> Microsoft was force to make the Windows code available to the Chinese > government...
Microsoft sold the Chinese government something they said was the Windows source. It wasn't buildable so the Chinese couldn't be sure that it was the complete, current source for the binaries they were using.
> GSM waves are bigger than most cellphone antennas, yet they have a pretty > significant and measurable effect on them.
Take a pile of cellphone antennas. Expose half of them to "GSM waves". Mix them all back together and shuffle them. Now sort out the exposed ones by measuring the significant effect the "GSM waves" had on them.
> If the test had come out the opposite (in the non-powered-phone, the hive > was effected), then they could drop it.
Which of course they would have done, without publishing their results. For every "successful" study like this one how many "failed" ones do you think go unpublished? And of the ones that are published how many get reported?
> 1. If an electron neutrino can spontaneously transform to a tau neutrino > with higher mass, where exactly does the required energy come from? > Alternatively, when a tau neutrino transforms to an electron neutrino, where > does the extra energy disappear?
Think of it as oscillating between a higher rest-mass state moving slower and a lower rest-mass state moving faster (yes, I know that isn't "really" what happens). The momentum doesn't change.
> 2. If neutrinos have mass, then they are restricted to speeds below c. If > they are accelerated to near c, then according to the relativistic energy- > momentum equations they should have colossal mass...
Only "colossal" relative to their rest mass, which is miniscule even by the standards of particle physics.
No. It may, however, be determined to be a frivolous lawsuit and so she may have to pay Google's legal expenses. Most likely Google's motion for dismissal will be granted and so the case will not go to trial.
Slashdot Mirror
> Microsoft was force to make the Windows code available to the Chinese
> government...
Microsoft sold the Chinese government something they said was the Windows source. It wasn't buildable so the Chinese couldn't be sure that it was the complete, current source for the binaries they were using.
> ...accountants ... need QuickBooks...
I find it hard to believe that an actual CPA with a degree in accounting would have any use at all for QuickBooks.
> That's generally known as false advertising and fraud, at least in countries
> with sensible regulatory systems.
It's also illegal in countries with simple basic criminal laws against fraud. No need for "regulatory systems".
> The WCT and WPPT both demand the DMCA laws to be passed.
And the proposed laws go far beyond what the WCT and WPPT demand as well as far beyond what the USA DMCA actually does.
> Now if they back out of the treaties or get them changed, then your problem
> disappears.
If a significant number of economically inportant nations would abrogate those treaties they would die.
> It's more expensive than downloading it and equally criminal.
Neither is criminal at all.
> Format shifting is illegal with DMCA.
Not in the USA. "Circumvention" for non-commercial purposes is a tort (not a crime) but "format shifting" is not addressed by the DMCA at all.
> Last week, a Normal would have been told by Those Who Do Science that a
> neutrino has no mass...
Where did you get that idea?
> So why the GPS tracking devices?
Theft.
> I don't know much about the spectrum used for GPS devices, but it must not
> be a problem for German bees...
GPS devices don't transmit. They only receive.
> Hopefully they'll try this with a respectable sample size sometime soon.
Why would they do that? They already got the results they wanted. It would be much more difficult to get "correct" results with fifty hives.
> GSM waves are bigger than most cellphone antennas, yet they have a pretty
> significant and measurable effect on them.
Take a pile of cellphone antennas. Expose half of them to "GSM waves". Mix them all back together and shuffle them. Now sort out the exposed ones by measuring the significant effect the "GSM waves" had on them.
> They chose an experiment which would disprove the hypothesis: "cell phones
> have no effect on bees".
No. They chose an experiment that would neither prove nor disprove anything.
> If the test had come out the opposite (in the non-powered-phone, the hive
> was effected), then they could drop it.
Which of course they would have done, without publishing their results. For every "successful" study like this one how many "failed" ones do you think go unpublished? And of the ones that are published how many get reported?
"Gaining"? It's how almost all humans have always "reasoned".
> ...I am concerned about them capturing packet data.
Then don't broadcast it.
> I say yes...The buggers!
They ask permission, you give permission, and they do what you gave them permission to do. What an outrage!
That makes it public. Google is merely asking you to forward some public information to them. You may, if you wish, decline.
...the new policy will be that all text shall be in 2 point type.
> 1. If an electron neutrino can spontaneously transform to a tau neutrino
> with higher mass, where exactly does the required energy come from?
> Alternatively, when a tau neutrino transforms to an electron neutrino, where
> does the extra energy disappear?
Think of it as oscillating between a higher rest-mass state moving slower and a lower rest-mass state moving faster (yes, I know that isn't "really" what happens). The momentum doesn't change.
> 2. If neutrinos have mass, then they are restricted to speeds below c. If
> they are accelerated to near c, then according to the relativistic energy-
> momentum equations they should have colossal mass...
Only "colossal" relative to their rest mass, which is miniscule even by the standards of particle physics.
> So if you were a photon, would you experience all points in spacetime
> simultaneously?
You wouldn't "experience" at all.
Photons have no rest mass and no charge. They aren't hard to detect.
n/t
> This use of the word "agnostic" has become common, and what on earth is
> wrong with that?
Such imprecision dilutes the language.
> I think it's reasonable to expect that when I click a link to a web page,
> nothing bad should happen to me.
Why not shorten that to "I think it's reasonable to expect that nothing bad should happen to me"?
> ...doesn't this count as contempt of court?
No. It may, however, be determined to be a frivolous lawsuit and so she may have to pay Google's legal expenses. Most likely Google's motion for dismissal will be granted and so the case will not go to trial.