Uh huh... were these the resolutions passed by all the anti-semites in the Arab countries? Just wondering. And what countries supported those resolutions?
Often the resolutions are supported by everyone except the US. Here's a list of UN resolutions regarding Israel which have been vetoed by the US. Note that most of the time the votes in the security council are 14-1, the 1 being the US of course.
...the author of this work Mathieu Desbrun recently organised a seminar class at Caltech (along with Peter Schroeder, also mentioned in the article) on Discrete Differential Geometry:Theory and Applications. Movies of all the lectures are on the class website in wmv format, with accompanying slides.
Owning uranium is a different problem. Uranium is not useful in itself, and it's a poison - therefore its possession is rightly regulated for our own good. Also, it's perfectly possible and legal to use uranium for civil purposes (energy production, radiotherapy...). So I don't see your point, actually. The problem is still the same, the use you make of technology.
I don't know what the hell 'uranium is not useful in itself' is supposed to mean. It has many legitimate uses, clearly more (in number and in significance) than Photoshopping banknotes has. If it were freely available, people might be able to have their own personal power generators, for example. The reason it's regulated is because of it's enormous destructive potential. As a society, we make the call that the potential negative effects of making uranium freely available far outweigh the positive effects, and so we regulate it.
The same can be argued for this case. There are positives and negatives to being able to scan/manipulate images of notes (the negatives being ease of counterfeiting). It's not so clear cut in this case, but a argument can be made that the technology should be restricted here also.
Now your argument initally seemed to be that technology should never be restricted, since it is neither inherently good nor inherently evil. That argument is patently absurd when applied to the case of uranium (as you yourself seem to acknowledge). So why should we take it seriously when applied to this case? Rather, what needs to be carried out in all cases is a careful weighing of risks versus benifits of making the technology available (accompanied by some set of priorities of what is most important to society).
It's not a matter of numbers it's a matter of principle and of freedom.
You didn't answer my question. Is owning uranium 'a matter of principle and of freedom'? And if not, why not. Where do you draw the line? What I'm trying to point out to you is that a naive argument like 'technology is morally neutral, therefore shouldn't be regulated' doesn't really stand up to the light of day. A more nuanced understanding of the role of technology in society is needed.
Also, please explain in what way does this ban help avoiding counterfeiting money (since that's illegal anyway). How is the image of, say, a 100$ bill going to help counterfeiters (who are going to use an original anyways)?
I don't understand what you're asking here. It's not a 'ban', it's a prevention mechanism. It stops (in theory at least) counterfeiters from manipulating images of notes using Photoshop. They might want to do this for example to change the serial number on the banknote. What do you mean by saying they 'are going to use an original anyways'? They are going to scan an original? Fine. They still might want to edit it.
Why should scanning money be illegal? It's ridiculous - it's like banning knives because they could be dangerous.
No, it's not. Knives have a wide range of uses not related to hurting other people. The ability to scan money has one main use, namely counterfeiting. Yes, one can conceive of some legitimate (eg artistic) uses for this ability. But they're small in number, and one could make the argument that battling counterfeiting takes precedence in this case.
It's not the technology, it's the use you make of it. I don't understand why politicians fail to understand this simple concept: technology is not evil or good, it does not pose new moral problems.
Ok, so I guess you also believe that anyone should be able to buy uranium on the open market? After all, uranium can be used for good or evil also, right? I'm sure Al-Qaeda for one would welcome your openness.
Technology may be 'morally neutral', but giving people easy access to it is not. In many cases it's a serious moral issue. In this case, it's not so serious, but it's still an issue. It's easy to ignore these issues and just shout 'information/technology wants to be free', but I'm not sure you'd really want to live in a world where that actually held.
Case in point... the U.N. food-for-oil program in Iraq. Saddam kept almost all of it for his government and military, all the while telling the Iraqi people that they had no food because we were stopping the flow of food. Not true... he was keeping it for himself.
Funny, it wasn't just Saddam who was saying this. So was Kofi Annan. So was Dennis Halliday, former head of the UN Humanitarian Mission in Iraq. Halliday resigned in protest, and went on to call the sanctions genocidal. So was Halliday's sucessor, Hans von Sponeck, who also resigned in protest.
There have been some allegations that Saddam got kickbacks from contractors through the Oil-for-Food program, but everything I've read suggests that OfF worked pretty much as well as it could given its limitations. If you have a link to some credible evidence which suggests otherwise, I'd be interested in reading it.
Hate to say it, but Doolin is a fucking hole. It's basically just a long road with some shops, guest houses and two or three pubs, and that's it, and the only reason it exists is as a place to stay for people who want to visit the Cliffs of Moher. Oh, and the tapwater is brown. Bring cash, cause there isn't an ATM for a couple of miles. Have fun (snicker).
I've just spent the whole morning reading usenet posts relating to significant events in US history of the past 20 years. Fascinating stuff.
Reading through some of the debates which raged at the time of the US bombing of Libya are particularly intriguing, mainly because of the parallels to the current situation with bin Laden and the Taliban (eg here). (For those not familiar with the history, the US launched an airstrike on Libya in retaliation to a terrorist bomb attack in a German disco which killed two US servicemen. It later turned out that probably Syrian or Iranian terrorists and not Libyan ones were responsible for the attack). The arguments put forward by both sides are almost identical to the current ones (eg these guys arguing over whether the Reagan administration really has evidence of Libya's involvement, or this guy comparing people who comdemn the bombings to Nazi appeasers in 1930s Europe). Hmm, spooky stuff.
I thought someone might be interested in this interview (in English) with the guys who made the Wonderswan Advance. It contains a couple of extra titbits of information.
Anyway, I ended up having to wear an eye patch over my good eye for quite some time, in order to force my bad eye (through glasses) to work at all.
Wow, you went through the same thing in childhood as Thom Yorke, although IIRC his eyepatch was to correct for a lazy eye. He claims wearing it fucked him up for life, which I guess is where all that great music comes from.
Yeah, ok man, and I suppose communicating with other human beings, language, literature, humour, sex, education etc. are all non-essential too, right? Sorry, I don't buy into your minimalist idea of what is essential. If all I had to look forward to in life was food, water and air, I would have killed myself long ago.
I don't know if I agree with this. I think having more than three teeth should be a criterion for being a person. Which would rule out most of Kansas, for example.
did the record companies force you to buy the CD's??? No, I think not. If people were to stop buying CD's at such a high price, the record companies would learn that they can't rape the public.
That's because for a lot of people, listening to new music is essential. I can't imagine going through life without music. I don't view new music as just another consumer product to try out, like a new flavour of Doritos or the current line of Nike trainers. Music is art (Britney Spears/Backstreet Boys crap excluded), it's an emormously important form of human expression, but unfortunately at the moment the legitimate/legal distribution channels for it are completely monopolised by a few greedy companies who treat it like it's just another disposable commodity. We now have the technology to distribute and reproduce music extremely cheaply and efficiently. However the music industry is trying to stifle this, at least until it works out the best way to make money from the technology. Of course artists should be compensated for their work. But first I think it's more important to undermine as much as possible the monopoly power of those fuckers in the RIAA, since they've been responsible for financially raping both musicians and music lovers for so many years. Clearly members of the RIAA don't have the best interests of either group at heart, so as far as I'm concerned they deserve everything they get.
Entanglement is interference of the individual spin (or angular momentum) of several particles, giving an apparent total spin (angular momentum) of the system of particles. Ie, it's not possible to measure the spin of the total state of particles while simultaneously measuring the spins of the individual particles. This is how you can have an even number of fermions (half-integral spin) behave as a boson (integral spin), etc.
Nah man, this isn't entanglement either. Two (or more) systems are unentangled if you can describe the state of the entire system by just giving the states of each individual subsystem. For entangled states this can't be done, so that the whole system state doesn't 'factor' into two subsystem states.
What you're talking about is addition of angular momentum, which is something different. For example, you can combine two spin up electrons together to give an unentangled, spin 1 state. Total spin states are often used in discussing entanglement, but they are not essential to the discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
Often the resolutions are supported by everyone except the US. Here's a list of UN resolutions regarding Israel which have been vetoed by the US. Note that most of the time the votes in the security council are 14-1, the 1 being the US of course.
...the author of this work Mathieu Desbrun recently organised a seminar class at Caltech (along with Peter Schroeder, also mentioned in the article) on Discrete Differential Geometry:Theory and Applications. Movies of all the lectures are on the class website in wmv format, with accompanying slides.
Owning uranium is a different problem. Uranium is not useful in itself, and it's a poison - therefore its possession is rightly regulated for our own good. Also, it's perfectly possible and legal to use uranium for civil purposes (energy production, radiotherapy...). So I don't see your point, actually. The problem is still the same, the use you make of technology.
I don't know what the hell 'uranium is not useful in itself' is supposed to mean. It has many legitimate uses, clearly more (in number and in significance) than Photoshopping banknotes has. If it were freely available, people might be able to have their own personal power generators, for example. The reason it's regulated is because of it's enormous destructive potential. As a society, we make the call that the potential negative effects of making uranium freely available far outweigh the positive effects, and so we regulate it.
The same can be argued for this case. There are positives and negatives to being able to scan/manipulate images of notes (the negatives being ease of counterfeiting). It's not so clear cut in this case, but a argument can be made that the technology should be restricted here also.
Now your argument initally seemed to be that technology should never be restricted, since it is neither inherently good nor inherently evil. That argument is patently absurd when applied to the case of uranium (as you yourself seem to acknowledge). So why should we take it seriously when applied to this case? Rather, what needs to be carried out in all cases is a careful weighing of risks versus benifits of making the technology available (accompanied by some set of priorities of what is most important to society).
It's not a matter of numbers it's a matter of principle and of freedom.
You didn't answer my question. Is owning uranium 'a matter of principle and of freedom'? And if not, why not. Where do you draw the line? What I'm trying to point out to you is that a naive argument like 'technology is morally neutral, therefore shouldn't be regulated' doesn't really stand up to the light of day. A more nuanced understanding of the role of technology in society is needed.
Also, please explain in what way does this ban help avoiding counterfeiting money (since that's illegal anyway). How is the image of, say, a 100$ bill going to help counterfeiters (who are going to use an original anyways)?
I don't understand what you're asking here. It's not a 'ban', it's a prevention mechanism. It stops (in theory at least) counterfeiters from manipulating images of notes using Photoshop. They might want to do this for example to change the serial number on the banknote. What do you mean by saying they 'are going to use an original anyways'? They are going to scan an original? Fine. They still might want to edit it.
Why should scanning money be illegal? It's ridiculous - it's like banning knives because they could be dangerous.
No, it's not. Knives have a wide range of uses not related to hurting other people. The ability to scan money has one main use, namely counterfeiting. Yes, one can conceive of some legitimate (eg artistic) uses for this ability. But they're small in number, and one could make the argument that battling counterfeiting takes precedence in this case.
It's not the technology, it's the use you make of it. I don't understand why politicians fail to understand this simple concept: technology is not evil or good, it does not pose new moral problems.
Ok, so I guess you also believe that anyone should be able to buy uranium on the open market? After all, uranium can be used for good or evil also, right? I'm sure Al-Qaeda for one would welcome your openness.
Technology may be 'morally neutral', but giving people easy access to it is not. In many cases it's a serious moral issue. In this case, it's not so serious, but it's still an issue. It's easy to ignore these issues and just shout 'information/technology wants to be free', but I'm not sure you'd really want to live in a world where that actually held.
Case in point... the U.N. food-for-oil program in Iraq. Saddam kept almost all of it for his government and military, all the while telling the Iraqi people that they had no food because we were stopping the flow of food. Not true... he was keeping it for himself.
Funny, it wasn't just Saddam who was saying this. So was Kofi Annan. So was Dennis Halliday, former head of the UN Humanitarian Mission in Iraq. Halliday resigned in protest, and went on to call the sanctions genocidal. So was Halliday's sucessor, Hans von Sponeck, who also resigned in protest.
There have been some allegations that Saddam got kickbacks from contractors through the Oil-for-Food program, but everything I've read suggests that OfF worked pretty much as well as it could given its limitations. If you have a link to some credible evidence which suggests otherwise, I'd be interested in reading it.
Hate to say it, but Doolin is a fucking hole.
It's basically just a long road with some shops, guest houses and two or three pubs, and that's it, and the only reason it exists is as a place to stay for people who want to visit the Cliffs of Moher. Oh, and the tapwater is brown. Bring cash, cause there isn't an ATM for a couple of miles.
Have fun (snicker).
Try here.
Shit, slashdotted already. Hmm, try here.
Well brace yourself, my friend, it gets worse.
I've just spent the whole morning reading usenet posts relating to significant events in US history of the past 20 years. Fascinating stuff.
Reading through some of the debates which raged at the time of the US bombing of Libya are particularly intriguing, mainly because of the parallels to the current situation with bin Laden and the Taliban (eg here). (For those not familiar with the history, the US launched an airstrike on Libya in retaliation to a terrorist bomb attack in a German disco which killed two US servicemen. It later turned out that probably Syrian or Iranian terrorists and not Libyan ones were responsible for the attack). The arguments put forward by both sides are almost identical to the current ones (eg these guys arguing over whether the Reagan administration really has evidence of Libya's involvement, or this guy comparing people who comdemn the bombings to Nazi appeasers in 1930s Europe). Hmm, spooky stuff.
He achieved presidency you fuckwit.
And maybe one day he'll be able to crown that achievement by constructing a coherent fucking sentence.
I know people I work with who still haven't achieved adult-level language skills...
Yeah? Well I know presidents who haven't achieved adult-level language skills.
Yes, titbits.
I thought someone might be interested in this interview (in English) with the guys who made the Wonderswan Advance. It contains a couple of extra titbits of information.
Better still
Wow, you went through the same thing in childhood as Thom Yorke, although IIRC his eyepatch was to correct for a lazy eye. He claims wearing it fucked him up for life, which I guess is where all that great music comes from.
Good for you. What you want, a fucking cookie?
Yeah, ok man, and I suppose communicating with other human beings, language, literature, humour, sex, education etc. are all non-essential too, right? Sorry, I don't buy into your minimalist idea of what is essential. If all I had to look forward to in life was food, water and air, I would have killed myself long ago.
I don't know if I agree with this. I think having more than three teeth should be a criterion for being a person. Which would rule out most of Kansas, for example.
That's because for a lot of people, listening to new music is essential. I can't imagine going through life without music. I don't view new music as just another consumer product to try out, like a new flavour of Doritos or the current line of Nike trainers. Music is art (Britney Spears/Backstreet Boys crap excluded), it's an emormously important form of human expression, but unfortunately at the moment the legitimate/legal distribution channels for it are completely monopolised by a few greedy companies who treat it like it's just another disposable commodity. We now have the technology to distribute and reproduce music extremely cheaply and efficiently. However the music industry is trying to stifle this, at least until it works out the best way to make money from the technology. Of course artists should be compensated for their work. But first I think it's more important to undermine as much as possible the monopoly power of those fuckers in the RIAA, since they've been responsible for financially raping both musicians and music lovers for so many years. Clearly members of the RIAA don't have the best interests of either group at heart, so as far as I'm concerned they deserve everything they get.
Well, posting through deja isn't really any more anonymous than using news reader, since deja still puts your ip address in the header of the post.
Entanglement is interference of the individual spin (or angular momentum) of several particles, giving an apparent total spin (angular momentum) of the system of particles. Ie, it's not possible to measure the spin of the total state of particles while simultaneously measuring the spins of the individual particles. This is how you can have an even number of fermions (half-integral spin) behave as a boson (integral spin), etc. Nah man, this isn't entanglement either. Two (or more) systems are unentangled if you can describe the state of the entire system by just giving the states of each individual subsystem. For entangled states this can't be done, so that the whole system state doesn't 'factor' into two subsystem states. What you're talking about is addition of angular momentum, which is something different. For example, you can combine two spin up electrons together to give an unentangled, spin 1 state. Total spin states are often used in discussing entanglement, but they are not essential to the discussion.