But if you notice, most of the countries from which these so-called criminals come from are not at all happy about what the United States is doing. I suspect if it weren't for the fact that this Canadian man were already in custody here in the United States, Canada would NOT go along with plans for extradition. I think that most of the rest of the world disagrees with us enough that the US couldn't force anybody to extradite without causing worse diplomatic problems than they'd be "solving" by trying the case.
IANAL, but it is possible that because this is legal testimony, rather than simple public disclosure, that it is exempt from the contracts agreement not to disclose the terms thereof. Just a hunch, mind you. Frankly, if the non-disclosure clause would seem to cover this, I don't think Microsoft would try to push that angle, since it would likely make the clause illegal. And an illegal contract isn't binding.
Also important is how you approach this situation. Do I disapprove of the tactics of the MPAA? Yes. I think that the blatant purchase of legislation that curtails my rights is wrong. However, I don't blame them. What they're doing is a good business tactic. I blame the US government for being bought. There are precious few companies, who, given the resources, would not purchase legislation to improve their standing in the market. However, it is the duty of the government (which is difficult, because the government is unfortunately composed of individuals) to overlook the money available and seek the proper course of action. I can't blame the MPAA for taking advantage of an opportunity that was made available to them. I can blame the government for poor upkeep of its duties.
Re:User input could solve problems
on
Google Juice
·
· Score: 1
The reason why such an algorithm wouldn't work is because a large group of people could easily bias the results then, without the time or effort required for current bombing techniques. Instead of having to set up a web of interlinked pages, they'd merely have to click on the appropriate link then close their browser and repeat. You could protect against this, but one has to consider whether the benefit of this method is worth the additional overhead that would be necessary to prevent the abuse of the method.
All right. You raise a valid point. But I think that you also have to consider the nature of the experiment. It isn't inconceivable that an improperly calibrated neutron detector could falsely return results that would lead one to conclude that fusion was occuring. It is far more unlikely that a device designed to analyze the blinking of a LED and translate that signal into a different signal could accidentally or falsely return the original signal, which these researchers claim has been done.
I see a lot of responses here from people who are quite certain that it can't be done. If you'd read even the abstract of the report, you'd realize that they've conducted experiments in which the transmitted data was reconstructed by means of studying the flickering of the status LED's. You're as bad as security analysts saying that a system is uncrackable. If somebody does something, then clearly it is not impossible.
Note: I don't agree with the ability of a company to hold an artist's copyright for so long. I think it's exploitive and defeats the original purpose of the copyright.
I am all for giving the creator a work a good, long time to benefit from it. After all, a lot of effort goes into anything, and if it's worthwhile, market forces will determine how much benefit the creator derives. It's there to promote the creation of new works.
But is certainly shouldn't last for the artist's lifetime plus seventy years. Seventy years is long enough for an entire second generation to reap the benefits from the work. That's just ridiculous! I suggest that copyrights be available under the terms of 14 years of until the death of the artist, whichever comes last. That way, if they artist dies a year after creating a work, his estate will benefit from it for the next thirteen years, as is fair to his family. Furthermore, if the original creator lives a long time, he can continue to benefit from his work for the duration, as is fitting.
The only reason I can think of that the copyright law should be as it is now, is because copyrights are transferable. That means that the artist or the family can transfer the rights to a non-perishable entity (like a record company) which will benefit from it for the entire life of the copyright.
It would have to be better than hibernation. It would have to be a state of complete suspended animation. After all, even with embryos and artificial wombs, what do you do with them when they get tehre? You can't just "plant" them and leave them. They wouldn't have any idea of who they were or anything. And having a computer present to teach them everything they'd need to know is a risky prospect, at best.
You struck my biggest concern. Even if there is room for diversity of jobs (after all, maintaining culture will be fairly important as well), there is possibility that the next generation will be unable to maintain the system. The first generation would probably consist largely of the most qualified, intelligent individuals. How large would the ship (population) have to be in order to ensure that the next generation and those following it would contain enough qualified people to sustain the mission? Certainly large enough that an entire universitiy (at least) dedicated to the maintenance of the ship could have full classes every year. And that's just for the specific engineering required to maintain the colony ship. What about the other sciences, arts, trades, etc... that should be kept up? What about those that aren't even vaguely useful aboard the ship, but will be useful at the destination? I think that a multi-generational colonization plan would be worthless without this. You must ensure that when the ship finally reaches its destination, the colonists haven't suffered a loss of knowledge or culture as a result of the journey. I don't think that anybody's prepared to design a mission of this complexity, yet.
It's very likely. But there are a great many people who already own a GBA who will not wish to purchase another. In my case, I actually consider the $42 price (shipping included) to be worthwhile. I pay half the price to have the same product. If the site is to be believed the risk involved in modding the GBA is small and I'm pretty sure my 90 days are up anyhow. I'll be happy to pay the money for something cool like this. Naturally, if I get another GBA, for some reason, it'll be the properly lit version.
This is not altogether true. It depends on how the students approach the project. I know that I loved using powerpoint for my presentations in high school. Why? Because it was easier to hook up a school laptop to the overhead projector than it was to go through the trouble of printing out my figures on transparencies and then worrying about keeping them in order and switching them at the appropriatem time. Powerpoint makes those concerns trivial. If the students understand the importance of content and realize that the presentation of that material is secondary, then powerpoint is an extremely good tool for them to use! But I don't think that the problem, in this case, lies with the fact that the students have been trained with computers, but that their training has emphasized the wrong things. Computers can't teach creativity - that's been said a dozen or more times already. If, as early as teachers start asking students for projects, they deemphasize the "prettyness" of the student's presentation and reemphasize the clear conveyance of information, students will realize long before high school that a computer is not a shortcut to a good grade anymore than a nice binder for a report or a proessionally mounted visial-aid is.
For one, it is unlikely that the patent will be declared universally invalid, more that it doesn't apply to this situation (I'm not certain that it doesn't. See below)
As to the MS and Sony controllers not having actual force feedback, but a simple vibration, consider Devil May Cry in which the shotgun kicks more than the pistols and the higher you jump, the more the controller rocks when you land. Granted, it's not a sophisticated feedback, like greater resistance on the joystick when you're at a wall, but it's definitely a way of presenting the user with a tactile response to the onscreen action. I don't think one can simply decide either way.
Re:When will the real evolution of RTS arive?
on
HIstory of RTS Games
·
· Score: 1
I seldom have this problem with Total Annihilation. Yes, most people focus on a particular type of unit - I'm fond of basic K-Bots. I don't know why anybody would use vehicles. And higher-level K-Bots are useful only for specific purposes. But I've got one friend who swears by heavy tanks and another that uses heavy-bombers and lots of groun defenses. Against the second guy, I simply can't use the peewee rush (although the Jethro rush is useful in knocking down some of his aircraft production). Different play styles make necessary different defense styles. Against the first guy, I often win, because my reliance on small units can cripple his production before he amasses his army. Against the second, I lose with greater frequency, because I'm less adept at anti-air tactics.
One important question that needs to be asked is whether the investment of energy to obtain the methanol is greater than or less than the energy returns. Naturally, by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the total energy investment is at least as great as the returns. However, since alcohols can be obtained by fermentation by yeasts, that energy needn't all come from fossil fuels. The important factor then is how much energy is required to distil sufficiently pure methanol out of the fermentation products. If you can get high-yield methanol from distilation with a small enough investment of energy, then this technology is valuable and should be explored to the fullest. If you cannot, then this technology should be abandoned or shelved. Any energy storage method, be it a chemical battery, a tank of methanol, or a spring, must be judged based on the effectiveness of storing in/retrieving from that storage device.
As I understand it, this doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. By 'shedding entropy' I think they refer to losing enough matter that the overall entropy of the system is lowered by a transfer of energy from the system to the surroundings (ie: the rest of the universe.) As for the nature of the shell, apparently it is stable and sustainable as an unusual quantum state which, as with many other quantum states, cannot properly be described by classical mechanics.
Perhaps the combat uses of the device are a bit out of reach, for the time being, but I can see many reasons why a soldier could use one of these. Granted, it might be too cumbersome for use during combat - as a suit of user-enhancing armour - but it could definitely improve the ability of a soldier to carry equipment over longer distances than he once could. Sometimes, a jeep _is_ more effective for this (as another responder mentioned), but sometimes, especially if there's not time to load/unload a vehicle, the ability to pick-up-and-go would be an advantage. Additionally, if this could improve the wearer's speed/endurance as boasted, it would make troop support much easier. The convoy that took a half dozen men to unload before can be unloaded in half the time by half as many men, using such exoskeletons - that's a valuable advantage. Finally, even if the development costs for these devices are high, the multitude of uses these would find in civilian and non-combat duties as well as limited use in combat would make them incredibly worthwhile.
The article was okay in describing the result of these high-energy collisions and the means of detecting them, but what I want to know is why, if there are additional dimensions in addition to the four familiar ones, this should decrease the energy necessary to generate these miniature black holes? Could somebody more familiar with the appropriate theories fill me in on why this should be so?
Also, consider this: If one automobile company realizes that by making its cars dependent on a foreign, expensive substance (like oil), it's crippling itself. Imagine that this field of study comes to fruition and this Mitsubishi-sponsored technology begins pumping out hydrogen. All Mitsubish has to do then is build a car that will safely run on hyrdrogen and suddenly, they've got a perfectly good machine to which they control the source of fuel. Granted, they can't make a killing off of this right off, because they have to undercut the oil companies, but so long as they're making a profit, they can continue to do this. If it's cheaper to use hydrogen, then people will and this will spur a change in the economy/infrastructure as oil-dependent companies realize they're being outsold by a cheaper, cleaner solution. Mind, Mitsubishi's motive isn't change. It's the returns they'll make while everybody else is retooling to use hydrogen. Not to mention that it gives them that much longer to advance their technology ahead of the competition.
I just wanted to add that I too am very satisfied with Windows 2000. I can't say for certain how it fares in the 'security' department, but as for reliability, I have no complaints. While it doesn't grant 99.999% reliability (Ha - I wish!), it customarily goes three weeks or more without a reboot. As a home user with no uptime-intensive needs, this is more than satisfactory.
Absolutely! I always feel this way when people start discussing how unrealistic CounterStrike is. I have to agree with them. Of course it's unrealistic, and it's more fun as a result! Nobody can take an entire clip from a glock in the chest and survive. And nobody who's at "1%" of their total possible health will be moving around like that. It's a game though, and so long as it always obeys the same rules, it will be an entertaining game. Conformity to reality is the stuff of simulations, which represent only a small subset of games.
Case in point: Super Metroid beats the pants off of 90% of the games designed for the N64. Only old Nintendo Mainstays like the Legend of Zelda games and the entire Mario Sports series manage to surpass that classic. What I wouldn't give to be able to wail on Mother Brain while on a long train/bus ride.
That people with poor genetics should not breed is claiming that it is our responsibility to obey natural selection, even if it doesn't weed us out...well...naturally.
That people in poor physical condition should not breed is saying much the same - that if a person with a disability is not weeded out naturally, it is their responsibility to not mate anyhow.
That somebody with bad habits should not breed is ridiculous. By whose standards would you judge? I think that smacking one's lips when one eats is a "bad habit." You may say that habits of the cablibre of smoking merit this prohibition. It is arbitrary and thus inadmissable.
That people with no parental skills should not breed means that nobody should ever have a first child, since nobody is born with parental skills. Like any other important skill, they are developed.
That people without resources should not breed...This I can half agree with. If somebody is unprepared to support a child, it is irresponsible of them to breed. But to claim that somebody who is prepared to sacrifice, despite having little, should not breed is to say that only the wealthy should have the right of procreation.
You cannot make this case. A life fraught with burden is still a life worth having. There are situations in which is would be irresponsible to have a child, but your criteria are laughable.
Re:The Right not to be born
on
The Year In Ideas
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
As I understand it, this concerns only the right of the "wronged" (read: born) individual to sue the state for not having made abortion a viable option to his or her mother. Why this concerns me is because if they support this, it is conceivable that they will support the right of a "wronged" person to sue his or her parents for not choosing an abortion, given the quality of that person's life. This sort of mindset is grossly injust. It leads to the feeling that you haven't got the right to bring a child into this world unless its life shall be entirely devoid of suffering.
I agree that the game itself may not be addictive. In fact, the only reason why this is being noticed, I'm sure, is because of the increasingly great prevalence of computer games. This makes it easier to take note of cases of gaming addiction. However, any specific manifestation of an addict's problem may need to be catalogued as that given manifestation may require specialized forms of treatment.
Slashdot Mirror
But if you notice, most of the countries from which these so-called criminals come from are not at all happy about what the United States is doing. I suspect if it weren't for the fact that this Canadian man were already in custody here in the United States, Canada would NOT go along with plans for extradition. I think that most of the rest of the world disagrees with us enough that the US couldn't force anybody to extradite without causing worse diplomatic problems than they'd be "solving" by trying the case.
IANAL, but it is possible that because this is legal testimony, rather than simple public disclosure, that it is exempt from the contracts agreement not to disclose the terms thereof. Just a hunch, mind you. Frankly, if the non-disclosure clause would seem to cover this, I don't think Microsoft would try to push that angle, since it would likely make the clause illegal. And an illegal contract isn't binding.
Also important is how you approach this situation. Do I disapprove of the tactics of the MPAA? Yes. I think that the blatant purchase of legislation that curtails my rights is wrong. However, I don't blame them. What they're doing is a good business tactic. I blame the US government for being bought. There are precious few companies, who, given the resources, would not purchase legislation to improve their standing in the market. However, it is the duty of the government (which is difficult, because the government is unfortunately composed of individuals) to overlook the money available and seek the proper course of action. I can't blame the MPAA for taking advantage of an opportunity that was made available to them. I can blame the government for poor upkeep of its duties.
The reason why such an algorithm wouldn't work is because a large group of people could easily bias the results then, without the time or effort required for current bombing techniques. Instead of having to set up a web of interlinked pages, they'd merely have to click on the appropriate link then close their browser and repeat. You could protect against this, but one has to consider whether the benefit of this method is worth the additional overhead that would be necessary to prevent the abuse of the method.
All right. You raise a valid point. But I think that you also have to consider the nature of the experiment. It isn't inconceivable that an improperly calibrated neutron detector could falsely return results that would lead one to conclude that fusion was occuring. It is far more unlikely that a device designed to analyze the blinking of a LED and translate that signal into a different signal could accidentally or falsely return the original signal, which these researchers claim has been done.
I see a lot of responses here from people who are quite certain that it can't be done. If you'd read even the abstract of the report, you'd realize that they've conducted experiments in which the transmitted data was reconstructed by means of studying the flickering of the status LED's. You're as bad as security analysts saying that a system is uncrackable. If somebody does something, then clearly it is not impossible.
Note: I don't agree with the ability of a company to hold an artist's copyright for so long. I think it's exploitive and defeats the original purpose of the copyright.
I am all for giving the creator a work a good, long time to benefit from it. After all, a lot of effort goes into anything, and if it's worthwhile, market forces will determine how much benefit the creator derives. It's there to promote the creation of new works.
But is certainly shouldn't last for the artist's lifetime plus seventy years. Seventy years is long enough for an entire second generation to reap the benefits from the work. That's just ridiculous! I suggest that copyrights be available under the terms of 14 years of until the death of the artist, whichever comes last. That way, if they artist dies a year after creating a work, his estate will benefit from it for the next thirteen years, as is fair to his family. Furthermore, if the original creator lives a long time, he can continue to benefit from his work for the duration, as is fitting.
The only reason I can think of that the copyright law should be as it is now, is because copyrights are transferable. That means that the artist or the family can transfer the rights to a non-perishable entity (like a record company) which will benefit from it for the entire life of the copyright.
It would have to be better than hibernation. It would have to be a state of complete suspended animation. After all, even with embryos and artificial wombs, what do you do with them when they get tehre? You can't just "plant" them and leave them. They wouldn't have any idea of who they were or anything. And having a computer present to teach them everything they'd need to know is a risky prospect, at best.
You struck my biggest concern. Even if there is room for diversity of jobs (after all, maintaining culture will be fairly important as well), there is possibility that the next generation will be unable to maintain the system. The first generation would probably consist largely of the most qualified, intelligent individuals. How large would the ship (population) have to be in order to ensure that the next generation and those following it would contain enough qualified people to sustain the mission? Certainly large enough that an entire universitiy (at least) dedicated to the maintenance of the ship could have full classes every year. And that's just for the specific engineering required to maintain the colony ship. What about the other sciences, arts, trades, etc... that should be kept up? What about those that aren't even vaguely useful aboard the ship, but will be useful at the destination? I think that a multi-generational colonization plan would be worthless without this. You must ensure that when the ship finally reaches its destination, the colonists haven't suffered a loss of knowledge or culture as a result of the journey. I don't think that anybody's prepared to design a mission of this complexity, yet.
It's very likely. But there are a great many people who already own a GBA who will not wish to purchase another. In my case, I actually consider the $42 price (shipping included) to be worthwhile. I pay half the price to have the same product. If the site is to be believed the risk involved in modding the GBA is small and I'm pretty sure my 90 days are up anyhow. I'll be happy to pay the money for something cool like this. Naturally, if I get another GBA, for some reason, it'll be the properly lit version.
This is not altogether true. It depends on how the students approach the project. I know that I loved using powerpoint for my presentations in high school. Why? Because it was easier to hook up a school laptop to the overhead projector than it was to go through the trouble of printing out my figures on transparencies and then worrying about keeping them in order and switching them at the appropriatem time. Powerpoint makes those concerns trivial. If the students understand the importance of content and realize that the presentation of that material is secondary, then powerpoint is an extremely good tool for them to use! But I don't think that the problem, in this case, lies with the fact that the students have been trained with computers, but that their training has emphasized the wrong things. Computers can't teach creativity - that's been said a dozen or more times already. If, as early as teachers start asking students for projects, they deemphasize the "prettyness" of the student's presentation and reemphasize the clear conveyance of information, students will realize long before high school that a computer is not a shortcut to a good grade anymore than a nice binder for a report or a proessionally mounted visial-aid is.
For one, it is unlikely that the patent will be declared universally invalid, more that it doesn't apply to this situation (I'm not certain that it doesn't. See below)
As to the MS and Sony controllers not having actual force feedback, but a simple vibration, consider Devil May Cry in which the shotgun kicks more than the pistols and the higher you jump, the more the controller rocks when you land. Granted, it's not a sophisticated feedback, like greater resistance on the joystick when you're at a wall, but it's definitely a way of presenting the user with a tactile response to the onscreen action. I don't think one can simply decide either way.
I seldom have this problem with Total Annihilation. Yes, most people focus on a particular type of unit - I'm fond of basic K-Bots. I don't know why anybody would use vehicles. And higher-level K-Bots are useful only for specific purposes. But I've got one friend who swears by heavy tanks and another that uses heavy-bombers and lots of groun defenses. Against the second guy, I simply can't use the peewee rush (although the Jethro rush is useful in knocking down some of his aircraft production). Different play styles make necessary different defense styles. Against the first guy, I often win, because my reliance on small units can cripple his production before he amasses his army. Against the second, I lose with greater frequency, because I'm less adept at anti-air tactics.
One important question that needs to be asked is whether the investment of energy to obtain the methanol is greater than or less than the energy returns. Naturally, by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the total energy investment is at least as great as the returns. However, since alcohols can be obtained by fermentation by yeasts, that energy needn't all come from fossil fuels. The important factor then is how much energy is required to distil sufficiently pure methanol out of the fermentation products. If you can get high-yield methanol from distilation with a small enough investment of energy, then this technology is valuable and should be explored to the fullest. If you cannot, then this technology should be abandoned or shelved. Any energy storage method, be it a chemical battery, a tank of methanol, or a spring, must be judged based on the effectiveness of storing in/retrieving from that storage device.
As I understand it, this doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. By 'shedding entropy' I think they refer to losing enough matter that the overall entropy of the system is lowered by a transfer of energy from the system to the surroundings (ie: the rest of the universe.) As for the nature of the shell, apparently it is stable and sustainable as an unusual quantum state which, as with many other quantum states, cannot properly be described by classical mechanics.
Perhaps the combat uses of the device are a bit out of reach, for the time being, but I can see many reasons why a soldier could use one of these. Granted, it might be too cumbersome for use during combat - as a suit of user-enhancing armour - but it could definitely improve the ability of a soldier to carry equipment over longer distances than he once could. Sometimes, a jeep _is_ more effective for this (as another responder mentioned), but sometimes, especially if there's not time to load/unload a vehicle, the ability to pick-up-and-go would be an advantage. Additionally, if this could improve the wearer's speed/endurance as boasted, it would make troop support much easier. The convoy that took a half dozen men to unload before can be unloaded in half the time by half as many men, using such exoskeletons - that's a valuable advantage. Finally, even if the development costs for these devices are high, the multitude of uses these would find in civilian and non-combat duties as well as limited use in combat would make them incredibly worthwhile.
The article was okay in describing the result of these high-energy collisions and the means of detecting them, but what I want to know is why, if there are additional dimensions in addition to the four familiar ones, this should decrease the energy necessary to generate these miniature black holes? Could somebody more familiar with the appropriate theories fill me in on why this should be so?
Also, consider this: If one automobile company realizes that by making its cars dependent on a foreign, expensive substance (like oil), it's crippling itself. Imagine that this field of study comes to fruition and this Mitsubishi-sponsored technology begins pumping out hydrogen. All Mitsubish has to do then is build a car that will safely run on hyrdrogen and suddenly, they've got a perfectly good machine to which they control the source of fuel. Granted, they can't make a killing off of this right off, because they have to undercut the oil companies, but so long as they're making a profit, they can continue to do this. If it's cheaper to use hydrogen, then people will and this will spur a change in the economy/infrastructure as oil-dependent companies realize they're being outsold by a cheaper, cleaner solution. Mind, Mitsubishi's motive isn't change. It's the returns they'll make while everybody else is retooling to use hydrogen. Not to mention that it gives them that much longer to advance their technology ahead of the competition.
I just wanted to add that I too am very satisfied with Windows 2000. I can't say for certain how it fares in the 'security' department, but as for reliability, I have no complaints. While it doesn't grant 99.999% reliability (Ha - I wish!), it customarily goes three weeks or more without a reboot. As a home user with no uptime-intensive needs, this is more than satisfactory.
Absolutely! I always feel this way when people start discussing how unrealistic CounterStrike is. I have to agree with them. Of course it's unrealistic, and it's more fun as a result! Nobody can take an entire clip from a glock in the chest and survive. And nobody who's at "1%" of their total possible health will be moving around like that. It's a game though, and so long as it always obeys the same rules, it will be an entertaining game. Conformity to reality is the stuff of simulations, which represent only a small subset of games.
Case in point: Super Metroid beats the pants off of 90% of the games designed for the N64. Only old Nintendo Mainstays like the Legend of Zelda games and the entire Mario Sports series manage to surpass that classic. What I wouldn't give to be able to wail on Mother Brain while on a long train/bus ride.
That people with poor genetics should not breed is claiming that it is our responsibility to obey natural selection, even if it doesn't weed us out...well...naturally.
That people in poor physical condition should not breed is saying much the same - that if a person with a disability is not weeded out naturally, it is their responsibility to not mate anyhow.
That somebody with bad habits should not breed is ridiculous. By whose standards would you judge? I think that smacking one's lips when one eats is a "bad habit." You may say that habits of the cablibre of smoking merit this prohibition. It is arbitrary and thus inadmissable.
That people with no parental skills should not breed means that nobody should ever have a first child, since nobody is born with parental skills. Like any other important skill, they are developed.
That people without resources should not breed...This I can half agree with. If somebody is unprepared to support a child, it is irresponsible of them to breed. But to claim that somebody who is prepared to sacrifice, despite having little, should not breed is to say that only the wealthy should have the right of procreation.
You cannot make this case. A life fraught with burden is still a life worth having. There are situations in which is would be irresponsible to have a child, but your criteria are laughable.
As I understand it, this concerns only the right of the "wronged" (read: born) individual to sue the state for not having made abortion a viable option to his or her mother. Why this concerns me is because if they support this, it is conceivable that they will support the right of a "wronged" person to sue his or her parents for not choosing an abortion, given the quality of that person's life. This sort of mindset is grossly injust. It leads to the feeling that you haven't got the right to bring a child into this world unless its life shall be entirely devoid of suffering.
I agree that the game itself may not be addictive. In fact, the only reason why this is being noticed, I'm sure, is because of the increasingly great prevalence of computer games. This makes it easier to take note of cases of gaming addiction. However, any specific manifestation of an addict's problem may need to be catalogued as that given manifestation may require specialized forms of treatment.