resolution graphics screen took another 8k. Even if a game flipped out both BASIC and the Kernel, it still leaves 56k, and not all of that can be used. You still have the zero page, and the i/o locations, which further reduce the available RAM. The point being that a lot of good games were made with less available RAM, because programmers wrote games in low-level languages and optimized them well rather than in high-level languages which are optimized by the compiler. Sure, the Commodore 64 was slow by the standards of the past decade, but any of the good games for it were well optimized and were very well written. A lot can be done, and was done, that wasn't done on other platforms, because the Commodore 64 had a much more versatile architecture and because the programmers had good skill.
It was in my computer science course last year in high school, we watched a video on the history of computers, from Babbage's mechanical computers, through ENIAC and it's successors, and systems produced by IBM, and Xerox PARC, and when it came to the 1980s, there was no mention at all of Commodore and the effect any of its computers had on the industry. It's rather disappointing of PBS to produce something like this that is so historically inaccurate.
The fact is, IBM supported an inferior product in the 1960s and won out because of a better marketing staff, which was accurately portrayed in the video. They also won out in the 1980s for the same reason, which was again accurately described by the video, except for a few details. It only described their dominance over Apple and no mention was made of the many other systems available at the time such as the PET, VIC-20, Commodore 64/128 (all of which were produced by Commodore), the TRS-80, Atare, etc.
It's arguable the effect of the Commodore on computers today simply because they've been gone for so long (the 64 stopped being produced in 1992), but they were a major player in the 1980s, and it's sad that it's been so quickly forgotten.
Actually I don't like the idea of my e-mail being read either, but it's quite foolish to assume that communication over the web is secure. And according to the study, as long as it was configured properly, it didn't collect information it wasn't supposed to. I think some monitoring is just though. The United States has so many laws to protect the guilty and the criminals that sometimes the rights of the innocent and of victims are neglected. The purpose it is intended for certainly isn't wrong, it doesn't necessarily constitute an invasion of privacy if it is used properly, and privacy makes a convenient argument for the guilty to hide behind.
Well, many of the encryption algorithms are also open source, and if they aren't, there are accusations that there's something to hide. There are also laws in some countries requiring that the government be provided with the means to decrypt information.<BR><P>
It's good that only the FBI has access to this, though if I remember correctly, the major concern with Carnivore was not abuse of it, but that it would collect information it wasn't supposed to. Also, I believe the study of it found that the collection of such unwanted data was not very much, providing investigators usually with only the information permitted by a court order. While it has the capabilities to be quite invasive, which has been admitted, laws restrict the usage of it to prevent that. The worry about it is if it is improperly configured, that it might collect unwanted information.<BR><P>
Another concern of this was that the FBI is being quite secretive about the workings of this, and the report they released was very much blacked out. Perhaps they should be more open about the workings of the system, and I think in time, more information will be declassified.<BR><P>
I'm sure there's a lot of people who disagree with me, but internet communication should never be considered a secure medium. I believe that this is one of the lesser threats of privacy invasion as long as it is used properly. And then there's the obvious argument for monitoring that if you have nothing to hide, why are you so worried about being monitored? It was only a matter of time before the FBI would monitor e-mails in addition to IRC, phone lines, etc. I don't like the idea of my e-mails being monitored, but it's a simple fact that in the United States, one cannot escape surveillence. There is potential for abuse with any form of surveillence, and at least this is being directly monitored and restricted by the government.
Re:The decision is obvious, different buyers targe
on
Is It OK To Sucks?
·
· Score: 1
Well, products such as that are what trademarks are supposed to apply to. They're there so that when you, the consumer goes to purchase something that you get what you're paying for and that the product is what it appears to be. I'm sure this would be better placed in reply to a different post, but the beer you mention is a good example of what trademarks are to protect.
Re:The decision is obvious, different buyers targe
on
Is It OK To Sucks?
·
· Score: 1
While we expect governments to be informed, that's not always the case. There's a rather well-known example involving Nelson Mandela, the former leader of South Africa where he refused HIV treatments to be used because he read on a page that they didn't work, ignoring the obvious facts
otherwise. I'm sure I'm not telling this correctly, but it's pretty much what happened. My point is that users (and government leaders) have been misled by sites.
The solution seems to be to the trademark issue that the site be required to post that they are not affiliated with the site or company whose trademark they are using.
Slashdot Mirror
According to this location, other research teams have managed to create element 116 directly. Maybe the Berkeley lab lied about 116, but it's been created other places.
As for the issue of broadcasting on one media affecting the revenue of broadcasting through another media, it's there already. Radio isn't complaining that they lose out to TV broadcasts, so I doubt it would come up here either.
I always thought the rights of broadcast were of the team along with Major League Baseball. A certain few games are broadcast (inter)nationally and the rest are at the say of the team. In fact, I believe that if a local station broadcasts a game and a national outlet also broadcasts it, there is a blackout imposed on the national broadcast in favor of the local broadcast. I would assume this would also apply here and teams would not be able to stop this pay broadcast, but they could also do their own broadcast, and free if need be. Add to this that possibly they could impose a blackout of sorts and require local ISPs to block the MLB broadcast in favor of the local one. If a team did this, it would certainly raise a fuss from Selig's office, it wouldn't go over well, they might fine them, but each team operates as an autonomous entity in terms of selling tickets and over local broadcasts, so I don't see how the teams couldn't provide a free broadcast locally to fans. Will this happen? Probably not. But I'd like to see a franchise have the guts and care about fans enough to try this, even if MLB and the other owners don't like it.
The whole point of dark matter, though, is based on Freidmann models of whether the universe will collapse in on inself or will just keep expanding. Present calculations on the mass of the universe with known matter bring it to about 1% of what's needed for it to collapse in on itself. With dark matter, that goes to about 10% of the mass needed to cause the universe to begin to contract.
There are three Freidmann models. One is that the universe has enough mass that it will collapse in on itself. The second is it just barely does not have enough mass to collapse in on itself. The third is that it just keeps expanding, and the mass is well below the critical mass we calculate. Simply put, dark matter is matter that doesn't emit radiation that we can detect, because we only add in the mass of known matter to our calculations. We presume there is vast amounts of matter that aren't putting out detectable radiation. These could come from a number of sources, namely interstellar matter that never formed stars, burned out remnants of stars, and as long as these are distributed relatively evenly, these would not collapse to form a singularity for a very long time. I bring this all up, though, as dark matter was discussed because of the question of if the universe would collapse to a singularity, which seems to be related to your question.
This would be absurd, and could be compared to several similar things, which I think we should all agree are just stupid to claim. First, it would be like saying it's the responsibility of an IRC network to curtail any channel and user that runs an fserve and to monitor it. While some smaller networks do this, it is extraordinarily stupid to expect a large network to monitor this sort of thing. Second, it would be like suing the authors of WS_FTP or Serv-U or any other ftp client or daemon because their software is used for distributing pirated music or videos. This should all seem absurd, because there are legitimate uses of these, and certainly the legitimate use far outweighs the possible abuses of it. I could come up with many more examples of this, but I think the point I'm trying to make is clear.
The worst thing for Aimster is that it specifically mentions in its help section about music and videos, which could be used against it in court. If I remember correctly, in one of the court rulings, they stated that Napster was fully aware that there was pirated music being distributed, and even though they said it wasn't allowed in their terms and conditions, they still were held responsible. Napster had the means to ban users for violating the rules, and did so when requested by Metallica, but that didn't influence the opinions of the courts either.
As for violating the DMCA to break the encryption, it seems unclear if a court would hear that argument, or know enough to understand the argument. Remember, Metallica broke Napster rules by using a bot to collect the lists of users distribuing their music, and that didn't seem to matter. Somehow, I doubt a court would hear that argument, but they would probably see it as a lot of petty theives stealing from an industry and a service that encourages theft, and on those grounds, they would shut it down. This has already been shown that judges without a good understanding of the technology have made rulings, and ones which are not necessarily right, just look at the Microsoft trial.
If they get a fair trial, they would have a decent chance of proving that their was a legitimate use of their service that outweighs the piracy that it would be used for. But it seems a bit unlikely that any service likes this will get a fair chance in the courts.
For a time, the US put a much greater effort into the space program because we wanted to beat the USSR. It wasn't so much that it was necessary to put a man on the moon, but it looked good because for the US because they did it first. It's easy to tell where the priorities of Bush and Cheney are, that being defense spending and giving large tax cuts, a large percentage of which go to the wealthiest of Americans. It was said in one of Clinton's state of the union addresses that the United States is now the greatest superpower in the history of civilization, but that's not the story you'd get if you listen to the new administration. The new administration would have you believe that our military is in a bad state and it could be damaging to our country, and we need to put our money there. Forget that we have the most advanced military, even though we aren't at the levels during the cold war. Forget that we don't have any real threats and we're on peacekeeping missions and fighting rogue threats of terrorism. Forget that we no longer have an enemy with approximately equal our military power on the other side of the planet. Okay, enough with the sarcasm, it just seems that the spending is very much in the wrong area.
Science fuels the economy, and one which needs help. Greenspan overshot the mark with all the rate increases, and the longest peacetime expansion of the US economy could soon be over. The economy is in need of help, and fast, and the new administration is proposing spending and cuts that could send the nation back to deficits of the Reagan era. We're spending money we don't know if we really have from the projected surplus and there is a very real possibility that the money in question might not realy be there when we are looking for it in future budgets. Makes you wonder about the Bush/Cheney administration.
Specifically referring to the TI-85, it was a much greater overclocking than what you're talking about here, because it would take a z80 running at 6MHz and increase the speed three or four times. This wasn't enough to overheat the CPU, but it was observed that at faster speeds, there was a higher error rate. It doesn't explain why this takes place, but it does make it seem that this is to be expected when overclocking a processor.
Perhaps the 64k limitation is one area where it was beat, but it wasn't much of a limitation, apparently, because of all the games that were created for it. And a well-written program could fit in 64k, and whatever disk space was necessary. I challange anyone to write some of those games in C for an x86 (DOS, Windows, whatever) and have the exe be less than 64k. Or even write it in assembly, I don't think it can easily be done. And if you know about the architcture of the Commodore 64, with the ROM in place, there's 48k available (8k BASIC, and 8k Kernel), though BASIC wasn't necessary for writing stuff in assembly. Also, the high resolution graphics screen took another 8k. Even if a game flipped out both BASIC and the Kernel, it still leaves 56k, and not all of that can be used. You still have the zero page, and the i/o locations, which further reduce the available RAM. The point being that a lot of good games were made with less available RAM, because programmers wrote games in low-level languages and optimized them well rather than in high-level languages which are optimized by the compiler. Sure, the Commodore 64 was slow by the standards of the past decade, but any of the good games for it were well optimized and were very well written. A lot can be done, and was done, that wasn't done on other platforms, because the Commodore 64 had a much more versatile architecture and because the programmers had good skill.
It was in my computer science course last year in high school, we watched a video on the history of computers, from Babbage's mechanical computers, through ENIAC and it's successors, and systems produced by IBM, and Xerox PARC, and when it came to the 1980s, there was no mention at all of Commodore and the effect any of its computers had on the industry. It's rather disappointing of PBS to produce something like this that is so historically inaccurate.
The fact is, IBM supported an inferior product in the 1960s and won out because of a better marketing staff, which was accurately portrayed in the video. They also won out in the 1980s for the same reason, which was again accurately described by the video, except for a few details. It only described their dominance over Apple and no mention was made of the many other systems available at the time such as the PET, VIC-20, Commodore 64/128 (all of which were produced by Commodore), the TRS-80, Atare, etc.
It's arguable the effect of the Commodore on computers today simply because they've been gone for so long (the 64 stopped being produced in 1992), but they were a major player in the 1980s, and it's sad that it's been so quickly forgotten.
Actually I don't like the idea of my e-mail being read either, but it's quite foolish to assume that communication over the web is secure. And according to the study, as long as it was configured properly, it didn't collect information it wasn't supposed to. I think some monitoring is just though. The United States has so many laws to protect the guilty and the criminals that sometimes the rights of the innocent and of victims are neglected. The purpose it is intended for certainly isn't wrong, it doesn't necessarily constitute an invasion of privacy if it is used properly, and privacy makes a convenient argument for the guilty to hide behind.
Well, many of the encryption algorithms are also open source, and if they aren't, there are accusations that there's something to hide. There are also laws in some countries requiring that the government be provided with the means to decrypt information.<BR><P>
It's good that only the FBI has access to this, though if I remember correctly, the major concern with Carnivore was not abuse of it, but that it would collect information it wasn't supposed to. Also, I believe the study of it found that the collection of such unwanted data was not very much, providing investigators usually with only the information permitted by a court order. While it has the capabilities to be quite invasive, which has been admitted, laws restrict the usage of it to prevent that. The worry about it is if it is improperly configured, that it might collect unwanted information.<BR><P>
Another concern of this was that the FBI is being quite secretive about the workings of this, and the report they released was very much blacked out. Perhaps they should be more open about the workings of the system, and I think in time, more information will be declassified.<BR><P>
I'm sure there's a lot of people who disagree with me, but internet communication should never be considered a secure medium. I believe that this is one of the lesser threats of privacy invasion as long as it is used properly. And then there's the obvious argument for monitoring that if you have nothing to hide, why are you so worried about being monitored? It was only a matter of time before the FBI would monitor e-mails in addition to IRC, phone lines, etc. I don't like the idea of my e-mails being monitored, but it's a simple fact that in the United States, one cannot escape surveillence. There is potential for abuse with any form of surveillence, and at least this is being directly monitored and restricted by the government.
Well, products such as that are what trademarks are supposed to apply to. They're there so that when you, the consumer goes to purchase something that you get what you're paying for and that the product is what it appears to be. I'm sure this would be better placed in reply to a different post, but the beer you mention is a good example of what trademarks are to protect.
While we expect governments to be informed, that's not always the case. There's a rather well-known example involving Nelson Mandela, the former leader of South Africa where he refused HIV treatments to be used because he read on a page that they didn't work, ignoring the obvious facts otherwise. I'm sure I'm not telling this correctly, but it's pretty much what happened. My point is that users (and government leaders) have been misled by sites. The solution seems to be to the trademark issue that the site be required to post that they are not affiliated with the site or company whose trademark they are using.